There is delusion and there is wilful ignorance, and you are representative of the latter category. Since it is apparently difficult for you to actually read about the matters you are trying to convey authority on, I will provide the most important tidbits here and now.
[
When people define and talk about a particular conception of race, they create a social reality through which social categorization is achieved.[31] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[32] These constructs develop within various legal, economic, and sociopolitical contexts, and may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[33] While race is understood to be a social construct by many, most scholars agree that race has real material effects in the lives of people through institutionalized practices of preference and discrimination.]
[Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. ]
[
The term race in biology is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of subspecies.[65] (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies;[66] there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.)]
[Population geneticists have debated whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. To do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. ]
[On the other hand, in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, but there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists.[71] Likewise this typological approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists.]
[
One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was the anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, slow migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines.[76] In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines".[77]]
I could go on, but I think that I have made my point very clear. The concept of a "race", as it is applied to human phenotypes, is biologically and anthropologically obsolete. Due to its lack of clear definition, modern researchers have long since switched to more specific terminology when it comes to the study of the human species. In some other disciplines the term continues to be used, but under very different function than that of the human phenotypes.
0
@ThorsomeTarmukas
There is delusion and there is wilful ignorance, and you are representative of the latter category. Since it is apparently difficult for you to actually read about the matters you are trying to convey authority on, I will provide the most important tidbits here and now.
[
When people define and talk about a particular conception of race, they create a social reality through which social categorization is achieved.[31] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[32] These constructs develop within various legal, economic, and sociopolitical contexts, and may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[33] While race is understood to be a social construct by many, most scholars agree that race has real material effects in the lives of people through institutionalized practices of preference and discrimination.]
[Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. ]
[
The term race in biology is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of subspecies.[65] (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies;[66] there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.)]
[Population geneticists have debated whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. To do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. ]
[On the other hand, in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, but there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists.[71] Likewise this typological approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists.]
[
One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was the anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, slow migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines.[76] In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines".[77]]
I could go on, but I think that I have made my point very clear. The concept of a "race", as it is applied to human phenotypes, is biologically and anthropologically obsolete. Due to its lack of clear definition, modern researchers have long since switched to more specific terminology when it comes to the study of the human species. In some other disciplines the term continues to be used, but under very different function than that of the human phenotypes.