# Race is a social, not biological / scientific concept

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 17, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461 "2012-06-17T22:20:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 21, 2012, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/61 "2012-06-21T12:15:52Z")

</div>

> [@Chen019](#):
>
> As noted above by Jerry Coyne, if you use a standard definition from evolutionary biology then it seems there are human races (it would be a bit odd if there weren’t really).

Funny that no biologists have used these subspecies definitions, then. Please, list for me the subspecies that actual biologists have assigned _Homo sapiens_ into.  
ETA: it should be noted that Coyne also says this:[

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t think the genetic differences between those races are profound, **nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races**

]([Are there human races? – Why Evolution Is True](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/)) which kind of flies in the face of what the race realists are claiming , and basically means Coyne’s “race” isn’t their “race” at all.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [June 21, 2012, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/62 "2012-06-21T13:06:54Z")

</div>

> [@Chen019](#):
>
> 1. Is there a chimp benchmark used for determining races and subspecies across species? Consider this example of fst values for various other subspecies. Is it much different to that between human races? There appear a number of examples you can look at of animal subspecies where the level of genetic differentiation is similar to that of humans.
> 
> 2. That may well be the case for the Bamileke. Does that mean there aren’t human races as defined above by Coyne?

First of all, the whole business of labeling subspecies is somewhat subjective. Biologists are often going to disagree, and there is no governing board to make the decision. In fact, that is true for all the taxa except at the “species” level. Secondly, there are few biologists who would divide a species like _H. sapiens_ into subspecies because the phenotypical variations are clinal. Typically, when you have a subspecies designation, there is a natural barrier preventing interbreeding between the populations. Ain’t no such thing for us.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/63 "2012-06-22T07:50:01Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> First of all, the whole business of labeling subspecies is somewhat subjective. Biologists are often going to disagree, and there is no governing board to make the decision. In fact, that is true for all the taxa except at the “species” level. Secondly, there are few biologists who would divide a species like _H. sapiens_ into subspecies because the phenotypical variations are clinal. Typically, when you have a subspecies designation, there is a natural barrier preventing interbreeding between the populations. Ain’t no such thing for us.

Except where there are barriers e.g. deserts, oceans, mountains etc. Hence the clusters that arise from the type of studies Risch et al describe above or seen [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2010/08/connect-dots.html). As Lahn & Ebenstein [write](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html):

> [@](#):
>
> Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas9. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.
> 
> This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material2. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups1, 5. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans10.
> 
> Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography5. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing)10, 11, 12, and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary)6, 8, 13, 14.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [June 22, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/64 "2012-06-22T13:46:58Z")

</div>

> [@Chen019](#):
>
> Except where there are barriers e.g. deserts, oceans, mountains etc. Hence the clusters that arise from the type of studies Risch et al describe above or seen [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2010/08/connect-dots.html). As Lahn & Ebenstein [write](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html):

Ah, now with the “clusters”. We’ve been down this road many times.

Look, we can find “clusters” everywhere. We can find “clusters” in England vs Scotland. But the point is we’re talking about clinal variations in phenotype. We know that there are no natural barriers to gene flow for humans. None. Nada. Zilch. Ain’t no mountain high enough, ain’t no river long enough… There are no cultural barriers or broad distance barriers. And we can’t draw any bright lines anywhere and say people on this side of the line look like “X” and people on the other side look like “Y”. That’s what you need when you set up a scheme for subspecies.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/65 "2012-06-22T22:08:51Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Ah, now with the “clusters”. We’ve been down this road many times.
> 
> Look, we can find “clusters” everywhere. We can find “clusters” in England vs Scotland. But the point is we’re talking about clinal variations in phenotype. We know that there are no natural barriers to gene flow for humans. None. Nada. Zilch. Ain’t no mountain high enough, ain’t no river long enough… There are no cultural barriers or broad distance barriers. And we can’t draw any bright lines anywhere and say people on this side of the line look like “X” and people on the other side look like “Y”. That’s what you need when you set up a scheme for subspecies.

Are you serious? How long do you think the Australian aborigines were separated from other populations? There doesnt have to be zero gene flow. If there was there would be different human species rather than just racial differences.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/66 "2012-06-22T22:44:31Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> What racial group are the people living in Mexico?

Everything but Asian, in most cases.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/67 "2012-06-22T23:13:31Z")

</div>

> [@Chen019](#):
>
> Are you serious? How long do you think the Australian aborigines were separated from other populations? There doesnt have to be zero gene flow. If there was there would be different human species rather than just racial differences.

Several hundred years ago they had been separated for several thousand years. But not for the last few hundred years.

New Zealand is a good example of how quickly populations can change (as are many Native American tribes)- it only took a few hundred years for there to be virtually no full-blooded Maori people left.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [June 22, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/68 "2012-06-22T23:36:33Z")

</div>

> [@Chen019](#):
>
> Are you serious? How long do you think the Australian aborigines were separated from other populations? There doesnt have to be zero gene flow.

Were. As in not now. But even still, 40k years is a very short time in evolutionary terms, and they weren’t really genetically isolated during all that time.

> [@](#):
>
> If there was there would be different human species rather than just racial differences.

Not a chance. Estimates for sepciation time in large mammals like humans center on about 1M years. And that doesn’t take into account are exceptionally long generation interval. We have existed as a species outside Africa for \< 100K years. Even complete isolation for that amount of time would not generate a sepciation event unless there was some unprecedented environmental pressure forcing rapid evolution.

It’s possible that an ancient biologist from another planet might have classified pre-historic populations as subspecies, but there were no real barriers to human migration even 10,000 years ago and it would be pretty futile to create a scheme of subspecies that would have to be constantly monitored and updated as migration patterns changed.

I think a better case can be made for changing the status of Neanderthals to a subspecies of _H. sapiens_, but that comes down to lumping and splitting. Still, they existed in relative genetic isolation (along with their ancestors) for at least 500k years. They are phenotypically different from us, and there was an effective geographic barrier in place for an extended period of time. When we did encounter each other, there was some interbreeding, but the one population effectively went extinct.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/69 "2012-06-23T08:59:10Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Were. As in not now. But even still, 40k years is a very short time in evolutionary terms, and they weren’t really genetically isolated during all that time.

Whether it is a short or long time in evolutionary terms, they would appear to be an example of a race in light of Coyne’s definition above? Or Sewell Wright [“populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world, should, in general, be considered to be of different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.”](http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=DXlflG9qx18C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=race&f=false) (Wright, 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. p 439-440).

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Not a chance. Estimates for sepciation time in large mammals like humans center on about 1M years. And that doesn’t take into account are exceptionally long generation interval. We have existed as a species outside Africa for \< 100K years. Even complete isolation for that amount of time would not generate a sepciation event unless there was some unprecedented environmental pressure forcing rapid evolution.
> 
> It’s possible that an ancient biologist from another planet might have classified pre-historic populations as subspecies, but there were no real barriers to human migration even 10,000 years ago and it would be pretty futile to create a scheme of subspecies that would have to be constantly monitored and updated as migration patterns changed.
> 
> I think a better case can be made for changing the status of Neanderthals to a subspecies of _H. sapiens_, but that comes down to lumping and splitting. Still, they existed in relative genetic isolation (along with their ancestors) for at least 500k years. They are phenotypically different from us, and there was an effective geographic barrier in place for an extended period of time. When we did encounter each other, there was some interbreeding, but the one population effectively went extinct.

Yes, my point was that total absence of gene flow or lack of interbreeding isn’t required for races or subspecies to arise over time. The neanderthals & perhaps the denisovans maybe an interesting example of a possible sub-species given we interbred with them I guess.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461.md?page=3)