# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/161 "2010-09-20T05:45:20Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > . . . do you actually believe that racial characteristics strictly divide humans into discretely identifiable populations in a non arbitrary way? Well, that is how the word is used by those who believe that humanity can effectively be divided into races. People who insist that the word race legitimately identifies large groups of humans certainly believe that they are discrete. Beyond that, note that **John Mace** has several times noted that in biology (aside from humans) the word race is equivalent to subspecies and that the clinal nature of human differences preclude the word subspecies from being used to identify any human populations. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/162 "2010-09-20T06:26:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@jackdavinci](#): > > > > . . . do you actually believe that racial characteristics strictly divide humans into discretely identifiable populations in a non arbitrary way? > > Well, that is how the word is used by those who believe that humanity can effectively be divided into races. People who insist that the word race legitimately identifies large groups of humans certainly believe that they are discrete. > > Beyond that, note that **John Mace** has several times noted that in biology (aside from humans) the word race is equivalent to subspecies and that the clinal nature of human differences preclude the word subspecies from being used to identify any human populations. Except as noted above, the clinal model doesn’t work as well across the continental (“cluster”) boundaries: > [@](#): > > and Pääbo [10] argue that human genetic diversity consists of clines of variation in allele frequencies. We agree and had commented on this issue in our original paper ([3], p. 2382): “In several populations, individuals had partial membership in multiple clusters, with similar membership coefficients for most individuals. These populations might reflect continuous gradations across regions or admixture of neighboring groups.” **At the same time, we find that human genetic diversity consists not only of clines, but also of clusters, which STRUCTURE observes to be repeatable and robust.** > > How can these seemingly discordant perspectives on human genetic diversity be reconciled? Figure 6 shows a plot of genetic distance and geographic distance for pairs of populations. To illustrate the effects of moving continuously across geographical space, only pairs from within clusters or from geographically adjacent clusters are shown. That is, for the five clusters with K = 5 in Figure 2 of the present study and in Figure 1 of [3]—corresponding to Africa, Eurasia (Europe, Middle East, and Central/South Asia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas—an intercluster population pair is plotted only if it includes one population from Africa and one from Eurasia, one from Eurasia and one from East Asia, or one from East Asia and one from Oceania or the Americas. > > For population pairs from the same cluster, as geographic distance increases, genetic distance increases in a linear manner, consistent with a clinal population structure. **However, for pairs from different clusters, genetic distance is generally larger than that between intracluster pairs that have the same geographic distance. For example, genetic distances for population pairs with one population in Eurasia and the other in East Asia are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within Eurasia or within East Asia. Loosely speaking, it is these small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance—across oceans, the Himalayas, and the Sahara—that provide the basis for the ability of STRUCTURE to identify clusters that correspond to geographic regions.** [http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070](http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070) ---
**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:** [September 20, 2010, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/163 "2010-09-20T07:56:24Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Did you read the paper I linked? It is written in _response_ to the paper by Paabo that you cited. Yes, I read it, but it doesn’t address the main objection - that Rosenberg’s methodology produces clustering. All it does is attempt to address problems with Serre&Paabo’s study. It doesn’t adequately defend the use of STRUCTURE, for instance, a program which is basically weighted to find clusters (see [Witherspoon _et al_](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/)). Yes, Serre&Paabo uses smaller sample sizes. Their results are not an “artefact” of this, that was the whole point of their methodology - to show that population sampling not geographically spread gives the clustering illusion and overwrites clines. Individual/small sampling _is the whole point_. The sample size argument is nicely refuted _within their study_ by showing that clusters _do_ emerge at the smaller sample sizes already - they compare \*equivalent \*amounts of dispersed vs population samples and \*get \*clustering with the population-based ones. So to say their sample sizes were too small for clustering is not accurate. “Clusters emerge when one uses a sufficiently intelligent clustering technique” is no answer, it amounts to “clusters emerge when we set them up to emerge by tuning our experiments”. But those clusters are still a result of methodology, not allele distribution. Also, I may have missed it, but Rosenberg doesn’t really address the issue of individuals jumping clusters when more loci are set. There’s also no defence of the way he kind of glosses over dropping “mixed” results like the Central Asian ones from the final data set. Also, the Serre and Paabo study does use uncorrelated alleles. But Rosenberg’s reply is essentially “But when you use correlated allele frequencies, you get clusters. So correlation must be right.” It’s not like Paabo doesn’t know his human genetics, FFS. The S&P paper makes a strong case for _why_ they used unlinked afs - see, for instance, their discussion of the American results, as well as their discussion of genetic drift and post-African admixture. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/164 "2010-09-20T14:32:07Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I read it, I disagree that it is an “anthropological definition” as much as it is one author’s opinion. From 17 years ago (backed by even more outdated cites). Anthropology isn’t some monolithic discipline like engineering or chemistry. There are different schools of thought, with different opinions on how much weight to give people’s own definitions of self vs objective measurements of heritage. You’re arguing the emic approach, I’m advocating the etic. You’re also advocating macroethnicity, and I hold that only works as a loose social construct, but the more you examine it, the more full of holes macroethnicity becomes. If you are stating that this is an outdated theory of ethnicity backed by outdated cites, that’s cool - but merely stating it, isn’t the same as demonstrating it. I note you have not produced any cites of your own to back up your stance. I also note that checking the “who are the lue?” title pulls up multiple recent cites, albeit on pay services: [Taylor & Francis - Fostering human progress through knowledge](http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a922608528) > [@](#): > > So there’s no controversy whatsoever about the status of Falash Mura, I take it? Sure, converting to Christianity is one way of “losing” Jewish ethnicity over time - just as converting to Judaism is one way of gaining it. Where that “conversion” was forced, or a matter of protective colouration - that creates controversy. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing against the _existence_ of fictive ancestry (I’m still waiting for an example of an _adopted_ one), merely its _validity_. I provided two examples of adopted background: 1. Judaism (which we are arguing about); and 2. Native Americans adopting war captives. In both cases, the people involved, while obviously not believing that they are literally shared descent, are adopted into the “tribe” and are considered for all intents and purposes _just as “Jewish” or “Tribal” as people whose ancestors have always been so_. In effect, they become part of the “nation” or “tribe”. The issue is - “validity” according to who, and for what purpose? If the people involved believe they are an ethnic group - what does it matter if you don’t? > [@](#): > > For instance, we _know_ the ancestry of the Beta Israel. They are as genetically Ethiopian as their neighbours. Hell, the Lemba of South Africa have more claim to Jewish _ancestry_. Well, exactly. They have fictive common ancestory. Just as important, as far as they are concerned, as real common ancestry. The only significance of real common ancestry, is the possibility of genetic diseases or the like … whereas beleiving one has a common ancestry, influences people’s behaviour. For example, it influenced the Bene Israel to move as a group to Israel. > [@](#): > > Quoting one outdated paper is hardly proof of scientific consensus.I agree with you._Some_ anthropologists do. Some don’t. Some see “Jewish” as a class descriptor for a set of ethnicities. Jewish “ethnic divisions” crop up all the time in the discussion. I would welcome some sort of description of these alternate anthropologists. Certainly, discussion of Jewish “ethnic divisions” crops up all the time - as, one may point out, does discussions of “racial divisions”: yet that has not lead you to acknoledging that “race” has scientific reality, has it? > [@](#): > > And even by the most general definition of ethnicity, the Beta Israel do not share an ethnicity with Ashkenazim or Sephardim- they do not share a language, culture or ancestry.Baah. I don’t care what the Ethiopian Jews think of their own ancestry, I care about what they can prove. Any Ethiopian Jew still believing they are descended from has already been shown to be mistaken. The share a common conception of being Jewish, a common set of holy books, a common belief in a shared ancestry. Whether they are “genetically” Jewish or not is totally irrelevant to how they see themselves, or are seen by others. > [@](#): > > You may advocate for the Imagined Community sense of ethnicity, I do not.Common descentIn one view. I disagree. Yes, self-identified ethnicities exist, but they are not what I concern myself with.To you. To me, an ethnic group _has to have_ a shared culture. And language. Again, you are insisting that you know better that these folk who they are. Since both they, and most if not all anthropologists disagree, I must side with them. > [@](#): > > Man, frigging post-modernists really did a number on the social sciences in the 70s, didn’t they? I’m OK with the existence of self-identified ethnicities, as long as their fictive accounts don’t contradict reality. As soon as that happens, I’m quite happy to throw self-defined ethic groupings out the window. Such groups serve only as barriers to advancement. They impede the Human Project and _must_ be done away with for the good of humanity. There is no “reality” to ethnic divisions. Any of them. They are wholly products of culture, for exactly the same reason that “race” is. Take the Bene Israel. Assume geneticists had discovered a genetic link between them and the ME. Does this mean that they are really “genetic Jews” and thus a seperate ethnic group? Why? Undoubtedly they would have even more “genetic” links to other Etheopians … why should those tiny links to the ME, even if present, _matter_? As for “barriers to advancement” and “impeding the human project” … why would a Bene Israel with undoubted links to the ME “impede advancement” less than one without? What “impedes advancement” is the notion that ethnicity is important, not the minutae of how it is defined. ---
**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 20, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/165 "2010-09-20T15:13:38Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > “Race” is not a continuous gradient. A racial cline is an oxymoron. > > Well, it’s definitely not an oxymoron, because 1) even if you are right, and racial characteristics are somehow not a gradient, there is nothing _inherently_ anti-gradient about the term “race” to make it oxymoronic and 2) “racial” (the term I used) has a slightly different meaning than “race” (the term you used) > > Anyway, you just keep contradicting me without explaining your reasoning. Is your objection related to the ‘clustering’ idea that someone brought up, or do you actually believe that racial characteristics strictly divide humans into discretely identifiable populations in a non arbitrary way? Or are you objecting to “continuous”? I’m not saying that the gradients are perfectly smooth. Maybe you haven’t read the whole thread, because we went over this on the first page. A race is a distinct, genetically isolated population-- a subspecies. That produces abrupt changes in physical differences, not a continuum. Usually this is caused by some physical barrier, like a river or a mountain range. When physical characteristics vary clinally, it means you do not have genetic isolation and so you don’t have races. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/166 "2010-09-20T15:22:49Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > 1. Do you believe in biologically determined races? > 2. Why/why not? > 3. If yes… > a) What are they (the number)? > b) What are the parameters of the groups? No, mostly because I can’t answer the other two questions. ETA: I believe in haplogroups, for whatever that’s worth. ---
**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 20, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/167 "2010-09-20T15:27:16Z")
Would pygmies and Khoi-San classify as sub species ? ---
**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 20, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/168 "2010-09-20T15:33:21Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Would pygmies and Khoi-San classify as sub species ? Neither of those groups is genetically isolated, so no. Just ask **Mr Dibble**. He’s living proof! ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/169 "2010-09-20T15:40:25Z")
As far as I know, the last group of humans which may have fit the bill of genetic isolation were the so-called “hobbits” of Indonesia: > **[BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Hobbits 'are a separate species'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8036396.stm)** > > Scientists have found more evidence that the Indonesian "Hobbits" are a new species - not modern pygmies. They died out around 8,000 years ago. ---
**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 20, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/170 "2010-09-20T15:56:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > As far as I know, the last group of humans which may have fit the bill of genetic isolation were the so-called “hobbits” of Indonesia: > > [BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Hobbits 'are a separate species'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8036396.stm) > > They died out around 8,000 years ago. They are classified as a different species of human. There is some disagreement about that, but I think the consensus is pretty strong for _H. floresiensis_, not _H. sapiens floresiensis_. ---
**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 20, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/171 "2010-09-20T16:01:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > Would pygmies and Khoi-San classify as sub species ? > > Neither of those groups is genetically isolated, so no. Just ask **Mr Dibble**. He’s living proof! Polar bears and grizzlies are known to breed together. There are many subspecies classified for both brown bears and wolves involving overlapping ranges and appearances that defy any cladal differences observable to me. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/172 "2010-09-20T16:03:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > As far as I know, the last group of humans which may have fit the bill of genetic isolation were the so-called “hobbits” of Indonesia: > > > > [BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Hobbits 'are a separate species'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8036396.stm) > > > > They died out around 8,000 years ago. > > They are classified as a different species of human. There is some disagreement about that, but I think the consensus is pretty strong for _H. floresiensis_, not _H. sapiens floresiensis_. True, I dunno when the last uncontested sub-species of human existed. Are Neanderthals still considered a sub-species? It may be that Homo sapiens idaltu was the last. ---
**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 20, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/173 "2010-09-20T16:05:15Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Polar bears and grizzlies are known to breed together. Very rarely. > [@](#): > > There are many subspecies classified for both brown bears and wolves involving overlapping ranges and appearances that defy any cladal differences observable > to me. If they have overlapping ranges, and don’t breed together, then they are different species. If they have overlapping ranges and do breed together, then they can’t be distinct populations. ---
**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 20, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/174 "2010-09-20T16:10:16Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > True, I dunno when the last uncontested sub-species of human existed. Are Neanderthals still considered a sub-species? It may be that Homo sapiens idaltu was the last. It’s really a different ball game when you’re dealing with extinct populations. You have to rely 100% of morphological differences unless you have complete DNA to work with. As for Neanderthals, there was a long time when they were considered a subspecies, but then the pendulum swung the other way as more evidence pointed to genetic isolation and extinction without interbreeding. The latest evidence says there was some interbreeding, but I don’t know how much there is thought to have been. And, like I said up thread, what’s more important: The fact that the populations were genetically isolate for about 500k years or that the interbred for the last 5k years? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/175 "2010-09-20T16:19:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > True, I dunno when the last uncontested sub-species of human existed. Are Neanderthals still considered a sub-species? It may be that Homo sapiens idaltu was the last. > > It’s really a different ball game when you’re dealing with extinct populations. You have to rely 100% of morphological differences unless you have complete DNA to work with. > > As for Neanderthals, there was a long time when they were considered a subspecies, but then the pendulum swung the other way as more evidence pointed to genetic isolation and extinction without interbreeding. The latest evidence says there was some interbreeding, but I don’t know how much there is thought to have been. And, like I said up thread, what’s more important: The fact that the populations were genetically isolate for about 500k years or that the interbred for the last 5k years? I suppose it doesn’t really matter, except out of curiousity; for our purposes, the more significant point is that when or if any human sub-species existed, it was in the past - they are all extinct. Though I had my doubts about the guys living in the basement apt. underneath me when I was a student - they could well have been a throwback. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/176 "2010-09-20T16:25:42Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > Neither of those groups is genetically isolated, so no. Just ask **Mr Dibble**. He’s living proof! > > Polar bears and grizzlies are known to breed together. Do they produce viable offspring? ---
**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 20, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/177 "2010-09-20T16:25:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I suppose it doesn’t really matter, except out of curiousity; for our purposes, the more significant point is that when or if any human sub-species existed, it was in the past - they are all extinct. 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. ---
**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:** [September 20, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/178 "2010-09-20T19:20:47Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > If you are stating that this is an outdated theory of ethnicity backed by outdated cites, that’s cool No, I’m saying it’s not the only stance, as you seem to imply. Anthro can have a more social or a more sciency spin. This doesn’t quite map to “emic vs etic”, but it’s similar. But anyway, I’m going to concede that you’re right. I’ve been a tight-ass about ethnicity, and you’re correct that there are many different ways to use the term, and that self-constructed ethnicities and even adopted ethnicities have their place in ethnography. After all, I did love “A Man Called Horse”😉 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/179 "2010-09-20T20:53:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > If you are stating that this is an outdated theory of ethnicity backed by outdated cites, that’s cool > > No, I’m saying it’s not the only stance, as you seem to imply. Anthro can have a more social or a more sciency spin. This doesn’t quite map to “emic vs etic”, but it’s similar. > > But anyway, I’m going to concede that you’re right. I’ve been a tight-ass about ethnicity, and you’re correct that there are many different ways to use the term, and that self-constructed ethnicities and even adopted ethnicities have their place in ethnography. > > After all, I did love “A Man Called Horse”😉 Fairly said. 🙂 ---
**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 20, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/180 "2010-09-20T21:36:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > I suppose it doesn’t really matter, except out of curiousity; for our purposes, the more significant point is that when or if any human sub-species existed, it was in the past - they are all extinct. > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699.md?page=10)