If you could be any other race ?

[Aractus]

---

No, actually we use the term ethnicity to somewhat describe that, although it is also based on other things including language culture and history, and it itself is imprecise. There are no meaningful solid distinctions. The term "race" is thousands of years old and predates science. We didn't even know what genes were when it was being used. It goes to a time when people thought that those different to them were fundamentally different - ie of a different race - when this is not the case. This isn't a left-wing political argument, it's a fact.

"We"

Last time I looked up this argument there was anything but consensus, it was being debated on the comments section of Dawkins website. As someone had tried to debunk the term race. It was called "race re-debunked" if memory serves

There were many anthropologists and other scientifically minded folk who seemed to disagree with this concept.

This was a few years ago but I can provide a link if you like.

The simple idea is that based on photographs it wold be possible to racially group people from different areas, they openly disagreed with your assertion that race has no taxonomic meaning in science.

It really does feel like a left wing bias to me.

To each their own I suppose.

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.

---

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not really interested in what Dawkins has to say, he has some extreme views. If he's providing a debate where no valid scientific debate on the issue exists then that's good for him, but utterly useless in the broader context. You said it is based on genetics - we all have the same genes. Every individual human genome is distinct, but we all have exactly the same genes*. The 0.01% difference in the DNA itself is still 0.01% different within ethnicities, that difference is not unique to what you call "races" it's shared among everyone.

If there are distinct races as you argue there are, then please tell me how many they are and list them? This should be no problem for you if there are distinct races. Otherwise you're arguing from ignorance and have no way to back up your assertions.

* (edit) - Sorry, just let me clarify that point before you pull me up on it. Yes, men and women do have slightly different genes to each other, in that men have a y-chromosome in place of one of the x-chromosomes. All men have the same genes, all women have the same genes and some people with a chromosome anomaly have genes slightly different to either category. But as I understand it you argument isn't that men, women, and people with chromosome disorders are of different races to each other, but that other far less meaningful distinctions in the genome (not even in the genes themselves) qualify to separate people into races. Is this correct?

---

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.

Right, that's your argument? You claimed that race is determined genetically. So then, where's your evidence that a geneticist could distinguish a person's distinct race by examining their genome?

Or is your argument now that race is determined by a person's physical appearance?