penguins have adapted wings, they do not have the same type of fins or flippers that dolphins or other aquatic animals have

"I don't think you'll find that he made the blanket assertion that there exist no groups into which animals can be sorted."

that is exactly what he said, go back and read his posts before you get involved and that is exactly why i responded in the way i did

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.

1) we share 96% of our genes with chimpanzees, how does that factor into your argument? i'd seriously like an answer on that

2) "the unsupported opinion of some within the scientific community does not overwrite the supported claims of others"

lol um are you really trying to push the argument that the consensus within the scientific community is not that race is about physical characteristics?

again i'll reiterate the terms causcasoid, negroid and mongoloid came from the scientific community and are accepted and taught as biological terms worldwide... what does that do for your argument?

you have to address that

3) "To assert the biological relevance of the classification of "human race", you must satisfy certain criteria relating to the genetics and ancestry of subpopulations."

and again this is not the definition of race

here is a biology encyclopedia

http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Biology-of-Race.html

1) 96% similar to chimpanzees:

This measurement is fundamentally different than measurements used to speak about diversity between humans. By this measure, humans are about 100% similar to each other, because this speaks of the similarities in the a more macroscale, looking at what genes are present. On the other hand, diversity between humans doesn't speak to the presence of genes, it speaks to the presence of alleles at those genes. 

You could think of it kind of like the alphabet. Humans are the roman alphabet. You can make different words with this alphabet, but it all uses the same language. On the other hand, comparison between species would be like throwing in a few chinese characters, which makes the sequences uncompatible (that was a poor comparison, but its the best I can do off the top of my head).

2) The consensus within the scientific community from everything I've read is that race is essentially a "wastebasket taxa". It is something that has been used within many fields such as biology, and has largely been reified through use even though it lacks that solid genetic footing. 

3) Here is a direct quote from your "encyclopedia on biology":

"Paleoanthropological evidence suggests that these units have been interbreeding between populations for at least the last two hundred thousand years or longer in what may once have been considered racial groups.

More recently, molecular techniques have developed to examine genetic differences between individuals and populations, including karyotypes providing chromosomal number and patterns, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) hybridization, protein sequences, and nuclear and mitochondrial base sequences from ancient and modern DNA. From all this evidence, it is clear that populational, but not racial, differences do exist within the human species."

I repeat: It is clear that populational, but not racial, differences do exist within the human species.

To rephrase: Racial differences do not exist within the human species.

Here is some more:

"Early racial classification systems for humans used specific phenotypic characteristics that occurred in higher frequencies in certain populations. Initially, three classes were identified by anthropologists: Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids; later, Australoids and Capoids (Bushmen) were added. Following this, even more classifications were made, with no consensus among biological anthropologists. Difficulties with these early classification systems stem from the immense genotypic and phenotypic human variation found in modern living populations."

"Some genetic differences do exists between groups, but these by and large do not correspond to historical racial categories."

"Genetic diversity has resulted from the extensive hybridization that has occurred in the last two hundred thousand years, hiding any clear evidence for typological classification of race. Moreover, when selection pressures (temperature, altitude) are coupled with phenotypic variation, phenotypic expression defies taxonomic assignment of race. The genetic diversity within any historically defined race swamps the small amount of difference between such groups, making the boundaries of these categories entirely arbitrary. Therefore, race in humans does not have a biological meaning."

I don't think I've ever seen someone post a source which so thoroughly debunks their own point...

My favorite part about him quoting wikipedia, is that the next line is literally "Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations"

"Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits"

"Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created to establish meaning in a social context"

All of his other quotes from wikipedia are from articles that make similar points about race being a social construct.  

nothing has changed about the definition of race, all that has changed is that the term race is being removed from the field of biology

its meaning is the same as it always has been with regards to identifying people with different physical characteristics

to put a finer point on this, the fact that the field of biology is phasing out the term race does not mean, for example, that we lose the ability to differentiate between a black and a white man correct?

and furthermore it does not mean that when people make such distinctions that its not grounded in biology, since we make such distinctions in accordance with the expression of genetic traits

That isn't really true. Race (in the human context) has always been an assumption that the underlying genetics would mirror certain phenotypic patterns. As our knowledge of genetics has grown, we have learned that this assumption was false, and as such, the scientific community has taken some steps forwards in the way we speak about race. Unfortunately, such concepts have become reified through use, which makes correcting errors in a broad context difficult. 

This is evidenced by the fact that the field of biology is not "phasing out the term race". The term still applies within other species, where genetics indicate races do exist. However, it is attempting to correct the record on the use of the term in relation to humans, where such a term is inaccurate.

That is how science works. New knowledge replaces old assumptions and we move forwards to assimilate this new knowledge into the existing knowledge base, and reformulating hypothesis based on these changes. The issue has nothing to do with political correctness, it is simply science working correctly, and those outside of said science throwing up their hands because they don't want their worldview disrupted. 

To conclude, I will first ask, why would it be harmful to move away from skin color based classification systems?

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

But why?

There is no fundamental biological principle which states that is where the lines for these divisions should be drawn. The decision to drawn the line there is based on convenience. That is largely the crux of this discussion: Whether or not the divisions are natural or if the have just been reified through use. 

And no, skewed allele frequencies are not the key to identifying race. If that were true, we would consider people from East Finland to be a different race than West Finland. As it turns out, through skewed allele frequencies, genetic technology can actually determine ancestry location within a few hundred kilometers. Skewed allele frequencies are simply natural artifacts which present themselves in any large population. 

I found a few interesting articles on the topic that I wanted to bring up:

Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/959a/62f7b57dba3f38d183e6caecbe39a05c19d2.pdf?_ga=2.169619745.1273437384.1519162892-1643875267.1519162892

This article is a direct response to the Rosenburg (2002) article you posted yesterday. Essentially, what it is stating is that the "distinctness" of the populations determined by Rutherford (which already exist on shaky footing as a stand-in for race, for the reasons discussed above) is largely due to the incomplete nature of his population sets. By taking a more even sampling from across the globe, we find that humanity doesn't exist in distinct chunks but instead exist as a gradient, or cline. 

"Using a homogeneous sampling strategy and a model in which allele frequencies in the different inferred populations are allowed to be independent, we find a stable and reproducible representation of human genetic diversity in which the extent of admixture between individuals in Eurasia and the Americas changes continuously with geographical distance without any major discontinuities"

"on a worldwide scale, clines are a better representation of the human diversity than clades, and that continents do not represent more substantial discontinuities in such clines than many other geographical and cultural barriers"

Population Genomics and the Statistical Values of Race

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/

This article discusses similar ideas, outside of the context of Rosenburg. It shows that the "cluster" effects some studies demonstrate is likely to be an artifact of flawed sampling, it covers the statistical analyses dealing with the division of a species into race and demonstrates that the difference are often not stastically significant and are evolutionarily meaningless, and concludes that the idea of "race" has no basis in biological reality.

"Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, it demonstrates that the hypothesis that attributes the clustering of human populations to “frictional” effects of landform barriers at continental boundaries is empirically incoherent"

"what counts as “biological reality” of human races is elusive, ranging from “trivial” to “obscure,” and often construed in a non-Darwinian biological framework"

"In Darwinian classification (but also in phylogenetic systematics), a biological grouping of organisms that does not meet [certain 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 and granting them objective biological existence constitutes an erroneous attribution of ontological status called the fallacy of reification"

“A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population…”

" the cline model maps continuous genetic gradation in a dataset and indicates that there is no natural break in a population's genetic profile "