# Races don't exist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2001, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387 "2001-01-30T09:20:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/41 "2001-01-31T17:26:42Z")
Oh come on, do you really think this is a good shot? Well, anyways… see below: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **Collounsbury** > > Suppose you have three guys whose genes you are analyzing. Two are from the continent of Africa (you have no idea which part) and one from the continent of Europe. **You know nothing else about any of these three guys**. You analyze Gene A from one African guy and the European guy. They differ. You are about to analyze the same gene from the second African guy. You are forced at gunpoint to predict whose gene it will most closely resemble. Your life depends on your getting the answer right. Who do you pick? (Maybe I should have become a dentist) Which gene? But in any case, given 99% of genes, my answer is: I flip a coin and pray. Or I launch into a lecture about the silliness of the operation, but I guess I probably lose that way. Either way, if you wanna see why, try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation. The papers I’ve cited – as well as some cites ironically by peace-- give you the raw data. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/42 "2001-01-31T17:30:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > You are forced at gunpoint to predict whose gene it will most closely resemble. > > i knew this was going to happen. the gun threads and the race threads have collided. your survival depends on having a well concealed gun of your own, or being able to predict race from genes. this could be the climax of the sdmb movie. \*\* Or an ability to lecture someone to sleep at inappropriate moments. Ever “Ferocious Creatures”? ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/43 "2001-01-31T18:01:48Z")
\*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > [@](#): > > i knew this was going to happen. the gun threads and the race threads have collided. your survival depends on having a well concealed gun of your own, or being able to predict race from genes. this could be the climax of the sdmb movie. LOL! Touch it off by splicing in the ending to “Dr. Stranglove” - Slim Pickens “yee-hawing” as he rides the missle to its destinition. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/44 "2001-01-31T18:40:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by eponymous \* > LOL! Touch it off by splicing in the ending to “Dr. Stranglove” - Slim Pickens “yee-hawing” as he rides the missle to its destinition. 🙂 > > \*\* Oh easy for you to say, **I’m gonna get shot!** Cheesemaking, gotta get into cheesemaking. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/45 "2001-01-31T18:40:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation. If the individual subgroups within a population are completely unrelated you are right. My question presupposed that two subgroups in a population have a greater likelihood of being similar to each other than do two subgroups in two different populations. Is this untrue? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/46 "2001-01-31T19:04:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > > try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation. > > If the individual subgroups within a population are completely unrelated you are right. My question presupposed that two subgroups in a population have a greater likelihood of being similar to each other than do two subgroups in two different populations. Is this untrue? \*\* I’m unclear as to what you mean by related and unrelated and what you are intending by subgroups. My instinct is to say it is **untrue,** but I’m not sure I understand your meaning clearly. If you can clarify your meaning, I’ll give it a shot, but its almost bedtime and tomorrow I really have to be productive. But, let me try another answer. If I knew (a) what functionality the gene I was testing had and (b) I knew that it was something that varied by population/region and © knew where my African samples were from respectively and (d) was feeling lucky: I would make a best guess based on what I recalled about frequency of the specific trait. Or better, lecture the fellow about what a silly thing it is that he was pointing a gun at me over a gene. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/47 "2001-01-31T19:06:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > > try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation. > > If the individual subgroups within a population are completely unrelated you are right. My question presupposed that two subgroups in a population have a greater likelihood of being similar to each other than do two subgroups in two different populations. Is this untrue? \*\* I’m unclear as to what you mean by related and unrelated and what you are intending by subgroups. My instinct is to say it is **untrue,** but I’m not sure I understand your meaning clearly. If you can clarify your meaning, I’ll give it a shot, but its almost bedtime and tomorrow I really have to be productive. But, let me try another answer. If I knew (a) what functionality the gene I was testing had and (b) I knew that it was something that varied by population/region and © knew where my samples were from more or less precisely and (d) was feeling lucky: I would make a best guess based on what I recalled about frequency of the specific trait. That might result in me saying the Euro or the other African depending on teh answers to a-d. Otherwise, flip a coin. Or better, lecture the fellow about what a silly thing it is that he was pointing a gun at me over a gene. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/48 "2001-01-31T19:12:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > > try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation. > > If the individual subgroups within a population are completely unrelated you are right. My question presupposed that two subgroups in a population have a greater likelihood of being similar to each other than do two subgroups in two different populations. Is this untrue? \*\* I’m unclear as to what you mean by related and unrelated and what you are intending by subgroups. My instinct is to say it is **untrue,** but I’m not sure I understand your meaning clearly. If you can clarify your meaning, I’ll give it a shot, but its almost bedtime and tomorrow I really have to be productive. But, let me try another answer. If I knew (a) what functionality the gene I was testing had and (b) I knew that it was something that varied by population/region and © knew where my samples were from more or less precisely and (d) was feeling lucky: I would make a best guess based on what I recalled about frequency of the specific trait. That might result in me saying the Euro or the other African depending on teh answers to a-d. Otherwise, flip a coin. Or better, lecture the fellow about what a silly thing it is that he was pointing a gun at me over a gene. ---
**Author:** ![mipsman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mipsman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mipsman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/49 "2001-02-01T04:19:38Z")
Coll, had to track you down over here. Sorry about asking you to kiss my butt. But I will say that you are a fanatic and a zealot. Several post above somebody had an objection to your claims and, again, you just “Whatever”-ed him. This is called proof by assertion. Pious frauds by the religous, exaggerations and scare tactics by environmentalists, lies and mistruths by the political agenda-ed, saying there is no such thing as race by you and your posse, the underlying motivation is that the end justifies the means. Are there such things as German Shepherds and Poodles in your philosophy or are they Victorian fabrications and fictions also? Is that it? Mankind is unique and racial classifications that are a part of animal taxonomy cannot happen in humans? I went into a museum in Dallas last year and there was a picture of a man along side a river. From across the room, I recognized him as an Indian from the Amazon. How did I do this? Was I psychic? A lucky racist guess? No, that population, through isolation and/or inbreeding produced a distinct physiologic and physionomic type, recognizable by both Victorians and the Politically Correct. In your political philosophy, did all of the RACES of mankind: blonde, black, curlied and kinkied haired; white, pink, yellow, brown, and black skinned; aquiline, snub, broad, or mega-nosed; blue, green, brown, round and slant eyed; all walk out of Africa together, arms linked in some Jesse Jackson Rainbow Out of Africa migration? Not likely. A corollary of the Eve Hypothesis, which has to be true in at least some aspects, is that here had to be a small, homogeneous original group. Later, through isolation and inbreeding and selection by the environment, RACES originated. No question that we have mongrelized since 2000BC and even more so since 1500AD. But that does not mean that there were not original RACES. They still pop up. Gregor Mendel might have been Victorian but his statistics are still valid. What is the matter with multi dimensional cluster analysis anyway? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/50 "2001-02-01T05:19:13Z")
I have seen no one claim that there are no ethnic populations. No one denies that people who have more closely allied ancestors will tend to have similar features. The issue is that when we look at enough traits, we find that the concept of “race” (which presupposes a very large population with very closely allied genetic structures) cannot be supported by the data. This, in turn, leads to such silliness as **The Bell Curve**. That book is not silly because it is un-PC, it is silly because it attempted to wedge large groups of people with widely varying characteristics into very narrow categories that cannot be supported by genetic evidence, despite the fact that their entire premise was that they were measuring genetic capacities for intelligence. Throughout the current (multiple) discussions on race and throughout the (multiple) discussions “waged” a few weeks ago with **peace** , those of us who recognize that race is not valid as a genetic/biological construct have repeatedly noted that it _can_ be used (with qualifications) in a cultural or anthropological setting. Most people can look at other people and draw generally correct conclusions regarding the geographic region in which the viewed person’s ancestors lived. The problem comes when people make the natural but erroneous assumptions that the characteristics they see indicate some underlying reality of the genetic composition of the person at whom they are looking. When geneticists have investigated these populations, they have discovered that the genetic variation within these groups is too great to allow them to be categorized by genetic description. Similarly, that same variation is found throughout ever-expanding populations until we find that, overall, there is no way to _genetically_ identify any large group within the human race. This is not a matter of PC or a political agenda. This is the result of the analysis of the genetics of people. Closely related groups _do_ share more common traits. However, the sizes of those groups tend to be so small that labelling any of them as “races” would be an exercise in futility. In order to specify each of the “races” that we can identify _genetically_, we would need something akin to the NYC phone directory. Your Amazonian Indian certainly looks a lot like all the people near whom he lives, but at the genetic level, he may easily be closer to you than to members of the next tribe/nation up the river. That is what the actual field studies on genetics has revealed. With sufficient separation for sufficient time, _genetic_ races certainly could develop. The reality is that they have not. As to **Collounsbury** ’s "whatever"s, this is the eighth or ninth thread in fewer than two months in which he has provided the exact same information. He has, in every thread that I have seen recently, made reference to the earlier threads, pointing out where the independently discovered information has been cited. It may not be an act of ultimate patience to dismiss the tenth or twelfth repetition of the exact same objection which has been answered nine or eleven times previously, but it does not qualify as a an argument by assertion. It would certainly be as valid for him to label a person who repeats a frequently _answered_ question as lazy as it is for you to brand him a zealot when it does not appear that you have actually looked at any of the evidence already presented on multiple occasions. ---
**Author:** ![dewt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@dewt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dewt)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/51 "2001-02-01T05:42:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mipsman \* > \*\*In your political philosophy, did all of the RACES of mankind… > \*\* When the gun and race thread collision happened, I knew **politics** were on the way… So far **Collounsbury** hasn’t made any political references… in fact to me, his posts smacked of _scientific_ philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/52 "2001-02-01T13:42:16Z")
Why, oh why, that is the question. To other readers: I want to note that I’m not going to be polite to Mipsman. I see no reason. I first joined the SDMB at the invitation of another reader who knew me and who was involved in a ‘race’ debate back in June 2000. Mispman was part of that and at least one subsequent debate. I don’t mind that much someone disagreeing with me, but aggressive ignorance, refusal to address the data, and political attacks. Well, they annoy the fuck out of me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mipsman \* > Coll, had to track you down over here. Sorry about asking you to kiss my butt. But I will say that you are a fanatic and a zealot. Fanatic? Zealot? How is that? Perhaps a dedication to data is fanatical? > [@](#): > > Several post above somebody had an objection to your claims and, again, you just “Whatever”-ed him. This is called proof by assertion. Hmm, I’ve provided links and citations addressing the very question. I’ve tried explaining to the best of my poor ability. At some point, you just can’t do any more. I never claimed to be terribly patient, a real failing of mine. However, I do follow the data, I do follow the best science I can get my hands on. Now, argument by assertion would imply that I (a) did not provide any data to support my and/or (b) ignored other matierials. We both know this is not the cae. > [@](#): > > Pious frauds by the religous, exaggerations and scare tactics by environmentalists, lies and mistruths by the \*\*political agenda-ed, \*\* [emphasis added] Well, brother Mispman, this is what, shall we take a guess and say the third time that you have accused me of putting politics first. Each time I asked you to address the data and tell me where the politics were entering into the science. That is, I have asked, three, four times for a **substantive** critique, to tell me what’s _marxist_ or whatever about the genetics. I’m sure you can do it, if I can. But you have not. That leads me to one conclusion: the lies, mistruths, the political agenda is not coming from my court. Or do you **finally** have a **substantive** and **science-based** response? > [@](#): > > saying there is no such thing as race by you and your posse, the underlying motivation is that the end justifies the means. Well, since my end is to try to eradicate ignorance in those small areas where I can claim some tiny degree of knowledge and since my means are using the best scientific data and analysis I can get my grubby little paws on, I plead guilty. But then isn’t that what this board is supposed to be about? > [@](#): > > Are there such things as German Shepherds and Poodles in your philosophy or are they Victorian fabrications and fictions also? Well, this is one of those asked and answered things. I think Tom has just **recently** addressed this. I’m not familiar to be frank with dog genetics, but let me note two items (but I’ve noted this for you **before** haven’t I. I guess I’m mostly making this note for other readers since frankly I don’t think you have an open mind. In fact, I rather suspect you’re far too deeply invested in racial purity ideas to think about this at all, but…): (a) As my cites, including on-line ones you can easily consult (I am careful to provide freely available data), clearly indicate, Human variation is among the lowest of all mammalian species. Ergo, comparisions with dog breeds is comparing apples and oranges. I.e. argument by false analogy. Dogs have a higher degree of variability, which automatically admits greater differentiation than humanity. How this maps onto breeds is for someone with a knowledge of dog genetics to answer. (b) but given that, to an extent yes, dog breeds are artificially maintained by human breeding programs. It is my understanding that for most cases, dogs allowed to freely breed will quickly snap back to the ancestral wolf template. Ergo, to an extent, if this is correct, breeds may be a bit mythical: but this depends on whether there are fixed differences between them etc. I.e. it is **an empirical question to be answered through genetics, not eyeballing**. I am sure that some supposedly inherent differnces between breeds are human conditioned by human expectations about the breed. Only genetic research will be able to help reduce the problem of selection bias in determining real traits of species versus social expectations. But that’s another topic which I’m not that interested in. > [@](#): > > Is that it? Mankind is unique and racial classifications that are a part of animal taxonomy cannot happen in humans? Firstly, as I have already noted, its not a matter of **cannot** happen, but **did not** happen. Of course fixed differences and coherently, racially structured populations might have arisen in humanity if our genetic history were a bit different. However, genetic analysis simply shows **this did not happen**. That’s all, it didn’t happen. I’ve already provided this information to you, how many times? Oh yes, you don’t read cites you don’t agree with, yes? Secondly, as genetic analysis rapidly improves (and decreases in cost) we are moving to largely discard concepts such as sub-species. It is my understanding that more and more wildlife biologists, for example, are finding the sub-species concept less and less useful to describe actual breeding populations. > [@](#): > > I went into a museum in Dallas last year and there was a picture of a man along side a river. From across the room, I recognized him as an Indian from the Amazon. How did I do this? Was I psychic? A lucky racist guess? No, that population, through isolation and/or inbreeding produced a distinct physiologic and physionomic type, recognizable by both Victorians and the Politically Correct. Tom has already answered this rather **elementary** objection so I will not bother. I’ll just confine myself to noting that some horses can be lead to the water, but they won’t fucking drink for the life of them. > [@](#): > > In your political philosophy, Again, I invite you to come up with some substantive, **non-political** critique. And please, something a little better than eyeballing an indian in a museum. These asked and asnwered questions frankly both annoy and bore me now. > [@](#): > > did all of the RACES of mankind: blonde, black, curlied and kinkied haired; white, pink, yellow, brown, and black skinned; aquiline, snub, broad, or mega-nosed; blue, green, brown, round and slant eyed; all walk out of Africa together, arms linked in some Jesse Jackson Rainbow Out of Africa migration? “Jesse Jackson Rainbow Out of Africa migration”? I hate to say it, but this really strikes me as a fairly racist and ignorant statement. Not surprising, I suppose, but terribly disappointing. And disappointingly political. I fail to see any relevance. Nor do I have any remaining respect for you. Not a shred. As for human origins: genetic evidence fairly clearly supports an Out of Africa origin c. 100k years. The number of specialists supporting a Wolpoffian (Wolpoff is the main proponent) Multiple-Regional-Evolution Hypothesis (MREH) falls every year as the genetic data accumulates and the physical data is re-evaluated. More interesting question is what kind of Out of Africa event occured. Was it a stream, multiple migration with backflow? The detials of Out of Africa, the dynamics. Those are the questions before us. As for the issue of appearance, which you seem so very attached to: well this again is asked and answered. Tom and I have laboriously explained how appearance does not imply closer relation genetically, globally. How similar surface morphologies have arisen in groups who have not otherwise shared genes since seperation, etc. The links to the peace pit thread linked above (about page 2-3) should prove useful for anyone honestly wishing to read our analysis and citations. I just can’t bring myself to retype the same old same old. > [@](#): > > Not likely. The rationale for your analysis is? Genetic data? Your prejudices and desperate attachment to the idea of racial purity? Do you have any scientific basis for your judgements? > [@](#): > > A corollary of the Eve Hypothesis, which has to be true in at least some aspects, is that here had to be a small, homogeneous original group. Later, through isolation and inbreeding and selection by the environment, RACES originated. Sigh. It just goes on and on. (1) It is clear that humans went through a constriction event, something which knocked population size down to a small, homogenous population. (2) We subsequently expanded in population, and exited from Africa (3) environmental and perhaps social selection factors clearly put pressure on local groups and created divergent surface morphologies, but this pressure is only relevant to a vanishingly small percent of our total genome and our total variation. That is, humans have remained essentially homogenous, despite some deceptive visually striking phenotypical variation. (4) Genetic analysis clearly shows that no population was ever effectively isolated long enough for anything like homogenization on the sub-population level and fixed differences with other populations to arise. > [@](#): > > No question that we have mongrelized since 2000BC See my citations to Chamla posted previously. We have been “mongrels” well before 2000 BC. At no time was there any purity to be had. Or you can simply argue by assertion. > [@](#): > > and even more so since 1500AD. Well, no argument there. > [@](#): > > But that does not mean that there were not original RACES. Well, I’m afriad it does. The genetics is clear. Like it or lump it. Our randy little species sexual habits never allowed any formal barriers to arise. So, pity. > [@](#): > > They still pop up. Gregor Mendel might have been Victorian but his statistics are still valid. You have no fucking clue. Mendel studied plants my dear fellow. Plants. Beans. Simple traits. We’re well beyond Mendellian work now in any case. Do you seriously think that a half-assed pseudo-reference to Mendel trumps modern genetic research? > [@](#): > > What is the matter with multi dimensional cluster analysis anyway? Nothing, why? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/53 "2001-02-01T13:48:45Z")
I had even forgot that most of the relevant data to these ignorant fucking objections are right here in this thread. Okay, I think I’m just going to have to ignore Mispman. It’s quite clearly hopeless. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/54 "2001-02-01T14:56:00Z")
**collounsbury** > [@](#): > > I’m unclear as to what you mean by related and unrelated and what you are intending by subgroups. My instinct is to say it is untrue, but I’m not sure I understand your meaning clearly. If you can clarify your meaning, I’ll give it a shot, but its almost bedtime and tomorrow I really have to be productive. OK, I’ll try again. You said earlier that “try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation”. I interpreted that to mean that there are many subgroups in both Africa and Europe, and that some of the subgroups maybe genetically more similar to various subgroups in the other continent than they are to many subgroups in their own. (Furthermore, a group might more closely resemble Group A for a certain gene and Group B for another). My response to this is that, knowing nothing else about the groups or genes, it would seem to me that the odds are better with the same continent guy. I would think that even if they are from two different subgroups, there is a _greater likelihood_ that his group has intermarried with the other one in the more recent past. Also, they have likely been subjected to more similar environmental pressures, which you’ve acknowledged might influence their genetic makeup. Regarding the issue of political vs. scientific: I am not questioning anything that you have said from a scientific standpoint (while at it, I want to express my appreciation for the time and effort that you’ve put into answering my questions. This is one of the great things about this MB - you can get complicated questions answered by People Who Actually Know What They Talking About). Nonetheless, I do believe that all these discussions have a political undertone. Everyone knows that the idea of racial differences plays into the hands of bigots, and is widely used by White Supremacists. There is, for this reason, a powerful motivation to deny the idea of racial differences. In your specific case, I am **not** suggesting that you are presenting the facts any differently than you would if there was no political issue involved. This does not seem to be the case at all. But I do think you are tailoring your language somewhat in order to make the overall emphasis be on the “no racial differences” side. In particular, it seems to me, after much discussion in the Pit thread, that your position (from a scientific, not linguistic, perspective) is closer to that of **DITWD** than it is to **DDG** , but that you framed the debate in terms that would allow you to back her (PC) side. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/55 "2001-02-01T15:34:36Z")
I’m going to try to call it quits with this. Tom and others seem to achieve greater clarity than I do, so perhaps they are better suited: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > You said earlier that “try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation”. I interpreted that to mean that there are many subgroups in both Africa and Europe, and that some of the subgroups maybe genetically more similar to various subgroups in the other continent than they are to many subgroups in their own. (Furthermore, a group might more closely resemble Group A for a certain gene and Group B for another). Partly there but not quite (1): Many subgroups in all populations, that is clear, depending on the size there might or might not be some higher consistency for some traits. (2): (a) Other than for that % of variation (see first page for citations) which varies by population, and is subject to environmental selection, i.e. the minority, sub-groups from the same continent will not necessarily be more similar. In fact its unlikely above all in Africa, seat of the highest degree of variation, (b) further individual variation overwhelms inter-group variation, making as Tom said, it as likely or more likley that Brazilian indian X will be more similar, globably genetically speaking, to European Y than Indian Z. Essentially you’re reimporting the assumption of racial coherence by the back door. I know this is counter intuitive but that’s how the cookie crumbled. I can’t think of other ways to explain this, so I am going to have to ask you to try to tackle the literature. Or Tom can try reclarifying. > [@](#): > > My response to this is that, knowing nothing else about the groups or genes, it would seem to me that the odds are better with the same continent guy. Well, that’s generally incorrect. I don’t have any further ways of explaining this, than asking you to carefully reread Tom and mine explanations. You’re assuming what I’ve told you is not the case, that there is regionally coherent structure to trait distribution (outside of the small phenological variation). To put it this way: if I knew which package of genes controled skin color and I knew ahead of time two samples were from tropics and one from northern hemisphere, then I can predict something based on shared environment/possibly decent. Outside of such traits, the minority, I can’t really. > [@](#): > > I would think that even if they are from two different subgroups, there is a _greater likelihood_ that his group has intermarried with the other one in the more recent past. True, but again return to what the data tells us, and once again keep in mind that most variation is not by group! This is a **non-trivial** point. I’m beggining to repeat myself now so perhaps I will leave off. > [@](#): > > Also, they have likely been subjected to more similar environmental pressures, which you’ve acknowledged might influence their genetic makeup. Absolutely, but again, we’ve already noted what % of variation that makes up. Go back to the data and think about this. Your problem is that despite what you think, you’re still **assuming racial coherency** although you’re now restructured your terminology. > [@](#): > > Regarding the issue of political vs. scientific: I am not questioning anything that you have said from a scientific standpoint (while at it, I want to express my appreciation for the time and effort that you’ve put into answering my questions. This is one of the great things about this MB - you can get complicated questions answered by People Who Actually Know What They Talking About). well, thanks, although one should always question me, and I don’t know that I really know what I am talking about… > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, I do believe that all these discussions have a political undertone. Everyone knows that the idea of racial differences plays into the hands of bigots, and is widely used by White Supremacists. There is, for this reason, a powerful motivation to deny the idea of racial differences. Quite true, but on the other hand I am quite aware that without “biology” there will be other motivations. I focus my argument on the biology. I have absolutely no illusions this will do the least damn good for eliminating prejudice. In any case, the data is the data is the data. Before I got to know this stuff, through the 1990s I assumed there were races just like everyone else. **Without** it I would make the same arguments I have seen from others opposing the genetic data: sure there are differences (obvious aren’t they?), but that doesn’t me we should discriminate etc. > [@](#): > > In your specific case, I am **not** suggesting that you are presenting the facts any differently than you would if there was no political issue involved. This does not seem to be the case at all. But I do think you are tailoring your language somewhat in order to make the overall emphasis be on the “no racial differences” side. In particular, it seems to me, after much discussion in the Pit thread, that your position (from a scientific, not linguistic, perspective) is closer to that of **DITWD** than it is to **DDG** , but that you framed the debate in terms that would allow you to back her (PC) side. I’m afraid that you are misunderstanding the issues if you think so – except perhaps if DDG was utterly denying that genetics has an influence on intelligence. I don’t recall. My position was not at all close to DITWD, if I understood him correctly. He was positing, at the start (a) group based intelligence differences (fine, clearly there) (b) based on inherent biological differences between these groups (not terribly likely, indeed unlikely, but let’s see what groups were used) © and those groups were defined as the classical races (or something similar). Bzzt. Wrong. Fails to meet the test as far as data goes. We don’t have racial groups (using the classical sense) on a genetic level. As I understood DDG, her argument was that (a) there are no geneticaly definable races (Correct w/o doubt) (b) Intelligence is poorly measured and current science does not allow us to allocate resp. to genes or not on any group level (correct in my view) © that intelligence does not vary signifanctly by genes alone (unclear). I’m more or less concerned with the population issue. I think most people will agree the intelligence issue simply can’t be reasonably defined as of yet. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/56 "2001-02-01T15:36:18Z")
…and I think I see the point here. I do see the political implications though. No affirmative action, no slave reperations, no set asides…etc…etc… Ok. I have a couple of more specific questions. Are you saying that from a genetic level you can’t tell if a person is Asian, Black or European? Are you saying that the small islands stuck out in the middle of nowhere were not able to isolate themselves long enough to become genetically recognizable? When you refer to “traits,” what are you talking about? If traits mean a certain combination of visual clues, then I would have to think that visually recognizable populations would share enough traits to recognize them at a genetic level. Are the visual identifiers nothing more than humans amazing ability to adapt to environmental conditions in ways that are superflous to who we are? (kind of like a chameleon effect) BTW… Out of nowhere my SO detoured us to Barnes and Noble last last. I was so pissed that I didn’t have your book list with me. It is now in my wallet for the next trip. Once again, thanks. I feel like I am in class, not in GD.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/57 "2001-02-01T15:43:08Z")
I just missed your last post by 2 minutes. You can’t quit. I won’t let you. Don’t make me start another one of those Pit threads about individual posters now…🙂 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/58 "2001-02-01T15:58:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom2 \* > I do see the political implications though. No affirmative action, no slave reperations, no set asides…etc…etc… See, all kinds of arguments can come from the scientific data, either pro or con for left and right. I dunno if all would derive the same conclusions, but I welcome Freedom’s demonstration that the data in and of itself does not enforce either a left or a right wing conclusion. It does exclude **idiotic** conclusions, but then so does knowing the world is round. Now, further: > [@](#): > > Are you saying that from a genetic level you can’t tell if a person is Asian, Black or European? Largely yes. Depends on precisely the parameters. If you gave my analysts (who really should be working with rice) three samples from someon id’d as each, but we did not know anything about any single sample… we might not be able to tell. Knowing something about each sample, knowing a bit about distributions, excluding certain populations, limiting the analysis to a set of traits subject to selection pressure, and some luck, we might do okay but I wouldn’t put money on us. (see below for further comments) Then I am risk averse. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that the small islands stuck out in the middle of nowhere were not able to isolate themselves long enough to become genetically recognizable? Hmm, that’s another matter. I don’t know if we have sufficient data on large numbers of Pacific Islanders. Micro-populations can be distinguished by the rare traits they may carry. I believe Cavalli-Sforza noted that in order to get coherent populations you’d have to get down to a million races. Scale can be key determinant here. > [@](#): > > When you refer to “traits,” what are you talking about? If traits mean a certain combination of visual clues, then I would have to think that visually recognizable populations would share enough traits to recognize them at a genetic level. Traits, I mean alleles. Variations of genes. Any given gene will have a number of variations, flavors. The answer to the above is no bec.: (a) similar appearances derive from different packages of alleles on the same continent (b) similar appearances have arisen independantly from different populations (c) all too often the similarity is mostly in the perception of people, Tom’s color response is quite useful here. Selection bias in perception. Otherwise we would say, fine races are not meaningful all in all bec. of variation, but we can define them by allele X,T and Z of genes 1,2,3 for skin color. However, to date, nothing breaks down that way. > [@](#): > > Are the visual identifiers nothing more than humans amazing ability to adapt to environmental conditions in ways that are superflous to who we are? (kind of like a chameleon effect) More or less yes. The amount of variation which the visual identifiers represents is trivial. The % and so forth are on the first page. > [@](#): > > Once again, thanks. I feel like I am in class, not in GD.🙂 It would be wonderful if one day this was only a GQ topic. However, you can always join the sweatshops thread. I might be moved to oppose you for your libertarianism, but there won’t be clear cut answers at least. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/59 "2001-02-01T18:41:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > I’m going to try to call it quits with this. Tom and others seem to achieve greater clarity than I do, so perhaps they are better suited Don’t sell yourself short. You do quite well, given the subject matter. Anyway, maybe I can persuade you to comment on a related matter - the [Cohen Gene](http://www.geneticsnow.com/anecdotes.htm)? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387/60 "2001-02-01T20:31:45Z")
**Freedom:** > [@](#): > > I do see the political implications though. No affirmative action, no slave reperations, no set asides…etc…etc… Could you further articulate this? On another thread, if need be? Here, I think, is where we need to make a distinction between race as a (fictional) biological construct and ethnicity as a (very real) historical determinant. That is, just because race doesn’t exist biologically doesn’t automatically nullify all programmatic remedies for historical ethnic inequity. If I may, let me quote myself from a short essay I wrote in an Ethnic Politics class a couple of years ago. The question was, "Assuming that race has no biological justification, how can we explain world-wide practices of racial stratification, exploitation, and racial ‘consciousness?’ **Collounsbury** and **Tom** , let me know if my answer is in any way off-base, but I believe it bears directly upon **Freedom’s** assertion that the nullification of race as biology necessitates the dismissal of “race” as a socio-political actor. > [@](#): > > Though it is true that the concept of race is more a product of subjective perception than empirical physiology, disputes based on racial identification need not be moored in biological validity to assume a tangible role in the affairs of the world. In fact, the malleability which is afforded race as a social rather than empirical phenomenon allows wild variance in the nature and degree of ethnic conflict. Great differences may be ascribed to demographically similar peoples as a means of justifying stratification or oppression. Conversely, ethnic groups of disparate backgrounds may be unified beneath a single racial banner in order to better achieve common interests. > > Race, then, becomes another cultural characteristic–much like language and religion–out of which great social utility arises from an ability to polarize groups of people based on mass perception. The classification of individuals by the color of their skin, and the assignment of attributes based on these classifications, are convenient ways to partition the world into safely comprehensible segments. Often, too, “race” is simply the most visible factor in equations of exploitation or self-identification which also include cleavages of language, class, religion, geography, or ideology. Does that make any sense, **Freedom**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/races-dont-exist/52387.md?page=4)