# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/421 "2011-04-08T03:02:07Z")
Oh good, Chen is posting right now. Chen has said that [Pacific Islander and East Asian are two of the races](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13651100&postcount=174). Chen has now said that can races plainly be categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair. Well, if they plainly can then **tell us which sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair allow you to categorise your Pacific Islander and East Asian races.** We have asked you to do this 12 times so far. And you always weasel away form it. Since you are now explicitly claiming that humans can clearly be categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair, the time has come for you to do so. You have made the explicit claim in GD that you are able to do something. So now lets see you do it. And everybody remember, Chen’s Pacific Islander race encompasses Polynesians, a population that not infrequently has red hair, along with Mongoloid Indonesians, Singaporeans Australian Aborigines and New Guinean Melanesians. **Chen, why are you ignoring this question?** 😃 You made the assertion, now I ma calling you out. Please do what you claimed that can easily do. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/422 "2011-04-08T03:04:03Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > You refuse to list the questions. How am I supposed to answer them? I already gave you my definition, cited others who also use it, listed the clades that would qualify as races based on your stipulations, ect. What am I missing? You have done none of those things. Nor have you addressed at least 8 other questions that I have listed for you three times now. I don’t think that anybody involved in this thread has missed this. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/423 "2011-04-08T03:09:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, you’re just making up your own definitions, now?. Waddya mean “now”? Chuck has been making up definitions the whole thread. Amongst his more amusing ones are. Race is defined as “an ancestral group”. Race is synomymous with “ancestry.” Race is defined as “A clade”. Coherent is defined as “consistent” Chucks entire argument hinges on refusing to answer simple questions and inventing deifnitions that nobody else in the entire world uses. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/424 "2011-04-08T04:11:55Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Which is simply restating your contention that they look different. > > But your are clearly incapable of telling us how they look different. You simply keep asserting \*that \*they look different without being able to demonstrate that they in fact do. You really think #5 looks like he could be an Australian aborigine? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/425 "2011-04-08T04:14:49Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Which is simply restating your contention that they look different. > > But your are clearly incapable of telling us how they look different. You simply keep asserting \*that \*they look different without being able to demonstrate that they in fact do. Australian Aborigines don’t have afros. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/426 "2011-04-08T04:22:45Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Oh good, Chen is posting right now. > > Chen has said that [Pacific Islander and East Asian are two of the races](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13651100&postcount=174). > > Chen has now said that can races plainly be categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair. > > Well, if they plainly can then **tell us which sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair allow you to categorise your Pacific Islander and East Asian races.** Chen is correct that “Pacific Islanders = Oceanians” and “East Asian” represent separate races, where we define race in terms of either clades or population clusters and we set the level of analysis such that we can discriminate between the two. (In the same manner, dark people and light people would never represent separate clades or population clusters). The question that Blake asks is: either 1) what pattern of heritable characteristics would a non-geneticist recognize between these two populations. 2) by what patterns of heritable characteristics could a non-geneticist use to classify a particular individual as either “Oceanian” and “East Asian.” 1. is easy. If we took a random sample of individuals who were independently classified as “Oceanian” and “East Asians” and measured a set of heritable differences (say h^2\>.5) such as skin reflectance, hair texture, and [craniofacial morphology](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330910204/abstract), we would find average differences between these two populations. This would be our pattern of heritable characteristics, which would testify that we are, in fact, talking about different genetic population. (i.e. our population classifications would have external validity). 2. is less easy. It’s worth noting that it’s not particularly relevant to taxonomic classification – unless someone here can cite some criteria that I am aware of. My experienced when traveling through the area was that I could guess Asian regional ancestry with a reasonable degree of accuracy. \>75% ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/427 "2011-04-08T04:36:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, you’re just making up your own definitions, now? > > In biological nomenclature, race and subspecies have been equivalent terms for a very long time. This thread is not called: “Are there human subspecies?” This thread is called: “Is there such a biological thing as a racial groups?” Now, to clarify, I asked a couple of people if the thread was really about “human subspecies?” No one said that it was. This is why I have persisted in posting. I’m not interested in debating whether there are human subspecies. I am interested in debating the “biological reality of race” – that seems to be a philosophically interesting question. Is anyone here seriously maintaining that it’s either “subspecies” or “social construction”? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/428 "2011-04-08T04:37:26Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Oh good, Chen is posting right now. > > Chen has said that [Pacific Islander and East Asian are two of the races](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13651100&postcount=174). > > Chen has now said that can races plainly be categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair. > > Well, if they plainly can then **tell us which sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair allow you to categorise your Pacific Islander and East Asian races.** > > We have asked you to do this 12 times so far. And you always weasel away form it. > > Since you are now explicitly claiming that humans can clearly be categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair, the time has come for you to do so. You have made the explicit claim in GD that you are able to do something. So now lets see you do it. > > And everybody remember, Chen’s Pacific Islander race encompasses Polynesians, a population that not infrequently has red hair, along with Mongoloid Indonesians, Singaporeans Australian Aborigines and New Guinean Melanesians. Well, that is one of the [biological definitions](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race)provided for race. The definition also provides: > [@](#): > > (2) A descent from a common heritage, ancestor, breed or stock. > > (3) A tribe or family of people sharing a common breed or lineage. > > (4) A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation. In terms of physical traits there is a description of some of the craniofacial traits variations across major racial groups [here](http://www.google.co.nz/url?q=http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/F495Y.pdf&sa=U&ei=-4yeTfX-NOPeiAK43_XwAg&ved=0CBUQFjAD&sig2=ike4uKYf5Ln773H6BluZkg&usg=AFQjCNFmw6x1uDAsC0kz6SmIpFrDgMvJkw). There’s also a graphical display of the clusters found in Howell’s data [here](http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/06/colorful-view-of-potency-of-skulls-and.html). As I’ve said above, the existence of populations with shared traits due to shared evolutionary history can also be seen from [cluster analysis](http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007). Different populations will have more or less gene flow between them but they can easily be recognized as distinct populations because they have different, relatively stable, allele frequencies. These reflect their common ancestry. Nonetheless, real life evolution and populations are messy. There are no neat and tidy boundaries, especially at the geographical edges. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/429 "2011-04-08T05:10:26Z")
So yet again Chen totally fails to answer the simple questions. Chen has said that Pacific Islander and East Asian are two of the races. Chen has now said that can races plainly be categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair. Well, if they plainly can then tell us which sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair allow you to categorise your Pacific Islander and East Asian races. We have asked you to do this 12 times so far. And you always weasel away form it. Since you are now explicitly claiming that humans can clearly be categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair, the time has come for you to do so. You have made the explicit claim in GD that you are able to do something. So now lets see you do it. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/430 "2011-04-08T05:10:52Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > :rolleyes: > > And Ethiopioans, Indonesians, South Americans, Central Americans, Mexicans and Indians are all mixed populations? African Savanna and African Forest elephants are classified as African subspecies (some argue species). If 95% of the African elephants interbred, would that mean that the remaining 5% were no longer members of different subspecies. Your reasoning makes no sense. That said, I don’t get where you are getting your populations. Clearly, South and central Americans are hybrids (i.e.multiracial). I never suggested that other groups were. Even if they were it would be biologically interesting to know which ancestral populations they were a combination of. How is it not interesting to knowing how much W. SS African/European/Amerindian admixture this hybrid person or hybrid population has? > [@](#): > > Of course if you want to play a game whereby I post pictures of random people from those regions and other regions, and you attempt to place them into one of your racial groupings, then let;s have at it. Because of course if you can not assign random Indonmalayans or Indics to any racial group at better than chance, then clearly they do not meet any racial grouping standard. I’m game. Since we are doing this cladistically, we have to figure out how to calculate “above chance.” (From a caldistic perspective, there are degrees of error — e.g African/Out of African; North Eurasian/South Eurasian; European; East Asians; etc.) > [@](#): > > Has anyone else noticed that every time that the people who promote the race concept get called on identifying the race of particular area, it is “mixed race”? Chen started this with India, expanded it to include Ethiopia, then Indonesia and now all Chuck wants to extend it to all of Latin America I already gave you my [list](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663298&postcount=397). ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/431 "2011-04-08T05:22:09Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Well, if they plainly can then tell us which sets of heritable characteristics such as color of skin, eyes, and hair allow you to categorise your Pacific Islander and East Asian races. You could start by looking at the craniofacial George Gill discusses. Or the Howell data discussed by Dienekes. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663832&postcount=428](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663832&postcount=428) ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/432 "2011-04-08T05:28:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Waddya mean “now”? > > Chuck has been making up definitions the whole thread. Amongst his more amusing ones are. > > Race is defined as “an ancestral group”. > Race is synomymous with “ancestry.” > Race is defined as “A clade”. > Coherent is defined as “consistent” > > Chucks entire argument hinges on refusing to answer simple questions and inventing deifnitions that nobody else in the entire world uses. It’s funny that you argue that I’m making up definitions. You argue that “race” is a “mish-mash.” Since, according to you, there is no correct definition of race, the problem can’t be that I giving an incorrect one. The problem must be that I’m giving a novel definition. (I’m not; I’m not that creative). Now, you seem to think that this is problematic. Why? If we could get everyone to agree with Chuck – we would solve our “mish mash” problem. We would then be left with the question: Is chuck’s definition biologically and socially interesting? This is what we need to investigate. The first step is to decide if Chuck’s definition is “biologically coherent.” After that we can try to play your guess a person game and see how socially predictive (and interesting) it is. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/433 "2011-04-08T05:51:14Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > This thread is not called: “Are there human subspecies?” This thread is called: “Is there such a biological thing as a racial groups?” Now, to clarify, I asked a couple of people if the thread was really about “human subspecies?” No one said that it was. This is why I have persisted in posting. I’m not interested in debating whether there are human subspecies. I am interested in debating the “biological reality of race” – that seems to be a philosophically interesting question. Is anyone here seriously maintaining that it’s either “subspecies” or “social construction”? Your statement that I challenged tried to make a case for race as different from subspecies. If they are the same thing–as I have seen in numerous biological texts–then you are claiming a difference without a distinction simply to make an unsupportable claim. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/434 "2011-04-08T05:53:58Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > So you now accept that you were incorrect to say _" two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian"_? This is important, because your comment seemed to be an example of the [Lewontin fallacy](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html). Something that was pointed out in the same year as the PBS documentary you cited. Another reference would be Witherspoon, et al., 2007. “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations” > [@](#): > > 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. Due to this, advocates (like yourself) of the population race concept only need to argue that there are patterns of between population differences (which is trivially true) for your position to be readily defensible. Common sets of shared traits are unneeded to establish within population relations. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/435 "2011-04-08T06:38:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your statement that I challenged tried to make a case for race as different from subspecies. If they are the same thing–as I have seen in numerous biological texts–then you are claiming a difference without a distinction simply to make an unsupportable claim. Ok. I am arguing that races (in the sense of the x-y historic geographical populations) can be understood as clades. As such, they can be understood as “biological groupings” as opposed to “social constructs.” I am noncommittal as to whether these clades correspond with things (population clusters) which fulfill the criteria of being subspecies. Some might, some might not, none might. In zoology “race” is equated with “subspecies.” But clearly, when we talk about “race,” we are not talking about something that is equated with subspecies. Rather, we are trying to clarify what we are talking about and we are trying to figure out its taxonomic status. In this debate, Some argue that: 1. zoologically, race = subspecies 2. what we call races aren’t subspecies 3. therefore, races don’t exists (as subspecies) 4. therefore races are “social constructs” 5. (and therefore races have no biological basis) others argue that: 1. logically, race is an incoherent concept 2. therefore, race is a social construct 3. and therefore race has no biological basis My point is to establish: 1. that there is a logically coherent concepts of race which represent biological groupings and which roughly (sometimes very roughly) corresponds to the ordinary concept of race 2. that this concept of race is both biologically and socially interesting Under ordinary circumstances, establishing the above 2 points should not be difficult. Yet, the “reality of race” issue is so sociopolitically charged and convoluted that it is quite trying. Hope that helps. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/436 "2011-04-08T13:40:10Z")
Well, here you’ve given yet another example of a supposed pine forest which clearly has no biological basis . You say this is a pine forest, but over there you can clearly see some hardwoods which grow much more numerous the farther you travel in that direction. There’s a fairly large area near the middle that doesn’t have any fully grown trees at all which lowers the average number of trees per acre, and a lot of the growth around here is underbrush. You claim the density of pine trees in the area justifies calling it a pine forest, but there is no agreement among scientists on exactly how much density there would have to be before an area can be considered a forest of any kind, let alone a pine forest. Also, a creek runs through the middle, so it’s not one area, it’s actually two. So, you see, the concept of a pine forest, or any other kind of forest, has no biological basis and is therefore just a social construct. And blah, blah, blah … ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/437 "2011-04-08T17:19:12Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Well, here you’ve given yet another example of a supposed pine forest which clearly has no biological basis . You say this is a pine forest, but over there you can clearly see some hardwoods which grow much more numerous the farther you travel in that direction. There’s a fairly large area near the middle that doesn’t have any fully grown trees at all which lowers the average number of trees per acre, and a lot of the growth around here is underbrush. You claim the density of pine trees in the area justifies calling it a pine forest, but there is no agreement among scientists on exactly how much density there would have to be before an area can be considered a forest of any kind, let alone a pine forest. Also, a creek runs through the middle, so it’s not one area, it’s actually two. So, you see, the concept of a pine forest, or any other kind of forest, has no biological basis and is therefore just a social construct. > > And blah, blah, blah … Well, to make it clearer, biologists are not referring to the pine race but pine forest is good in this case. Many do not make the mistake when talking about dogs as having different races (specially in English speaking countries) and yet, it is clear to all that breeds and natural changes observed in the Lupus genus do have genetic differences that depending on the kind can be observed, and that still does not create a different race among dogs. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/438 "2011-04-08T17:32:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, to make it clearer, biologists are not referring to the pine race but pine forest is good in this case. > > Many do not make the mistake when talking about dogs as having different races (specially in English speaking countries) and yet, it is clear to all that breeds and natural changes observed in the Lupus genus do have genetic differences that depending on the kind can be observed, and that still does not create a different race among dogs. What’s the criteria for a race = subspecies? What would our biological groupings however we decide to delineate them (e.g population clusters, clades) need to have to qualify as zoological races? To put it another way – just so we’re all clear on the matter – what disqualifies them? If we establish the criteria, then we can look to see if there really are zoological human races, even if they don’t correspond to the groups commonly called so. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/439 "2011-04-08T17:49:48Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > And yet again Max has point-blank refused to answer the question. BS. BS BS BS BS BS. And particularly ironic given that in our previous thread of conversation the final post was #277 from me which you utterly ignored. > [@](#): > > If race had any objective existence then they would be able to readily list the races and tell us what characteristics separate them. When did I ever claim that races had objective existence? And as I said in my last post, the “black” race clearly exists, in the sense that it is a grouping into which people (in the US in particular) mentally sort people. What else is a race other than that, at least in common parlance? And what’s your point? > [@](#): > > The fact that they have been repeatedly asked to do so and repeatedly refused really says it all. Your debate style is extraordinarily confrontational and condescending. > [@](#): > > These two are not arguing in good faith. BS > [@](#): > > They keep saying that race clearly has an objective meaning, I have never said that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/440 "2011-04-08T17:54:51Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > What’s the criteria for a race = subspecies? What would our biological groupings however we decide to delineate them (e.g population clusters, clades) need to have to qualify as zoological races? To put it another way – just so we’re all clear on the matter – what disqualifies them? > > If we establish the criteria, then we can look to see if there really are zoological human races, even if they don’t correspond to the groups commonly called so. Again, the majority of physical scientists are acknowledging that the old concept of race was imposed to biology, and are abandoning that old use. What I have seen so far, even from the medical cites produced so far, is a look at the populations and the propensities that they have or might have to specific diseases, but just like we don’t go right away to say that since a German Shepperd has a propensity to have their hind bones fall apart that therefore that is what we would use to call it a different race, so it is becoming more silly to continue using the old way race was defined to the human race. [http://faculty.sgc.edu/lsteverson/SOC1101/readings/brown.pdf](http://faculty.sgc.edu/lsteverson/SOC1101/readings/brown.pdf) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=23)