>

I'd strongly disagree that an ethnic Moroccan and an ethnic swede look particularly alike. But the issue is if this mixing was happening in one place it happened in others as well.
/u/UBC_Guy_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


South Sudan and Chad are taller than the world average, and Jews and Asians are shorter than the world average.

You claimed that there are three races, but then you immediately named four, and obviously lots of people don't fit into either of these.
If the Jewish, the Asians, the South Sudanese are the three races, then which race do Scandinavians fit into? And what about the Italians? And the slavs? Which race are Tamils? Which race are native Australians? Which race are Canadian first nations? Which race are mayans? >

All Europeans, Tamils and Semitic peoples to my knowledge are all Caucasians. The origin of Australian Aboriginese is disputed because we’ve observed a phenotypic mixture between various African/asian traits… I think the best theory is that they migrated from Africa, came to asian along the way, and ended up there really long ago, and have since highly differentiated on their own. I just wouldn’t classify them as a major race, because their population and culture has dwindled massively as a result of colonialism >


All Europeans, Tamils and Semitic peoples to my knowledge are all Caucasians. 

But there are genetic differences between them... How can they be the same race? >

Not that I agree with OP, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there can't be genetic variation within the races. There can also potentially be sub-populations within races. >

But then how do we know there isn't just one race with sub-populations within it? >

That's just a matter of how we choose to define what a race is. Seems like a semantic concern to me. >

But it's a big problem for OP. He's claiming the racial categories are backed up by genetics. If we can suddenly start defining races how we want than it suggests those genetics may have ambiguity in grouping and may not actually be as straightforward as was suggested >

Native Americans out here like... uh... what about us?
But really, I think you're missing a major aspect of the science itself.

In 2003, Phase 1 of the Human Genome Project (HGP) demonstrated that humans populating the earth today are on average 99.9% identical at the DNA level, there is no genetic basis for race, and there is more genetic variation within a race than between them.

This should tell you a few things. 
1 - Race isn't genetic.
2 - Race varies far more within a racial group than it does from other racial groups.
3 - Race comes from environmental and breeding - not genetic biology.
So, with that in mind. You're talking about the .000000001% (for argument's sake) variance that exists between races as a result of their isolated histories. 
So, in that sense, you're right. We can even round it up to 1%.
So, 99% of race is a social construct. And 1% of it is genetics.
I'm not sure if that will change your view - but it should sure show you that your view is almost entirely moot. >

We are also 99% similar to chimpanzees. So there’s no genetic basis for our species differences either? >

It's actually about 96%, and that accounts for the major differences. >

So if that 3% difference makes such a difference, imagine what difference 0.0001% difference would make. Genetics shouldn’t be seen as issue of proportionality though, because a single nucleotide in the chain of millions could create an extreme difference >


a single nucleotide in the chain of millions could create an extreme difference

You're almost there.
Your one SNP might make you more different from your parents than a thousand other SNPs in your sibling.
The differences between individuals within a "race" are often greater than the differences between individuals in different "races."  There is no genetic basis for race, and if you were to classify people on a genetic basis those classes would cut across races with impunity. >

Actually yeah. You got me there. I see the immense problem with putting a big label on populations, when the individual genetic factors (discounting the environmental) could make such a huge difference. Fuck racism. 
!delta >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Codebender (12∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

What are the 3 primary races? Who decides who belongs into which race? >

Up until very recently, the races were differentiated after 10s of thousands of years of divergent evolution because they were geographically separated. I’d say the three primary races are Sub-Saharan African, Indo-European/Caucasian, and East Asian/Polynesian/Native American. >

Can you say when "very recently" began? >

Started the last 500 years in the age of colonialism and exploration, has critically accelerated in the last 50 years in the age of information and globalization >

What about Ancient Rome? They had an incredibly diverse population thousands of years ago and shifted people around within their empire. >

The ethnic groups within Rome were not that distinct. They were all descendant of the Indo-European tribe (excluding Jews and Semites) which existed a couple thousand years prior. This is in comparison to like 100000 years of difference between them and Asians >

1 out of four individuals from a Etruscan burials from Veio and Civitavecchia, was found to be a mixture of local Iron Age ancestry and a North African population, probably Moroccan. Do you think of Morocco as Indo-European? >

But you're bringing examples of groups of people that look very similar to each other, that's strawman. 
Yes, Moroccans do look Caucasian, majority of them are mixed. But a Sub-Saharan African definitely looks different when compared to European/Moroccan.