>>9512374>no mathematically pure definition means no useful categories existShlomo at it again. Cut the rhetoric.
Facts:
>several large populations of humans evolved mostly seperately for thousands of generations>these populations developed different genotypes that are expressed in distinct and easily identifiable phenotypes>one can usually accurately determine the ancestral population based on the subject's phenotypeTherefore:
>phenotypical traits belonging to different ancestral populations tend to cluster>one can predict certain phenotypical traits (intelligence, testosterone levels, fertility) based on other phenotypical traits associated with the same ancestral population (skin colour, face bone structure) quite accuratelyThis is the entire racialist argument. If you want to dispute this, address these statements specifically instead of manipulating empty semantics over what you think is "scientific" and what isn't.
Inb4:
>what about mixed individuals, then?They are just that, mixed. They do not belong to any of the ancestral populations directly
>but everybody's mixedSmall amounts of genetic drift do not erase the general pattern.
>where do you draw the line?As with everything else, the accuracy of predictions decreases with edge cases. But the vast majority of people are predominantly descended from a single ancestral population, or at least a relatively stable mix of them. How coarsely or how finely you divide the categories depends on what you're trying to analyze and why. There are racial differences between northern europeans and southern europeans, but they are insignificant compared to the differences between either and sub-saharan africans.
