Those groups do have restricted gene flow because of those geographical barriers - that is why you get the clusters, rather than just clines.
I haven’t seen any comment on the comparison with genetic diversity measures within other animal species. Perhaps you can elaborate on that?
See comments regarding forensic anthropology and medical treatment and research.
This has become tiresome (yawn). Your cites frequently don’t support your assertions, so I’m not going to be bothered to read more of them. Your conclusions have been roundly debunked. If you want to identify geographical groups, fine. If you want to create other groups based upon a selection of characteristics, that’s fine too. I’m bored with attempting to discuss the OP only to have you present the same discredited ideas over and over while asking for our “comments”. The more we “elaborate”, the more you obfuscate.
As I said in Post 298,
So please just stop calling them races. They do not fit any “meaningful biological definition of race”.
if we are cut, we all bleed red.
Farther down, all our bones are white.
Crack our skull, and our brains are grey.
One race. Human race. Thank you.
Thanks for conceding the debate 
Again, you’re the one who claimed Genetic diversity of humankind is quite low (see multiple cites upthread)
However, you seemed stumped when I pointed out the genetic diversity of other species which have races or varieties:
Your impertinence knows no bounds.
Same for your ability to draw unwarranted conclusions.
Hey, you’re the one yawning and presuming you’re correct when I’ve specifically shown your assumption about low genetic diversity is unfounded. You seem to think humans are unique and do not have races or varieties.
You haven’t shown anything of the kind. You repeatedly link to The Race FAQ by somebody called John Goodman. This isn’t a peer reviewed paper, but a blog, by someone who is otherwise strangely absent from view on Google. I cannot find anything else authored by this person, but I find his “FAQ” extensively quoted in places like whiteamerica-dot-us and majorityrights-dot-com (no good reason to provide links to that garbage). heatmiserfl attempted to verify internal footnotes in that screed and found them wanting or even contradictory to the thesis. And when I click on the FAQ’s Main Page link, it tries to hijack my computer with some malware involving illegal green cards. Not exactly a confidence-inspiring cite. “Specifically shown…” appeal to false authority: FAIL.
It is interesting though that you, and Goodman’s blog, and many of those (like whiteamerica) who reference it, continue to talk about dogs. The Comments sections of these places all note how “eye opening” this comparison is, and how much it has done for understanding of human races, and the quietus it puts to “racial deniers”. Just what part of “artificially selectively bred” do you people not understand? Analogy: massive FAIL.
And I already schooled you in the realities of populations research on taxa at and below the species level. Again, assignation of these tags is intended to elucidate relationships and their basis in ancestry. The applicability of the tags chosen varies from species to species. Nothing in biology or systematics demands that a given species must be assigned multiple races simply because another species has races. The purpose of these analyses and assignations is to promote a clearer understanding of the relationships involved. The purpose is not to conform to some arbitrary and irrelevant model of consistency. And the clearest understanding of the human species is that modern humans all belong to a single race. Application of principals of systematics: FAIL.
So yeah, you keep on tellin’ yourself how well you’re doin’, Sparky. Keep pattin’ yourself on the back. We all see how well it’s workin’ for ya.
Again - you claimed humans had low genetic diversity. I have shown that compared to a range of other species, this is incorrect.
Your ‘H. sapiens as monotypic species’ theory is inconsistent with the way in which taxonomic classification has been employed for other species exhibiting similar degrees of heterozygosity.
Chimpanzees for example exhibit very similar degrees of observed heterozygosity to humans (0.63–0.73 vs. 0.588–0.807) yet have been divided into four subspecies. Some species such as the grey wolf actually exhibit lower levels of observed heterozygosity than humans (0.528 vs. 0.588–0.807) yet have been divided into as many as 37 subspecies.
When measures of genetic distance are used such as Wright’s FST, which describes the fraction of the variation attributable to population subdivision, values indicative of great levels of genetic differentiation have been obtained for humans (0.156) based on the analysis of autosomal loci [1] (great levels of genetic differentiation correspond to values of between 0.15 and 0.25 [2]). This contrasts with scores indicative of little to moderate levels of genetic differentiation in other animals (again obtained by looking at autosomal loci), such as the Canadian lynx (0.033) [3], which is recognized as having three subspecies, and the African buffalo (0.059) [4], which is recognized as having five subspecies.
Barbujani G, Magagni A, Minch E, Cavalli-Sforza LL. An apportionment of human DNA diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:4516–4519.
Hartl D, Clark AG. Principles of population genetics. Sunderland, MA, USA: Sinauer Associates; 1998;.
Schwartz MK, Mills LS, McKelvey KS, Ruggiero LF, Allendorf FW. DNA reveals high dispersal synchronizing the population dynamics of Canada lynx. Nature. 2002;415:520–522.
Van Hooft WF, Groen AF, Prins HHT. Microsatellite analysis of genetic diversity in African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) populations throughout Africa. Mol Ecol. 2000;9:2017–2025.
Indeed, this is consistent with what I’ve said above - a core element of the definition is ancestry. And as I’ve pointed out, when you aggregate individual’s dna clusters emerge which reflect continental ancestry. As I’ve also pointed out, that is why it’s helpful in a medical context.
Yeah, the kind of blogs you probably wouldn’t come up with just by googling. Hmm. Then there’s this post right now in the pit.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13865809&postcount=4
@ heatmiserfl
Just to be clear - it seems you don’t disagree that humans exhibit similar levels of morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies and races. Is that correct?
So perhaps your position in relation to humans relates to ideological concerns?
Or perhaps, that despite your ineffective and contradictory cites, the data simply doesn’t support it.
Could you elaborate on this? Have a look at the data above in relation to other species. Humans exhibit similar levels of morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies and races.
I find that repeating myself over and over again is a waste of time. You on the other hand seem to believe it shows you are winning.
The fact that you continue to do so in thread after thread despite volumes of factual refutation suggests to me that you are <checks forum> misguided.
I’ve provided data - you know empirical evidence. You’ve provided nothing.
You keep providing cites that don’t say what you think they say. In fact, many directly contradict your claims. When this is pointed out to you, you revert to this type of statement. It’s a tired song.
All the great apes, except maybe Bonobos have subspecies* even though their populations are a minute fraction of ours.* Chimps have 4. Gorillas have 2-3. Orangutans have 3. Bonobos may have had subspecies but there are only 10,000 of them left. Their subspecies split 100’s of thousands of years ago. This is known.
I have never seen anyone say that we now have different Human subspecies except for the cite you linked to. I couldn’t figure out where they were getting the numbers in a couple of the cites. The cite itself has no evidence for being associated with a scientist.
The cite I gave was a legitimate cite. If you think that humans have subspecies and that there wasn’t a migration of a small population of humans out of Africa in relatively recent times, please provide one from a scientific source.
**You keep ignoring the data on genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) in relation to other species. Why can’t you address it? **
This is why I suspect your opposition is emotional or political - I’ve presented you with comparisons of other species where there are clearly racial groups or varieties, but you can’t provide any basis to distinguish them.