If you had read this thread, you’d realize that there were lots and lots of people whose distant forefathers evolved in Asia who look just like people in Africa. For example, the Kondha in India, the Andaman Islanders or the Ati in the Philippines.
Not to mention the people native to Papua New Guinea-- who you would “know” were descended from Africans if you saw them walking down the street in the US.
Actually, they do alter your basic premise. Your reliance on appearance to determine race is exactly on point, since appearance is a notably poor way of identifying geographic origin as pointed out repeatedly in this thread. What most Americans would consider “black skin” can be found in many different populations that are geographically diverse and wouldn’t fall into a single “race” no matter how you defined it.
Would you guys who “know” there are races tell us what is the race of most of the people (hundreds of millions of people) who live in Mexico, Central America and South America?
I would like to think this is a joke. Unfortunately it isn’t. 
Had you bothered to read Berbajuani et al. you would realise that they are referring to the subjective, cultural construct known as race. Race is not a coherent concept. It is purely a subject cultural concept, with no more coherence than other social constructs such as fashion or religion.
There is absolutely no justification in claiming that race must be a coherent concept for someone to study the links between genetics and race.
And that one simple fact makes a nonsense of everything else that you have posted.
Ok, but you accept that:
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
The clustering is a natural consequence of geographical isolation, inheritance and natural selection operating over the last 50k years since humans left Africa.
Two individual from two populations are more genetically similar to each other than they are to each other than they are to two people from another cluster. Genetics, Vol. 176, 351-359, May 2007
A persons racial ancestry can be determined from their bones with pretty high confidence.
I’ll have to have another look at Risch & Tang’s 2005 paper, but here Risch commented:
The fact that you would ask this question shows that you don’t know what “those of us who know there are races” are really saying.
Sure, we do. Some of you are saying that races are, in some odd way that defies actual description, “real,” while others of you are saying that you really, really, really want to be able to throw around the term “race” to make political points, changing the definition whenever it is needed to make a different point.
For the Census Bureau, “Latino” has one socially constructed meaning that really does not represent a biologically coherent set of people, yet Chen019 is quite willing to come back with a response that demonstrates that the socially determined group is not biologically coherent then still wants to claim that “race” is biological and, tellingly, resorts to studies about people in the U.S. and not actually people in the places about which John Mace asked..
Utter and total nonsense.
“Considering the results shown in Figures 2 and 3a, it might be tempting to conclude that genetic data verify traditional concepts about races. But the individuals used in these analyses originated in three geographically discontinuous regions: Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. When a sample of South Indians, who occupy an intermediate geographic position… is added to the analysis …, considerable overlap is seen among these individuals and both the East Asian and European samples, probably as a result of numerous migrations from various parts of Eurasia into India during the past 10,000 years. Thus, the South Indian individuals do not fall neatly into one of the categories usually conceived as a ‘race’”
Jorde, L.B. & Wooding S.P. 2004 “Genetic variation, classification and race” Nature Genetics Suplement 36:11
See also Bamshad et al (op cit) for precisely the same results once Indians are added to an analysis.
Utter twaddle, and you know it.
As I proved in this post Chen consistently, repeatedly misrepresents the cirations that he presents on this topic.
The references that he refers to here do not say what he claims that they say, they in fact totally refute his position. Those references state clearly and plainly that skeletal evidence contradicts the biological race concept and that skeletal evidence can only lead to a racial classification is census data allows the rejection of the most likely racial groupings based upon the physical evidence.
Be warned, Chen is being dishonest in the extreme in the way the he misrepresents these references
Actually, the hispanic population Risch refers to is quite consistent with the existence of races. Risch even identifies percentage of racial ancestry: “Southwest Hispanics, who are primarily Mexican-American, appear to be largely Caucasian and Native American; recent admixture estimates are 39% Native American, 58% Caucasian and 3% African.”
In the 2005 paper he writes:
:rolleyes:
Ethiopioans, Indonesians, South Americans, Central Americans, Mexicans and Indians are all mixed populations?
Indonesia: population 2.3 billion
India: population 1.2 billion
Ethiopia: population 82 million
Central America: population 40 million
Mexico: population 100 million
South America: population 400 million
And we also have to add in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Eritrea, Somalia and other nations that have equally “mixed” populations.
So that means that about 5 billion humans are part of mixed populations that do not fall into any of your racial groups. When over 3/4 of the entire species fails to map onto your racial grouping, that rather proves that the groupings have no objective existence.
Thank you for demolishing your own nonsense argument.
Of course if you want to play a game whereby I post pictures of random people from those regions and other regions, and you attempt to place them into one of your racial groupings, then let;s have at it. Because of course if you can not assign random Indonmalayans or Indics to any racial group at better than chance, then clearly they do not meet any racial grouping standard.
Has anyone else noticed that every time that Chen gets called on identifying the race of particular area, it is “mixed race”? He started this with India, expanded it to include Ethiopia, then Indonesia and now all the Americas south of the USA.
This is some objective racial scheme that is utterly incapable of categorising over 3/4 of the population in question. 
So answer the simple question: What race are they?
I suspect that, after a lot of ducking and weaving, you will tell us that they yet another “mixed” population that adds to the ~4 billion people that you already admitted do not fall into any of the races that you propose?
Is anybody not seeing how biologically meaningless it is to have a classification scheme that is utterly unable to assign a category to 4 out of every 5 individuals sampled?
Remember that “race” is just one more “lineage” – a family line is a race in smaller scales, a race a family in large scales. The concept is the same. There will be sub-races all over. Same way with families. Again, the definition from biology online. Do you really believe that these definitions don’t apply to humans, but do to other animals?
Mayr’s concept of species is “an intrinsically isolated population”; there are numerous others and there is no settled concept – thus, for example, there is debate over how to define members of canidae.
Obviously, the criteria for sub-species, let alone ancestral population clusters is not the same for species. My point was that there is a commonality between the various taxonomic concepts.
Your math is slightly off here 
:rolleyes:
Chen is now attempting to prove that race has a biological meaning by asking us to first “remember” that race has a biological meaning.
Who is talking about sub-races?
A sub-race is a finer division of a group that already belongs to a race. You can only assign a sub-race *after *you have assigned a race. At this stage we just want you to assign the race. We don’t need the much finer grained sub-race level classifications.
You can’t even assign a race to 4/5 of humanity, so you certainly can not assign a sub-race.
And now Chen is attempting to argue that 4/5 of people do not belong to an objectively assigned family. :rolleyes:
We have said this multiple times. We have provided evidence for this multiple times.
Now it is up to you to name these races and prove to us that you can apply these definitions to humans.
Time to pony up my boy.
I will have to agree with **Blake **, you are really not being honest with this point.
The supplement makes it clear that indeed it does not apply to humans.
Continuing…
If you want to stipulate that races qua ancestral population clusters need to have been completely reproductively isolated during a specific period of time, than the number will be less than 18. If you want to stipulate that races qua ancestral population clusters need to be intrinsically reproductively isolated, than you just eliminated all races of all species.
Note, for the authors to say that the current African ancestral population clusters are mixed, there must have been relatively reproductively isolated populations that could mix.
Someone asked my definition of race and I said “ancestral population clusters.” We could refine that if you like. I see no need to.
Why? Why can’t it be mixed ancestry all the way down? Or at least until you get to the turtles, anyways…
Obviously, they are multiracial. If you want the specific ancestral population genetic breakdown, you can look it up. This is why, in the US, we classify central and south Americans as “hispanic,” a designation that refers to a ethnicity, not race.
Here’s how the authors discuss it:
“The term “Hispanic” or “Latino” describes a population with a common cultural heritage and most often a common language, but it does not refer to race or a common ancestry. Although Latinos have been considered to be first and foremost an ethnic group, they represent a heterogeneous mix of Native American, European, and African ancestries.2 Therefore, they can self-identify as any race or of mixed race as defined by the 2000 US Census”
