so the only animal on Earth that has a sub-species differentiation of .01 or less, are red-wing black birds? lol!!!!!!
No. It's an example. Even if so, so what? The point you are avoiding in your feigned mockery of a strawman is that you were wrong that races cannot be valid due to an Fst of 0.15 when subspecies are designated below this.
Not in the ontological context of whether Fst per se can invalidate taxa. Maybe in the kindergarten sense of "lol u think humans r black birds".
Do you believe that any genetic differentiation between populations means those populations are races? Graves already addressed this method of subspecies classification.
No. The fact that those groupings capture the largest amount of correlated variation makes them races. It's hilarious that you think Graves' assertion contradicts the data quoted right before. It's like a delusional religious cult.
So what if the IQ is lower amongst certain populations of humans? Would that really be so surprising? There are always some smart people amongst any big population group. I have always felt the whole IQ argument had little relevance to debate over whether racial differences exist. Statistical differences in IQ are not merely just confined to racial groups, they also apply to different economic class groups, even gender to a smaller extent.
They can make inferences about geographic ancestry based on certain skeletal traits but those traits are not markers of racial background. Race implies an objective degree of genetic differentiation which humans do not have. To show that there are biological races you must show that a population is on the cusp of speciation. There are no populations in the human species that can be considered biologically distinct groups. We have the same evolutionary lineage and common origin. We are not different races just diverse populations with a few differences in biological characteristics.
No you have it backwards. They can determine race but not geographic ancestry, assuming you mean something more precise than race.
If we take King Tut for example Susan Anton, a Biological Anthropologist and the leader of the American team who analyzed his skull without knowing the identity of the specimen correctly determined from his craniofacial morphology that the skull was North African. She did not assign a race to him because she doesn't believe in biological races but she was able to accurately identify his geographic ancestry.
No we'll take forensic anthropology as an example, not one cherry picked scholar being all PC. The categories used are Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid. This is because most variation clusters quite tightly into these races. Anything more precise is hit and miss.
The problem with these labels is that they are typological. Human variation doesn't structure in to such rigid categories as the ones you listed. There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people. Major continental terms are just fine, and sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian, and so forth carry no unintentional baggage. In contrast, terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless. Their continued use, then, is in social situations where people think they have some meaning. - C Loring Brace
All labels are typological. *facepalm* Human variation structues and can be categorised. This is a lie. The distinction between major races is clearer than the distinction between sub races. Larger image (use Firefox) http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html
Why do you want to pigeon-hole humans into separate groups? Is it better for government to pander to smaller groups and control them? Does it advance racism and victimhood? Does it fit the racist narrative advanced by the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, NAACP, CBC, etc.for the extortion of private businesses? Once grouped thusly, and when those groups become more populated, do you then more finely splinter those people into smaller factions by eye color or hair texture? I prefer the truth of one race, the human race, all descendants of Adam & Eve. That all men are created equal and are judged not by any genetic trait but by their character and actions. What is so wrong with that?
100% false. billions of people do not fit nicely into these groups, mostly in North Africa, Central Asia Eurasia, and the Indian subcontinent.
Interesting thread... it is worth noting that before scientific revolution people rarely spoke in terms of races but of different descendance and lineage... the spartans for example claimed to be of doric descendance, the dorians who came from the northeast and submitted the previous inhabitants. The romans were cosmopolitans and did rarely refer to one's race but their source country and secondly their lineage/parentage. If you read ancient works like those of plutarch you never find terms like black, white, mulatto... people were not defined this way.
