>>11900637you may define race with a bunch of biologists using r and cluster analysis if you want. one may prefer a simple approach, also closer to the commonly understood concept, using photographs and deep learning. that's why it is difficult to understand all the fuss with the work that OP's rises, certainly fp is not b; sp either.
how else should one define it objectively? any proposal?
it seems as if we have to consider the concept as essential, with all its 'explanatory' power of everything social, biological (oh muh oppression, it's because they cannot swim, it's the work ethic) or perhaps even quantum, but we should not dare to talk about what it is at all.
to be clear, I know what it is commonly understood by race (more or less). I know also what a zodiacal sign is, what is a piscis and a gemini and a year of the rat. these are in fact much better defined than 'race'. I know they are important for people and define to whom they marry or why to inaugurate some olympics on 08.08.08 . these are important facts and worth study, but astrology is scientifically worthless from more than 3 centuries. astrology, the study of 'race' do not tell us anything about the world, but about people. the very same people that talk about it all the time, and try to forbid talking about it all the time.
btw it is a bit inconsistent or disingenuous to argue that
>A denial of Darwinism matched only by christian fundamentalistsis a killer for an argument (true), and then question his stature because
>also believed that the eye was too complicated to be explained by evolutiondarwin was, no doubt, a very smart person, and had very good reasons to suspect the term.
also,
>>11900769 
