# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/101 "2011-04-03T23:58:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. Only those things that can be measured and that are repeatable. > > Antiquated nonsense. 1. They are repeatable. No matter what genetic markers you choose: SNPs, STRs, no matter how you choose them: randomly or based on their “informativeness”, it is relatively easy to classify DNA into the correct continental origin. The emergent pattern of variation is not at all subjectively constructed: it does not deal specifically with visible traits (randomly chosen markers could influence any trait, or none at all), nor does it privilege markers exhibiting large population differences. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1828730&blobtype=pdf](http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1828730&blobtype=pdf) > **[PLOS Genetics](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/)** 1. The Konisberg paper is from 2009! Socially constructed race is correlated with physical characteristics. Rather than being separated from biology, the social phenomenon of race is rooted in biology. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/102 "2011-04-04T00:02:26Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > A lot of bunk has been claimed, I’m not going to spend time to debunk them all. You quote/choose something now and stand by it. You’ll get a response. i stand by everything i wrote in this thread its not that long ---
**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 4, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/103 "2011-04-04T00:07:13Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > They are repeatable. As it is the usual clarification that researchers make. It is missed for some reason. > [@Chen019](#): > > [PLOS Genetics](http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070) > [@](#): > > **Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.”** In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. **The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease.** ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/104 "2011-04-04T00:19:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As it is the usual clarification that researchers make. It is missed for some reason. These kind of disclaimers are somewhat Orwellian. It’s important to avoid controversy for funding purposes (as Cavalli-Sforza found with his diversity project). GIGO, do you think you could at least try and read the Sesardic article? Please? It addresses the whole euphemistic use of population/race issue. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/105 "2011-04-04T00:21:18Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > i stand by everything i wrote in this thread its not that long Well then let’s go through it all. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > A person can create subjective categories and assign people to those categories based on objective factors, and can then perform research (using the scientific method) on people in each category and see if they have other similarities or differences. There’s nothing about that that is “not science” or “unscientific.” Other people can review the work and say “the categories you created were stupid” or “you should have assigned people to your categories differently” or whatever, and that’s fine too. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Just because “race” is a subjective category doesn’t make it “a social construct” as opposed to something that exists “in biology.” It’s a subjective category based on biological factors, so it “exists in biology.” > > Also, it’s perfectly OK for different people to use a different number of races. That doesn’t make the race concept useless or something that doesn’t exist in biology. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The mistake you (and a lot of people in this thread) are making is in thinking that a race is either a biologically objective category or doesn’t exist. It could also be a biologically subjective category (to which people are assigned or not based on objective factors). > > In that way, one could speak of any number of races they felt was interesting to speak about, from 1 (all humans are the same race) to the number of humans that have ever existed (all humans are their own race). > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I can only conclude at this point that you are willfully missing the point. The idea of a “race” is subjective, and that’s OK, it doesn’t mean the idea is “not science” or “only a social construct and not biological.” One can create as many races as they want to. Other people can then ask why not one less or one more. You get close but miss hitting the mark; basically ‘the races’ are not based on biology, but sociology (randomly chosen physical morphology -like eye shape, hair form, skin colour- and cultural factors -like social status, language, geography). What’s ultimately silly is your insistence that these sociologically based categories somehow hold genetic predictive power for other randomly chosen (and as of yet unnamed) traits that may/may not even exist. I’m interested… what genetic traits **do you think** fall within those ‘races’ of yours? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/106 "2011-04-04T00:25:03Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > You get close but miss hitting the mark; basically ‘the races’ are not based on biology, but sociology (randomly chosen physical morphology -like eye shape, hair form, skin colour- and cultural factors -like social status, language, geography). > > What’s ultimately silly is your insistence that these sociologically based categories somehow hold genetic predictive power for other randomly chosen (and as of yet unnamed) traits that may/may not even exist. Go back and read the discussion about natural sciences. Obviously if you observe a phenomenon and label it there is a social or subjective element to it. And yes, these do have predictive power in terms of the physical characteristics you identify. Otherwise forensic anthropologists would have no success in identifying someones race. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/107 "2011-04-04T00:27:12Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Go back and read the discussion about natural sciences. Obviously if you observe a phenomenon and label it there is a social or subjective element to it. Fine. “Big nose” people are now a race. Do you agree with me? Sound scientific? Lets do this. Right now. ---
**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 4, 2011, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/108 "2011-04-04T00:27:58Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > How many cultures are there? Does culture not exist? That’s exactly it. No on denies that different populations of humans exist. But what you are claiming is that there are essentially “pure” cultures out there. Cultures that can be chopped up in some objective way and that are not influenced by other cultures. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/109 "2011-04-04T00:28:27Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Fine. “Big nose” people are now a race. Do you agree with me? Sound scientific? Lets do this. Right now. Look up the biological definition of race. You don’t just look at a single heritable trait. > [@](#): > > 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. > **[Race - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary](https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/race)** > > Race in the largest biology dictionary online. Free learning resources for students covering all major areas of biology. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/110 "2011-04-04T00:30:46Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > And yes, these do have predictive power in terms of the physical characteristics you identify. Otherwise forensic anthropologists would have no success in identifying someones race. Ha. They have predictive power for the very same traits that you use to delimit ‘the races.’ Well congats, pal. “The black skinned race is black.” Good job. However, I have a feeling you are also trying to sell me on some other traits… ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/111 "2011-04-04T00:34:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s exactly it. No on denies that different populations of humans exist. But what you are claiming is that there are essentially “pure” cultures out there. Cultures that can be chopped up in some objective way and that are not influenced by other cultures. Then you haven’t read the Sesardic paper, or my comments above that these are not discrete, fixed groups. I think a lot of the disagreement stems from this idea that races are “pure” vs the biological reality which involves fuzzy groups of statistical samples. It’s not neat or clean. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/112 "2011-04-04T00:35:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s exactly it. No on denies that different populations of humans exist. \*\*But what you are claiming is that there are essentially “pure” cultures out there. \*\* Cultures that can be chopped up in some objective way and that are not influenced by other cultures. Nope. Neither Chen nor I have 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 4, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/113 "2011-04-04T00:36:09Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > These kind of disclaimers are somewhat Orwellian. It’s important to avoid controversy for funding purposes (as Cavalli-Sforza found with his diversity project). > > GIGO, do you think you could at least try and read the Sesardic article? Please? It addresses the whole euphemistic use of population/race issue. Yeah we know, conspiracy theories are also your forte. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/114 "2011-04-04T00:36:56Z")
Is there such an astronomical thing as a “planet”? Here’s a quote from the wikipedia entry on Pluto: > [@](#): > > From its discovery in 1930 until 2006, Pluto was considered the Solar System’s ninth planet. In the late 1970s, following the discovery of minor planet 2060 Chiron in the outer Solar System and the recognition of Pluto’s relatively low mass, its status as a major planet began to be questioned.[11] In the late 20th and early 21st century, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered in the outer Solar System, notably the scattered disc object Eris in 2005, which is 27% more massive than Pluto.[12] On August 24, 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined what it means to be a “planet” within the Solar System. This definition excluded Pluto as a planet and added it as a member of the new category “dwarf planet” along with Eris and Ceres.[13] After the reclassification, Pluto was added to the list of minor planets and given the number 134340.[14][15] A number of scientists continue to hold that Pluto should be classified as a planet.[16] So, a “planet” is a category of objects with subjective criteria. I guess John Mace and orcenio et al would say “the concept of a planet is not scientific, it’s only a social construct. Therefore, scientists can’t study planets.” ---
**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 4, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/115 "2011-04-04T00:37:16Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Look up the biological definition of race. You don’t just look at a single heritable trait. > > [Race - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race) And we also did this before: > [@](#): > > Supplement > > Humans have been categorized into many distinct varieties or races. One of the most common (and an old) subcategorization of human species is the five human races by Blumenbach: the Caucasian (white race), Mongolian (yellow race), Ethiopian (negro race), American (red race), and the Malayan (brown race). **At present, such classification is disputed to have no biological validity.** The biological context of the term race is only widely accepted when used to refer to a subspecies arising from a partially isolated reproductive population and thus share a considerable degree of genetic similarity. An example is the African wildcat, which is a subspecies of the domesticated cat. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/116 "2011-04-04T00:38:39Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Look up the biological definition of race. You don’t just look at a single heritable trait. > > [Race - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race) > [@](#): > > (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. Def 1 is exactly what we are talking about when we say that 'race is sociological. Def 2 doesn’t even describe the groups you call “the races” (definitely not “blacks”). Def 3 doesn’t even describe the groups you call “the races” (definitely not “blacks”). Def 4 doesn’t even describe the groups you call “the races” (definitely not “blacks”). The groups you imply (you never try to name/delimit them) are “the races” are too large and diverse to be “a population of interbreeding species,” a “tribe or family of people sharing a common breed or lineage,” “descent from a common heritage, ancestor, breed or stock.” They all fall under Def 1 which has been debunked as an 18 century determined social identity, not predictive for anything other then what you use to delimit those groups. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/117 "2011-04-04T00:39:35Z")
As I said in my first post in this thread, the really sad thing here is that you guys are letting the idiots hijack the discussion. Just because some idiots think that people of different races are inherently inferior or superior to each other doesn’t mean that you have to throw out the whole concept of race. You can just say that the idiots are idiots and still use race for other reasons where it proves useful (if any). ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/118 "2011-04-04T00:40:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, seeing that my ancestors mixed so well that Mestizos are the majority in many Latin American nations, the human race clearly had not even drifted enough in biological terms to prevent that mixing. Clearly all humans can interbreed. No one has claimed otherwise. At the same time, in the year 1400, Australian aborignes were a distinct race/genetic group/population/subspecies from, say, inhabitants of Tierra Del Fuego. Which is in no way a value judgment… ---
**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 4, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/119 "2011-04-04T00:43:08Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Is there such an astronomical thing as a “planet”? > > Here’s a quote from the wikipedia entry on Pluto: > > So, a “planet” is a category of objects with subjective criteria. I guess John Mace and orcenio et al would say “the concept of a planet is not scientific, it’s only a social construct. Therefore, scientists can’t study planets.” That is missing the point, for… I still wonder why it was needed to miss it. The fact is that in the past the concepts of race were way off base, likewise naming Pluto a planet was really a mistake as evidence piled up that it was not. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/120 "2011-04-04T00:45:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Almost, but not quite. It takes time for a population isolate to evolve distinct morphological differences. I think that any ET scientist observing humans over the last 50k years or so would not want to classify and reclassify humans into subspecies every time we migrated to a new continent. There would be a recognition that any genetic isolation that may prop up temporarily is just that-- a temporary situation and not a reflection of what the population is doing over time frames that are relatively short in evolutionary terms. So if we’re studying finches on the Galapagos, and two populations get separated onto distinct islands, and after some period of time one population is a distinctly different color and a slightly different size, we shouldn’t study that or care or notice in case a land bridge pops up and they start interbreeding again? That seems like an odd approach. But I honestly keep feeling that people in this thread are arguing so passionately because they know that the position I’m arguing for, that “Races have absolutely zero meaning, biologically” is false, is one that racists want to be true… and that therefore opposing it is like opposing racism. Which is a poor reason to take a position. Certainly I don’t believe I’m motivated by racism even in the slightest… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=7)