Odds and Ends
Be careful what you say
19 7, 7:39am
[ 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. ]
You have only made clear that you are not familiar with the recent developments in genetics research.
Autosomally (atDNA), native europeans generally consist of 3 principal genetic components: WHG + ANE + EEF. Those components have persisted among native europeans for the last 35 000 years. Not stayed the same, yet not changed much either. The "white race" can be described by these 3 principal components. Other races can be described by other subsets of principal components. As with PCA and factor analyses methods, one can have slight variations on those components. For example, instead of WHG, one might get EHG and SHG. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that races can be described by such subsets of principal genetic components.
And this is just with atDNA. There might be something similar with epigenetics and gene expressions.
So the relevant part from your post is the following:
[ 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. (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies; there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.) ]
Different species do not get offspring.
Subspecies can get viable offspring.
Races are something that can outlive individual subspecies and individual species. And here the polar bears and brown bears are a perfect example. And the neanderthal component(s) among humans. Races are an adaptation to regional environments. If those environments persist or return (like ice ages and interstadials), then races can intermingle into one and later on regenerate themselves as separate races with the help of some parts of important genetical components that have survived through the intermingling.
[ 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. ]
Definitions can be respecified without changing the label.
It works for gravity and for other phenomena as well.
The very essence of human species as we understand it is in constant change.
So some debate whether we should call ourselves as humans or something else (perhaps a subspecies of homo erectus). I prefer to keep the label 'humans'.
Different schools of thought in some other fields use at least 4 different labels for the same phenomenon. The use of one does not negate the use of the others. And even if the scientists of the field do agree to use one label for the definition of one thing, nothing can stop the people to reuse another label for the very same thing with the very same definition. The race is on.