[pbhjpbhj]

Don't morphological differences shared across a large population group indicate genetic/biological differences which are fundamental?

Like if you have ginger hair and freckles then you sunburn easily, it's a fundamental heritable difference [it doesn't of course mean you deserve lesser/greater rights or opportunities].

[ip26]

I guess "fundamental" to me spoke of more horse vs donkey differences, not palomino vs dapple vs grey.

[pbhjpbhj]

I think, and now biology is not at all my field, but I think the difference between human "races" is greater than just exterior colouring. See for example the Sickle-cell disease situation. That's maybe like horse breeds; this seems a good overview of health differences by breed, https://thehorse.com/111370/genetic-disorders-breed-by-breed....

Human races are certainly more than just skin colour, if your race can affect your healthcare requirements - which seems to me to be true - then it seems to me more fundamental than it is, let's say, superficial.

Fundamental differences aren't necessarily large; they're fundamental, I feel, because they're operative (the differences demand adjusted action in some way). Maybe blood-type is an analogue? It's not always relevant but I'd still a fundamental aspect that need consideration in health situations? (Though AFAIK it's a much stronger factor.)

[zimpenfish]

> I think the difference between human "races" is greater than just exterior colouring

No.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-resh...

> Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities.

> Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other

> In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute

etc.etc.etc.

[pbhjpbhj]

>However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”. (quoting http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-resh...) //

That's just linguistic spin.

>Ultimately, while there certainly are some biological differences between different populations, these differences are few and superficial. //

So Cystic Fibrosis and Sickle-Cell disease are superficial?

>For instance, alt-right proponents have stated, correctly, that many people with European and Asian descent have inherited 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals ancestors, and those of African descent do not have Neanderthal heritage. //

Hang on, they said earlier that we share 99% of our DNA with all other humans -- that being proof there are no races (according to the piece) -- but if we share 99%, how can Europeans/Asians have up to 4% Neanderthal that Africans don't have.

Now add in things like "we share 99% of our DNA with chimps" (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-diff...) and we have a simplistic analysis suggesting we're much farther from other humans than we are from chimpanzees. I don't think that's what the authors wanted their piece to be suggesting.

The piece is unconvincing, badly written IMO, and lacks rigour.

Something they might have addressed is how the likes of 23andMe can give you a ethno-geographic background profile if it's impossible to tell from someone's genes what "race" they are.