| fatslob-:O said: If we can have so called "races" for different animals then I don't see why it can't exist for humans ... The best biological definition of "human races" is defined with respect to the allele frequencies between different populations ... The paper hits the home run with my point about how we can classify human different "populations" with as little as 100 genetic markers ... |
Actually, it's not that it CAN'T exist for humans. It's simply that it doesn't.
Assuming you've actually read the paper, you'd know that it actually argues against your point.
Right here at the end:
A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
