Blake,
Dogs and wolves are considered one species today, but they were considered two species just a few years ago. This reclassification (which is still not accepted by all taxonomists) was based on a realization that dogs and wolves are more closely related and genetically similar than was earlier believed. However, no one can quantify the degree of observed genetic similarity that was reached that mandated this reclassification. This is because there is no precise degree of genetic dissimilarity that is required for the division of two groups into species. We cannot say that because two kinds of organisms share no more than 99.abc% of their genes they are separate species, but because two other kinds of organisms share only 99.abb% of their genes they are all the same species. Taxonomists simply haven’t fixed values for a,b, and c. There is a point where classification of species becomes arbitrary. There is no dividing line agreed upon by all taxonomists. The prevailing rule has been that if two kinds of animals can freely interbreed then they are the same species. The problem with that is that some separate species do interbreed and produce fertile descendants. Again, there are just no hard and fast rules as to when speciation happens.
As to the precise criteria for classification of species and subspecies being “freely available in the appropriate journals”, I’ve not been able to find any articles which establish such criteria. If you can, please cite some of the articles you mentioned or tell us what those precise criteria are and which bodies of scientists decreed that those are the precise criteria. Every article I’ve read on the subject acknowledges that species is, ultimately, a man-made distinction and therefore becomes aribtrary at some frequently easily observable point. This does not mean that species has no biological reality, though. (I should point out that this whole argument was directed at those who have argued earlier in this thread that race is invalid because it is arbitrary whereas species is valid because it’s clear-cut. My point was that species is not the precise distinction that some people think it is.)
As to the matter of subspecies, I was not claiming that human racial differences rise to the level of different subspecies. Human races would be more closely analogous to breeds or strains.
The problem with the race of >6’ tall redheads you propose is that you base classification in that race on just two criteria. Most people base even casual classification by race on skin color, eye color, hair color, hair texture, facial features (some determined by bone structure and some not), and other traits. That’s how they can tell whether a person of a particular coloration is of sub-Saharan descent or of Indian descent. If you consider even the few traits I’ve listed, you can get a pretty good idea of where most of a person’s ancient ancestors lived for most of the last few tens of thousands of years. (Ancestral geography is a valid part of biological classification, as you implied in your description of the wolf subspecies.) Because your so-called Asgard race is defined by a smaller set of traits, they are harder to pinpoint geographically and ancestrally (though the red hair makes it a little easier to make a good guess as to which local populations most of them would come from) and the Asgards would not likely share as much recent ancestry as do the members of a race defined by a larger set of criteria.
If you can’t tell an Eskimo from a Pole, you need to get out more. There’s no need to go into the details of how the difference can be objectively determined, since any such system is based on the sorts of things I just discussed. One point worth noting is this: Even though two population groups may be virtually identical genetically, their genes can still express themselves in markedly different inherited ways. The fact that we may not be able to reliably tell the difference between the DNA of a Swede and the DNA of a Pygmy does not mean that a Swedish couple and a Pygmy couple need worry about their two babies being accidentally switched at birth. It means that there is something about the way that genes collectively express themselves that goes beyond currently-quantifiable measurements of DNA.
Racial classification of humans may have no value for the future. I’m not claiming that it does. I think more research has to be done before that can be determined. You briefly mention this in your post, and I commend you on that. Closing the door on the idea of race now, however, doesn’t seem warranted or wise.
