Arguments regarding the existence of races

The existence of human races was almost universally accepted by scientists before the middle of the twentieth century. Thereafter it has become increasingly politically incorrect to support the existence of human races but many scientists still do. This article discusses the scientific arguments regarding the existence of human races.

Arguments for human biological races

See also Race for definitions of the concept

Predictive Value

"In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. Predictions can be made using the taxonomic category of race because, on average, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are similar to each other and different from White Americans, Germans, and Russians, who are similar to each other and different from Black Americans, Haitians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Predictability is the criterion by which the value of a hypothetical construct like race is evaluated. As I will show, race is highly predictive." (Rushton, 2001)

The ontological value of race is due to its informativity which stems from the fact that traits are correlated through a dimension described by race labels, such that knowing some racial traits allows one to predict others. Dawkins 2004:

"However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Races aren't specifically Human

Nine subspecies of Giraffe in Africa

Races are found in many other species, even in vegetables to flies. As the zoologist Ernst Mayr (2002) remarks:

"Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature."

Zoologists who objectively study animals, do not apply different rules to humans through emotional or political bias. In other words, races or varieties, like in many other species, have also to exist in humans by the same principles, "It has long been recognized that most species have several varieties or what in humans are called races" (Lynn, 2006). The zoologist Eugene R. Hall recognised five subspecies in man.

Ensatina salamander races in West North-America. Like humans these show intermediate forms. The Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end. As such it is thought to be an example of incipient speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process" (Dobzhansky, 1958)

As Hamilton (2008) notes in his article "Taxonomic Approaches to Races":

"Although controversy exists among biologists over individual subspecific designations, denial of the category’s existence is not the scientific or cultural norm. Endangered species acts of many nations, and international treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), recognize and protect subspecific taxa. The US Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) protects not only subspecies of plants and animals, but, among vertebrates, subunits called “distinct population segments” (DPSs)." [2]

Cavalli-Sforza and Walter Bodmer in 1976 wrote that "races could be called sub-species if we adopted for man a criterion from systematic zoology. The criterion is that two or more groups become sub-species when 75 percent or more of all individuals constituting the groups can be unequivocally classified as belonging to a particular group." They further stated that for major human races it is possible to identify the race for many more humans than 75%.

"Charles Darwin noted 'the enormous range of man, which is a great anomaly in the class of mammals, if mankind be viewed as a single species.' (Darwin, 1871/1874, p. 268). Naturally occurring polytypic groups within a species are called varieties, subspecies, or races." (Whitney, 1999)

Extremely high correspondence between self-reported race and genetically determined race

In a US study from 2005 in 99.86% of the cases a person's self-described race (White, Black, East Asian, or Hispanic) corresponded with person's race as determined from the person's DNA. A study from 2010 looking at 51 different populations found that DNA based "assignment of individuals to their self-reported populations of origin is essentially perfect."

Two individuals from separated populations are never as genetically similar as two individuals from the same population

"A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: 'How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?' In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: 'Never' (Witherspoon et al. 2007, 357)."

Race deniers often bring up an early study which claimed to show James Watson was more genomically similar to a Korean scientist than to Craig Venter. This was likely due to the poor sampling quality of early genome reads.

Continental gene pools

Further information: Populationists

A very large body of genetic research have developed on the genetic similarities and dissimilarities and evolutionary history of different human "populations". For example, Cavalli-Sforza et al. in a widely cited study in 1994 used genetic measurements to describe different human "populations" including how genetically similar or dissimilar the different groups are. The categorization was argued to be supported by language patterns, language history, and archaeological research. Cavalli-Sforza et al. never described these "populations" as races in these studies, but others have argued that the researchers simply chose to use a euphemism in order to avoid politically correct criticism. The described groups also closely followed those described in classical anthropology.

"Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American." (Risch, 2002)

Numerous studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, matching self-identifying racial groups: Sub-Saharan Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002, Tang et al. 2005).

"Employing the term “race” in the populational sense, as a substitute for local population, may be convenient and is certainly traditional. That, indeed, was Dobzhansky' [1962] understanding of race." (Kaszycka and Strzalko, 2003)

Cladistics

"Races as commonly understood are clades defined by continent. That is all there is to them. Hence, unless one is prepared to deny the existence of sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and Asia, races plainly exist." (Levin, 2002)

Comparative fixation index values

The above criterion relied on morphological classification. A more recent method is the genetic measure "fixation index". The populations of other species with fixation index values similar to that of humans are classified as subspecies. Sewell Wright, the creator of the measure, stated regarding human populations that if "differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies." Unfortunately, an influential paper in 1998, the same year that the American Anthropological Association issued a statement rejecting biological human races, made several mistakes such as confusing fixation index with the earlier morphological criterion and incorrectly stated that the human fixation index value was evidence against human biological races.

A 2006 study found that the extent of genetic differentiation among subspecies of chimpanzees and orangutans is comparable to that seen among human populations.

A 2002 study found that the human fixation index value means that "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings."

Racial hierarchies

Hierarchies exist in all countries that have several races with the different populations differing similarly regardless of country regarding variables such as crime, income, school results, education, etc. It does not matter if some groups were very poor when they arrived to a new country. After a while the same consistent hierarchies as elsewhere are established.

Convenience

Theodosius Dobzhansky

"It is far better to find out, and to explain to others, the real nature of the observable phenomenon which is, and will continue to be, called ‘race’" (Dobzhansky, 1963). Others have taken this approach noting that race is the most useful and practical in terms of understanding biodiversity, and that even if the divisions are debated, they still have place in science. Therefore some Population geneticists regard races to be heuristic.

Arguments against human biological races (with rebuttals)

Obsolete Fallacy

One common fallacy used by race denialists is to say "race is obsolete" or that the majority of scientists agree human races don't biologically exist. Graves (2002) for example writes:

"The majority of geneticists, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists agree that there are no biological races in the human species."

Richard Lynn notes that this claim is simply incorrect. Surveys and statistics (see "Current Status" section below) show denial of race is almost non-existent in China, and East Asia, while only minor in Russia and parts of Europe, such as Poland. Two Polish anthropologists, Kaszycka and Strkalj explain why race denial is only high in America:

"Americans have become very sensitive to race, and the term has acquired strongly sensitive connotations. Many American scientists have opted for the non-existence of human races. Furthermore, the growing demands of "political correctness" militate against the use of the term in and outside science.... Few scientists dare to study racial origins, lest they be branded racists simply for being interested in the problem."

In May 2007, the Maxwell Museum and Department of Anthropology of the University of New Mexico hosted a symposium entitled, "Race Reconciled?: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation". Some American anthroplogists and biologists who attended this symoposium defended race from a populational approach asserting that biological variation is apportioned between different continental populations, and that these can be recognised as races. The claim "race is obsolete" is therefore even invalid by American standards.

Declarations by UNESCO and the American Anthropological Association

The United Nations agency UNESCO has published several declarations regarding race. UNESCO was after WWII officially requested to create a propaganda campaign which should be "disseminating scientific facts designed to remove what is generally known as racial prejudice". UNESCO decided to create a declaration as a foundation for the campaign. In 1950 the declaration "The Race Question" was published. A majority of the authors were sociologists and the main author was the Jewish anthropologist Ashley Montagu. The declaration recognized the existence of races but at the same time made many controversial claims and demands. The publication was followed by widespread criticisms by critics who saw it as an attempt to politically decide what should be the scientific truth. In 1951 a somewhat less controversial revised version was published. None of the declarations cited any sources as support for the statements.

UNESCO has after this published several new declarations. The latest published in 1978 completely dismissed the role of genetics regarding any controversial race difference. The declaration was authored by "specialists in human rights" (instead of by experts on race) and "adopted by the meeting of government representatives by consensus, without opposition or vote" and without citing any supporting sources.

Race denialists also quote the American Anthropological Association who published a Statement on "Race" in 1998 arguing against human races. However they usually quote this statement out of context. The statement does not discredit every race concept, furthermore the statement was adopted without any membership voting by the Executive Board. Many AAA members personally argue strongly against the adopted statement. Anthropologist Francis E. Johnston for example has stated in his paper "Race and Biology" (2004) presented at the interdisciplinary conference Race and Human Variation: Setting an Agenda for Future Research and Education sponsored by the AAA that:

"Our challenge, especially for those concerned with race, is not to discard the term as irrelevant. There is a basis to race, especially in the broad, Linnaean sense and to ignore it is to do a disservice to the scholarship which has preceded us, as well as to stand as fools before our students and the general public."

99.9% shared DNA?

It has been found that all humans share 99.5-99.9% of their DNA with other humans. This has been used as an argument against human races.

However, a single base pair difference in a gene can dramatically change the functions and the effects of the gene. This means that the percentage of genes that differ between humans could theoretically be very large even if the percentage of base pairs that differ is very small. Furthermore, some genes controls other genes. Thus, a single base pair change in one such regulatory gene could influence many other genes causing very large effects.

Even if only looking at base pairs, since there are about three billion base pairs, then a 0.1% difference still means that there are about three million base pair differences. The number of different unique combinations possible of such individual base pair differences is extremely large.

The number of base pairs that humans and chimpanzees share has been estimated to be 98.77% (and the same study stated that humans share 99.83% of their DNA). This demonstrates that a high number is perfectly compatible with very large differences.

More recent research has also stated that the 99.9% figure is incorrect since earlier measurement methods could not detect certain kinds of genetic differences such as copy number variation. For example, a 2006 study stated that the correct number is 99.5% or lower.

"Out of Africa" and related arguments

It is sometimes stated that "We are all Africans". Even if completely accepting the Out of Africa theory, this still does not prove the nonexistence of human races anymore than statements such as "We are all primates" or "We are all mammals" prove the nonexistence of different species.

The strictest version of the Out of Africa theory (that the modern human evolved at one point in Africa and completely replaced all other pre-existing archaic humans) is now disproven after it has been shown that different human groups have interbred with different archaic humans such as Neanderthals, Denisovans, and archaic humans in Africa. This makes the ancestry and genetics of different human races much more complicated and heterogeneous than previously thought.

In recent times there have been demands to only accept monophyletic taxonomic groups (groups that contain all the descendants of a single common ancestor). This has among other effects caused the group dinosaurs to sometimes be redefined to include birds, since birds descend from dinosaurs. Sub-Saharan Africans are argued to not form a monophyletic group (by excluding those who left Sub-Saharan Africa) which would mean that the group is not a proper taxonomic group. However, non-monophyletic groups are often very practically useful (such as the group "non-bird dinosaurs") and continue to be studied and used practically. If insisting on monophyly, then this can be solved by dividing the Sub-Saharan Africans into several different races who all then can be monophyletic. Regardless, this discussion does not affect whether races in general exist or not.

Nested genetic diversity

Genetic diversity measures. It is not even clear Africans have more genetic diversity.

Sub-Saharan African races are claimed to have higher genetic diversity than others (possibly from back mixing with primitive lines after the evolution of Sapiens from Heidelbergensis) and it is claimed that non-African races are a "subset" of Africans. This is not correct, nor would it invalidate a taxonomic distinction even if it was. There are genes largely unique to each race (Coop 2009). Even if there weren't, distinctive patterns of genes would validate a taxonomy. Since, despite supposed higher diversity, Sub-Saharan Africans are more similar to each other than to members of other races, they constitute a natural division. Furthermore, similar patterns are found between subspecies of other organisms, where this argument is not made. A recent finding is that supposed higher diversity in Africa was caused by Caucasoid migrations into Africa.

Further the claim that Africans have higher genetic diversity is misleading since there are different types of genetic diversity. Considering intragroup (within one population) versus intergroup (between neighboring populations) diversity, some non-African populations are found to have higher levels of intergroup diversity, such as Native Americans. Intergroup diversity is thought to best indicate population age, as separated groups diverged. However, statements about African "diversity" usually refer to intragroup diversity. An example is the Taiwanese origin of Polynesians, strongly demonstrated by linguistic evidence. The Taiwanese aborigines have lower intragroup diversity, which according to the out of Africa model would suggest a migration into Taiwan, but higher intergroup diversity, which corresponds to a migration out of Taiwan according to the revised understanding of diversity.

Impossibility of counting races

Race deniers often point out that various race taxonomies use different numbers of races, and imply the process must therefore be flawed. The various taxonomies are using different levels of sub-classification (and the race concept has historically always allowed for this). For example, the three major races (eg. Caucasoid), or the next level (Europeans or South Asian Indians, both of which are sub-types of Caucasoid). This race denial fallacy ignores the hierarchical structure of the data. According to Mayr (1942) micro-races exist in larger geographical races. In subspecies of animals, these are synonymous with microsubspecies (Huxley, 1963, p. 202) and subsubspecies (Goldschmidt).

Related to this is an objection to the use of the clustering software STRUCTURE, which operates using k-means clustering, to split races, since it must be fed a preset number of groups to operate. It is valid to do this since race is simply an operationalization of semi-continuous variation, and various group numbers can be used to find the "best fit". Principle component analysis (PCA) uses no group numbers and global and local maxima in PCA are a common method of identifying "ancestral groups" or races.

Enough time?

Another argument is that the human species has existed for only a short time and that this would be insufficient to cause large genetic group differences. A counter-argument is that large group differences may occur when subspecies move to new areas as is the case for humans. Besides the different natural selection in different geographic areas there are also mechanisms such as the founder effect which may cause race differences as a small group moves to a new area and populates it. There are examples from other mammal species of large differences developing between different groups within the species over a short time period.

Furthermore, experimental studies have shown that very large group differences may develop over a short time period when the selection pressure is intense. Thus, experimental studies on rats and foxes have demonstrated that very large group differences regarding aggression and related traits can occur over a short time period when these traits are selected for in breeding.

Lewontin's Fallacy

A highly fallacious argument against human biological races was published in 1972 by Richard Lewontin✡. Lewontin found that most human genetic variation is found within races, and less is found between races. Lewontin's results have been duplicated by many other genetic researchers. This has been cited evidence for the view that human race classifications have little genetic significance or that race cannot be predicted from a person's genes.

The 2003 paper exposing the errors with Lewtontin's claims. Classification accuracy increases with genetic loci

There have been various technical and other criticisms of the low value such as it being low even if adding chimpanzees as a race. Even assuming the value is technically correct this analysis ignores the fact that genetic differences may correlate with one another. Thus to racially classify a person by examining the persons DNA is very uncertain if only looking at a single genetic marker which is in accordance with Lewontin's argument. But the uncertainty becomes extremely low if simultaneously looking at many genetic markers. This has been referred to as "Lewontin's Fallacy". A. W. F. Edwards in 2003 coined "Lewontin's Fallacy", and highlighted the flaws. [3] However many others preceded him. The analysis also makes no distinction between neutral and non-neutral alleles.

Lewontin had participated in a congress where it was demonstrated that the genetic correlations are actually important before he published his paper. But Lewontin did not mention this in his very influential study. It has also been argued that Lewontin made an unjustified attack on biological human races which he deplored for social reasons and more specifically for the results found in race and Intelligence research. Despite being officially regarded as a fallacy (even in peer-reviewed publications) race denialists still use Lewontin's fallacy.

Supposed discordance of traits and classification methods

The same applies when forensic anthropologists determine a person's race by looking at skeletal remains. If only looking at single skeletal characteristic, then the results are very uncertain (see single-trait fallacy below). However if looking at many skeletal characteristics then a person's race or racial type can be determined with a certainty that may approach 100%. Despite this it is frequently asserted with no empirical evidence by race denialists that using more traits breaks down classification. Thus one bewildered scientist in 1992 wrote a paper called "If Races Do Not Exist, Why Are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying Them?".

"A study that covered 17 populations over the world and that relied on 34 different measurements managed to assign 98% of the specimens to their correct major racial group (Brues, 1990). Another more recent study had a success rate of 80% in distinguishing between American Whites and Blacks, although it used just two variables. With seven variables, however, it reached the reliability of 95%, and with 19 variables the probability of correct classification rose to 97%" (Ousley et al. 2009).

Also, estimating generally the reliability of attributing a given data point to one of the five racial categories, another team of experts calculated that under some realistic conditions it is sufficient to use as few as 13 characteristics to have the posterior probability of the correct classification attain the value of 99% (Konigsberg et al. 2009)" (Sesardic, 2010). See race in forensic science dispute for more information.

"The empirical reality appears to refute decisively the claim so confidently advocated by many philosophers that "as the number of traits increases, racial classification becomes increasingly difficult" (Andreasen 2004, 428), or that "multiplying phenotypic racial traits has the result … that … they correlate with one another in no particular order, throwing the alleged features for biological racial reality into an unorganized mess" (Glasgow 2009, 88). This is exactly backwards: multiplying relevant phenotypic racial traits brings more order and structure, and indeed lays ground for an objective biological classification." (Sesardic, 2010).

Diamond's Fallacy

Jared Diamond✡ invented a fallacy that asserts different criteria can produce different categorization of races, and so races are socially constructed: "There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications" (This oft-repeated quote, written by Jared Diamond in a now-famous 1994 Discover article titled "Race Without Color"). However this is simply wrong because he was ignoring traits that have been shown to shown to be regional. For instance, Relethford reported that 88% of the variation in skin color is found between continent or major regional populations. This becomes a near 100%, when certain skeletal traits are also considered.

Rushton (1998) asserts that Diamond's claim also has no predictive value:

"Diamond's classifications, however, are nonsensical. They are far more arbitrary than the traditional classifications because the traits he singles out for classifying have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest".

Singular-trait Fallacy

Linked to Diamond's fallacy, race denialists claim race classification is only possible if based on singular traits (a straw man). This is obviously a fallacy as very few, if any, traits are only found in specific races or population. For example while some Whites have blonde or flaxen hair, tawny shades also pop up among Australoids. As Sesardic (2010) notes:

"Furthermore, these claims clearly go against the entrenched common sense belief that racial recognition is not actually based on a single trait (like skin color) but rather on a number of characteristics that are to a certain extent concordant and that jointly make the classification not only possible but fairly reliable as well (a point that Diamond himself actually acknowledges sotto voce but which, buried at the end of his article, has been completely lost on most readers amidst his thundering denunciations of the race concept)."

Races have to be discrete or the "single gene" fallacy

Race denialists usually set up straw man arguments, such as races must be discrete or non-overlapping:

"It appears that those who attempt to deconstruct the concept of race by gratuitously burdening it with essentialist connotations ("discrete", "non-overlapping", "discontinuous", "defined by racial markers", "racial genes", etc.) are unaware that their criticism has already been addressed by Dobzhansky more than

40 years ago: 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). (in Sesardic, 2010)

"Appeal to continuity as a disproof of race needs the added assumption that races must be discontinuous" (Levin, 2002) [emphasis added]

Despite this, race defined by overall genetic similarity does produce non-overlapping clusters. Any individuals which fall between clusters can be considered mixed and/or a separate race. In this sense a set of gene probabilities and only a set of gene probabilities can be considered the 'essence' of a race (Devitt 2008), although this is not essentialism in the pre-Darwinian immutable Platonic sense.

Semantic games with taxonomic labels

Race denialists often confuse race with subspecies. There is one human subspecies extant which divides into races. Homo sapiens is divided into several subspecies including sapiens sapiens and sapiens neanderthalensis. Only one subspecies level in any organism is named by the Code of Zoological Nomenclature due to the number of names involved with recording the next level. This does not imply that further subdivision is not possible, and biologists routinely use infrasubspecific categories with other organisms, using terms such as subspecies (in the broad sense), race, breed, etc.

Another tactic is to substitute the term race with "population", such as using "West Eurasian population", which is synonymous with Caucasoid. Edwards describes an example incident:

"When in the 1960s I started working on the problem of reconstructing the course of human evolution from data on the frequencies of blood-group genes my colleague Luca Cavalli-Sforza and I sometimes unconsciously used the word ‘race’ interchangeably with ‘population’ in our publications. In one popular account, I wrote naturally of ‘the present races of man.’ Quite recently I quoted the passage in an Italian publication, so it needed translating. Sensitive to the modern misgivings over the use of the word ‘race’, Cavalli-Sforza suggested I change it to ‘population.’ At ?rst I was reluctant to do so on the grounds that quotations should be accurate and not altered to meet contemporary sensibilities. But he pointed out that, as the original author, I was the only person who could possibly object. I changed ‘present races of man’ to ‘present populations of man’ and sent the paper to be translated into Italian. When it was published the translator had rendered the phrase as ‘le razze umane moderne.’ (Edwards undated, unpublished manuscript)". (cited in Sesardic, 2010)

Other euphemisms proposed to replace the word race are ethnoancestral, bioethnic, ethnobiohistorical, ancestral-ethnic, social-designation, biocultural, biopopulation, ethnosocial, ancestral, ancestor-historical, origin group, population structure, and ethnogeographical, among others. The goal is simply to muddy and censor discussion of race: no valid reason is given to change terms other than vague claims of "inviting examination of the criteria for classification" or "avoiding baggage".

The existence of exceptional individuals

Race denialists may also point out some exceptional individuals who do not conform to the typical racial pattern regarding some characteristic. This is arguably like claiming that the two different sexes do not exist because one can find some women who are taller than the average man. The argumentum ad omnibus fallacy is frequently deployed ("they don't all do that").

Continuous change of traits/Clines

Another argument against human biological races is that at least in prehistoric times, when quick large scale migrations did not occur, genetics and associated traits such as skin color did not abruptly change at some kind of geographic border between different races. Instead it is argued that change was gradual and continuous. Thus is it argued that distinct races cannot be clearly separated and identified. One argument against this is that some researchers have found discontinuous genetic change at certain geographic barriers such as the Oceans, the Sahara, and the Himalayas. Stanley Marion Garn in the 1960's mapped out nine major races by barriers (note that space by distance is a zoological barrier itself). While traits such as locally adapted phenotypic skin color indeed follow a clinal pattern due to latitude, it does not follow that genes do. Furthermore, it is found that those Caucasoids and Mongoloids who developed lighter skin did so via independent sets of genes, which are shared within those races.

Garn's (1961) nine world races by geographical barrier

Another argument is that it is only certain genetics and associated traits (such as morphological traits) that follow the pattern of climate zones. Other traits do not. This may mislead some researchers. However these latter traits are usually non-racial (see Diamond's fallacy). Another is that even if the change was continuous and gradual this is perfectly compatible with very large differences if comparing groups that were separated by large distances. One example of this are ring species in which some groups separated by long distances are not even able to reproduce with one another although all intermediate populations may do so with their neighbors.

Hi-res version (recommend canvas enabled browser such as Firefox). Variation tends to cluster and the vast majority of indivduals fall into one of these clusters. The main Negroid/ Caucasoid/ Mongoloid/ Native-American clusters are found at the vertices and end-points of the plot. Some groups such as Ethiopians and Uyghurs in the graphic are mixed and spread between.

Linked to the above straw man, race denialists assert physical variation is clinal, and therefore cannot be grouped, clustered or categorized. However Levin shows how virtually everything by nature is a continuum or spectrum, and that it's a fallacy (continuum fallacy) to believe clines impugn a classification:

"By itself, this point does not impugn racial classifications, since many classification schemes draw borders through flux. The North Pole is regarded as "arctic" and Sarawak "tropical," although Sarawak can be reached from the North Pole by tiny steps no one of which is marked by noticeable climatic change. Despite continuous variation in stellar temperatures, astronomers put stars neatly into spectral types. Swedes may be grouped with Swedes and Bantus with Bantus so long as the mean Swede differs from the mean Bantu, despite the existence of intermediate individuals or fertile Swedish/Bantu matings. Certainly, observers will almost always noncollusively agree in classifying individuals by race. Appeal to continuity as a disproof of race needs the added assumption that races must be discontinuous - an assumption Bondi and Rickards never formulate explicitly and endorse only by implication: "'Variability does not conform to the discrete packages labeled races'" (citing Livingstone).

Nonetheless, the assumption is critical. And (to repeat), given that some arbitrariness and vagueness at the margins is tolerated elsewhere, it is not clear why populations must be biometrically or psychometrically or genetically discrete to count as races. Bondi and Rickards never say, and neither, to my knowledge, do other critics of race. Actually, phenotypic or genotypic continuity is a red herring, since in its basic use race does not involve these factors, and is in fact not vague at all. 'Race" as understood by ordinary speakers and population biologists denotes the descendents of some individual or set of individuals, usually specified geographically. In particular, the conventionally recognized races - Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid - are, respectively, the descendants." (Levin, 2002)

Anthropologist N. Dubova points out that "[It is absurd] to deny the objectivity of races on the basis of large numbers of transitional variants – one may… then assert that the colors red, blue and yellow do not exist in the [light] spectrum, insofar as they are all combinations of parts of the general spectrum" (cited in Alekseeva et al., 2002).

Human geographic variation has been found to be largely non-clinal through continental barriers, with broad discontinuities between major races. The genetic distance between Bangladesh and Burma is greater than between Bangladesh and Europe, despite geographic adjacency. As shown above a race concept could be applied to a cline, and can certainly be applied to more clustered than clinal human variation.

Some groups are difficult to classify due to interbreeding

Race denialists may point to countries like Brazil where extensive interbreeding between the races have caused large groups of mixed origin, or showing mixed racial traits. It is argued that in Brazil who is seen as White is partially culturally influenced with increased wealth causing increased likelihood of being perceived as White. Against this may firstly be pointed out that the mere existence of mixed origin dogs, that may be difficult to classify, does not change that there are very distinct groups of dogs. Furthermore, today it it possible to determine the ancestral origin(s), and the proportions for each origin if several, by analyzing a person's DNA.

Hybrid races (such as Aethiopid) are recognised, just how mixed-dog breeds are (but not always named).

"Strong interpretation" or perfect informativity strawman

Sesardic in 2013 documented a strawman deployed by Hochman which claimed that race naturalists believed in what he called a "strong" interpretation of race, some operationalization of which captured all human variation. He also claimed that nobody disputed the "weak" interpretation, that race concepts are informative to some degree. Both claims are false.

Well, let’s see. Consider typical statements made repeatedly by leading racial constructionists that race is biologically "meaningless" (AAA, 1994; Fish, 2002, p. 138; Gould✡, 1996, p. 379; Marshall, 1998, p. 654; Rose✡, 2002; Schwartz, 2001), that "race as biology is fiction" (Smedley & Smedley, 2005), that "race is the phlogiston of our time" (Montagu✡, 1964, p. xii ; similarly Hirschfeld✡, 1998, p. 36), that "race" is a concept like unicorn (Fish, 2002, p. 138), that "the reality of human races is [ ... ] destined to follow the flat Earth into oblivion"(Diamond✡, 1994 ; a similar claim is also made by physical anthropologist A. Goodman✡ in the 2003 PBS educational documentary "Race: The Power of an Illusion"), etc. (Sesardic 2013, stars added)

"Race is only skin deep"

It is sometimes claimed that races only describe some superficial differences in physical appearance. In fact different races differ on a very large number of traits such as differences regarding genetic susceptibility to diseases and differences in psychological traits.

"Yet despite all this, human racial variation is still marked by obvious differences in skeletal morphology... Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race. For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a Caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a Mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a Negroid person (Ubelaker & Scammel, 1992)." (Rushton, 1998)

Race evidently is not only skin deep, as any forensic anthropologist will confirm. "Races differ in the extent and manner in which the fine subcutaneous muscles of the lips and cheeks have become differentiated from the parent mammalian muscle body; in the chemical composition of hair and of bodily secretions, including milk; in the ways in which different muscles are attached to bones; in the sizes and probably secretion rates of different endocrines; in certain details of the nervous system, as, for example, how far down in the lumbar vertebrae the neural canal extends; and in the capacity of individuals to tolerate crowding and stress." (Coon, 1962).

Howells (1989, 1995) after studying thousands of skulls, maintained races existed by craniometric averages.

Genes can be classified into different groups based on their function. In many cases the exact function of a gene is unknown but the gene may still be classified based on similarities to genes with known function. Studies on such gene groups show that different human races differ regarding gene groups involved in the brain, brain development, pituitary gland development (the part of the brain which controls the hormone system including many hormones affecting the brain itself), growth factors involved in the nervous system, neurological system processes, neuropeptide signaling pathways, transmission of nerve impulses, neuron development, neuron differentiation, and cognition.

There are also more "politically correct" gene groups that differ between races and that are involved in pigmentation, hair development, and skeletal development (physical appearance). However, such gene groups may also be involved in more politically incorrect areas. Thus, gene groups which affect skeletal development may also be involved in race differences regarding cranial cavity volume and gene groups involved in pigmentation may have many unexpected effects in politically sensitive areas (see Race and morphology/physiology: Pigmentation and Genes associated with Race Differences in Behavior).

Race was developed by Europeans to justify Slavery

The biological concept of race was first articulated by Buffon, Kant, and Blumenbach. The concept we know is a development of this. This concept, as first developed, was used to argue in defense of the monogenists position, which held that groups were not separate species but were rather separate intraspecific divisions (Doron, 2011/2012). The monogenists position was largely advanced for egalitarian reasons; it was feared that if groups originated from different creations or were thought to have, they might not have been created equal or they might not be treated as being so. Arabs had practiced Negro slavery long prior to this with no refined race concept, and nations such as the Chinese developed similar concepts with no political incentive.

Confusing politically defined with biologically defined race

Race has been politically defined in various ways, including the 'one drop' definition where predominately White individuals with any Black ancestry were classified as Black. This is not biologically correct and such individuals are mixed. Race deniers use the biologically incorrect political definition to attempt to demonstrate that all racial classification is confused and arbitrary.

Ontological status

It is claimed that race is not a "natural kind", or that it is an arbitrary grouping. Race defined by ancestry inferred from genetic similarity is a natural kind. Further, even if race wasn't a natural kind its informativity would justify its value, so this objection is irrelevant anyway. It is also claimed that race is not "extra-mental". In fact no taxonomy is extra-mental since they refer to relationships between entities, the relationships having no extra-mental existence in themselves.

Comparisons with recognized subspecies

Many species have recognized subspecies with Latin taxonomic names. This also includes many primate species such as the chimpanzee with Latin taxonomic names such as Pan troglodytes verus and Pan troglodytes ellioti.

Traditionally the term race was often used as a synonym for subspecies with the term subspecies typically being applied to non-human species and the term race typically being applied to humans. Today it is often argued that the modern human is the only living human subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens). Critics of this argue that comparisons with recognized subspecies in non-human species demonstrate that the major human races are subspecies.

One problem for this debate is that there is disagreement regarding exactly how to define subspecies and this in particular after the introduction and further development of methods for measuring and analyzing genetic data. Also when using a particular measurement method there may be very different results depending on factors such as what genetic data is examined (such as autosomal DNA vs. mitochondrial DNA or noncoding DNA vs. coding DNA).

That the human species is a young species may make certain comparisons with other species misleading. This since the genetic differences within older species whose subspecies have lived in geographically very similar areas may to a large part be due to random genetic drift. This may over time cause large genetic differences but these may often be less practically important. On the other hand, the differences between human groups who have lived in very different geographic areas may to a larger degree be due to different natural selection which may often cause more practically important differences. Genetic measures which do not take this into account could give misleadingly low results for human races compared to the recognized subspecies of other species.

The different breeds of the domestic dog have very different morphological and mental characteristics despite much more modest genetic differences according to commonly used genetic measures. These differences have been caused by very strong selection pressures (due to selective breeding) over a short time period and demonstrate that such genetic measures may not work well under such conditions.

Comparisons with other primates and hominids

Diagram showing the degree of genetic variation ("heterozygosity") in 244 human populations (non-black bars) and recognized chimpanzee subspecies and the species bonobo (black bars) according to a 2013 study that used the combined genetic data from many previous studies. According to the study many relatively small human populations have a larger genetic variation than recognized chimpanzee subspecies and the species bonobo.

Studies making comparisons with other primates and hominids such as chimpanzees and Neanderthals have found varying results which may be due to be above mentioned problems. Some have even argued that the genetic differences between certain human races are so large that either should certain human races be classified as separate species (not subspecies) or alternatively should certain non-human groups have their taxonomic status reclassified. Both sides have been accused of incorrect methodology (such as inappropriate comparisons of different measurements using autosomal DNA or mitochondrial DNA or using results based on mitochondrial DNA which is a very small part of the human genome and has a low genetic variation compared to autosomal DNA in humans).

The results may be different in the same study when using different measurements. A 2013 study which found relatively low genetic variation for humans at the same time found that when using a more detailed analysis of the distribution of genetic variation there were results for different human groups similar to those seen in the subspecies in the other studied primates.

Comparisons with other species in general

Fst for various subspecies is as low as 1%

Before the introduction of genetic measurements zoologists often used a morphological criterion stating that two or more groups in a species are subspecies if 75% or more of the individuals in the species can be definitely classified as belonging to one of the groups based on visual inspection. Researchers have argued that this is possible for much more than 75% of humans.

A more recent method is the genetic measure "fixation index" (F_ST) that is often described as being a measure of the average "genetic distance" between the subgroups of a larger group. The F_ST value for humans divided into major races has been stated to be similar to that of species with recognized subspecies. The creator of the measure, Sewell Wright, has stated that "if racial differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies."

Another kind of comparison is regarding the degree of genetic variation in a species. Human genetic variation has been argued to be equal or higher than that of many other large mammals (including many with recognized subspecies).

A recent and commonly used list of criteria for recognizing subspecies are the phylogeographic recognition criteria. Humans races have been argued to fulfill these criteria.

A 1998 article that denied the existence of human races has been influential within anthropology and the social sciences. It argued that the human F_ST value is too small for justifying human subspecies. The article has been criticized for several gross errors such as making incorrect comparisons between F_ST values from autosomal DNA or mitochondrial DNA as well as incorrectly stating that the above mentioned 75% value regarding morphological classifications would apply to F_ST values.

See also

• A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History

External links

• The Race FAQ
• Race: Reality and Denial
• Frequently Asked Questions about Biological Races among Humans

Part of this article consists of modified text from Metapedia (which sadly became a Zionist shill), page http:en.metapedia.org/wiki/Arguments regarding the existence of races and/or Wikipedia (is liberal-bolshevistic), page http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments regarding the existence of races, and the article is therefore licensed under GFDL.