The point is this: there is no easily definable cutoff between the physical objects categorized as tables and desks, just as there is no easily definable cutoff between "black" and "white" people in biological terms. Still, no one would suggest that our inability to properly define what a table is should justify us in completely throwing out all notions of tables and desks. The fact remains that sometimes there is meaning in differentiating between the two; sometimes it is useful to do so. Overall, any definition of tables and desks that could possibly be designed must be subject to arbitrary consequences. This can be generalized to all definitions of physical phenomena: there will always be gray areas. .

             Additionally, problems exist even when attempting to identify where one object ends and another begins. This is true of all physical objects: parts of objects are at a single point and time parts of other objects that we generally regard to be separate from them. Essentially, where we draw the line between an apple and the air, for example, is completely arbitrary and fails to coincide with any physical truth. Still, even from this perspective, it would be ridiculous to say that scientifically there is no such thing as an apple, or that there is no scientific backing for apples. We all seem to possess an implicit grasp of what an apple is and that it is somehow different from the air around it. Similarly, we all seem to have an implicit understanding of what a race is, and that differences between human beings can be categorized upon such terms. So, randomness alone cannot be utilized as a reason to condemn the existence of anything, including race. .

             Nevertheless, it has been argued by Zack, "If it were true that being black, white, Asian, or Indian caused human beings to have the types of physical traits they do, then there ought to be some physical marker for race, apart from those traits, that scientists can identify.