# Meaningfull Biological Definition of Race **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472 "2011-05-19T17:11:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/221 "2011-05-25T01:23:01Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > However, if you ask a layman on the street “hey, do you think that races have biological meaning”, they’re not going to interpret that as “there’s some ivory tower super-precise meaning of ‘race’, let’s discuss whether the races we’re familiar with fit that definition, even though we don’t know what it is and probably wouldn’t understand it if we did”. Instead, they’re going to interpret it as something like “we both know what races are, so do you think people in the same race are actually biologically or genetically similar to each other, at least on average, more than they are to people of other races? If so, can we use that to make predictions and so forth? Could the fact that so many NBA players are black be biological as opposed to purely due to social pressures?”, or something along those lines. I think that’s a legitimately interesting discussion, and one which clearly at least a fair number of people in this thread are trying to have. And they very well might be wrong about all of it. There is pretty good evidence that there are a lot of good African runners because a lot of Africans start running at a young age and there is a good social infrastructure to promote increasing skill in running; there are a lot of good African-American basketball players because a lot of African-Americans start running at a young age and there is a good social infrastructure to promote increasing skill in basketball; there are a lot of good Canadian ice hockey players who were born in January, February, or March, because a lot of Canadians start playing ice hockey at a young age and there is a good social infrastructure to promote increasing the skills of those born in January, February, or March. And these are reasons why the ordinary person on the street can’t be trusted to instinctively come to conclusions about biology and genetics. They don’t have enough information and they don’t have enough understanding for their conclusions to have any value at anything other than a superficial level. > [@](#): > > The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not necessarily either ignorant or troll-y for Rand Rover to want to discuss whether they’re races are biologically meaningful without particularly caring about a specific and precise meaning of the word “race” that is used by biologists That’s not the point. The point is not that biologists have a specific and precise meaning of the word “race” that only they use and that isn’t relevant to the Joe-on-the-street. The point is that Joe-on-the-street will draw conclusions about biology that aren’t supported by actual knowledge of biology and will apply those conclusions to the world around him in a way that has no real validity. When you walk up to Joe and start asking those question about biology, he might use the terms of biology, but really his answer will come entirely from his social perceptions, not from biology at all. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/222 "2011-05-25T01:25:49Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > What do you mean by “_very long_”? That sounds like “_an opinion_”, as you might say. 🙂 You could make these complaints about loads of classification or definitional systems. You are correct here. I used the phrase ‘personally think’ when I meant ‘in my opinion’. So that is not a scientific assessment. However I am not aware of anyone claiming that the period of time of isolation of any known group of humans was long enough to lead to meaningful distinction in genetic structure. Please let me know if I am incorrect. > [@](#): > > In any case, Risch has provided evidence of how the major geographical structuring that exists in human populations has lead to meaningful biological or genetic differentiation. Again, I did not find that evidence. Where is the meaningful part? How can further conclusions be drawn based on the average genetic structure differences between continental inhabitants? How is the means of classification more meaningful than any other arbitrary classification? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/223 "2011-05-25T01:29:10Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Well, [Risch](http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007) makes the point that it is useful from a medical perspective and that \*“the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.” And, once again, you point to a researcher talking specifically about the socially identified “races” subject to immigration founder effect in the U.S., not to some sort of world-wide analysis. Since the populations in the U.S. have been subjected to funnels in the emigration from the original locations, (blacks only from the West coast of that continent, Chinese from the Southeast of that land, etc.), “racial” analyses wind up actually identifying smaller, more closely related populations than the word “race” would indicate in its broader, more casual usage. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/224 "2011-05-25T01:48:24Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You are correct here. I used the phrase ‘personally think’ when I meant ‘in my opinion’. So that is not a scientific assessment. However I am not aware of anyone claiming that the period of time of isolation of any known group of humans was long enough to lead to meaningful distinction in genetic structure. Please let me know if I am incorrect. > Again, I did not find that evidence. Where is the meaningful part? How can further conclusions be drawn based on the average genetic structure differences between continental inhabitants? How is the means of classification more meaningful than any other arbitrary classification? In terms of different susceptibility to disease and response to [drug treatments](http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf) for instance. The reason the continental structure is meaningful is because that geographic separation restricted gene flow, which is why those clusters emerge. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/225 "2011-05-25T02:03:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And, once again, you point to a researcher talking specifically about the socially identified “races” subject to immigration founder effect in the U.S., not to some sort of world-wide analysis. Since the populations in the U.S. have been subjected to funnels in the emigration from the original locations, (blacks only from the West coast of that continent, Chinese from the Southeast of that land, etc.), “racial” analyses wind up actually identifying smaller, more closely related populations than the word “race” would indicate in its broader, more casual usage. Risch et al reference studies from around the world, not just the US. > [@](#): > > With this as background, it is not surprising that numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion - that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis. The results are the same irrespective of the type of genetic markers employed, be they classical systems [5], restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) [6], microsatellites [7,8,9,10,11], or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [12]. For example, studying 14 indigenous populations from 5 continents with 30 microsatellite loci, Bowcock et al. [7] observed that the 14 populations clustered into the five continental groups, as depicted in Figure 1. The African branch included three sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians; the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians, New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians; and the Native American branch included Mayans from Mexico and the Surui and Karitiana from the Amazon basin. The identical diagram has since been derived by others, using a similar or greater number of microsatellite markers and individuals [8,9]. [http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007](http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/226 "2011-05-25T02:05:59Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In terms of different susceptibility to disease and response to [drug treatments](http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf) for instance. > > The reason the continental structure is meaningful is because that geographic separation restricted gene flow, which is why those clusters emerge. Don’t you get dizzy from running in circles? That has all the meaning of a claim that humans from the planet Earth show common levels of susceptibility to disease and response to drug treatments. You obviously have no means of defining a race in biological terms or identifying races much less ascribing meaning to a definition. Your best argument has been that some published papers make the same mistakes you do. This is GD, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t give it any significant credit, and I think you are mischaracterizing the papers you cite, which primarily use the term ‘race’ to contrast the practice of ignoring genetic clusters in medical diagnosis. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/227 "2011-05-25T02:22:34Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Don’t you get dizzy from running in circles? That has all the meaning of a claim that humans from the planet Earth show common levels of susceptibility to disease and response to drug treatments. You obviously have no means of defining a race in biological terms or identifying races much less ascribing meaning to a definition. Your best argument has been that some published papers make the same mistakes you do. This is GD, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t give it any significant credit, and I think you are mischaracterizing the papers you cite, which primarily use the term ‘race’ to contrast the practice of ignoring genetic clusters in medical diagnosis. No it doesn’t because groups have materially different responses. Applying your approach you’d strip away most classification systems. If you want a basic definition of racial groups you can use the definition Risch uses, that is basis of the primary continent of origin. Some definitions such as Michael Hardimon’s ordinary concept: (1) it must be distinguished from other groups by visible physical features (2) its members must be linked by a common ancestry (3) its members must originate from a distinctive geographic location. Or from [biology online](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/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. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/228 "2011-05-25T02:34:47Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > No it doesn’t because groups have materially different responses. Applying your approach you’d strip away most classification systems. > > If you want a basic definition of racial groups you can use the definition Risch uses, that is basis of the primary continent of origin. Some definitions such as Michael Hardimon’s ordinary concept: > > (1) it must be distinguished from other groups by visible physical features > (2) its members must be linked by a common ancestry > (3) its members must originate from a distinctive geographic location. You expose the holes in your claim. Visible physical features and distinctive geographic location are not biological factors. All humans are linked by a common ancestry. > [@Chen019](#): > > Or from [biology online](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race): From your cite: > [@](#): > > At present, such classification is disputed to have no biological validity ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/229 "2011-05-25T02:54:06Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You expose the holes in your claim. Visible physical features and distinctive geographic location are not biological factors. All humans are linked by a common ancestry. > > From your cite: They are biological factors - physical features are heritable features (see the biology online definition), and these differences arise as a consequence of relative geographical isolation (restricting gene flow), inheritance and natural selection. Can you explain how the biology online definition doesn’t apply to humans? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/230 "2011-05-25T03:41:39Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > They are biological factors - physical features are heritable features (see the biology online definition), and these differences arise as a consequence of relative geographical isolation (restricting gene flow), inheritance and natural selection. From your post: “(1) it must be distinguished from other groups by visible physical features” That is not a definition of heritable features that can distinquish genetic similarity. It is basically a definition of how not to identify genetic structure. It is the very point that your other cites refer to in the use of self-identification of race, that a persons knowledge of their ancestors is more reliable than visible physical features in determining genetic ancestry. And neither visible physical features or self identification is conclusive, inclusive, or exclusive of genetic structure. You haven’t provided the evidence of physical isolation either. Humans are not restricted by geography in the same manner as other species. And you haven’t provided evidence of a restriction in gene flow that matches your classification system. > [@](#): > > Can you explain how the biology online definition doesn’t apply to humans? Your own cite says it doesn’t have a biological application to anything. [Quote=Biology Online] At present, such classification is disputed to have no biological validity [/quote] **Chen** , I understand that you have concluded that there is meaning to the definition of broad geographical classification of humans. Other than as a tool to guess the genetic makeup of a person, do you have any other meaning that you ascribe to your classification system? I’ll point out again that the classification system(s) you have posed are not in anyway conclusive of a person’s genetic structure, they do not include all members of any classification, and they do not exclude members of other classifications. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/231 "2011-05-25T03:58:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > From your post: “(1) it must be distinguished from other groups by visible physical features” > > That is not a definition of heritable features that can distinquish genetic similarity. It is basically a definition of how not to identify genetic structure. It is the very point that your other cites refer to in the use of self-identification of race, that a persons knowledge of their ancestors is more reliable than visible physical features in determining genetic ancestry. And neither visible physical features or self identification is conclusive, inclusive, or exclusive of genetic structure. You haven’t provided the evidence of physical isolation either. Humans are not restricted by geography in the same manner as other species. And you haven’t provided evidence of a restriction in gene flow that matches your classification system. > > Your own cite says it doesn’t have a biological application to anything. Yes there is, people do it everyday. Forensic anthropologists do it looking at bones and hair. The evidence of the restricted gene flow comes from the fact that these clusters form, rather than just clinal variation. Risch et al, again: > [@](#): > > Great physical distances and geographic barriers (e.g., high mountains, large deserts, and large bodies of water) have imposed impediments to human communication and interaction and have led to geographically determined endogamous (i.e., within-group) mating patterns resulting in a genetic substructure that largely follows geographic lines. > > Endogamous mating within continents has given rise to further subdivisions, often corresponding to ethnic groups. This subdivision is again partially attributable to geography but is also associated with social factors, including religion, culture, language, and other sources of group identification. Thus, ethnic groups are genetically differentiated to varying degrees, depending on the extent of reproductive isolation and endogamy, but typically less so than are continentally defined groups. [http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf](http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/232 "2011-05-25T04:11:08Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Yes there is, people do it everyday. Forensic anthropologists do it looking at bones and hair. And we’ve come full circle back to nonsense and arbitrary distinctions. Thanks for playing Chen. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/233 "2011-05-25T04:25:55Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > And we’ve come full circle back to nonsense and arbitrary distinctions. Thanks for playing Chen. Perhaps you could read Risch’s article I provided above before resorting to snark. You still haven’t explained why the basic biological definition of race doesn’t apply to groups of human beings. I’m not sure what you disagree with. I take it you’ve conceded the point about gene flow? You’ve accepted that there are clusters and these seem to have arisen due to said restriction of gene flow from geographic obstacles. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/234 "2011-05-25T04:37:34Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > **Chen** , I understand that you have concluded that there is meaning to the definition of broad geographical classification of humans. Other than as a tool to guess the genetic makeup of a person, do you have any other meaning that you ascribe to your classification system? I’ll point out again that the classification system(s) you have posed are not in anyway conclusive of a person’s genetic structure, they do not include all members of any classification, and they do not exclude members of other classifications. Do I need to show any other meaning? Isn’t that enough in itself? ---
**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:** [May 25, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/235 "2011-05-25T04:42:44Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Or from [biology online](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race): Do you never tire of producing cites that invalidate your argument? The quotes you gave were for the vernacular. If you read just a little further you would have seen: > [@](#): > > 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. Emphasis added. Debating with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/236 "2011-05-25T04:49:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you never tire of producing cites that invalidate your argument? The quotes you gave were for the vernacular. If you read just a little further you would have seen: > > \*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. \* > Emphasis added. > > Debating with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. I acknowledged above that it is disputed - that is a truism. I’m asking you to comment on the actual definition and explain why it doesn’t apply to humans. You need to look at the actual argument rather than just accepting a sentence disclaimer saying this is disputed. Think a bit more critically about what you’re reading. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2011, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/237 "2011-05-25T04:59:08Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I acknowledged above that it is disputed - that is a truism. I’m asking you to comment on the actual definition and explain why it doesn’t apply to humans. > > You need to look at the actual argument rather than just accepting a sentence disclaimer saying this is disputed. Think a bit more critically about what you’re reading. Dude, it’s your cite in support of your argument. If it contradicts what you are claiming, then it’s not me who needs to read for better comprehension. And it’s not the sentence about being disputed that is the clincher. It’s the sentence about “subspecies”. Race = subspecies. Humans don’t have subspecies. It’s as plain as that. Go back and look at the cite I gave for the subspecies of chimps as compared to the variation seen in human populations. We just don’t qualify, by any objective application of the term. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/238 "2011-05-25T05:08:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Dude, it’s your cite in support of your argument. If it contradicts what you are claiming, then it’s not me who needs to read for better comprehension. > > And it’s not the sentence about being disputed that is the clincher. It’s the sentence about “subspecies”. Race = subspecies. Humans don’t have subspecies. It’s as plain as that. Go back and look at the cite I gave for the subspecies of chimps as compared to the variation seen in human populations. We just don’t qualify, by any objective application of the term. I’m not referring to the editorial comment about what is accepted in relation to humans. Did the editor read Risch’s articles I’ve cited above? I’m talking about the actual definition - and it doesn’t include the term subspecies. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/239 "2011-05-25T05:19:01Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Cavalli-Sforza sets out and discusses the phylogenetic tree & allele frequencies used on pages 77 to 80 [here](http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=%22The+most+important+difference+in+the+human+gene+pool+is+clearly+that+between+Africans+and+non-Africans+%E2%80%A6%22&source=bl&ots=Hl3YPiKFe8&sig=YgwA1g1eS4kphr0n5mpD2kqj6Hg&hl=en#v=onepage&q=caucasoid&f=false). Please explain it to us, in your own words. What exactly does that diagram mean? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/240 "2011-05-25T05:20:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Debating with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s more like watching the clown car act at the circus. The clowns come out the door, go around to the back, get in the car again, come out the front door again… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472.md?page=13)