# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/341 "2011-06-05T06:20:29Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > There’s two problems with that paper. I wasn’t impressed by the paper. I linked to it because I thought Chen might be interested (and because most people don’t have access to MH). When it comes to a definition of subspecies, I already cited two which are in current use and according to which humans are polytypic. Since no one has challenged these or rebutted the one(s) that I put forward in “Is there such a biological thing as a racial group?” I will assume that it is conceded that human subspecies exist according to some (taxonomically) meaningful definitions. I will concede that there are many definitions according to which human are not polytypic. In that sense humans can be said to straddle the divide between monotypic and polytypic. This is what allows the debate to be shaped by politics. Depending on how you gerrymander the data and depending on which definitions you choose, you get different answers. Currently in the West, polytypicality is disfavored because the Western elites are globalizing the region; this is not the case, for example, in the PRC; there the idea of human subspecies has relatively strong currency. Now, given the above, what are we left with to debate? Whether populations ft this or that individual definition and whether taking all definitions together, having weighed their various strengths, human subspecies emerge. This, I suggest, is what we should discuss. Now since you commented on Woodley’s paper, perhaps we could discuss the authors definition: “race and synonymous concepts can be defined as populations expressing a composite number of traits whose distributions intercorrelate in such a way so as to give rise to a particular, distinct correlative structure.” Neven Sesardic (“The social deconstruction of a Biological reality”) suggests a similar definition. Both Woodley and Sesardic try to address two hurtles for potential human races: there are no unique phenotypes that all individuals in the race-like populations share – but rather there’s patterns of phenotypes and, moreover, the phenotypic differences (unlike genotypic differences) are (mostly) clinal. (This, of course, is a problem only for some conceptions; by the definitions I use it isn’t). I guess the questions I would ask are: “By your understanding, how important is it for a “race” definition to have the criteria of distinctive phenotypes?” and “Does the above correlational approach meet this criteria?” … ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/342 "2011-06-05T06:31:03Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > There’s two problems with that paper. Deleted ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/343 "2011-06-05T09:30:38Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > In this case Mr. **heatmiserfl** is happy to attack messenger Woodley without even direct innuendo, just some innuendo that there’s an innuendo. :smack: Err, linking to his list of published…I guess you could call them “papers”… wasn’t innuendo. The guy’s clearly a nutbar. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/344 "2011-06-05T11:17:10Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Err, linking to his list of published…I guess you could call them “papers”… wasn’t innuendo. The guy’s clearly a nutbar. Maybe. Just for reference, I am too busy to click links which the poster is too busy to summarize. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/345 "2011-06-05T14:33:37Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Wow. 😕 :smack: > > I lack the expertise to back either dog in this fight, but one thing is very VERY clear: > > This is one of those “scientific” debates where political correctness trumps “science.” The “correct” side prevents publication for contrary views, then points to the lack of such papers as evidence for their side. When such a paper does sneak through with calm facts presented, it’s the messenger rather than the facts that are attacked. > > In this case Mr. **heatmiserfl** is happy to attack messenger Woodley without even direct innuendo, just some innuendo that there’s an innuendo. :smack: By correctness, you mean scientific correctness, don’t you? Why yes, I think in a scientific debate, you need to at least acknowledge that science, not pseudoscience. It should have been clear, not innuendo, that the article was not scientific. I spelled it out. A non-peer reviewed journal infamous for continuing to publish the thimersol-autism link after the original article was retracted. AIDS-HIV denialism. Really? The author is a graduate student working on Arabidopsis. That’s a plant,dude. We have no evidence that he has research experience or even extensively studied human evolutionary genetics. Now maybe I’m just strange, but I find it odd when non-experts won’t acknowledge the scientific consensus. There are people like CannyDan, MrDribble and Buck Godot presenting the scientific view. Now they, themselves may or may not be experts in this field but they seem to have some background to able to present the view of the experts. However, if you want to present a view that counters the prevailing scientific view, wouldn’t it help to have some expertise in the topic? For example, Chen19 is posting numbers from a table that came from an unknown website and I criticized that because none of us has the expertise to properly discuss those numbers. Even worse, I couldn’t even figure out where the numbers came from. I don’t even know if it’s informative to compare heterozygosity of humans with mammals that are endangered. Wouldn’t those mammals be in an existing population bottleneck, the whole point of the studying allelic diversity? So is that even remotely informative? See the problem of non-experts throwing out numbers like that? ---
**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:** [June 5, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/346 "2011-06-05T17:57:52Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > I don’t even know if it’s informative to compare heterozygosity of humans with mammals that are endangered. Wouldn’t those mammals be in an existing population bottleneck, the whole point of the studying allelic diversity? So is that even remotely informative? See the problem of non-experts throwing out numbers like that? It doesn’t take a lot of expertise to deal with many of the issues here. It is clear from reading even the dissenting views that definitions applied to endangered species are political in nature, and not biological. It doesn’t take a lot of expertise to see that the conventional definitions of sub-species are pure nonsense. Look at the definition of subspecies and you will see that it was not based on an understanding of genetics, and is being modified to try and arrive at a meaningful definition, with little success. The most apparent reason why comparisons of subspecies categorization between humans and other species are usless is the definition of sub-species itself. Even on a genetic basis, its definition is specifically different for every species. Nonsense like the 75% rule is not science anymore. The genetic makeup of a species can be absolutely determined now, so categorization based on characteristics that are not genetically distinct, IMHO, has no scientifc value. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/347 "2011-06-05T20:40:39Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It doesn’t take a lot of expertise to deal with many of the issues here. It is clear from reading even the dissenting views that definitions applied to endangered species are political in nature, and not biological. It doesn’t take a lot of expertise to see that the conventional definitions of sub-species are pure nonsense. Look at the definition of subspecies and you will see that it was not based on an understanding of genetics, and is being modified to try and arrive at a meaningful definition, with little success. > > The most apparent reason why comparisons of subspecies categorization between humans and other species are usless is the definition of sub-species itself. Even on a genetic basis, its definition is specifically different for every species. > > Nonsense like the 75% rule is not science anymore. The genetic makeup of a species can be absolutely determined now, so categorization based on characteristics that are not genetically distinct, IMHO, has no scientifc value. At the beginning of this thread, you asked for a “meaningful biological Definition of Race.” I gave you two. The definitions are meaningful because they are still commonly used in conservation biology. Now you contend that these definitions really are not meaningful because they do not have a genetic criteria. You now want a phylogenic definition that either sets a necessary level of differentiation (say Fst value) or that stipulates that the said populations must be genetically distinguishable. When it comes to your critique of human subspecies, since the said populations _are_ genetically distinguishable via cluster analysis (which is the technique used when delineating subspecies in non-human species), the problem can not be that definitions lack the criteria of genetically distinguishability. So your critique must be that I am not giving a phylogenic definition that sets a Fst etc. value of necessary differentiation. You want something like what Alan Templeton refers to: > [@](#): > > A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have F\* values of at least 0.25 to 0.30 (Smith et al. 1997). Hence, as judged by the criterion in die nonhuman literature, the human Fn value is too small to have taxonomic significance under the traditional subspecies definition…Although human “races” do not satisfy the standard quantitative criterion for being traditional subspecies (Smith etal. 1997)…(Templeton, 1998. Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective.) The problem is that there is no such definition! [Templeton curiously cited Smith et al, but Smith et al did not discuss a genetic differentiation criteria but rather the 75% criteria that you ridicule. (“The non-discrete nature of subspecies is evident from their definition as geographic segments of any given gonochoristic (bisexually reproducing) species differing from each other to a reasonably practical degree (e.g., at least 70-75%), but to less than totality")]. In effect, you want me to give you a definition that does not exist. I could satisfy your request, of course, by arbitrarily making one up – but you would likely dismiss it. Basically, you are saying: 1. A meaningful definition of subspecies is one which categorizes on the basis of genetic differentiation 2. Human subspecies don’t exist because there is no meaningful definition which would lead to the classification of human populations as subspecies. Because… 1. The amount of differentiation between human populations is too small When asked for a justification of point 3, you or others fail to give it. As it is, we have showed that the amount of differentiation between human populations is not particularly small as compared to a number of other polytypic species. In response you or others state that it’s invalid to use the standards used for other species; we have to basis it on humans – apparently on a criteria of differentiation arbitrarily set to rule out the possible existence of human subspecies! (For example, Canny Dan goes from saying “Humans though are not nearly so complex. Genetic diversity of humankind is quite low” to " Nothing in biology or systematics demands that a given species must be assigned multiple races simply because another species has races.") Since you are contending that my definitions are not good enough, and that by the only valid one human populations are not subspecies because they are not differentiated enough, why don’t you explain to us how differentiated they would need to be and explain how you derived this value. … ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/348 "2011-06-05T20:55:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Picking up from this [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=608504), at this[post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13818637&postcount=151). > > Not your anecdotes, or logic, or rationalization. Just provide the definition like this: > > The human races are \_\_\_\_, \_\_\_\_, … , and \_\_\_\_ > You can determine the race of somebody by examining \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > From that determination of race you can determine \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > If your contention is true, it can’t be that hard to do. Since you already have a definition in mind – “Populations genetically differentiated more than any human populations are” – why did you ask this? Why not just say, “Based on my arbitrary standards, there are no human subspecies”? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/349 "2011-06-05T21:23:23Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > However, if you want to present a view that counters the prevailing scientific view, wouldn’t it help to have some expertise in the topic? Fail! There is no such consensus. 😛 Štrkalj, 2007. The status of the race concept in contemporary biological anthropology: A review > [@](#): > > Research conducted by the CMU group, both the ana lys e s of t extbook cont ent s and the s u r v e y s , s u g g e s t e d t h a t amo n g b i o l o g i c a l anthropologists ‘race’ was becoming increasingly rejected (Lieberman et al., 2003). Surveys conducted in 1984 and 1999 demonstrated this trend clearly. In both surveys, respondents were asked whether they agreed with the following statement “There are biological races within the species Homo sapiens.” While in the first survey 50% of biological anthropologists answered ‘yes’, 41% ‘no’ and 10% were neutral, in the second 24% answered ‘yes’, 69% answered ‘no’ and 7% were neutral (Lieberman and Kirk, 2002) > The other line of research conducted by Cartmill (1998), however, seemed to contradict Lieberman’s (2002: 102) suggestion that there was “a significant degree of change in the status of the race concept”. Cartmill reviewed research papers published in one of the most influential publications in the field, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, for the period 1965- 1996. He endeavoured to establish whether authors had used the race concept in the research papers that focused on human variation. The study sugge s t ed tha t , a l though the r e we r e fluctuations from one year to the next, there was no trend towards the abandoning of the race concept. The author concluded that “the role played by racial taxonomy in the study of modern human variation has apparently changed little or not at all over the course of the past 30 years. In the 1990s, as in the 1960s, most researchers studying human variation do not make use of the concept of race in gathering and analyzing their data; however, a consistently large minority [40.5%] continue to do so… [N]either the p r o p o n e n t s n o r t h e o p p o n e n t s o f r a c i a l classification have any good reason to think that history is on their side” (Cartmill, 1998: 655-656 > > … > > Another relevant survey was conducted in China (Wang et al., 2002, 2003). This study followed Cartmill’s approach and examined research papers published in China’s leading journal in the field of biological anthropology, Acta Anthropologica Sinica (from 1982, when the journal was established, to 2002). It was found that all 324 papers dealing with human variation utilised the concept of race. This led to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i n C h i n e s e b i o l o g i c a l anthropology the concept of race is deeply rooted (Wang et al., 2002, 2003). > > Finally, a survey was completed on a large sample of European anthropologists. They were asked a number of questions including, as before, whether the scholars agreed with the statement on the existence of biological races among human species. The question was subdivided into one that identified the term race with subspecies and another that accepted ‘race’ broadly, by any of its possible meanings. The final results have not yet been published but preliminary analysis sugge s t s one not ewor thy pa t t e rn. I t would appear that there is a significant difference between biological anthropologists from Western and Eastern Europe (ex-Soviet bloc). Generally, the majority of anthropologists reject the concept of race in the former, while the majority accept it in the latter Kaszycka, Katarzyna A. (2009). “Current Views of European Anthropologists on Race: Influence of Educational and Ideological Background” > [@](#): > > Of the 125 respondents, 50 percent agreed that human races exist (answering “yes” for Question 1 or Question 2), 48 percent disagreed (answering “no” for Question 1 and 2), and two percent were undecided (leaving the question unanswered or putting in a question mark). ---
**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:** [June 6, 2011, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/350 "2011-06-06T04:32:06Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > At the beginning of this thread, you asked for a “meaningful biological Definition of Race.” I gave you two. The definitions are meaningful because they are still commonly used in conservation biology. > > Now you contend that these definitions really are not meaningful because they do not have a genetic criteria. You now want a phylogenic definition that either sets a necessary level of differentiation (say Fst value) or that stipulates that the said populations must be genetically distinguishable. When it comes to your critique of human subspecies, since the said populations _are_ genetically distinguishable via cluster analysis (which is the technique used when delineating subspecies in non-human species), the problem can not be that definitions lack the criteria of genetically distinguishability. So your critique must be that I am not giving a phylogenic definition that sets a Fst etc. value of necessary differentiation. You want something like what Alan Templeton refers to:… You and I have different ideas about the meaning of meaningful. If I haven’t stated clearly enough already, my definition is an opinion, as I assume yours is. So I’m not discarding your argument. It seems to be consistent, and not irrational. We simply disagree about the word ‘meaningful’. As far as subspecies goes, I’m not claiming to have a definition. I contend that no meaningful one exists to apply across species, and as defined within species are aribitrary (I can’t say if that’s the case for all species, but certainly in humans). It’s certainly fair to say that life forms that share a common ancestor and can no longer reproduce with each other, are different species. But what is the magical distinction of sub-species? If physical barriers are removed and reproduction can still occur even though there are different frequencies of genetic factors, what difference does that make in a biologically meaningful way? If it is simply statistical, I fail to find meaning unless the statistics lead to a better understanding of the genetic process. But so far the statistical observation of genetic clusters hasn’t done that. Certainly not in the sense of defining a small number of human races or sub-species. If there has been a verified prediction about the future genetic structure of people whose ancestors came from a particular continent, either through continued inbreeding or outmixing, that would be meaningful to me. But so far, what we know remains bound to the simple genetic principles of inheritance, which don’t change based on continent of origin (and that would have to be an arbitrary definition of origin anyway since Africa is the continent of origin for all of us). ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/351 "2011-06-06T06:38:39Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You and I have different ideas about the meaning of meaningful. If I haven’t stated clearly enough already, my definition is an opinion, as I assume yours is. So I’m not discarding your argument. It seems to be consistent, and not irrational. We simply disagree about the word ‘meaningful’. > > As far as subspecies goes, I’m not claiming to have a definition. I contend that no meaningful one exists to apply across species, and as defined within species are aribitrary (I can’t say if that’s the case for all species, but certainly in humans). It’s certainly fair to say that life forms that share a common ancestor and can no longer reproduce with each other, are different species. > > But what is the magical distinction of sub-species? If physical barriers are removed and reproduction can still occur even though there are different frequencies of genetic factors, **what difference does that make in a biologically meaningful way?** If it is simply statistical, I fail to find meaning unless the statistics lead to a better understanding of the genetic process. But so far the statistical observation of genetic clusters hasn’t done that. Certainly not in the sense of defining a small number of human races or sub-species. If there has been a verified prediction about the future genetic structure of people whose ancestors came from a particular continent, either through continued inbreeding or outmixing, that would be meaningful to me. But so far, what we know remains bound to the simple genetic principles of inheritance, which don’t change based on continent of origin (and that would have to be an arbitrary definition of origin anyway since Africa is the continent of origin for all of us). It makes a difference if you’re seeking a [bone marrow donor](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html). > [@](#): > > Devan would need a marrow transplant. The prospect of going through chemotherapy for a second time and needing a transplant is daunting to anyone, but it’s especially harrowing if — like Devan — you’re of mixed race. Multiracial patients often have an incredibly hard time finding life-saving marrow matches… > > Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body. > > To find a marrow match for anyone is hard. Even within one’s own family, the chances of finding one are only about 30%. According to the World Donor Marrow Association, while two out of three Caucasians find a match, the chances of a patient from another ethnic background can be as low as one in four. Despite rapid improvements in marrow registries around the world, the global registry is still disproportionately represented by the U.S., U.K. and Germany — all predominantly Caucasian countries. For a multiracial person, the chances are usually even worse. Athena Mari Asklipiadis, the founder of the California-based Mixed Marrow, one of the only outreach groups devoted to recruiting mixed race donors, says “the numbers are quite staggering … People compare it to winning the lottery.” [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/352 "2011-06-06T14:09:08Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > It makes a difference if you’re seeking a [bone marrow donor](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html). > > [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html) Not exactly. Your concept of continental “races” really isn’t much help to people looking for compatible bone marrow. In order to be efficacious, the search needs to be much more specific than that. That is to say, specific population groups, not “races”. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/353 "2011-06-06T15:20:04Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > It makes a difference if you’re seeking a [bone marrow donor](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html). > > [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html) We’ve discussed this before. I consider this a medical utility (assuming it is of value), while you find this meaningful in a biological sense. We’ll probably to continue to disagree on this point. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/354 "2011-06-06T16:21:35Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > We’ve discussed this before. I consider this a medical utility (assuming it is of value), while you find this meaningful in a biological sense. We’ll probably to continue to disagree on this point. The statistics work out because the restricted ancestry in the US due to the founder effect mentioned above. It doesn’t say much about the relative close ancestry of the self-reported race of the donors. We’ve gone through this time and time again with **Chen019** but he hasn’t responded to any of the criticism yet. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/355 "2011-06-06T17:19:07Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > The statistics work out because the restricted ancestry in the US due to the founder effect mentioned above. It doesn’t say much about the relative close ancestry of the self-reported race of the donors. We’ve gone through this time and time again with **Chen019** but he hasn’t responded to any of the criticism yet. Yes, but he’s not making arguments about skin color or ‘I know the races when I see them’. If he feels statistical coincidence is meaningful, I doubt we’ll convince him otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/356 "2011-06-06T17:36:56Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > If he feels statistical coincidence is meaningful, I doubt we’ll convince him otherwise. True. But you could lump any small or under-represented population in with one of the “established” ones (say Basque in with Black) and the statistics would still work out. It’s clearly an arbitrary statistical classification that works for a variety of non-biological reasons. Granted, at this point you and I are simply discussing the ways in which it’s non-meaningful. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/357 "2011-06-06T20:49:17Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > True. But you could lump any small or under-represented population in with one of the “established” ones (say Basque in with Black) and the statistics would still work out. It’s clearly an arbitrary statistical classification that works for a variety of non-biological reasons. > > Granted, at this point you and I are simply discussing the ways in which it’s non-meaningful. 🙂 What would you define as meaningful? As discussed on the previous page, **Chuck’s** Phillips et al., 2009. Systematics of Steller sea lions reference notes: > [@](#): > > We follow the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (2007) who propose that “subspecies classification, if used, should describe the major patterns of variation found within a species.” And that is basically what the [major racial groups reflect](http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf): > [@](#): > > Historically, the greatest force influencing genetic differentiation among humans has been geography. 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. The past two decades of research in population genetics has also shown that the greatest genetic differentiation in the human population occurs between continentally separated groups. > [@](#): > > The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/) ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/358 "2011-06-06T22:24:42Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You and I have different ideas about the meaning of meaningful. If I haven’t stated clearly enough already, my definition is an opinion, as I assume yours is. So I’m not discarding your argument. It seems to be consistent, and not irrational. We simply disagree about the word ‘meaningful’. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/359 "2011-06-06T23:16:42Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > True. But you could lump any small or under-represented population in with one of the “established” ones (say Basque in with Black) and the statistics would still work out. It’s clearly an arbitrary statistical classification that works for a variety of non-biological reasons. > > Granted, at this point you and I are simply discussing the ways in which it’s non-meaningful. 🙂 Tripolar is saying that the subspecies category itself is meaningless; You seem to grant the meaningfulness of the subspecies category but contend that humans fail to meet the criterion. I gave a number of definitions according to which humans are polytypic. Apparently, you think these definitions are invalid. I have also shown that a significant fraction of the international scientific community agrees that human populations can meaningfully be described as “biological races” and that a smaller but still significant fraction agrees that human populations can be meaningfully described as “subspecies.” In short, there is no consensus as some have contended. Now, since you contend that human populations fail to qualify as subspecies, the onus is on you to provide the definition and criterion you are using \*and \* to provide a justification of this definitions. (e.g. it’s commonly used in conservation biology; it’s adopted by such and such society; it’s a definition with genetic criterion and this is a superior basis for classification) That way we can discuss: 1. whether this definition itself in meaningful and 2. whether any human populations qualify by it and 3. what would have needed to have been the case for humans to qualify For example, I cited Templeton – > [@](#): > > A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have F\* values of at least 0.25 to 0.30 (Smith et al. 1997). – and then explained why this definition was invalid (he basis it on a misreading of Smith et al). (For the record, I’m agnostic on this matter. As I stated earlier, IMO humans are borderline polytypic. By a number of definitions – which I am aware of and have been waiting for you to cite – they do no qualify; by others they do.) ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/360 "2011-06-06T23:33:57Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Now, since you contend that human populations fail to qualify as subspecies, the onus is on you to provide the definition and criterion you are using \*and \* to provide a justification of this definitions. (e.g. it’s commonly used in conservation biology; it’s adopted by such and such society; it’s a definition with genetic criterion and this is a superior basis for classification) Let me reframe this: > [@](#): > > Not your anecdotes, or logic, or rationalization. Just provide the definition like this: > > a. Subspecies are \_\_\_\_ > b. You can determine if a population is a subspecies by \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (Please quantify the criterion if possible) > c. This definition is valid because \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > (Please provide citations if possible) > d. No Human populations are subspecies because \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > If your contention is true, it can’t be that hard to do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472.md?page=19)