1) Well, first of all, there are some physical characteristics which vary between groups within the same (what is considered) "race", but even still, that doesn't really matter. Genetics (which are the basis of the biological reality of "race") largely indicate that the variation between more local groups can often be larger than the variation between groups separated by continents. This is similar to how you talk about penguin wings. They are still considered wings, largely because of their genotypic characteristics, even though they may be described otherwise by phenotypic characteristics. 

2) Assuming I saw him clearly and had a photographic memory, I would describe his skin color. The best way would probably to use some sort of reference or color wheel, but generally, I would probably just say "dark-skinned". But (see part 3)

3) My argument is that race is not a biological reality, not that people don't socially use race as a descriptor. That is kind of self-evident and shouldn't even need to be mentioned. However, it plays into the idea that race is a social construct, not a biological one. To use the fact that race is used socially as evidence that race should be used socially seems like circular logic (or something equally fallacious). 

"largely indicate that the variation between more local groups can often be larger than the variation between groups separated by continents. "

so you're telling me and i'm supposed to take you seriously when you claim that there's greater genetic variation with regards to physical characteristics between caucasians from europe than there is between edit: caucasians from europe and africans?

"but generally, I would probably just say "dark-skinned"."

dark as in tanned? or naturally dark? because its possible to confuse the two

"My argument is that race is not a biological reality"

our appearance stems from biological factors and despite your claims anyone can clearly tell the difference in the vast majority of cases between someone native to africa and someone native to europe

lets illustrate this a bit:

russianenglish

african

"not that people don't socially use race as a descriptor. That is kind of self-evident and shouldn't even need to be mentioned. "

people use the the physical characteristics arising from biological factors as descriptors for race... that's a far better way of putting that

which is why i asked you about how you would describe someone... because appearance is what is critical here... i mean its not like we identify asians because we give them name tags or something, its because we can look at them and differentiate them from their physical characteristics

" However, it plays into the idea that race is a social construct, not a biological one."

so uh black people get their curly hair and darker skin from tanning and curling irons or something? 

asian people have their narrow set eyes from squinting at lights or something?

am i really having this conversation right now?

1) You are misrepresenting what I said. I am clearly speaking about genetic variation, not variation in physical characteristics. I am not aware of any research which specifically speaks to the genetic variation behind specifically physical characteristics, but that is a strange stipulation to make which has no impact on my argument. 

2) And the confusion between the two is one of the inherent weaknesses of racial classification based on skin color. 

3) I am not sure why you are insisting upon this point, when I have repeatedly stated that genetics are key to the biological reality of race, not skin color.

4) The fact that people use flawed methods for determining biological race is sort of the crux of the problem here. Physical variation is not the determinant of race. To use it as such is to perform a flawed categorization. Further, the fact that we can tell the difference between physical characteristics does not suddenly make such physical characteristics broadly applicable as a means of grouping. Skin color in most contexts holds little more importance than hair color or eye color, and further, when it is applicable, it is typically applicable as evidence of itself, not as evidence of race (for example, being light skinned is important in regards to sunburns due to skin pigmentation, not due to the "race" that this skin color attributes you to). To compare it to another physical characteristic, the fact that people have different colored hair isn't enough to demonstrate that there is a true biological divide (meaning a statistically significant genetic distinction between sub-populations) between brunettes and blondes. 

5) No, you seem to be having this conversation because you refuse to understand that the biological concept of race is not determined by physical characteristics. You are applying characteristics to the social divisions of race, instead of applying race to the biological divisions of genetics (and then observing what trends those genetics brings with them). You are starting from a point where race has already been established as a real biological division, however, that is a key point of contention within this entire discussion.

First, the biological basis of race must be proven. Second, the broad relevance of this distinction must be proven. You seem to have skipped the first two steps in this debate and replaced them with your own personal worldview. 

" I am clearly speaking about genetic variation, not variation in physical characteristics"

physical characteristics are directly tied to genetics... where did you think physical characteristics came from?

" And the confusion between the two is one of the inherent weaknesses of racial classification based on skin color."

... wtf i was joking, are you trying to tell me that you can't tell the difference between someone who is tanned and someone that actually has dark skin? you're being serious right?

", when I have repeatedly stated that genetics are key to the biological reality of race, not skin color."

are you really trying to separate skin colour from genetics? lol

" The fact that people use flawed methods for determining biological race is sort of the crux of the problem here. Physical variation is not the determinant of race. To use it as such is to perform a flawed categorization."

well the whole world has that understanding, you are one of the very few who does not

" in regards to sunburns due to skin pigmentation, not due to the "race""

so... i'm confused here, are you denying that people from africa have more melanin than people from europe?

i mean you're posting this like if you're on the vanguard of some new science that's just figured melanin out, the point is that the amount melanin present varies between black people and white people due to genetic differences

"because you refuse to understand that the biological concept of race is not determined by physical characteristics."

so the groupings caucasian, negroid and mongoloid are not biological concepts

this is what i got from google 

negroid :

Negroid (also known as Congoid) is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon

caucasian

The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, or Europid) is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe

so again... wtf are you talking about? these are biological terms that were derived from studying the physical differences in the races

"You are applying characteristics to the social divisions of race"

um... you see that black woman up there? can you logically describe for me what social factors led to her having different characteristic to the white woman

"First, the biological basis of race must be proven. Second, the broad relevance of this distinction must be proven. You seem to have skipped the first two steps in this debate and replaced them with your own personal worldview. "

well jesus christ dude, if you can't open your eyes and observe the obvious wtf am i supposed to do?

I want identify myself as a native brazilian even though I'm white and blond. What's the matter with it?

1) But all genetics aren't directly tied to physical characterisitics, so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. They are not the same thing. Again, I'll use your "Penguin wing" as an example. Physically, it may be considered to have more in common with the flipper of an animal such as a sea turtle, but genetically, it is more similar to a wing. 

2) Depends. Not all "black" people have the same skin tone.

3) See #1

4) Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy

5) I am saying the application of skin color to sunburns is self-evident and doesn't require any knowledge of genetics or ancestry. Similarly, there are plenty of people who would be considered "white" who don't burn easily, while others do burn easily. Answering the question "what race are you" provides less information than simply looking at the person's skin color.

6) See my earlier post which demonstrates how the idea of race is not substantially supported by biology. Race is largely an outdated classification system which does not largely take in the biological reality of race into picture. As for your definitions, they do not serve as proof of the existence of biological race without the actual evidence to back it up. And again, biological race doesn't simply mean "different skin color". 

7) This discussion would flow a lot more smoothly if you actually read what I wrote. The strange part is, in trying to argue against my point, you make the same error that I was calling you out for making. You are utilizing the existence of race as a starting point, where it first must be proven. You cannot prove the existence of biological race by simply utilizing the phenotypic characteristics humans decided to lump together and call a "race". Humanity has numerous characteristics which they could be grouped by, however, the presence of those groupings is not evidence that those groupings are biologically meaningful. That must be proven by a study of genetic diversity, using more genes than just the ones for a handful of physical characteristics that you find convenient. 

8) In order to demonstrate the existence of races, distinct genetic populations must be observed. This is not the case in humanity. Instead, genetic variation exists as a cline, which means instead of distinct populations, humans exist as a continuum with little in the way of breaks in that continuum. Further, genetic variation is also found within continents at a level matching or exceeding genetic variation between continents, indicating that there is not sufficient diversity between continental populations to satisfying the biological criteria of race. If you think that you can simply use your eyes to observe whether or not genetic variation exists at a level significant enough to differentiate humanity into "races", you clearly don't understand what you are talking about

All that said, I think I'm done with you. I can only tolerate someone blatantly misrepresenting or misunderstanding my words for so long before any hope of a real conversation is lost. I can only suggest that you read the articles about genetics and race I posted earlier to maybe gain some minor understanding of the of the science behind the determination of "biological race". 

About half of Brazilians are typically classified as "white", so that wouldn't really be much of a contradiction.

" But all genetics aren't directly tied to physical characterisitics"

correct but when it comes to classifying people... well its kind of obvious that its the genetics that result in physical features that are used

no one who talks about race as a concept is suggesting that we have to start taking blood from people to do analysis on it to determine their whole genetic profile before we classify them

everyone understands that its simply what you can discern by looking at someone's appearance

"Not all "black" people have the same skin tone."

yes which is why again we use a set of characteristic generally to make groupings

and the groupings we make are as with everything not going to be perfect, there'll be outliers etc etc etc, but that does not mean that we don't try to make groupings

we simply do the best that we can and come up with a generalised solution

"Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy"

i'm not just appealing to popularity, i for the most part have been talking about expression of genetic differences

" You cannot prove the existence of biological race by simply utilizing the phenotypic characteristics humans decided to lump together and call a "race". "

well its actually biologists that made that distinction who you are dismissing btw

and yup physical characteristics are indeed what we use to define race

from google: Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits.

i'm curious though, on what authority are you basing this new definition of race since you are denying biological classifications?

" That must be proven by a study of genetic diversity, using more genes than just the ones for a handful of physical characteristics that you find convenient. "

well jesus christ, we share 96 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, are you suggesting then that we can't be differentiated away from chimpanzees?

this has to be the most absurd argument i've seen for a long time

"If you think that you can simply use your eyes to observe whether or not genetic variation exists at a level significant enough to differentiate humanity into "races", you clearly don't understand what you are talking about"

but... that's not the definition of race... and that's the point

"I can only suggest that you read the articles about genetics and race I posted earlier to maybe gain some minor understanding of the of the science behind the determination of "biological race". "

um you just blatantly rejected biological terminology wtf are you talking about lol?

to reiterate negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid are all biological terms 

I took your post to include me in the group of people who were "making fools of themselves" and had to consult Google for every reply.  Let me know if I was mistaken. 

I do not need to consult Google to respond to the question "why don't elephants swim with fish in schools?" and comparatively speaking I would dispute that I look foolish next to the one who posed the question. 

Wikipedia is not a stand in for actual scientific articles. I could also go further and say, the unsupported opinion of some within the scientific community does not overwrite the supported claims of others, just because they more conveniently fit into your worldview. 

"There are two evolutionary theoretical criteria for naturally objective groupings of biological organisms. These are common ancestry and degree of similarity (Mayr and Bock, 2002; Schuh and Brower, 2009; Wiley and Lieberman, 2011; Templeton, 2013). Phylogenetic systematics and Darwinian/evolutionary taxonomy use “common descent” as a criterion for biological classification but the similarity criterion is used only in the latter. Systematics and evolutionary classification are concerned with organic diversity and evolutionary relationships. The assumptions underlying the primary use of neutral markers in human genetic diversity studies suggest that their objective biological meaning needs to be evaluated based on the above two criteria. Yet as researchers increasingly point out, the debate is “free floating” to the extent that what counts as “biological reality” of human races is elusive, ranging from “trivial” to “obscure,” and often construed in a non-Darwinian biological framework (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cooper et al., 2003; Graves, 2011; Maglo, 2011)."

"Accordingly, a taxon of organisms may be said to have an objective independent biological existence in Darwinian classification if either of the following two conditions obtains: (1) It constitutes a phylognetic clade by comprising all, but only all, the descendants of its originating biological common ancestor (Templeton, 1998, 2013; Schuh and Brower, 2009; Claridge, 2010; Mishler, 2010; Maglo, 2011; Wiley and Lieberman, 2011); and/or (2) It has reached a degree of genetic differentiation deemed taxonomically meaningful in system biology (Mayr and Bock, 2002; Keita et al., 2004; Graves, 2011). Thus, it follows from these evolutionary theoretical constraints that races must be evolutionary distinct human subpopulations by virtue of (1) or (2) or some combination of both in order to be a valid biological category."

"In Darwinian classification (but also in phylogenetic systematics), a biological grouping of organisms that does not meet the above criteria is referred to as a wastebasket taxon. It is so called because it is evolutionary unordered and functions in science merely as a “warehouse kind” that taxonomically lumped together disparate organisms having no objectively definable evolutionary relationship. Wastebasket taxa lack natural reality (Parfrey et al., 2006; Schuh and Brower, 2009; Claridge, 2010; Mishler, 2010; Wiley and Lieberman, 2011) and granting them objective biological existence constitutes an erroneous attribution of ontological status called the fallacy of reification (Gannett, 2004, 2014; Duster, 2005; Glasgow, 2009; Maglo and Martin, 2012; Hochman, 2013)."

To assert the biological relevance of the classification of "human race", you must satisfy certain criteria relating to the genetics and ancestry of subpopulations. Without satisfying those criteria, you are simply bundling traits by convenience and committing the fallacy of reification by attempting to pass this off as a meaningfull biological division.