Here you go: Bulworth (1998).
I stand not to be right or wrong, only to understand the opinions of others to better develop my understanding of the issue. By sharing my opinion and reading the opinions and references of others I am able to see the different sides of the debate while slowly developing a intellectual level of understanding.
As far as the special snowflake, let me ask you these questions…are the words that I stated in any way offensive to you or do they provoke you into insulting me as an individual? Is it not just enough to say you disagree with my opinion and state why you disagree? Why doesn’t my argument hold water?
Let me provide you with my rebutal to your last paragraph now. I as an individual i have traced my ancestors through many different cultures, religions, and geographical regions. I have found that french, german, italian, native american, and African are all part of who I am today. Hence my opinion that the world is a melting pot of cultures. One could argue that if races exist, what race would I be?
Since I am the one that started this thread I need not provide the arguement. I only need provide the context that will drive others to respond. This was my goal and as such have achieved this goal while learning the opinions and theories of others. So please either provide your insight or move on. Thank you.
Such groups do exist. The previously mentioned Tasmanians were reproductivly isolated for at least 4 000 years. The Andamaners between 50 - 60 000 years, long enough to have no Denisovan DNA. The Saami apparently went trough a period of reproductive isolation of about 15 000 years at one point, and there are indications that the ancestors of Native American were reproductively isolated in Beringia for about the same amount of time.
And there are Khoisan groups whos most recent shared ancestor with other human groups were 150 000 years ago.
None of which is even close to the number of generations we need to call any of these groups a biologically separate “race”. Unless you use the word race to mean something totally different from what it means when we use it about any other species. In which case you’d be better off using a different word altogether.
Visible differences are just nowhere near enough.
Just to be clear, there is no way the Khosian groups were reproductively isolated for 150,000 years.
We also have genetic modeling studies that show the Identical Ancestor Point to be somewhere at 5K - 15K years ago. That means everyone alive at that point was either an ancestor of everyone alive today or an ancestor of no one alive today. This may seem hard to believe, but since the Age of Discovery (some 500 years ago), there’s been a lot of sexy-time going on all around the world between native and non-native populations. A group that may have had almost no contact with Western Colonization efforts will still have had contact with many groups that did have such contact.
We’ve been over this a few times in GQ, so just search for “Identical Ancestor Point” and you’ll find the threads.
The populations haven’t been separated. Genetic studies have shown this. 
I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding to do with Y-chromosome studies and Khoisan matrilineal traditions (see this article) but yes, as a group they were definitely not that isolated. Xhosa Bantu can have quite a high % of Khoisan ancestry (most famously, Nelson Mandela, Haplogroup L0d)
I’m sure you’re right. I think the poster was a bit sloppy in what he’s posted, as no one in their right mind could think there would be a group of humans living in Africa who have been reproductively isolated for 150K years. I’d be shocked if there was such a group that existed for 150 years!
Afrikaners must have some Khoisan ancestry too. Wonder if there any studies on that?
Denisovans, neanderthals, and who knows how many other archaic hominids could interbreed with us just fine and they’re not even the same species. If they were still alive I wonder if people would say they’re not different races, either. Plus biologists are constantly arguing over whether this or that is a different species or not when it’s all arbitrary human classifications.
Race is an odd word, though. I hardly ever see it used outside of race realism discussions or high fantasy settings (they can usually interbreed there too). For non-human animals they’re called sub-species, breeds, or varieties.
Even race realists and HBD types seem to adopt the more PC “populations” nowadays.
Close enough for government work. If you’re going to posit human races I’d think hundreds would be a closer match than the old three.
Is human morphology anywhere near as varied as that of brassica oleracea?
Not quite.
Except that most ethnicities actually combine several popluations with genetically distinct origins. Even a cursory examination of a haplotype map shows that virtually all populations have at least two and often more significant haplotype groups.
It is interesting that the groups most strenuously concerned with maintaining some notion of “racial purity” and expressing xenophobia toward other ‘races’ or ethnicities or whathaveyou also have the largest number of combinations of mitochondrial haplotypes. “There’s such balance in nature.”
Stranger
I’ve seen some bad cases of cauliflower ear…
.
Japanese look different than Koreans, who look different than Mongolians, who look different than Iranians, who…
Just because a set is fuzzy doesn’t mean it doesn’t have boundaries.
The fact that the many groups of mankind are physically recognizable has some meaning…or does it not?
That, at least, matches a naive person’s observation of reality! There are a few hundred physically recognizable groups of people.
It’s a little like characterizing languages. There really are a few hundred distinct languages…but these, too, are fuzzy, with dialects and creoles sometimes falling in between the “core centrum” languages as defined academically. In the ultimate, most pedantic sense, every human being speaks a slightly different language than even his closest friends and family, but that kind of pedantry does not advance anyone’s understanding.
But you can’t tell me, “You aren’t seeing what you think you’re seeing.” People don’t all look alike, and the differences are clumped in groups.
This isn’t projecting pictures of the constellations on random stars; people really do look different from other people, by regionalized groups.
Go tell the government there’s only one race then maybe they’ll stop pestering me on forms as to what race I am.
Archaic humans. They were human beings. They, like we, are of course hominids as well, but relatively ‘modern’ (much less than 2M years old), as hominids/hominins go.
I’m comfortable calling Denisovans, Neanderthals, Heidelberg/Rhodesian Men, Red Deer Cave People, and Flores Men, “different races” of humanity. The differences between them and us are sufficient to illustrate, by contrast, how small the differences among all extant humans are.
No, it has no more “meaning” in any practical or functional sense than the distinction between striped and solid pea pods. We can observe that phenotypes are associated with specific alleles that are distributed within a related population, and with sufficient isolation that distribution will approach uniformity, but that doesn’t mean that all other alleles are distributed with equal frequency or that those alleles are found uniquely within that population; in fact, for any given specific distinction you may make in one ‘race’ or identified population, it is virtually certain that you’ll find the same allele or a variant of in populations which share common ancestry.
Yes, a studied eye can (often) distinguish someone of Japanese extraction from someone from Korea, but that is meaningful only in the presumption that both people self-identify with those linguistic or cultural affiliations. Realistically, the genetic variability between the two groups is so tiny that it can only be measured by sequencing whole genomes to distinguish tiny statistical variations across the population, and the functional difference between the two peoplen within an identified population from a genetic standpoint is, on average, less than the inherent overall variability between one Korean and another, or one Japanese and another. In other words, in nearly all populations, the phenotypical variation between a random group of people (and especially in terms of functional phenotypes like strength or intelligence) are much broader than the variations between populations in aggregate. The racial group metric of “they all look alike,” is just lazy prejudice, not useful categorization.
I just check other and write “Grand Prix” in the explanation.
Stranger
I found that easily by Googling. The post I responded to was not representing him as a fictional character.
The quote was “…I always like to remember the solution to racism offered by the former U.S. Senator from California, Jay Billington Bulworth…”.