# Is there such a biological thing as a racial group? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007 "2011-04-03T03:39:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/261 "2011-04-06T01:34:35Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > So I came in, and I thought it was clear that I was saying “Even if 2) is true, which I can see you might be able to argue in good (i.e. non-racist) faith through the right lens, why would you want to use it when we have a perfectly good concept like ‘population’ that is not going to have perception issues.” Somehow this has led me to get accused of defending 2), when what I’m doing is pointing out how people not fully trained in biology could come up with arguments that appear to superficially validate 2). No. You said that is possible to define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct. That statement is just plain wrong. It may not be what you intended to say, but it is what you said. When challenged you once again contended that you could make a valid case that you are able to define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct. If you are now willing to concede that it is impossible to define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct, then we have no argument. We are in 100% agreement. But I would appreciate you stating clearly that this is now your position. People can argue all sorts of nonsense in god faith. People argue that the moonlandings were fake in good faith. That does not make the position true, not does it make the case for such a position valid. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/262 "2011-04-06T01:34:54Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Maxthevool addressed this exact objection earlier in this thread. Perhaps if you can’t read the whole thread, you shouldn’t participate at all. > > [/HelpfulTipFromFellowPoster] And he was unsuccessful in that attempt, as well, your attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/263 "2011-04-06T01:48:56Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But that’s exactly the point I’m addressing. Let’s assume for a moment that you’re 100% correct in everything you’re saying. We know there are plenty of people who would group west, east, and southern Africans into a group and label that group “black”. Such a racialist will look at the sprinting finals in one olympics and say “wow, those blacks are good at sprinting… I bet the sprinting finals next olympics will be dominated by black people”. And likely, he’ll be right. So he’s making a prediction based on perceived race, and his prediction is correct. And it’s NOT because of cultural factors where black kids are encouraged to go into sprinting due to the culture they grow up in, or anything like that. It’s due to biology. And it has nothing to do with perceived “race.” We could just as easily say that the sprinting finals in the next Olympics will be dominated by humans and our statement would have just as much meaning. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Now, his prediction is far less precise than it could be, because he’s talking about the arbitrary and ill-defined group “black” rather than the more precise group “certain populations of West Africa”. But that doesn’t make his prediction _incorrect_. It would, however, be misleading and nearly dishonest, because it would be taken to mean that there is some special quality that all people with sub-Saharan antecedents share that makes them fast sprinters. (In fact, that specific argument has been made on this board on numerous occasions by posters pushing for the acceptance of some vague notion of “race.”) > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Once again, the point I’m trying to make (and given that my OP began by questioning the absoluteness of an absolute statement, I don’t think I’m backtracking here) is that if someone points out that so many top sprinters are black and says “hey, I wonder if it has something to do with biology” the best possible answer might be something like “well, ‘black’ is a very imprecise term, we’d be better off discussing things in terms of various genetically similar populations, as follows…” but that doesn’t mean that a response of “well, black is a biologically meaningless term so your observation is meaningless and it certainly has nothing to do with biology” is entirely correct either. Sorry. The second statement might not be “entirely correct,” (it would also be rather rare on this board without a number of qualifiers), but the original observation has so much wrong with it that even a flawed response, (one that would typically be corrected pretty quickly on this board), is a better start than letting the original statement pass, unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/264 "2011-04-06T01:59:43Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No. You said that is possible to define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct. > > That statement is just plain wrong. It may not be what you intended to say, but it is what you said. When challenged you once again contended that you could make a valid case that you are able to define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct. > > If you are now willing to concede that it is impossible to define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct, then we have no argument. We are in 100% agreement. I don’t have a position on the matter, because I am not a biologist. I have only said it is possible, from a layman understanding, to construct a position that superficially appears to be the case given the definition I quoted from wikipedia of “race”. > [@](#): > > But I would appreciate you stating clearly that this is now your position. > > People can argue all sorts of nonsense in god faith. People argue that the moonlandings were fake in good faith. That does not make the position true, not does it make the case for such a position valid. If the interest is in convincing people, then perhaps more moderate tactics are called for. If you want the argument to go on forever, “no, you’re wrong about x, the only answer is y” is certainly a much better choice than “even if x were true, it’d still be superior to use y” after people have been declaring the former for literally hundreds of posts. I am using a somewhat conciliatory arguing style when it’s been amply demonstrated that a fiat-declaration style is not working. I am ultimately arguing for the same functional position as you (that is, “The use of ‘race’ in a context involving human populations in biology is wrong.”). You will just have to cope with the fact that I’m willing to ignore the primary thrust of the argument that has not been working (“‘Race’ doesn’t actually apply to humans in a biological sense.”) to make a secondary argument (“Regardless of whether ‘race’ applies to humans in a biological sense, its use gives the wrong impression to laymen who will not have that problem with ‘population’.”). ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/265 "2011-04-06T02:34:00Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I don’t have a position on the matter, because I am not a biologist. I have only said it is possible, from a layman understanding, to construct a position that superficially appears to be the case given the definition I quoted from wikipedia of “race”. No, you can not construct such a position. You have said several times that it is possible to construct such a position, but every time I ask you to do so you are completely unable to. > [@](#): > > … “no, you’re wrong about x, the only answer is y” is certainly a much better choice than “even if x were true, it’d still be superior to use y”.. The question is not whether it is better to say that there is no such thing as a biological as race. That is a subjective moral and sociological issue which has no correct answer. It is also an issue that I have almost no interest in and even less expertise. If you wish to debate that issue then please start another thread and stop cluttering this one. If you insist on arguing that unrelated, non-biological issue in this thread I will asks the moderators to consider your actions. The question being debated here is whether there is there such a biological thing as a racial group? That is a subjective scientific issue, and a subject on which on I have some expertise. It is an issue which has only one correct answer. And that answer is a definitive “No, there is no such biological thing as a race”. That is why, despite asking multiple posters multiple times, not one poster has been able to name a biolgical race, delineate the people within that race and explain the biological characteristics they used to define it. > [@](#): > > I am ultimately arguing for the same functional position as you (that is, “The use of ‘race’ in a context involving human populations in biology is wrong.”). I am not arguing a functional position This thread is not about functional positions. I am arguing a scientific position. This thread is about scientific positions If you wish to debate subjective, functional positions that have no basis in fact then please go elsewhere. The counterfactual claims that you have made pursuing this subject serve only to clutter up this thread. > [@](#): > > You will just have to cope with the fact that I’m willing to ignore the primary thrust of the argument that has not been working… No, I do not. I believe that you are threadshitting, and that is something that I do not need to cope with on this message board. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/266 "2011-04-06T02:59:53Z")
Whatever floats your boat. The fact is, this is a debate, and I’m not going to apologize for attempting to convince people of the correct position by a different method than yours. “But the general skin tone of human populations seems to vary based on solar input in region of origin” is a position that superficially appears to align with the layman’s idea of ‘race’. The fact that position is invalid and completely wrong doesn’t change that appearance one iota. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/267 "2011-04-06T03:17:52Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Whatever floats your boat. The fact is, this is a debate, and I’m not going to apologize for attempting to convince people of the correct position by a different method than yours. I don’t want you to apologise. Just so long as you don’t do it any more you won’t worry me > [@](#): > > But the general skin tone of human populations seems to vary based on solar input in region of origin" is a position that superficially appears to align with the layman’s idea of ‘race’. Absolute rubbish. John Mace has already explained this to you. Even superficially people from Tasmania are much darker than people from New York, Northern Italy and Northern Japan. People from southern Africa are much lighter than people from Northern Australia. People from Mexico and Hawaii are much lighter than people form Southern India. People from New Guinea and Uganda are much darker than people from Colombia or Singapore. Not even to the most superficial examination does skin tone vary based upon solar input. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/268 "2011-04-06T03:21:35Z")
And Zeriel, I am still would like to know, are you still trying to argue the position that you can define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct? Or have you now admitted that position is untrue? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/269 "2011-04-06T03:24:03Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > “But the general skin tone of human populations seems to vary based on solar input in region of origin” is a position that superficially appears to align with the layman’s idea of ‘race’. The fact that position is invalid and completely wrong doesn’t change that appearance one iota. No, but it perfectly demonstrates that the “layman’s idea of ‘race’” is invalid and completely wrong. A layman may be excused ignorance of a subject, but once presented with actual evidence, only someone deliberately obtuse will retain ignorance and reject enlightenment. In the instance offered above, note (again) that Africans and South Americans share roughly equivalent latitudes, thus roughly equivalent solar incidence, but their skin tones could not be much more different. Why should we – or anyone – continue to profer a position that is invalid and completely wrong, except to pander to some layman’s idea? Doing so is the reverse of fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/270 "2011-04-06T03:51:07Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I don’t want you to apologise. Just so long as you don’t do it any more you won’t worry me > > Absolute rubbish. John Mace has already explained this to you. > > Even superficially people from Tasmania are much darker than people from New York, Northern Italy and Northern Japan. People from southern Africa are much lighter than people from Northern Australia. People from Mexico and Hawaii are much lighter than people form Southern India. People from New Guinea and Uganda are much darker than people from Colombia or Singapore. > > Not even to the most superficial examination does skin tone vary based upon solar input. > [@Blake](#): > > And Zeriel, I am still would like to know, are you still trying to argue the position that you can define genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct? > > Or have you now admitted that position is untrue? I have never asserted the position as true. I have asserted that in order to be successful in making your point, you must remember that you’re dealing with people who believe it to be self-evidently true. Christ, has the idea of devil’s advocacy in service of proving a larger point never actually occurred to you? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/271 "2011-04-06T04:01:23Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I have never asserted the position as true. Yeah, you did. > [@Zeriel](#): > > …races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences…It is easily possible to argue that, in a biological context, there are human population groupings that fulfill that criteria. So stop twisting and turning. Do you still contend that it is possible to argue biologically that there are defined genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct? If so then please present this argument. If not then please state clearly that no such biological argument is possible. BTW, since CannyDan has felt the need to engage your irrelevant moral argument I have had to report you for your threadshitting. I hope this nonsense is not allowed to derail the whole thread. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/272 "2011-04-06T04:09:02Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Do you still contend that it is possible to argue biologically that there are defined genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct? > > If so then please present this argument. If not then please state clearly that no such biological argument is possible. I contend it is possible for you to make an argument that 1 + 1 = 3 for sufficiently large values of 1, and that “possible to make an argument” doesn’t imply in any way, shape, or form that the resulting argument will be valid, useful, or free of flaws. I also note you cut off my next sentence: > [@Zeriel](#): > > I am expressly not arguing that means that it is useful in all contexts– **quite the opposite**. **I am expressly not arguing that it is more accurate or more useful** , merely that it is equivalent by strict definition of the word in some cases. If my position is at fault, it’s using the word “is” in the last quoted sentence instead of “can be construed, by laymen, as”. > [@](#): > > BTW, since CannyDan has felt the need to engage your irrelevant moral argument I have had to report you for your threadshitting. I hope this nonsense is not allowed to derail the whole thread. I expect nothing will come of this, as it’s not threadshitting to approach a problem from a different angle than your chosen one, especially as this is “Great Debates” and not “Great Blake Proclaims By Fiat”. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/273 "2011-04-06T04:12:23Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > No, but it perfectly demonstrates that the “layman’s idea of ‘race’” is invalid and completely wrong. > > A layman may be excused ignorance of a subject, but once presented with actual evidence, only someone deliberately obtuse will retain ignorance and reject enlightenment. In the instance offered above, note (again) that Africans and South Americans share roughly equivalent latitudes, thus roughly equivalent solar incidence, but their skin tones could not be much more different. > > Why should we – or anyone – continue to profer a position that is invalid and completely wrong, except to pander to some layman’s idea? Doing so is the reverse of fighting ignorance. It is my opinion, especially in the light of the fact that offering the bare fact has not appeared to convince anyone currently posting in this thread who was not already aware of said fact, that offering an alternate tack that demonstrates why using the term “race” in these situations is a bad idea from a “conveying an accurate meaning” perspective might convince someone who is stuck on the wrong facts to nonetheless use the correct terminology out of other considerations. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/274 "2011-04-06T05:36:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > T > So the question is not “does race correlate with genetics better than chance”. That can not be the question since we know that vicarious correlation exists. The question is “does race correlate with genetics to a degree that is higher than expected through geographic distance.” Well we know that geographic correlation exceeds 90%. So what about racial correlation? According to Bamshad et al 2004 “Deconstructing the Relationship Between Gentics and Race” “Regardless of the racial group to which an individual belonged, two people from different racial groups were more different than two individuals from the same racial group approximately twothirds of the time…Only approximately one-third of the time were two people from the same racial group more different that two individuals from different racial groups.” If you only look at a few hundred loci, maybe. As Witherspoon & co write: > [@](#): > > Thus the answer to the question **“How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?”** depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is 20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, 10%. \*\*However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. \*\* Genetics, Vol. 176, 351-359, May 2007, (Witherspoon 2007). ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/275 "2011-04-06T05:46:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And it has nothing to do with perceived “race.” We could just as easily say that the sprinting finals in the next Olympics will be dominated by humans and our statement would have just as much meaning. I disagree. Obviously it will be dominated by humans. So will swimming, fencing, horseback riding, competitive eating, and the best supporting actress nominations. But only one of those will be dominated by people who would be viewed, in racial terms, as “black”. That’s a pattern, a statistical surprise, something that might or might not be worth investigating. > [@](#): > > It would, however, be misleading and nearly dishonest, because it would be taken to mean that there is some special quality that all people with sub-Saharan antecedents share that makes them fast sprinters. Logically, it would not. Or at least, _should_ not. If I say “black people are better sprinters”, then your point would be valid. But if I say “the very very best sprinters are disproportionately black people”, that says nothing about black people as a whole. People are likely to misinterpret it, which is one of many reasons that I wouldn’t go wandering around in public discussing this phenomenon willy-nilly. But it still doesn’t make that statement untrue. > [@](#): > > Sorry. The second statement might not be “entirely correct,” (it would also be rather rare on this board without a number of qualifiers), but the original observation has so much wrong with it that even a flawed response, (one that would typically be corrected pretty quickly on this board), is a better start than letting the original statement pass, unchallenged. I think it depends on the context. If someone spends a lot of time talking about race using various buzzwords and is talking about the negro’s amazing athletic ability as evidence of something or other, well, that’s one thing. But I’m making very very restricted and precisely delimited statements, and only ones I’m saying might be true, not even ones I’m saying are true. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/276 "2011-04-06T05:57:05Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Logically, it would not. Or at least, _should_ not. If I say “black people are better sprinters”, then your point would be valid. But if I say “the very very best sprinters are disproportionately black people”, that says nothing about black people as a whole. People are likely to misinterpret it, which is one of many reasons that I wouldn’t go wandering around in public discussing this phenomenon willy-nilly. But it still doesn’t make that statement untrue. There are many things that humans say and believe that “should not” be expressed in the way that we do. I am addressing the way that the language is currently empoyed in the overwhelming number of cases in North America in the early 21st century. Finding some way to make a statement technically not entirely false has rather little to recommend it. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think it depends on the context. If someone spends a lot of time talking about race using various buzzwords and is talking about the negro’s amazing athletic ability as evidence of something or other, well, that’s one thing. But I’m making very very restricted and precisely delimited statements, and only ones I’m saying might be true, not even ones I’m saying are true. That sure seems to be an awful lot of work to insist on making some statement that will still be misinterpreted by +95% of one’s audience when it would be easier to simply state facts as they exist. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/277 "2011-04-06T06:05:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > If someone points out that so many top distance runners are Christian (something like 90% of them are baptised/christened Christians) and says “hey, I wonder if it has something to do with biology”, does that mean that Christian has a biological meaning? If there were an unusual concentration of Christians among top distance runners, it might be worth discussing why. However Christianity is not passed genetically to one’s children (as far as we know), whereas dark skin that causes one to be labelled as “black” is. So there’s a huge distinction right there. > [@](#): > > If the fact that a \*race \*performs well in a sport is evidence that race has a biological meaning, then why isn’t the fact that a \*religion \*performs well in a sport equally evidence that religion has a biological meaning? Answered above, I think. Or to put it another way, if tomndebb, who is a poster who I have incredibly respect for, is correct that certain East African populations have a set of genetic traits that makes them particularly good sprinters, then if we took 100000 random babies and distributed them all around the world to be raised, and then in 20 years checked in to see which ones were the fastest sprinters, among the very top sprinters would be a disproportionate number of “blacks”, but not a disproportionate number of Christians. Unless you’re claiming otherwise? As for your previous very long post, I do appreciate the effort you put into it, and you do raise some interesting points, but it’s almost bedtime and I don’t have the energy to respond to it all right now. But this is a very key point: > [@](#): > > In both cases of course there is reasonable overlap because genetic distance varies with geographic distance, as do racial differences. However as Wilson et al conclude that “Although there is some DME allele frequency differentiation between ethnically labeled groups, in most cases it is less than that seen for the genetic clusters.” IOW applying ethnic labels produces population groupings that are less reliable than the underlying genetic groupings, not more so. > Having said all that, of course the result will be better than chance. If we did similar tests based on the brand of cigarette smoked or the type of music listened to we would also do much better than chance. We will do better than chance simply because genetics, cigarette brand and “race” all correlate to some extent with genetic distance. It has been known for almost 100 years that genetic distance correlates very, very tightly with geographic distance. As such any proxy that also correlates to geographic distance will also correlate with genetic distance. This is not evidence that race or music preference have any underlying biological cause. It is entirely attributable to what is known as a vicarious correlation. You can not validly use known vicarious correlations as evidence of actual correlation. I feel like that’s basically exactly what I’m trying to say. Groupings of people into the traditional racial groupings produces groups that are more closely related, biologically/genetically, than if you just grouped them together randomly. But the traditional racial groups are not based on biology, and it is possible to use actual science and knowledge to come up with groupings of populations that are much better than “race” at putting like with like. So race is not 100% unrelated to biology or genetics. Or maybe race as a concept is unrelated, but actual racial groupings are not, from a biological sense, totally random. That’s at least one of the main things I’m trying to express, and you seem to agree with me on it. As for the discussion of a test involving dopers identifying photographs, here’s the test I have in mind, although I’m pretty skeptical of actually trying to implement it. We pick a country at random. We find 40 photos of inhabitants of that country, at random. We pick 20 of those at random and show them to someone. We then show that person 40 additional photos, 20 of them being the other people from the original country, 20 being random people from elsewhere int he world. We ask them to guess which 20 it is, and see if they can do better than chance. We could do all sorts of interesting variations involving countries that we think have more or less genetic diversity, or larger or smaller immigrant populations. We could try to pick our 20 false choices from neighboring countries vs countries as far away as possible. It might be interesting, but honestly I’ve lost track of what point it is either of us thinks it would demonstrate one way or the other. In any case, I’m going to bed, I do apologize for not responding at full length, if there particularly key issues you’d like me to address, please point them out specifically. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/278 "2011-04-06T06:09:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That sure seems to be an awful lot of work to insist on making some statement that will still be misinterpreted by +95% of one’s audience when it would be easier to simply state facts as they exist. You seem to be arguing “one should not use racial language when discussing athletic performance, partly because it’s confusingly imprecise, and partly because of the great cultural baggage of racism that it invokes”. I agree. One should not. However, that still doesn’t make a statement like “a disproportionate majority of the world’s top sprinters are what would traditionally be called ‘black’, for reasons having to do with those individuals’ genetic makeup” or something along those lines, a false statement. But honestly, I think we’re just going around in circles here at this point. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/279 "2011-04-06T10:07:19Z")
However, noting that the world’s best sprinters come from one set of populations that might be biologically defined does not really do anything to establish the accuracy of a claim that some much larger groups of populations that happen to include the smaller groups that are good sprinters qualify biologically as a “race.” You are just working really hard to keep a definition that simply fails. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/280 "2011-04-06T13:50:29Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > It is my opinion, especially in the light of the fact that offering the bare fact has not appeared to convince anyone currently posting in this thread who was not already aware of said fact, that offering an alternate tack that demonstrates why using the term “race” in these situations is a bad idea from a “conveying an accurate meaning” perspective might convince someone who is stuck on the wrong facts to nonetheless use the correct terminology out of other considerations. Biologists who work with taxonomic systems use words like species, subspecies, race, and population in very particular ways; these are “words of art”. Admittedly taxonomists may vary in their application of one or another of these words to any given subset of life forms, but there is general agreement about what these words mean and each researcher will take pains to clearly define his/her own usage in context. The actual biological meaning of these words has been explained repeatedly upthread and in previous threads. There is no valid biological basis for the subdivision of recent humankind (not necessarily to include prehistoric) into what a layman may term races. You are correct in your observation that some posters here and some people in the world at large remain resistant to reality. That is their loss. I have zero interest in engaging “someone who is stuck on the wrong facts”. Willful ignorance cannot be overcome by factual argument, since it is based, not on a lack of information, but on a rejection of information. You though seem to be suggesting that we should deliberately distort our usage of these perfectly fine words from a biological lexicon in order to _allow people who are willfully ignorant to use them incorrectly_. Let us hypothecate that we have some people who insist that the world is flat, and who continue to so insist, ever more stridently, when presented with actual evidence that their position is not supported by fact. Indeed, they misrepresent information presented, either through an abundance of ignorance or deliberate distortion, in order to support their indefensible position. Having failed to convince these people by reasonable persuasion and presentation of fact, you would now suggest that we change the definition of ‘sphere’ from a 3 dimensional object to a 2 dimensional object so that they can “nonetheless use the correct terminology” while continuing their fantasy. I reject the suggestion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=15)