# Race: Yea or nay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699 "2010-09-14T05:21:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/181 "2010-09-21T01:23:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > Polar bears and grizzlies are known to breed together. > > Do they produce viable offspring? Technically, yes to producing viable offspring. They both have the same amount of chomosomes (I can explain why that is, if you want). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/182 "2010-09-21T06:00:59Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > Do they produce viable offspring? > > Technically, yes to producing viable offspring. They both have the same amount of chomosomes (I can explain why that is, if you want). It was only around 150k years ago that they diverged. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/183 "2010-09-21T06:07:17Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > I tend to be more on the lumper side of things, but it’s pretty common to see us called _H. sapiens sapiens_, and for there to be other subspecies in the fossil record. But I’m not sure if those other subspecies are thought of as our ancestors or some side branch of our species that went extinct. With fossils, you don’t get a good picture of what the whole situation looked like. You get a few snapshots in time. > > “Snapshots in time” correctly summarizes the problem with classical systematic treatment of all taxa, but especially for subspecies / races. The conventions of naming and the assignment of hierarchical categories are intended to provide information about the organism under discussion. The name is but shorthand for a much lengthier description (“long haired, quadrupedal, non-retractile claws…” perhaps for the bears mentioned) and current understanding about the organism’s relationships (“among the bear-like animals…”) to other organisms. > > Populations consist of many individuals, and this number is inflated by the additional individuals that existed within the population at all times past. Thus descriptions must change over time, and eventually change enough that a new name and a very different description must be applied, as when we discuss ancestral and derived successor species. Further, taxa including subspecies/races, species, probably even genera, can divide, merge, recombine, and lather, rinse, repeat over geological time. Today’s population may be tomorrow’s subspecies, next week’s species, then merge back into the ancestral stock only for another differently-different population to emerge some time after that. The “correct” name is a function of the most apt shorthand descriptor _at each of those different moments in time._ For extant species, a common pitfall and misunderstanding arises when a name/category is used that may once have been valid but now no longer accurately conveys information about present populations. > > The bottom line is that named categories only give back what we put into them in the first place. Lumpers and splitters handle the same information differently. As long as we know that, we can make sense of the usage they apply and the conclusions they draw. But it behooves us to at least understand the terms being used, and agree on their definitions, else discussion is circular. > > So biologically \*\*John Mace \*\*is correct. A race is a subspecies, being a genetically isolated (reproductively isolated) and phenotypically distinct subset of a larger population. Our understanding of human evolution and thus how we handle systematics of extinct hominids changes all the time. There is and almost certainly there will remain questions and valid debate about historical humans, both relatively recent and ancient. \*\*But as for this present “snapshot in time” we call today, there are no reproductively isolated populations with distinct phenotype in the human species. \*\*Thus there are today no valid human races/subspecies. Yes there are. Visit Uganda or Japan. > [@](#): > > From an evolutionary point of view, population stratification (genetically distinct subgrouping) and admixture (intermating between genetically distinct groups) are created by human mating patterns. Geographical, social, and cultural barriers have given rise to reproductively isolated human populations, within which random drift has produced genetic differentiation. Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002). > **[Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1196372/)** > > We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects ... > **["No scientific basis for race"](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html)** > > Note Added  in response to 2020 Twitter mob attack which attempts to misrepresent my views : This is not my research. The lead author aff... ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/184 "2010-09-21T06:27:32Z")
Are you able to answer my questions yet, Chen? They are rather simple questions, and since your entire position hinges on you ability to answer them it is odd that you are ignoring them, while answering questions I have put to other posters. Well, maybe not all that odd, certainly very telling. > [@Chen019](#): > > Here are some examples from Cavalli Sforza’s tree diagram of genetic frequencies; African…caucasion So, you chose African and Caucasian as examples of races, of genetically and phenotypically distinct groups. So according to you Muammar Ghaddafi, Anwar Saddat and Nelson Mandela are all the same race; African. Whereas Saddat and Ghaddafi, being African, are not the same race as Yassir Arafat or Ariel Sharon, both Asian Caucasians, and Saddat and Sharon are the same race as both Mahatma Ghandi and Boris Yeltsin, who are also Caucasian. I’ve been waiting for a race proponent to answer this question for years. Normally they dodge and weave and avoid answering. Thank you for being honest Now we can finally play ball. Can you please tell us what phenotypic characters are shared by Mandela, Ghaddafi and Saddat that enabled you to place them in the same race? And when you have done that, can you tell use what the genotypic basis of the cluster is? You also claimed that races must genetically isolated. Can you please tell use how Egypt has managed to remain genetically isolated fom Israel/Palestine, and how Libya has remained isolated from Spain, and present us with your evidence that this is the case? Because your entire position hinges on your claims that races are genotpyically distinct, phenotypically distinct and genetically isolated. Now that you have named two races for us I look forward to seeing your evidence that theyare indeed genotpyically distinct, phenotypically distinct and genetically isolated. Then we can start working oin the much more difficult case: the fact that Ghandi, Yeltsin and Arafat are apparently more genetically and phenotypically similar to each other than Arafat is to Sadat. That’s gonna take some doing I can tell you. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/185 "2010-09-21T13:18:03Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > > [@CannyDan](#): > > > > ….So biologically \*\*John Mace \*\*is correct. A race is a subspecies, being a genetically isolated (reproductively isolated) and phenotypically distinct subset of a larger population. Our understanding of human evolution and thus how we handle systematics of extinct hominids changes all the time. There is and almost certainly there will remain questions and valid debate about historical humans, both relatively recent and ancient. \*\*But as for this present “snapshot in time” we call today, there are no reproductively isolated populations with distinct phenotype in the human species. \*\*Thus there are today no valid human races/subspecies. > > Yes there are. Visit Uganda or Japan. Are you seriously stating that either Uganda or Japan are reproductively isolated, and that the population in each is composed entirely of individuals with a consistent and distinctive phenotype that separates every individual in that population from every other individual human in the world? Because that would be demonstrably, even ridiculously, wrong. You keep repeating the same quote about “clusters” as if repetition can make it true and accurate. Please note, this tactic isn’t working. Oh, and what **Blake** said. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/186 "2010-09-21T14:03:22Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > So biologically \*\*John Mace \*\*is correct. A race is a subspecies, being a genetically isolated (reproductively isolated) and phenotypically distinct subset of a larger population. Our understanding of human evolution and thus how we handle systematics of extinct hominids changes all the time. There is and almost certainly there will remain questions and valid debate about historical humans, both relatively recent and ancient. But as for this present “snapshot in time” we call today, there are no reproductively isolated populations with distinct phenotype in the human species. Thus there are today no valid human races/subspecies. Well, of course. I wasn’t debating that with him. We all agree that, as of today, there are no human sub-species. My question was a different one - when it could be said the last human sub-species different from us existed, at the same time as modern humans. We all agree that, whenever that was (if ever), it is not the case now that any exist. “Race” obviously exists as a social construct, based in part on physical differences, but no modern humans are genetically isolated. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/187 "2010-09-21T17:30:21Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Well, of course. I wasn’t debating that with him. We all agree that, as of today, there are no human sub-species. > > My question was a different one - when it could be said the last human sub-species different from us existed, at the same time as modern humans. We all agree that, whenever that was (if ever), it is not the case now that any exist. > > “Race” obviously exists as a social construct, based in part on physical differences, but no modern humans are genetically isolated. Sorry if I gave the impression that you were in disagreement! I knew you were not. Others though do appear to differ. I cannot answer your question, as it is beyond my area of expertise. I would though also be intrigued to see an answer based upon current understanding of human evolution. ---
**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:** [September 21, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/188 "2010-09-21T18:36:14Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > Well, of course. I wasn’t debating that with him. We all agree that, as of today, there are no human sub-species. > > > > My question was a different one - when it could be said the last human sub-species different from us existed, at the same time as modern humans. We all agree that, whenever that was (if ever), it is not the case now that any exist. > > > > “Race” obviously exists as a social construct, based in part on physical differences, but no modern humans are genetically isolated. > > Sorry if I gave the impression that you were in disagreement! I knew you were not. Others though do appear to differ. > > I cannot answer your question, as it is beyond my area of expertise. I would though also be intrigued to see an answer based upon current understanding of human evolution. You’re not going to get a consensus on that, as there just isn’t enough data. As you probably know, there is a tendency for anthropologists to want whatever fossil they find to somehow be “new”, so they’ll say it’s part of a new taxa rather than an exsting one. Setting it in a subspecies is very subjective, and other anthropologists are always going to object. There is a school of thought (though I’d hardly call it a consensus) that our species consisted of a population (or populations) of “anatomically modern humans” earlier than about 100k years ago. That is, they look like us, but they weren’t cognitively the same as us. This is based on the tool kits of those specimens being pretty much like those of Neanderthals. The oldest of these fossils, at about 195k years ago has been labeled _Homo sapiens idaltu_. Sometime around 100k years, we broke thru some cognitive barrier (often thought to have to do with fully articulate speech), and became fully modern-- _H. sapiens sapiens_. These fossils are associated with a more advanced tool kit as well clear signs of decorative artifacts (eg, shell beads). But this is speculative, and not what one could call the consensus view-- if there ever will be one on the subject. I doubt that even its strongest proponents would put if forth as well established scientific fact. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/189 "2010-09-21T19:31:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re not going to get a consensus on that, as there just isn’t enough data. \ That’s fine, I didn’t expect there to be a final accord; the speculation is equally intriguing. As will be the inevitable continuing debates whenever new evidence is discovered and fresh explanatory scenarios are proposed. Thanks for providing! ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/190 "2010-09-21T22:13:45Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Isn’t this a strawman How is it a strawman to accuratelly analyse someone’s position in good faith? > [@](#): > > There are mixed or smaller indigenous populations. Indonesia for instance has a large melanesian population. Mixed? Mixed with what? Is this really what your position hinges on? That any time someone demonstrates that your races don’t exist you claim that they must be mixed with something? IOW that they aren’t true members of that race? And I just bet you know that because they don’t eat sugar with their porridge. Right? And what precisely do you mean by “smaller indigenous populations”? As I stated, there are hundreds of millions of such people, probably over a billion. Are you admitting that your “races” fail completely to categorise 1/6th of the human population who have lived in the same geographic area for \>40, 000 years? If that is what you are admitting then I thinkyour opponents can rest their case right there. Clearly your racial categorisations are utterly useless, totally meaningless and provide no information whatsoever. > [@](#): > > By Asian, I suspect people are referring to east asians (Japanese, Korean, Chinese ancestry). Oh, of course. The True Asians. Right? The ones that wear kilts and don’t eat sugar with their porridge? And how, pray tell, do you distinguish these true Asians from the vast majotity who are apparently regular Asians? Are all Chinese true Asians, including[this one](http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Taiwanese_Aborigine_leopard_fur_by_Torii_n7550.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taiwanese_Aborigine_leopard_fur_by_Torii_n7550.jpg&usg=__R-6_nAXbblJ1FamxO7AhxqO9Tck=&h=1156&w=876&sz=143&hl=en&start=16&zoom=1&tbnid=XFVYUMKIk6hUJM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtaiwan%2Baboriginal%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1037%26bih%3D582%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C432&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=474&vpy=111&dur=4499&hovh=258&hovw=195&tx=81&ty=134&ei=ZiSZTPKGNYSGvgOb9JGdDQ&oei=WCSZTISyDOPDcKCF1YMP&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:16&biw=1037&bih=582)? Or are some Chinese “True Asians” and some not? Or perhaps all Chinese are "True Asians, but not all IndoChinese are True Asians? But if that is the case where is the line of demarcation where the populations become gentically isolated? Because your whole position hinges on these populations being genetically isolated and phenotypically distinct. So where, on the geographic continuum between (presumably) “True Asian” Beijing Chinese and the obviously Black Mani of the Malay Peninsula, does the genetic isolation occur? Across that landmass, with an apparently subtle shift from “True Asian” to “True Black”, where exactly are you claiming that genetic interchange ceases and two contiguous populations become genetically isoalted? You really must be able you answer this question, Chen, for your position to have any legs at all. Your position hinges entirely on “True Asian” populations being genetically isolated from Australoid. So you must be able to tell us where the isolation point occurs. Because just looking at at he people between Beijing and Bangkok there appears to be a gradual and subtle shift from “True Asian” to “True Black”, with no indications at all of genetic isolation at any point. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/191 "2010-09-22T06:36:11Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > > [@Chen019](#): > > > > Yes there are. Visit Uganda or Japan. > > Are you seriously stating that either Uganda or Japan are reproductively isolated, and that the population in each is composed entirely of individuals with a consistent and distinctive phenotype that separates every individual in that population from every other individual human in the world? Because that would be demonstrably, even ridiculously, wrong. No, because I’m not talking about different species. Sesardic comments: > [@](#): > > Professor Fried has correctly pointed out that there is no careful and objective definition of race that would permit delimitation of races as exact, nonoverlapping, discrete entities. Indeed, such criteria do not exist because if they did, we would not have races, we would have distinct species. (Dobzhansky in Mead 1968, 165) > > In fact, Dobzhansky’s argument should be taken one step further: the essentialist > requirement is so unrealistically demanding that, if this criterion were applied, even the species concept would fail to pass muster: ‘‘In practice, the characters that define a species will not be present in all members of that species and absent from all members of other species. Nature is too variable’’ (Ridley 2004, 349). Do you agree with Sesardic’s comments about subspecies later in the same article? > [@](#): > > In biology, the concept of ‘‘race’’ is often regarded as synonymous with > ‘‘subspecies’’. Subspecies are populations of organisms that, despite belonging to > the same species, differ among themselves with respect to frequencies of alternative alleles at a number of loci. These differences are the result of these populations being at least partly isolated from one another long enough for a genetic differentiation to develop. Research has shown that, indeed, groups of people of significantly different geographical ancestries do differ from one another genetically: when compared on many genetic loci these groups have different frequencies of different alleles. [http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf](http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/192 "2010-09-22T06:48:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > > [@CannyDan](#): > > > > Are you seriously stating that either Uganda or Japan are reproductively isolated, and that the population in each is composed entirely of individuals with a consistent and distinctive phenotype that separates every individual in that population from every other individual human in the world? Because that would be demonstrably, even ridiculously, wrong. > > No, because I’m not talking about different species. Whoa Nellie. Put the Red Herrings back into the can. The issue is not whether you are talking about different species. The issue is that you are talking about > [@Chen019](#): > > geographically isolated human populations that differ in the frequency of hereditary traits [with] different allele frequencies between such populations and about > [@Chen019](#): > > reproductively isolated populations with distinct phenotype in the human species You novel introduction of the term species is total red herring. You made the claim that Uganda and Japan are home to reproductively and geographically isolated human populations with different allele frequencies and distinct phenotypes. Now are you going to stand by that claim, and provide some evidence to support it, or are you going to retract the claim? Never mind whether you are or are not referring to species. Just concentrate on what you were referring to, which is the existence reproductively and geographically isolated human populations with different allele frequencies and distinct phenotypes in both Uganda and Japan. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/193 "2010-09-22T06:59:58Z")
[quote=“Blake, post:190, topic:553699”] > [@Chen019](#): > > Mixed? Mixed with what? Is this really what your position hinges on? That any time someone demonstrates that your races don’t exist you claim that they must be mixed with something? The fact that red and yellow can be mixed to produce orange does not mean that red and yellow are illusions or do not exist. Goodrum makes the point here: > [@](#): > > The criticism can be made that the placement of some populations located between the “cores zone” of these major races (e.g., Europe or East Asia) is ambiguous. However, in non-human taxonomy this would not normally invalidate the subspecies status of well-differentiated core populations.[109,110] In fact, zones of intergradation have traditionally been taken as evidence that core groups are indeed subspecies rather than different species.[111] [http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html](http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/194 "2010-09-22T07:04:24Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > > [@Chen019](#): > > > > No, because I’m not talking about different species. > > … > You made the claim that Uganda and Japan are home to reproductively and geographically isolated human populations with different allele frequencies and distinct phenotypes. > > Now are you going to stand by that claim, and provide some evidence to support it, or are you going to retract the claim? > > Never mind whether you are or are not referring to species. Just concentrate on what you were referring to, which is the existence reproductively and geographically isolated human populations with different allele frequencies and distinct phenotypes in both Uganda and Japan. You can see the difference in allele frequencies between the Asian & African groups illustrated here. > **[Genetic clustering: 40 years of progress](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06/genetic-clustering-40-years-of-progress.html)** > > Represent each individual human by their DNA sequence. When aggregated, they cluster into readily identifiable groups. This has been known f... ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/195 "2010-09-22T07:41:17Z")
So Chen, are you unable to answer my questions, or simply unwilling? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/196 "2010-09-22T14:15:21Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > > [@CannyDan](#): > > > > Are you seriously stating that either Uganda or Japan are reproductively isolated, and that the population in each is composed entirely of individuals with a consistent and distinctive phenotype that separates every individual in that population from every other individual human in the world? Because that would be demonstrably, even ridiculously, wrong. > > No, because I’m not talking about different species. Sesardic comments:\ > Do you agree with Sesardic’s comments about subspecies later in the same article? \ As I stated earlier, the assignment of a taxonomic designation (species, subspecies/race, even higher levels) is intended to _convey_ information, not distort understanding. Nor does the assignment of a taxon _create_ information where none existed before. Given that populations biology deals with large numbers often spread over great distances as well as great expanses of time, given limitations of sampling, and given the problems associated with that “moment in time” issue, several different depictions may be necessary or may succeed each other in the literature to provide comprehensive understanding. This is why assignments of taxonomic levels are often controversial. One researcher may conclude that some organism is best understood as “three species and 5 subspecies in a single genus” while another may parse the same organisms into multiple species in several genera, with a third researcher gathering them all together into a single multivariate taxon. All of this is true for biology on a generic level. None of this changes the fact that, given the appropriate definitions of terms like race and/or subspecies, and given the reality of the human population of the world as it is right now, it is completely _incorrect_ to assert that today’s humans can be divided into races. The attempt to do so distorts understanding of the human species, and attempts to create new information where there was none. Oh, and once again, what **Blake** said. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/197 "2010-09-22T22:02:08Z")
So Chen, are you unable to answer my questions, or simply unwilling? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/198 "2010-09-23T05:22:29Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > > [@Chen019](#): > > > > No, because I’m not talking about different species. Sesardic comments:\ > > Do you agree with Sesardic’s comments about subspecies later in the same article? \ > > As I stated earlier, the assignment of a taxonomic designation (species, subspecies/race, even higher levels) is intended to _convey_ information, not distort understanding. Nor does the assignment of a taxon _create_ information where none existed before. Given that populations biology deals with large numbers often spread over great distances as well as great expanses of time, given limitations of sampling, and given the problems associated with that “moment in time” issue, several different depictions may be necessary or may succeed each other in the literature to provide comprehensive understanding. > > This is why assignments of taxonomic levels are often controversial. One researcher may conclude that some organism is best understood as “three species and 5 subspecies in a single genus” while another may parse the same organisms into multiple species in several genera, with a third researcher gathering them all together into a single multivariate taxon. All of this is true for biology on a generic level. > > **None of this changes the fact that, given the appropriate definitions of terms like race and/or subspecies, and given the reality of the human population of the world as it is right now, it is completely _incorrect_ to assert that today’s humans can be divided into races. The attempt to do so distorts understanding of the human species, and attempts to create new information where there was none.** > > Oh, and once again, what **Blake** said. I’ve already posted some papers where in fact this is done & individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins. These correspond to traditional continental racial populations. Further, as the Sesardic article notes, forensic anthropologists do this routinely using new or traditional methods of bone analysis. ---
**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:** [September 23, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/199 "2010-09-23T05:35:53Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I’ve already posted some papers where in fact this is done & individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins. You don’t say. You mean to tell us that people who are geographically proximate are also genetically similar? Who would have ever thought that! Nice debunking of something that no one posting here has asserted to be true. “Clustering” has nothing to do with genetic isolation. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/200 "2010-09-23T08:47:50Z")
So Chen, it seems you are utterly incapable of answeringmy questions. Given that your entire position relies on an ability to accurately answer exactly those questions, I think we can discount your position as ignorant nonsense. Don’t you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699.md?page=11)