[TorbjornLunde]

I find it strange that when people defend so called “race science” today a common argument seems to be along the lines of “this is correct because some people have negative emotional response to something”. While having a negative emotional response to something certainly isn't an counter argument in itself and isn't a pro argument either! A viewpoint isn't correct merely because it pisses some people off.

Either way, as far as I know, biologist haven't really considered human races to be biologically meaningful category for quite some time now opting clines[1] which are not discrete, but gradual genetic variations over geographic areas, nor does it follow the traditionally defined racial lines. This is why I'm quite suspicious of people pushing so called “race science” as AFAIK it simply doesn't seem to have evidence behind it, rather, it seems to have specific political viewpoints behind it generally.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)

[barry-cotter]

Races may not be a biologically valid category but ancestry is, and the fact that some populations are intermediate on a cline doesn’t mean most people can’t be relatively cleanly assigned to a population level continental ancestry group[1]. Ancestry groups may not be valid if you’re a biologist but they’re certainly relevant for those dealing with within species variation[2]. This is not to say that ‘race’ is the be all and end all of ancestry informed medicine but they’re better than nothing. More information is better but acting like crude ancestry measures tells you nothing is pure ignorance.

[1] https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-215...

Developing a set of ancestry-sensitive DNA markers reflecting continental origins of humans

By means of our pairwise population FST ranking approach we identified a set of 47 SNPs that could serve as a panel of ASMs at a continental level.

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Kidd/publicatio...

Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine

In this review, we focus on the biogeographical distribution of genetic variation and address whether or not populations cluster according to the popular concept of ‘race’. We show that racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of genetic variation in our species. Although populations do cluster by broad geographic regions, which generally correspond to socially recognized races, the distribution of genetic variation is quasicontinuous in clinal patterns related to geography. The broad global pattern reflects the accumulation of genetic drift associated with a recent African origin of modern humans, followed by expansion out of Africa and across the rest of the globe. Because disease genes may be geographically restricted due to mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection, knowledge of individual ancestry will be important for biomedical studies. Identifiers based on race will often be insufficient.

[speedplane]

> This is not to say that ‘race’ is the be all and end all of ancestry informed medicine but they’re better than nothing.

Actually, it's often worse than nothing. Even assuming that "race" is entirely genetic and not a social construct, fitness in society changes so rapidly, that no genetics can properly account for it.

A day laborer born in the 1950s U.S. a genetically perfect fit for mining coal, might have had a great deal of success for the first 20 years of their career, and then a poor outcome for the last 10 years. Nothing changed with their genetics, they just became less desirable within society based on social trends.

Genetic changes take generations, often dozens of generations, to realize any noticeable difference. Social changes often occur in years and sometimes months, far faster.

Therefore, any conclusions based on genetics that fail to consider how the genetics fall within society are missing most of the point.