# Question about race: not real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2002, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-race-not-real/119392 "2002-07-17T11:53:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2002, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-race-not-real/119392/61 "2002-07-22T04:13:29Z")
Third post. I have re-read some of the G6PD literature, and it does appear that there is marked linkage disequilibrium at the specific G6PD locus. This appears to support my hypothesis. > **[Polymorphic sites in the African population detected by sequence analysis of...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1924316/?dopt=Abstract)** > > The human X chromosome-linked gene encoding glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD; EC 1.1.1.49) is known to be highly polymorphic from the biochemical characterization of enzyme variants. The variant A (with enzyme activity in the normal range) and... > **[Haplotype diversity and linkage disequilibrium at human G6PD: recent origin...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11423617/?dopt=Abstract)** > > The frequencies of low-activity alleles of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase in humans are highly correlated with the prevalence of malaria. These "deficiency" alleles are thought to provide reduced risk from infection by the Plasmodium parasite and... > **[Molecular heterogeneity of the glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10782016/?dopt=Abstract)** > > We report results from a systematic study to identify the molecular basis of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency on a sample of 299 male subjects from the Hellenic population. Our stepwise approach involved partial biochemical... It also demonstrates how one advantageous mutation can arise in many different ways at many different times. This partially alleviates the huge genetic drift with selection we see in rare mutations like the SCD HbS E6V classic mutation or the neo/hypomorphic [delta]F508 cystic fibrosis mutation. [delta]F508 is a relatively interesting story, with the current hypothesis being that it came into Europe with the first wave of Paleolithic farmers. It hopped into the second wave of European Neolithic settlers. It accounts for around 80% of European CF with high levels in the Basque population and none of American Indian CF. I could go on all day. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-race-not-real/119392/62 "2002-07-22T20:53:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > \*\* > Quite honestly, this whole thing has become kind of a semantics game. \*\* Agree. I’ve been saying that “race doesn’t exist” has a vague and shifting meaning. To prove my point, I’ve been asking pointed questions intended to nail down your position. \*\* > [@](#): > > Let me be very careful here. Racial groups are defined by a set of characteristics (let’s call this set of characteristics set A, which includes things like facial/nasal structure, skin color, hair type, epicanthic fold). Some posters insist on taking people of set A and reading into this another set of characteristics (set B) – athletic and intellectual abilities come up most often.\*\* Ok, so set “A” means defining characteristics of races. Set “B” refers to other traits. \*\* > [@](#): > > Now about my “hard and fast” thing. Genetic similarity is a very quantifiable thing. It is something that we can follow through population migrations, through generations, through population mixings. There is no scientific need to talk in nebulous terms about quantifiable data. There is no scientific need to talk in nebulous terms period. We have demonstrated over and over again that characteristics of set A have no correlation to the quantifiable genetic similarity. So set A becomes irrelevant to any conclusions we make to genes beyond set A. Especially to things like set B, which are mostly !set A.\*\* Ok, so you are saying that if you take two random individuals who share given traits in set “A,” their genetic distance, on average, will be little different from two individuals who do not share such traits? And are you saying that any biological grouping for which this holds is invalid? \*\* > [@](#): > > So what is “hard and fast?” I would say that if a definition is based on quantifiable data, is reproducible, stems from physiologic or anthropologic relevance, and is independent of observer bias, then it is pretty “hard and fast.” Race as a scientific concept does not fulfill these requirements. \*\* How is it that race as a scientific concept does not fulfill those requirements? I’m not saying that it does or doesn’t, but it seems to me that you’ve defined “hard and fast” in a way that is pretty vague. For example, how do I know if a grouping “stems from physiologic or anthropologic relevance”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-race-not-real/119392.md?page=3)