# 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:** 2
**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:** [May 20, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/21 "2011-05-20T03:21:44Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > All he’s saying (and I agree with him) is that the term “race” can be used to meaningfully put people into groups using their biological characteristics. But no two people seem to agree on what the criteria are for those groups. Those biological characteristics place people on a variety of smooth spectrum. Where you draw the lines is seemingly arbitrary. You could do the same with height, saying people over 5’ 6" are one race and the people below 5’ 6" are another and it would have similar validity. It can be useful for a variety of reasons, but it doesn’t correspond to a meaningful definition of race. No one seems to have a problem with the idea that populations and individuals have a whole mess of biological characteristics that are different and inheritable. But they’re not organized enough to support the kind of classifications of people who want to define “races.” If they did, we’d have a set of race definitions that people could agree on to some objective standard. ---
**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 20, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/22 "2011-05-20T04:07:11Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Yep, I agree with that. > > But that doesn’t mean that if you examine Barack Obama and Bill Clinton you can conclude only that “there’s no meaningful way to differentiate between these two people based on biology alone.” It doesn’t mean that if you examine Chelsea Clinton you’d have no way of predicting whether Bill or Barack is her dad with a probability greater than chance. Unless we’re defining “race” as something that can evolve in 1 generation, that is completely beside the point. > [@](#): > > As I’ve said in other threads, I think many people here have essentially let the racists win. They’ve gotten so fed up with racists that they’ve taken the silly position that “there’s no such thing as race.” I think it’s possible to say that the racists are wrong but it’s still possible to differentiate among different races based on biology alone. Just because you said that in other threads doesn’t make it correct. Tell us what the races are and how you determined them to be. Then tell us why you chose those races (as opposed to any other scheme) and what we can tell about individuals in those races based only on their racial classification. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/23 "2011-05-20T06:17:41Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > But no two people seem to agree on what the criteria are for those groups. Those biological characteristics place people on a variety of smooth spectrum. Where you draw the lines is seemingly arbitrary. You could do the same with height, saying people over 5’ 6" are one race and the people below 5’ 6" are another and it would have similar validity. It can be useful for a variety of reasons, but it doesn’t correspond to a meaningful definition of race. > > No one seems to have a problem with the idea that populations and individuals have a whole mess of biological characteristics that are different and inheritable. But they’re not organized enough to support the kind of classifications of people who want to define “races.” If they did, we’d have a set of race definitions that people could agree on to some objective standard. In that case do you believe that there are no useful definitions of species or subspecies? Chuck, who posted on some of the earlier discussions, provided an interesting [summary](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/race/) of research. The discussion about Sewell Wright & the Fst ~.10 figure at the end of the post is particularly interesting. Also, this [FAQ](http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html) is helpful in terms of FST figures and comparisons with other species. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/24 "2011-05-20T06:21:43Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > If your contention is true, it can’t be that hard to do. It’s all about education. ---
**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:** [May 20, 2011, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/25 "2011-05-20T07:13:55Z")
I’ll believe a biological definition of race is “meaningful” when it agrees with genetic reality: when “Everyone Not African” is one race group, and there are at least 4 or 5 African ones. Any scheme that lumps all of Africa together biologically (or only makes a distinction between Negroid and Capoid :rolleyes:)is unscientific, at best. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/26 "2011-05-20T08:08:24Z")
dog breeds. same species. the external physical differences between one perceived race from another is so obvious it requires no science. the differences will be maintained in the greater part unless intermarriage between these races become the rule, not the exception. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/27 "2011-05-20T10:10:33Z")
> [@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. Are you trying to goad someone into saying that all humans are caucasian, negroid or mongoloid? Because few modern people believe that. If you’re waiting for a chance to jump in and say “Gotcha!”, you’ll have a pretty long wait. Racial differences are mostly cultural. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Hispanics in America have a degree of cultural common cause with one another, but Puerto Ricans cop an attitude toward Mexicans and neither group feels a great kinship with Salvadoreans, any more than Swedes feel a bond of whiteness with Sicilians. ---
**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:** [May 20, 2011, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/28 "2011-05-20T11:35:05Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > dog breeds. same species. > > the external physical differences between one perceived race from another is so obvious it requires no science. Only on breeds that have been carefully maintained by selective breeding over many generations. Humans have no analog and it doesn’t apply to us. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/29 "2011-05-20T11:52:26Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Only on breeds that have been carefully maintained by selective breeding over many generations. Humans have no analog and it doesn’t apply to us. of course it does too with humans. people with similar features tend to be proximal to each other (usually defined along national boundaries in fact.) so people are likely to breed within those boundaries, so their shared features will be retained. ---
**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:** [May 20, 2011, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/30 "2011-05-20T12:53:45Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > of course it does too with humans. people with similar features tend to be proximal to each other (usually defined along national boundaries in fact.) so people are likely to breed within those boundaries, so their shared features will be retained. Except history has shown that we really don’t do that, except in much smaller isolated populations. Humans have a long history of interbreeding and our DNA demonstrates that. ---
**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:** [May 20, 2011, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/31 "2011-05-20T12:59:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unless we’re defining “race” as something that can evolve in 1 generation, that is completely beside the point. What? > [@](#): > > Just because you said that in other threads doesn’t make it correct. > > Tell us what the races are and how you determined them to be. Then tell us why you chose those races (as opposed to any other scheme) and what we can tell about individuals in those races based only on their racial classification. :rolleyes: And around and around we go–youve taken us all the way back to the OP. To repeat, you are essentially constructing a false dichotomy. You are saying “either (1) tell me what the races are or (2) the term race has no meaning biologically.” You are ignoring the huge middle ground of “race has meaning biologically even though it’s possible to draw the lines in different places and come up with different numbers of races.” ---
**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 20, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/32 "2011-05-20T13:19:25Z")
Of course I’ve taken us back to the OP. The idea that “race” has biological meaning for humans even though there are thousands of way to define it is nonsense. When something is that ill defined, it ceases to have “meaning”. ---
**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 20, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/33 "2011-05-20T13:40:05Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But the position I ended up with is more of a gray area than you seem to be acknowledging. I don’t think that you can divide humanity into a fixed and finite number of discrete groups based on purely biological characteristics that will correspond with the generally accepted notions of race. At the same time, I don’t think those groupings are completely orthogonal to biology. That is, if you took all the people in the US and divided them “white, white, black, asian, not sure, not sure, latino, black, white” into groups based using the traditional societal racial groupings based entirely on external physical characteristics, and you handed those groups you’d made to a biologist and said “do these groupings make any sense”, the biologist would come back and say “I see some patterns within the groups, if you give me some more people I can make guesses as to which group additional people would be sorted into, and would succeed better than chance”. Whereas if you did the same thing dividing by last-digit-of-phone-number or something like that, the biologist would not be able to do so. > > So I’d say, using informal language, that while races are not really biologically defined, and are likely not biologically useful, they are not completely biologically meaningless. There are populations, clusters of people sharing genetic traits, and fixed geographical populations tend to share a lot of genetic traits with their neighbors. Beyond that, what do you get from it? > [@Chronos](#): > > OK, the human races are the 100m, the 200m, the 400m, the 800m, the 1k, the 5k, the 10k, the half-marathon, the marathon, and the ultramarathon. > > What next? Ok, the second factor is obvious, you can determine the race through a measure of distance. So, from that determination of race you can determine what? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Soul. N.B.: The “One Drop Rule” is unscientific; to qualify as black, you need a soul count of 4.8 millibros per cc or higher. At least you included some scientfic-y evidence in your response. > [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Is that a really fair and applicable way to define race though? If a population is clinal, as humans are, then it’s certainly fair to separate out type localities. Take for example, The Boa Constrictor. The ones from Columbia are nearly twice the size of the ones from surinam, darker in color, and have a heavy pattern. Surinam boas are smaller, lighter, have little to no patterning and have bright red saddles on their tails. They are the same species, and between the two population types there are a lot of intergrades. Yet we have no problem with identifying and separating them out for useful purposes. Why should humans be any different? > > A theoretical alien collector of humans would certainly be able to distinguish visually between a H.sapiens (Equatorial, African) and a H. sapiens (Arctic, Inuit). Likewise it would probably recognize most of us as intergrades from between areas of population homogenization. Maybe I should have considered snakes and aliens in my OP. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > What is it exactly that you think you are proving here? Nothing really. I take it as a given that if there is a definition for something it can be presented in written form. So this is the opportunity for those who contend there is a meaningful biological definition of race to put it in writing. > [@Krokodil](#): > > Are you trying to goad someone into saying that all humans are caucasian, negroid or mongoloid? Because few modern people believe that. If you’re waiting for a chance to jump in and say “Gotcha!”, you’ll have a pretty long wait. > > Racial differences are mostly cultural. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Hispanics in America have a degree of cultural common cause with one another, but Puerto Ricans cop an attitude toward Mexicans and neither group feels a great kinship with Salvadoreans, any more than Swedes feel a bond of whiteness with Sicilians. Snakes, aliens, and national borders. Why didn’t I think of these things before? > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > What? > > :rolleyes: And around and around we go–youve taken us all the way back to the OP. To repeat, you are essentially constructing a false dichotomy. You are saying “either (1) tell me what the races are or (2) the term race has no meaning biologically.” You are ignoring the huge middle ground of “race has meaning biologically even though it’s possible to draw the lines in different places and come up with different numbers of races.” Isn’t that a true dichotomy? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/34 "2011-05-20T13:52:17Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > dog breeds. same species. > > the external physical differences between one perceived race from another is so obvious it requires no science. the differences will be maintained in the greater part unless intermarriage between these races become the rule, not the exception. The point is that physical differences can be meaningless when trying to predict any other complex human phenotypes. Dog breeds were unnaturally selected for certain characteristics (not always physical). Also, because of the breeding process, dog breeds are less diverse and easier to detect. Humans can be differentiated by regional genetic bottlenecks but there was a huge amount of mixing because humans are migratory, then settle in new places. Since the so-called races are much more diverse, physical characteristics do not predict other phenotypes. For example, I’ve seen ridiculous threads here where people were trying to make claims on the intelligence of Africans. (Well, I guess the first ridiculous part of that is properly defining intelligence in a way that can predict differences in civilizations.) Although the majority of Africans can be found in only about three haplogroups, the diversity within these groups (especially the largest) is huge. Africa is a continent after all. It’s pointless to call them a single race and try to pinpoint certain phenotypes (other than obvious things like skin color and sickle cell anemia). So, from a genetic perspective, the races are generally meaningless and sometimes they’re wrong. ‘Race’ can be important is when one is dealing with how people are grouped by society into these races and how they are being treated or to get epidemiological data on certain cultural groups that may have similar behaviors. Of course we all already know that. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/35 "2011-05-20T13:55:47Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Except history has shown that we really don’t do that, except in much smaller isolated populations. Humans have a long history of interbreeding and our DNA demonstrates that. Nevertheless, much like dogs, there are specific, and frequently overlapping, gene pools among humans. Before modern transportation, human populations were relatively isolated and adapted to local conditions. I don’t why being unusually small was an advantage to Pygmies, or why being unusually tall was an advantage for Bantus, but to insist the difference between them is “just a social construct” is obviously absurd. ---
**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 20, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/36 "2011-05-20T14:08:35Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > dog breeds. same species. > > the external physical differences between one perceived race from another is so obvious it requires no science. Heavier objects (like a cannon ball) fall to earth faster then lighter objects (like feathers). The observation is so obvious it requires no science. So, let’s confine ourselves to Europe and Asia (including what we call the Middle East). What are the obvious differences between the populations, and which groups of people are in which populations? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/37 "2011-05-20T14:18:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Heavier objects (like a cannon ball) fall to earth faster then lighter objects (like feathers). The observation is so obvious it requires no science. > > So, let’s confine ourselves to Europe and Asia (including what we call the Middle East). What are the obvious differences between the populations, and which groups of people are in which populations? Go ask an ethnographer. ---
**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 20, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/38 "2011-05-20T14:19:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Heavier objects (like a cannon ball) fall to earth faster then lighter objects (like feathers). The observation is so obvious it requires no science. > > So, let’s confine ourselves to Europe and Asia (including what we call the Middle East). What are the obvious differences between the populations, and which groups of people are in which populations? I know, I know! Europeans fall faster than Asians, right? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/39 "2011-05-20T14:23:05Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I know, I know! Europeans fall faster than Asians, right? But they float better than Africans. 😃 ---
**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:** [May 20, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472/40 "2011-05-20T14:52:24Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Nevertheless, much like dogs, there are specific, and frequently overlapping, gene pools among humans. Then list them. > [@](#): > > I don’t why being unusually small was an advantage to Pygmies, or why being unusually tall was an advantage for Bantus, but to insist the difference between them is “just a social construct” is obviously absurd. No one saying that there aren’t populations with a trend towards certain characteristics. This is a basic tenet of biology. But that doesn’t equal “race” by any reasonable definition. Why would you group Bantus and Pygmies in a single race if they have such different characteristics? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meaningfull-biological-definition-of-race/582472.md?page=3)