# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/501 "2011-04-12T17:49:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would be skeptical of any claims that we can eradicate xenophobia and clannishness through simple efforts of education, as well. Since no one has made any claim to do that, that point does not appear to be relevant to this thread.. Can you explain what actually was discredited. Last I checked, the genetic community was [ambialent about the possibility](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html) of heritable differences in certain traits. This doesn’t scream discredited to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/502 "2011-04-12T18:05:54Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I don’t know where you’re getting your “unique” from. Clade is a generic term. [For example:](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377722/pdf/9915963.pdf) > > \*In a previous article (Richards et al. 1998), we proposed a flexible and consistent > nomenclature for mtDNA clades, which is reviewed here. The set of all mtDNAs derived by descent from any maternal ancestor could be distinguished, in principle, by a name. In practice, only clades with, for example, interesting geographical patterning or those derived from major early branchings of the phylogeny need to be named. > \* > > [Or](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC379225/) > > _Clades Q and R share a common phylogenetic node P in the Y-chromosomal tree defined by markers M45 and 92R7 (YCC 2002). The P_(xM207) chromosomes are widespread—although found at low frequencies—over central and eastern Asia (Underhill et al. 2000) and were also found only in two Indian samples (fig. 3). In contrast, their sister branch R, defined by M207, accounts for more than one-third of Indian Y chromosomes and is the most common clade throughout northwestern Eurasia.\* > > In what possible way are different lmitochondrial DNA clades or different haplotpe clades unique in a manner that excludes me from speaking of human clades? But those all presupposed descent from a single source. Here’s a [good diagram](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Definitions) of slightly different ways of looking at clades (it’s a link from the “definition” part of “clade” in wikipedia). Groups A and B trace back to a single node, but do not contain members of group C. “Europeans” do not trace back to a single node, as there has been admixture from group “C” (really several groups) that simply can’t be considered “European”. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/503 "2011-04-12T18:19:01Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Whether you like it or not, there is a biological reality, and therefore scientific reality, to race (in the inclusive sense of “ancestry”). Not really. There are biological populations and there are ethnicities–both of which are much smaller than the claimed “races,” but the use of the word “race” indicates to the overwhelming majority of people that there are specific differences of trait and character between the various artificially constructed groupings, based loosely on geography. The use of that sort of language encourages the belief that these “races” are smarter or stupider, stronger or weaker, kinder or nastier, more or less capable of being civilized, and so forth. Since the word “race” is equivalent to “subspecies” in biology and since it is clear that no legitimate scientist would divide humanity into subspecies, there is no reason to use that word and many reasons to refrain. > [@Chuck11](#): > > The issue then – for someone who wants to use this concept to define identity or other who want to dismiss the concept – are the boundaries. As such, much of the debate about the “reality of race” revolves around the ability to distinguish this race form that. But this is an artificial debate. No. It is a real debate about an artificial construct. > [@Chuck11](#): > > One can define the boundaries in terms of non-biological terms (e.g religion, culture, geography), giving the concepts of relgiorace, ethnorace, and geographic race. I doubt that creating neologisms for the sole purpose incvluding the erroneous claim of “race” makes much sense and it would seem that the only reason to do so would be to pretend that the original, now debunked, speculations of science had some legitimacy. I really don’t see the need to desperately hang onto the word “race” except to foster xenophobia. > [@Chuck11](#): > > [1] Races are not subspecies, since there are no sharp distinctions. [2[Races have no “biological reality”; in this case (as opposed to the case of culture and religion), things without “biological reality” are not real, [3] so races are illusions and “social constructs” [4] and so there can be no heritable differences between racial groupings. > > The above, of course, makes no sense. Race can have “biological reality” without representing subspecies. This is a straw man argument based on nothing but error. “Race” is a word that people who recognize that there are not currently any human subspecies employ to continue pretending that there are such subspecies in the face of actual evidence. > [@](#): > > There can be distinctions without them being sharp. Straw man. What human subspecies is recognized in science, today? > [@](#): > > There can be coherent racial concepts in absence of biologically defined boundaries. Sure. However, they are social constructs employed to denote differences within limited populations, (such as the ways in which people treat each other in North America), and the word has a different use and meaning in that context. > [@](#): > > And the idea of heritable difference is completely separate from the existence of subspecies-- obviously, if we have a social category called race that classifies people on the basis of regional ancestry, and those people differ in heritable traits (skin color, behavioral tendencies, etc) due to ancestry, there will be heritable differences independent of whether the global genetic diversity is continous or not. I would like to see a an actual biological paper that makes such a claim as the first sentence. We have already seen the skin color varies widely within every claimed “race.” There are no “behavioral tendencies” common to any perceived “race.” What “trait” do you think is actually present in any of the three to six “races,” (if you can figure out how many there are), that are proposed, today? > [@Chuck11](#): > > From the anti-race perspective, the point, of course, is not to make sense – but to a) convince people that racial identification is not important and that b) none of the social differences between racial groups in society are due to genetics. From the “let’s not use the misleading term ‘race’ as a placemarker for the inaccurate term ‘subspecies’” perspective, (which more accurately describes your opponents), the point is that “race” already erroneously identifies groups that already fail to share any similarities that make them different from groups within other erroneously identified “races.” What fails to make sense is to cling to 18th century terminoology that has been demonstrated to be in error when the use of that terminology creates false impressions regardinbg the facts in any discussion of humanity. > [@Chuck11](#): > > In general, in my view, we should keep the discussion of the biological status of race separate from that of the implications of various statuses. You don’t see to want to do this. Given that, maybe you could elaborate on why the taxonomic race concept [subspecies] is especially dangerous. The word race is already in the language with an understood meaning that does not match to the facts of biology. Your attempt to separate race from subspecies is not born out by actual biological nomenclature. I don’t find anything scary about the word subspecies. Since there are no biologically recognized human subspecies living concurrently, today, it simply makes sense to avoid perpetuating errors in public discussions. Why do you feel a need to pretend that any biologist actually believes that there are human subspecies, today? (I would guess that you want to use the word race to avoid being held accounatble for any false claims that there are such subspecies, but I see no point in perpetuating errors through semantic games.) ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/504 "2011-04-12T21:10:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But those all presupposed descent from a single source. Here’s a [good diagram](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Definitions) of slightly different ways of looking at clades (it’s a link from the “definition” part of “clade” in wikipedia). Groups A and B trace back to a single node, but do not contain members of group C. “Europeans” do not trace back to a single node, as there has been admixture from group “C” (really several groups) that simply can’t be considered “European”. You’re arguing: 1. Clades must be [monophylogenetic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phylogenetic-Groups-Rev.svg) 2. No historic Clades are monophylogenetic (or there where never any monophylogenetic populations) 3. Therefore there are no Clades. 1. is incorrect. Regardless, there clearly were monophylogenetic populations. This is why cladistic diagrams can be made. If you have some evidence that you think contradicts this statement cite it and I will explain to you why you are misinterpreting it. So the issue is: are their currently monophylogenetic populations and does this matter? I’ve already addressed this in a comment to Chen. If all lineages are mixed, which they clearly are not, and we require monophylogeny, then this means we have to refer to “historic racial admixture.” An example would be, say, discussing the racial (i.e cladistic) admixture of most Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/505 "2011-04-12T21:56:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Not really. There are biological populations and there are ethnicities–both of which are much smaller than the claimed “races,” but the use of the word “race” indicates to the overwhelming majority of people that there are specific differences of trait and character between the various artificially constructed groupings, based loosely on geography. 1. Grant me the following distinctions: a) there is a biological _basis_ to race (i.e. racial classifications are based on some biological character) b) there are biologically (i.e non socially) delineated groupings of people that may or may not roughly correspond to ordinary racial classifications. Now, as I have pointed out you can have "specific differences of trait and character between the various “artificially” constructed “races” given a). For example, here is one such construction: continental populations. As it is, there is average genetic similarity/differences between continental populations. I’ve already demonstrated that the magnitude of the differences is large enough to be socially relevant. (Assume the low end value of 7% genetic variability between continental populations (Lewontin, 1972). Since we are diploid organisms, this translates to 15% phenotypic variability between individual between continental populations. For some trait with a 1:1 genotypic phenotyic relation, the encoding genes of which were distributed across the total genetic diversity, with standard deviations of 15 (variance = 225), a 15% between continental difference would imply a ~.8SD difference. So: in the case of IQ - 12 pts. My point here is to demonstrate that a) is logically independent from b). > [@](#): > > …Since the word “race” is equivalent to “subspecies” in biology and since it is clear that no legitimate scientist would divide humanity into subspecies, n. Now, I pointed out earlier that there is [no consensus about on the subspecies issue](http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/abstracted.php?icid=490147). I cited research on the international view. The last poll in the US showed that more of the scientist interviewed agreed with the biological concept of race than not. If you disagree, cite some evidence. Generally it is clear that quite a few scientists do divide humanity into subspecies. > [@](#): > > The word race is already in the language with an understood meaning that does not match to the facts of biology. Your attempt to separate race from subspecies is not born out by actual biological nomenclature. I don’t find anything scary about the word subspecies. Since there are no biologically recognized human subspecies living concurrently, today, it simply makes sense to avoid perpetuating errors in public discussions. As I noted, this is the absurd argument that your whole view hinges on: 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) … Now, as for the subspecies question. I already pointed to a definition of that. If you want, let’s discuss if any human population qualify as subspecies. Arguing that “the majority of scientists say,” when there is no majority is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/506 "2011-04-12T22:04:30Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > 1. Grant me the following distinctions This is really getting tedious. Some points made here of late are insightful (e.g John Mace) and keep me on my toes. Other points are just regurgitations or logical fallacies – “scientists say” – that add no information to the discussion. I will no longer reply to the later. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/507 "2011-04-12T22:13:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But those all presupposed descent from a single source. Here’s a [good diagram](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Definitions) of slightly different ways of looking at clades (it’s a link from the “definition” part of “clade” in wikipedia). Groups A and B trace back to a single node, but do not contain members of group C. “Europeans” do not trace back to a single node, as there has been admixture from group “C” (really several groups) that simply can’t be considered “European”. John, [Here is a defense](https://abc102.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/folk-conceptions-and-the-new-biology-of-race.pdf) of the race concept I am arguing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/508 "2011-04-12T23:01:44Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > 1. Grant me the following distinctions: > a) there is a biological _basis_ to race (i.e. racial classifications are based on some biological character) > b) there are biologically (i.e non socially) delineated groupings of people that may or may not roughly correspond to ordinary racial classifications. Sorry. I see no reason to “grant” you a tautology and an erro of fact. It is certainly true that the various physical characteristics on which the social distinctions of race are based are the result of genetics. Of course, since none of the “races” actually all share any specific characteristics accross al the populations ascribed to them, there is no actual cohesive trait that really binds them into coherent groups. There are no biologically delineated groupings of people that correspond to ordinary racial categorization. > [@Chuck11](#): > > Now, as I have pointed out you can have "specific differences of trait and character between the various “artificially” constructed “races” given a). For example, here is one such construction: continental populations. “Continental” populations are an observation of habitat, not a trait. > [@Chuck11](#): > > As it is, there is average genetic similarity/differences between continental populations. I’ve already demonstrated that the magnitude of the differences is large enough to be socially relevant. No. You have asserted that such are socially relevant. You have failed to demonstrate why anyone should care about that bit of statistical legerdemain. You still have no traits that make them relevant. > [@Chuck11](#): > > 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) > … > Now, as for the subspecies question. I already pointed to a definition of that. If you want, let’s discuss if any human population qualify as subspecies. Arguing that “the majority of scientists say,” when there is no majority is meaningless. On the contrary. Until you have some significant number of biologists, (rather than cherry-picked exceptions), who support the idea that humanity may be divided into subspecies, you are simply trying to define your way to victory. That you have found one definition that you choose to interpret as supporting your beliefs is of no concern to me. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/509 "2011-04-12T23:11:51Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > John, > > [Here is a defense](https://abc102.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/folk-conceptions-and-the-new-biology-of-race.pdf) of the race concept I am arguing. So, your defense of holding on to the concept of “race” is that you can find one philosopher of science who has an idea with which even his collaborators are not in complete accord, who wants to impose the word in a way that no one else is actually using it, (and they still can’t figure out whether there are three or more “races”–I note that one commentator now has it up to nine.) If the word has to be separately defined for each user, it seems to me that insisting on its use is merely opening one to confusion–a point I have already made. Why insist on using the word “race” when every time it is employed, it must be accompanied by a paragraph describing how it is being used and all the various peoples that will be identified by it? That seems like a lot of work when we could drop the word and avoid confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/510 "2011-04-13T00:36:25Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, your defense of holding on to the concept of “race” is that you can find one philosopher of science who has an idea with which even his collaborators are not in complete accord, who wants to impose the word in a way that no one else is actually using it, (and they still can’t figure out whether there are three or more “races”–I note that one commentator now has it up to nine.) > > If the word has to be separately defined for each user, it seems to me that insisting on its use is merely opening one to confusion–a point I have already made. Why insist on using the word “race” when every time it is employed, it must be accompanied by a paragraph describing how it is being used and all the various peoples that will be identified by it? That seems like a lot of work when we could drop the word and avoid confusion. The defense established that there is a coherent biologically consistent concept of race. You dispute this by arguing that race must equal subspecies. Now, by your logic, since you contend that there are no human subspecies, and therefore there are no human races, there can be no racial discrimination or racial animosity. See for you to maintain that there is racial discrimination or racial animosity, you must maintain that there is some coherent concept of race (at very least some operant definition)-- otherwise discrimination, etc could never be assessed and it would be an illusion on the same order as race is claimed to be. In reality, what you are claiming is that race does not have biological meaning; there can be races, according to you, without there being human subspecies (i.e they are socially delineated.) Now since you maintain that there can be races without there being human subspecies, why can’t I do the same? (I am just replacing social delineation with biological delineation.) Or do you deny that there is racial discrimination etc.? Regardless, if we grant your point, the question then would be: do these biological groupings (Clades) qualify as subspecies? The answer isn’t straightforward as there is no consensus on the definition of species. As I noted earlier there are [26 concepts](http://www.explorelifeonearth.org/cursos/summary_of_26_species_concepts.pdf); presumably there are 26 matching concepts of subspecies-- or would be if subspecies was defined. Which do we use? Why not a cladistic one? Now, for the sake of simplicity, we might as well use the one the US government adopts. I discussed [this here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13677207&postcount=492). Would you agree to use this? If so, we can look up examples of how it is used and see if the human populations that I am referring to match this definition. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/511 "2011-04-13T01:48:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It is certainly true that the various physical characteristics on which the social distinctions of race are based are the result of genetics. Of course, since none of the “races” actually all share any specific characteristics accross al the populations ascribed to them, there is no actual cohesive trait that really binds them into coherent groups. > There are no biologically delineated groupings of people that correspond to ordinary racial categorization. I already established that there is such a trait – ancestry. Ancestry surely is biological. What you mean to say is “there is no shared phenotypic trait that every member of the populations share.” Supposedly this criteria disqualifies that said populations from being races, by which you mean subspecies. Could you cite the definition from which you derive this criteria? The definition that I cited – which you don’t like – says " [1] Members of a subspecies share …a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters." phylogenetically concordant means: caused by the same genes. so, basically we have = members of a subspecies share …a group of heritable phenotypic characters. Now, as I mentioned, it’s not clear whether this means 1) every member has …2) OR the population has and members share in that common gene pool. Now, if it’s 1) the populations that I am talking about likely are not subspecies – I’d have to look over the data on skin color and reflectance; As I mentioned some populations share common phenotypes such that practically each member has the phenotype (e.g Africans and dark pigmentations – notice the definition that I cited does not say “unique” phenotypes in the case of polytypic species; it does not preclude other subspecies from, via convergent evolution, developing (or retaining) the same phenotype.] — and clearly if it’s 2) the populations that I’m talking about are subspecies. (The genetic commonality found by Cavalli-Sforza (10%), after all, has some phenotypic manifestations.) Now how do we resolve this? Obviously, we see how the definition works in practice. If I can show that some actual zoological subspecies classifications use 2), then it follows that were we to not gerrymander our concepts when it comes to humans, the populations that I’m talking about would be human subspecies, assuming some populations exhibit 2), and granting this definitions. So, I’m waiting to see if you grant this definition and my proposed resolution to the ambiguity. If not, I am waiting for you to cite another subspecies definition. > [@](#): > > On the contrary. Until you have some significant number of biologists, (rather than cherry-picked exceptions), who support the idea that humanity may be divided into subspecies, you are simply trying to define your way to victory. . We seem to be in a deadlock here. Perhaps you could qualify “significant” and I can try to dig up a peer reviewed paper for reference. Or perhaps you could do likewise for your case. You keep implying that there is no “significant number of biologists,” but I see no evidence. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/512 "2011-04-13T03:07:16Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > The defense established that there is a coherent biologically consistent concept of race. You dispute this by arguing that race must equal subspecies. Now, by your logic, since you contend that there are no human subspecies, and therefore there are no human races, there can be no racial discrimination or racial animosity. See for you to maintain that there is racial discrimination or racial animosity, you must maintain that there is some coherent concept of race (at very least some operant definition)-- otherwise discrimination, etc could never be assessed and it would be an illusion on the same order as race is claimed to be. Are you really going to argue this line of bullshit? When you drop the word “biological” from the definition–as you did after the first sentence, you have changed the terms of the discuission. Certainly there are various concepts of race–they are simply based on inadequate and erroneous distinctions in which social constructs are falsely imposed on a misunderstanding of biology that really don’t have any bearing on a biological concept of race. French and German ethnologists argued over whether the French race or the German race was better throughout most of the nineteenth century, but no one, today, is going to waste time arguing that there is really a “French race” or a “German race.” If all you are going to do is play games, then I will acknowledge that you have conceded the discussion. > [@Chuck11](#): > > In reality, what you are claiming is that race does not have biological meaning; there can be races, according to you, without there being human subspecies (i.e they are socially delineated.) Now since you maintain that there can be races without there being human subspecies, why can’t I do the same? (I am just replacing social delineation with biological delineation.) Or do you deny that there is racial discrimination etc.? I am noting that the concept of biological races was created at a time when early scientists were defining taxonomy and erroneously divided up the world into a subjective (and small) number of perceived races. Once that was done, social and political forces latched onto those terms and began applying them to social perceptions. In the ensuing years, we have discovered that the early taxonomists were wrong and that there is no point to pretending that the early taxonomists were correct for the mere sake of hanging onto a word that produces more confusion than clarity. > [@Chuck11](#): > > Regardless, if we grant your point, the question then would be: do these biological groupings (Clades) qualify as subspecies? The answer isn’t straightforward as there is no consensus on the definition of species. As I noted earlier there are [26 concepts](http://www.explorelifeonearth.org/cursos/summary_of_26_species_concepts.pdf); presumably there are 26 matching concepts of subspecies-- or would be if subspecies was defined. Which do we use? Why not a cladistic one? Why use any of them, since they already use a term that does not mean what you are claiming that it means? In order to use your unnecessary terms, we would need to put a disclaimer at the beginning of any discussion on the topic (and probably still have to go back and correct the mistaken impression that the usage would create). It seems silly to create more work just to hang onto a word that would be better replaced. In fact, it has already been replaced as biologists typically now speak of populations–smaller groups with actual defining characteristics. > [@Chuck11](#): > > Now, for the sake of simplicity, we might as well use the one the US government adopts. I discussed [this here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13677207&postcount=492). Would you agree to use this? The census bureau is referring to groups of people as they are perceived and treated in society. There is no point in pretending that those groups have some sort of biological reality outside the ways in which people are treated by other people. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/513 "2011-04-13T03:18:11Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I already established that there is such a trait – ancestry. Ancestry surely is biological. What you mean to say is “there is no shared phenotypic trait that every member of the populations share.” Supposedly this criteria disqualifies that said populations from being races, by which you mean subspecies. Could you cite the definition from which you derive this criteria? Ancestry is not a trait by any reasonable definition of the word. You are just playing games. > [@Chuck11](#): > > The definition that I cited – which you don’t like – says " [1] Members of a subspecies share …a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters." phylogenetically concordant means: caused by the same genes. so, basically we have = members of a subspecies share …a group of heritable phenotypic characters. Now, as I mentioned, it’s not clear whether this means 1) every member has …2) OR the population has and members share in that common gene pool. Now, if it’s 1) the populations that I am talking about likely are not subspecies – I’d have to look over the data on skin color and reflectance; As I mentioned some populations share common phenotypes such that practically each member has the phenotype (e.g Africans and dark pigmentations – notice the definition that I cited does not say “unique” phenotypes in the case of polytypic species; it does not preclude other subspecies from, via convergent evolution, developing (or retaining) the same phenotype.] — and clearly if it’s 2) the populations that I’m talking about are subspecies. (The genetic commonality found by Cavalli-Sforza (10%), after all, has some phenotypic manifestations.) What would be the point of pretending your definition requires anything other than “every member has”? Just to muddy the discussion, further? (And I am quite willing to acknowledge that some individuals might lack a specific characteristic through individual mutation, but omitting such mutations, “every member has” would seem to be the only reasonable definition. “Africans,” (at least the ones that you want to lump into some perceived race), have widely varying skin pigmentation and share no other traits. > [@Chuck11](#): > > Now how do we resolve this? Obviously, we see how the definition works in practice. If I can show that some actual zoological subspecies classifications use 2), then it follows that were we to not gerrymander our concepts when it comes to humans, the populations that I’m talking about would be human subspecies, assuming some populations exhibit 2), and granting this definitions. So, I’m waiting to see if you grant this definition and my proposed resolution to the ambiguity. If not, I am waiting for you to cite another subspecies definition. Nah. Just show me legitimate biologists that actually believe there are human subspecies. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/514 "2011-04-13T04:11:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > When you drop the word “biological” from the definition–as you did after the first sentence, you have changed the terms of the discuission. Certainly there are various concepts of race–they are simply based on inadequate and erroneous distinctions in which social constructs are falsely imposed on a misunderstanding of biology that really don’t have any bearing on a biological concept of race. Earlier, you said: > [@](#): > > “Race” is a word that people who recognize that there are not currently any human subspecies employ to continue pretending that there are such subspecies in the face of actual evidence. Since you maintain that the true meaning of race is subspecies, let’s discuss if there are human subspecies. Since there is no consensus as to whether the are human subspecies, we will have to decide this on our own. What definition of human subspecies would you like to use? I am using the one that the US federal government has adopted for purposes of wildlife conservation. What definition are you using? If you are unable to supply a definition with criteria for deciding if there are human races (i.e subspecies), concede that you have no ground for saying that there are no human subspecies. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/515 "2011-04-13T04:30:00Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I am using the one that the US federal government has adopted for purposes of wildlife conservation. Then you have no business claiming that there are any current human subspecies. No large group of humans shares a “unique geographic range or habitat.” No large group of humans shares a “phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters.” No large group of humans shares a “unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species.” (This was the part of the definition you left out.) You can get some of those at the population level, but you cannot get any of them at the level of the three to six, (now nine–you guys can never figure out how many), races that are purported to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/516 "2011-04-13T04:31:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It is certainly true that the various physical characteristics on which the social distinctions of race are based are the result of genetics. Of course, since none of the “races” actually all share any specific characteristics accross al the populations ascribed to them, there is no actual cohesive trait that really binds them into coherent groups. > > There are no biologically delineated groupings of people that correspond to ordinary racial categorization. > > “Continental” populations are an observation of habitat, not a trait… > > In fact, it has already been replaced as biologists typically now speak of populations–smaller groups with actual defining characteristics. What’s this talk of “a trait”? Reference to a single trait isn’t part of the [biological definition](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race). And that definition uses the term “population”. > [@](#): > > Race > Definition > > noun > > (1) A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair). > > (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. Also, the continental populations do have identifiable sets of characteristics [traits](http://www.amazon.com/Skeletal-Attribution-Race-Forensic-Anthropology/dp/0912535067) & produce [genetic clusters (as opposed to clines)](http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/517 "2011-04-13T10:39:57Z")
[quote=“Chen019, post:516, topic:577007”] What’s this talk of “a trait”? Reference to a single trait isn’t part of the [biological definition](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race). And that definition uses the term “population”. > [@](#): > > Race > Definition > > noun > > (1) A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair). > > (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. [QUOTE] Chen, you keep posting that same dictionary definition that includes all the possible permutations of the word race as though it has some significance to the discussion. I’m afraid it begins to look as though you post it so that you can move the goalpost around from one discussion to another. The discussion has focused on the use of the word race to identify the three to six or nine, (or however many you guys need this week to keep your argument going), very large collections of people across the globe. The only definition that comes close to what we are discussing is #1, and it is based on the already discredited 19th century claims of nascent taxonomy–it is a social construct. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/518 "2011-04-13T13:51:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Then you have no business claiming that there are any current human subspecies. > > No large group of humans shares a “unique geographic range or habitat.” > No large group of humans shares a “phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters.” > No large group of humans shares a “unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species.” (This was the part of the definition you left out.) > > You can get some of those at the population level, but you cannot get any of them at the level of the three to six, (now nine–you guys can never figure out how many), races that are purported to exist. 1. My groups share a unique natural history relative to other groups. They are ancestor-descent groups which split off from other populations. (T[ake a look at figure 2](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693320/pdf/15101581.pdf)). This is what the phrase means. 2. They also share a “unique geographic range or habitat”; Look how the phrase is used with regards to the American Puma. [Figure 1 here.](http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/186.full.pdf) and [figure 2 here](http://www.annualreviews.org.www.lib.ncsu.edu:2048/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.genom.6.080604.162151). Are you honesty arguing that the ancestral popultions that I am talking about did not share a unique geographic range relative to the other populations? Or, is you point that they now don’t. If you mean the later – as I pointed out – the meaning is a unique historic range, where range allow for migration as in the case of the free-ranging Puma. Obviously, if an American SSA. P.c puma migrate north or is sent off to a zoo in China, it doesn’t imply that the puma is no longer a member of its subspecies. If you can’t even agree to these two points, there is no point is continuing discussion with you. You are just being obstinate. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/519 "2011-04-13T15:31:45Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > 1. Now, while I’m at it: **A. Existence if biological populations. You said:** > [@](#): > > Not really. There are biological populations … I am glad that we agree about the existence of biological populations. **B. The meaning of race. You said:** " > [@](#): > > I doubt that creating neologisms for the sole purpose incvluding the erroneous claim of “race” makes much sense and it would seem that the only reason to do so would be to pretend that the original, now debunked, speculations of science had some legitimacy." The ordinary concept of race (i.e the layman’s concept) is not equivalent to subspecies. There is general agreement about this among biological philosophers. As Chen has pointed out, there are multiple biological concepts of race. I will grant that the dominant scientific concept has been subspecies. We seem to have reached an impasse on this matter. **C. The biological basis (or reality) of the ordinary concept of races. To paraphrase what I said:** The ordinary concept of race has a biological basis. In the philosophy of science, to say that races have a biological basis (or are biologically real to use the common parlance in the philosophy of science), is to say: a) Member of a given race X have genetic similarity due to common acestry b) Member of a given race will be genetically different from members of race Y c) Members of race X will differ from members of race Y in heritable phenotypic characteristic All three refer to the content of the term race. They do not refer to the boundaries of the term. The boundaries may or may not be biologically delineated. You can have a concept of race with a biological basis that has socially delineated boundaries (e.g regional ancestry limited to cultural Europeans) I contend that race, as ordinarily used by many has a biological basis. To clarify, I contend that race, as ordinarily used by many, is not bereft of biological reality as defined above; that is to say, I content that race does not refer to arbitrary collections of people like “all tall people” or “all darkly pigmented people.” If you disagree please point out what you disagree with. **C. Biologically delineated groupings and races. You said:** > [@](#): > > “There are no biologically delineated groupings of people that correspond to ordinary racial categorization” > > "When you drop the word “biological” from the definition–as you did after the first sentence, you have changed the terms of the discuission. Certainly there are various concepts of race–they are simply based on inadequate and erroneous distinctions in which social constructs are falsely imposed on a misunderstanding of biology that really don’t have any bearing on a biological concept of race. " [1] There are biologically delineated groups called clades. You seem to agree. You disagree about these “being races.” What possibly do you mean? Since you agree that there are multiple concepts of race, you surely don’t mean that the biologically delineated groups called clades do not match with THE concept called race. According to you, there is no one concept. So you must mean that the clades don’t match with A concept called race. [2] I have already established that it does match with A concept called race. [This has been argued by Levin (2002) and Andreasen (2007)]. [3] I have also established that this concept roughly matches with the biologically based ordinary concept of race (above), at least as held by a number of people, which means a) peoples with common ancestry, b) from a common region, c) which have characteristic phenoptypes. You have argued that this is an invalid concept of race? Why? Because, you contend, it is not the subspecies concept. I already addressed this by saying: “You dispute this by arguing that race must equal subspecies. Now, by your logic, since you contend that there are no human subspecies, and therefore there are no human races, there can be no racial discrimination or racial animosity. See for you to maintain that there is racial discrimination or racial animosity, you must maintain that there is some coherent concept of race (at very least some operant definition)-- otherwise discrimination, etc could never be assessed and it would be an illusion on the same order as race is claimed to be. In reality, what you are claiming is that race does not have biological meaning; there can be races, according to you, without there being human subspecies (i.e they are socially delineated.) Now since you maintain that there can be races without there being human subspecies, why can’t I do the same? (I am just replacing social delineation with biological delineation.) Or do you deny that there is racial discrimination etc.?” So let me formulate my argument for you: 1. There are human clades 2. These clades match with a concept called race 3. This concept of race, the cladistic one, matches with the ordinary concept of race as held by many people. 4. If it is argued that a coherent or valid concept of race must be a concept of subspecies and it is argued that there are no subspecies, there can be no valid or coherent concept of racial discrimination. 5. Since you argue that there is a valid and coherent concept of racial discrimination, there must be valid and coherent concepts of race independent of subspecies 6. Given 1-3, Race as Clade is a valid concept of race. Which of my points do you disagree with and why? If you are unable offer a coherent counter argument, I see no reason to continue debating this issue. … So to clarify 1. there are biological populations 2. the (/all) ordinary concept(s) of race is(/are) not equivalent to subspecies 3. a common ordinary concept of race has biological content (i.e there is a biological basis to the ordinary concept of race). 4. there are human clades 5. human clades overlap with human populations 6. “human clades” is one concept of race 7. “human clades” is a biologically delineated concept of race. 8. “human clades”/human populations imperfectly overlap with 3) If you disagree with any, please list the statement and outline you argument in syllogistic format or something equivalent so we can be clear about the disagreement ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/520 "2011-04-13T15:44:25Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > What’s this talk of “a trait”? . This is getting tedious. There are substantive issues to discuss here – such as: 1. “are there human subspecies as defined by some zoological definition of subspecies?” 2. “If so, which ones, given which definition” 3. “Do these match at all a common ordinary concept?” 4. “are there human clades” 5. “If so which ones?” 6. “Do any clades match at all a common ordinary concept?” 7. “Are there any socially significant heritable differences between human populations, etc?” 8. “If so, which ones?” Instead, we are stuck with Mickey Mouse nigglings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=27)