The Pseudo-Science of Racism

[Goshin]

Im just repeating what the scientific community has been saying- that there isnt enough genetic or biological differences between the so-called different races for any of them to be considered unique to that particular "race" nor could they be classified as subspecies. The only biological difference between a white man and a black man is the amount of melanin they have embedded in their skin- but thats just pigment and nothing else.

As far as craniology goes, I'll just quote the second link on the OP:



Look, in the end, its your choice if you want to believe the consensus or go with the fringe scientists who insists there are separate races. All Im suggesting is you go ahead and google the authors of these controversial studies and find out their backgrounds. A simple Google search yields a lot of information as to whether a researcher is biased in any way.

The scientific consensus has not infrequently been proven to be full of **** on certain issues at certain times, throughout history.


Simply calling someone a "racist" because they say something unpopular doesn't make it so, nor does it destroy their arguments.


The evidence of my own eyes says there are, on the whole, certain visible differences attributable to genetics, between persons whose ancestry is largely from Europe, Africa or Asia, and that these distinctions are relatively consistent and stable absent inter breeding.

We can call it "race", or we can call it "regional variation" or "regional adaptation" or whatever, it obviously does exist.


How much significance to place on it is up for debate; its status as a real thing isn't.

 

[rathi]

The evidence of my own eyes says there are, on the whole, certain visible differences attributable to genetics, between persons whose ancestry is largely from Europe, Africa or Asia, and that these distinctions are relatively consistent and stable absent inter breeding.

Nope. Remember in your state when black people used to "pass" for being white to escape segregation? Or the old "one drop of black blood" standard?

 

[Goshin]

Nope. Remember in your state when black people used to "pass" for being white to escape segregation? Or the old "one drop of black blood" standard?

Picking exceptions hardly disproves a general rule.




As I said, I'm talking about people whose ancestry is almost entirely from Region Whatever. "African-Americans" have been largely of mixed blood for centuries.

Nor am I referring to rare exceptions, but averages.


Instead compare someone whose ancestry is 99% sub-Saharan African vs someone whose ancestry is 99% European or Asian. The vast majority of the time, unless they're of mixed ancestry, there are distinguishable physical characteristics they tend to share with most of their fellow "regional variants".


If there are visible, physical traits shared by most people from Region X, then there might be other, less obvious genetic traits also common to persons whose ancestry is from that region. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis at all.

But as I said, how much societal significance to assign to these differences is a different question. Denying such differences exist (on AVERAGE) is just plain denial.

 

[mbig]

Nope. Remember in your state when black people used to "pass" for being white to escape segregation? Or the old "one drop of black blood" standard?

Of course, as Goshin points out, 'Blacks'/'African Americans' are a 'hybrid race', virtually all having varying, but usually minority, percents of 'white' ancestry.

Part of the same mind blowing boner PoS makes about 'Black and White'.

So many on this board view Race as merely an American Black/White thing.
Part of the latest Cop-shoots-black story and their knee-JERK politics kick in.
They have NO science edu at all. Zero.

Utterly Predictable that someone just started another string a week ago:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/222584-documentary-survival-fastest.html

By Michael Johnson, the great Sprinter...
Marveling how ALL 8 of the 2008 Finalists in his race were ancestrally West Africa and how they were genetically better fit muscularly and Testosterone-wise. (and he's RIGHT!)
He then reads us his Genetic report showing he is 7/8th West African.
Um.. what are they measuring in his blood?
Just 'melanin'?
LOFL.
NONE of the PC CLOWNS posting here took any issue with that 'Race' string.

in FACT, and Again, (you're gonna see more in a minute), the two Genetically furthest distant races are Subsharan Blacks and Australian aboriginals (both people of color), due to (like every other Race/subspecie) time and distance.

 

[mbig]

Im just repeating what the scientific community has been saying- that there isnt enough genetic or biological differences between the so-called different races for any of them to be considered unique to that particular "race" nor could they be classified as subspecies.
The Only biological difference between a white man and a black man is the amount of Melanin they have embedded in their skin- but thats just Pigment and nothing else.

I refuted this Breathtaking piece of Ignorance already.
Not even intelligent Race-Denialists would make such a mind blowing claim.
Just "Melanin"?!^$^#

Lets try it again:
Now THRICE

You couldn't answer me just a Week ago (TWICE) (and still can't) when I posted why/HOW there IS Race.
So you found Lefty Guardian :^) INSTEAD.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/208449-southern-europeans-white-6.html#post1064550469
mbig to PoS

You clearly don't understand Race at all.
1. You confuse Nationality with race, as if everyone living in 'China' (or other locales) must be Han Chinese and not the myriad of people's in Western China!
1a. You post pictures of exceptions of blond/'white' girls living in that Crossroads/Silk-route/Tarim Basin/Central Asia.. region as [fallacious] 'proof'.

2. But In a room with 300 Naked People: 100 Pygmies, 100 Scandinavians, and 100 Northeast Asians (Japanese etc)
what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling them apart?
Why?

3. Race is not just about Hair or eye Color!..
Race is a whole SET of features including stature, Skeletal and muscular structure/facial features, Hair coverage and Texture of it... Blood components, disease susceptibility, etc.

So that Forensic anthropologists are More accurate telling apart Races from Skeletal Remains than from seeing any 'Color'!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/145843-many-human-races-exist-8.html#post1061264044
and they do it every day.

In fact, the two genetically Furthest apart Races are people of 'color', subsaharan africans and Australian aboriginals, due to geographical separation and Isolation of the latter.

So that in my above-mentioned room with those 3 Races, if a pygmy (or NE Asian) was an Albino, he would Still be Easily distinguished from the other two by the SETS of features that make up race.

Race is.. morphological difference, caused by genetic difference/adaptation, in turn caused by geographic/evolutionary separation.
It/they can be divided into as little as 3, or as many as 30, or perhaps a multiple of that. (Coyne, Cavalli-Sforza, etc)
The point being though, they are Distinguishable by SETS of features which are determined by SETS of GENETIC Loci.

4. And btw, if you send your Blood and a few bucks into ("Racist") National Geographic's Genographic Project, they'll tell you what Percent of each indigenous people/RACE (11) you are.

5. Many animals have LESS morphological and genetic separation than humans, but Do have Race, aka subspecies, Including Chimps and Gorillas. The latter even has 2 separate species.
The Only reasons H sapien doesn't have further designation is 100% Political, NOT Scientific/Taxonomic.

6. Aside from one or two people here, virtually NO one has any understanding of Genetics/Speciation/evolution.
Even the considerably more who have Some understanding of/or say they believe in, Evolution, are Blinded by PC political views.

"Liberal Creationism" (Slate mag, another story)
That is, Like YECers who deny ANY evolution, Liberal Creationists demand it stopped 100,000-200,000 YEARS ago with the appearance of H Sapiens!'
Yes..
Scores of other geographically separated species kept evolving into many other subspecies, but Humans? DON'T YOU DARE say it!
"Racists"!
That constitutes about Half the mindless people who populate this board, especially PoS, who even calls people who criticize Islam - a Religion - "Racists"/Stormfront and knows NOTHING about any science.

7. Pygmy Mammoths, a separate Specie, evolved from Mammoths in just 30,000 years from Island Isolation.
Pygmy mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BUT, Whoa to he who points out Australian Aboriginals did also into the even smaller/more easy Subspecie, and had much More time! Similarly other groups evolved.

8. I also suggest ie, The 10,000 Year Explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which explains how Evolution of Humans was greatly Accelerated in the last 10,000 years [alone] due to agriculture/cities etc, and some groups got 'left behind'/isolated by this.
Due to the above, humans have Evolved and Separated even faster than other species.

/Primer​

Unanswered/Unanswerable

 

[rathi]

Picking exceptions hardly disproves a general rule.

This of course instantly reveals you completely ignorant of how science works. Newtonians physics were ultimately proved wrong even after being able to describe 99.9% of how stuff moved because of some tiny discrepancies from bouncing beams of light off of mirrors.

As I said, I'm talking about people whose ancestry is almost entirely from Region Whatever. "African-Americans" have been largely of mixed blood for centuries.

You just admitted that race is not a genetic classification. People considered black in America have different genetics back rounds from people living in the Congo, yet fall under the same label.

Instead compare someone whose ancestry is 99% sub-Saharan African vs someone whose ancestry is 99% European or Asian. The vast majority of the time, unless they're of mixed ancestry, there are distinguishable physical characteristics they tend to share with most of their fellow "regional variants".

Laughably wrong. There are hundreds of millions of Indians who have skin color closer to the average person in Liberia than their fellow "asians" in Japan. You also pretend that most people living in those places are "pure blood", which is proven utterly false by historical migrations.

 

[Goshin]

This of course instantly reveals you completely ignorant of how science works. Newtonians physics were ultimately proved wrong even after being able to describe 99.9% of how stuff moved because of some tiny discrepancies from bouncing beams of light off of mirrors.




You just admitted that race is not a genetic classification. People considered black in America have different genetics back rounds from people living in the Congo, yet fall under the same label.



Laughably wrong. There are hundreds of millions of Indians who have skin color closer to the average person in Liberia than their fellow "asians" in Japan. You also pretend that most people living in those places are "pure blood", which is proven utterly false by historical migrations.

You're still comparing exceptions to exceptions, and ignoring averages.


So you typically can't tell a Zulu from a Korean by sight? Because they're so damn identical...

 

[rathi]

You're still comparing exceptions to exceptions, and ignoring averages.


So you typically can't tell a Zulu from a Korean by sight? Because they're so damn identical...

Zulu and Korean are ethnic groups, not racial classifications. You claimed that race was based on continental genetic origin, I will prove you wrong.

Check out this Indian actor. You damn well know he would be treated as black walking down the street in the U.S., regardless of his genetics or where he was born.


He isn't an anomaly either, there are tens of million of similar looking guys in India.

 

[mbig]

Zulu and Korean are ethnic groups, not racial classifications. You claimed that race was based on continental genetic origin, I will prove you wrong.

Actually he is correct, he just used nationality/tribe as a proxy for Race.
Thus you took advantage of that semantic imprecision.
NE Asians are a Race, that does NOT include South Asians (Indians etc)
I used the correct terminology many times, thus you had NOTHING in response to my posts on this page or, conspicuously, Any throughout.
Race is 'Continental,' or more precisely Geographical [adaptation], in nature/origin.
That does NOT mean that every part of every continent is one race, Obviously.
Western China is full of non-Han Chinese/Non-NE Asian people's.
That does NOT Invalidate the concept of race/Geographically evolved Races. (in any animal)

Check out this Indian actor. You damn well know he would be treated as black walking down the street in the U.S., regardless of his genetics or where he was born.
[pic]
He isn't an anomaly either, there are tens of million of similar looking guys in India.

I could not have been more thorough nor repetitive in explaining the Difference between Color and Race.
As I said in Direct response to YOU (and 4 more times), the two genetically Furthest apart races are people of color: subsaharans and Australian aboriginals.
UNanswered.
'Color' is just an adaptation to sunny/equatorial climates that many Races have.

The COLLOQUIAL Use of 'black' (for anyone of color) is NOT the same as 'race'.
I could not have been any more clear on that either.
ie, American 'blacks'/'African Americans' are generally a 'hybrid race' of subsaharans and Europeans/Caucasians. As we know from fairly recent history as well as genetics.
Because he was/would be "treated" as a 'black' doesn't make him subsaharan [black], nor even the American hybrid 'race', and not the issue here.

 

[Hicup]

That's funny.
You couldn't answer me just a Week ago (and still can't) when I posted why/HOW there IS Race.
So you found Lefty Guardian :^) INSTEAD.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/208449-southern-europeans-white-6.html#post1064550469
mbig to PoS

You clearly don't understand Race at all.
1. You confuse Nationality with race, as if everyone living in 'China' (or other locales) must be Han Chinese and not the myriad of people's in Western China!
1a. You post pictures of exceptions of blond/'white' girls living in that Crossroads/Silk-route/Tarim Basin/Central Asia.. region as [fallacious] 'proof'.

2. But In a room with 300 Naked People: 100 Pygmies, 100 Scandinavians, and 100 Northeast Asians (Japanese etc)..
what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling them apart?
Why?

3. Race is not just about Hair or eye Color!..
Race is a whole SET of features including stature, Skeletal and muscular structure/facial features, Hair coverage and Texture of it..., Blood components, disease susceptibility, etc.

So that Forensic anthropologists are More accurate telling apart Races from Skeletal Remains than from seeing any 'Color'!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/145843-many-human-races-exist-8.html#post1061264044
and they do it every day.

In fact, the two genetically Furthest apart Races are people of 'color', subsaharan africans and Australian aboriginals, due to geographical separation and Isolation of the latter.

So that in my above-mentioned room with those 3 Races, if a pygmy (or NE Asian) was an Albino, he would Still be Easily distinguished from the other two by the SETS of features that make up race.

Race is some morphological difference, caused by genetic difference/adaptation, in turn caused by geographic/evolutionary separation.
It/they can be divided into as little as 3, or as many as 30, or perhaps a multiple of that. (Coyne, Cavalli-Sforza, etc)
The point being though, they are Distinguishable by SETS of features which are determined by SETS of GENETIC Loci.

4. And btw, if you send your Blood and a few bucks into ("Racist") National Geographic's Genographic Project, they'll tell you what Percent of each indigenous people/RACE (11) you are.

5. Many animals have LESS morphological and genetic separation than humans, but Do have Race, aka subspecies, Including Chimps and Gorillas. The latter even has 2 separate species.
The Only reasons H sapien doesn't have further designation is 100% Political, NOT Scientific/Taxonomic.

6. Aside from one or two people here, virtually NO one has any understanding of Genetics/Speciation/evolution.
Even the considerably more who have Some understanding of/or say they believe in, Evolution, are Blinded by PC political views.

"Liberal Creationism" (Slate mag, another story)
That is, Like YECers who deny ANY evolution, Liberal Creationists demand it stopped 100,000-200,000 YEARS ago with the appearance of H Sapiens!'
Yes..
Scores of other geographically separated species kept evolving into many other subspecies, but Humans? DON'T YOU DARE say it!
"Racists"!
That constitutes about Half the mindless people who populate this board, especially PoS, who even calls people who criticize Islam - a Religion - "Racists"/Stormfront and knows NOTHING about any science.

7. Pygmy Mammoths, a separate Specie, evolved from Mammoths in just 30,000 years from Island Isolation.
Pygmy mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BUT, Whoa to he who points out Australian Aboriginals did also into the even smaller/more easy Subspecie, and had much More time! Similarly other groups evolved.

8. I also suggest https://www.google.com/webhp?source...th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=10,000 year explosion&es_th=1
ie, The 10,000 Year Explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which explains how Evolution of Humans was greatly Accelerated in the last 10,000 years [alone] due to agriculture/cities etc, and some groups got 'left behind'/isolated by this.
Due to the above, humans have Evolved and Separated even faster than other species.

/Primer.​

UNanswered

OMG, thank you! I thought I was going to have to answer this myself.. The mere insinuation that humans are not empirically racially divided is complete nonsense, that even within human species there are a myriad of what constitute subspecies. Anyone (PC science notwithstanding) who looks back at not only human evolution but ALL evolution and can still sit there and claim race does not exist are nutz.

Tim-

 

[Taylor]

I primarily created this thread to refute allegations made by people that there is a genetic difference when it comes to race and therefore to their IQ and all that. Hard science deals with facts and facts only and since people of differing skin colors dont really have any unique biological and genetic differences between them then the concept of separate subspecies (AKA races) isnt correct.

Kind of strange that you're worried about the idea that people of different races are claimed to differ in intelligence. I mean, if there is no such thing as race, then there is no such thing as intelligence, either, for the very same reasons.

E.g. "...since people of differing intelllects don't really have any unique biological and genetic differences between them then the concept of separate levels of intellect (AKA intelligence) isn't correct."

 

[Hicup]

Kind of strange that you're worried about the idea that people of different races are claimed to differ in intelligence. I mean, if there is no such thing as race, then there is no such thing as intelligence, either, for the very same reasons.

E.g. "...since people of differing intelllects don't really have any unique biological and genetic differences between them then the concept of separate levels of intellect (AKA intelligence) isn't correct."

So in the first episode of Through the Wormhole this season they ask the question, "are we all bigots", and then proceed to show that why yes, yes we are. That show has gone down hill since they stopped talking about real science and space. Seems the last couple season they've centered on social science and if anyone watched it the other day, the psychological experiments they used to justify their positions were grade school, and OMG so full of glaring errors that I can't imagine that someone actually signed off on airing the program. Morgan Freeman though is a huge lefty so maybe he has "artistic" control.. Who knows, but man, stick to science, not quackery..


Tim-

 

[Peter Grimm]

Lately, there have been a number of threads in which links were bandied about that "proves" that there is some supposed IQ differences between races and that black people in particular, have supposedly lower IQs. I think its time to nip this nonsense in the bud.

Why racism is not backed by science | Science | The Guardian



Racialism - RationalWiki

This is pretty much the scientific consensus:





To conclude: race as a concept of classifying people has no basis in modern day science. Racism however does exist and sadly, a number of scientists are racists but fortunately, none of their so-called theories has ever been proven nor have they been accepted by mainstream science.

All fine and good, but black people (whether you want to define them as a race or not) have, on average, lower IQ scores than whites or Asians.

This has been studied.

 

[Peter Grimm]

This is the stupidest thread to ever appear on this stupid forum.

Why is this such an uncomfortable topic for so many?

 

[Goshin]

Zulu and Korean are ethnic groups, not racial classifications. You claimed that race was based on continental genetic origin, I will prove you wrong.

Check out this Indian actor. You damn well know he would be treated as black walking down the street in the U.S., regardless of his genetics or where he was born.
View attachment 67183879

He isn't an anomaly either, there are tens of million of similar looking guys in India.

Nonsense. You ignored the fact that 99.99% of the time the difference in appearance between a Zulu and a Korean is OBVIOUS, and clearly INHERITED.

Then you bring up some random guy from India whose genetic heritage is entirely unknown and claim Americans would consider him "black"... when I can't even see half his face nor is the lighting sufficient to make a good assessment of his skin tone. Irrelevant to what I said entirely... could he be mistaken for a Zulu? Um no. Could he be mistaken for a native ethnic Korean? Um no.


This is getting ridiculous. You're splitting hairs and throwing up irrelevancies in an attempt to wiggle out of the fact that ON AVERAGE it is easy to spot the differences between someone of Caucasian heritage vs someone of Sub-Saharan African vs someone of Asian heritage, and that by and large people in each of these groups share distinct observable characteristics with their ancestors, relatives and most of their fellow regional-variants indicating that these traits are mostly genetic.

This is simply as obvious as observing that there are visible differences between petunias and azaleas. There is no way around it other than willful denial and willful blindness.


Again, how important it is, or how big of a deal to make out of it, is another argument. That there are observable differences on average in the three groups is an observable fact. That those differences appear to be chiefly a result of genetic heritage is also observable fact.

Hence 'race', or "subspecies", or "regional genotype' or "regional variant" or whatever.


Pretending otherwise is as crazy as pretending the average Zebra and an ordinary Horse are indistinguishable.

 

[Goshin]

Why is this such an uncomfortable topic for so many?

It isn't quite PC. :roll:

 

[Peter Grimm]

Racism, not race, are the cause of lower IQ, because the true cause of systemically lower IQ is poverty which is due to the fact that racism keeps more minorities impoverished than whites.

Why is it difficult to accept that God didn't make us all the same? Black people are generally better at sports and music, white people are generally smarter, but that's not always the case for everyone. Just an average.

However, what good does it do us to deny it? Saying blacks are as smart as whites makes as much sense as saying whites are as good at sprinting as blacks. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but we all know what we see with our own eyes.

 

[Peter Grimm]

It isn't quite PC. :roll:

We're talking about averages, not absolutes.

The average Asian is shorter, but tell that to Yao Ming (7'6" basketball player).

There's nothing about stating an average that limits anyone's potential or that is in any way socially harmful.

We shouldn't be afraid to talk about race and every aspect of it. Knowledge and truth are never a bad thing.

 

[Summerwind]

Why is it difficult to accept that God didn't make us all the same? Black people are generally better at sports and music, white people are generally smarter, but that's not always the case for everyone. Just an average.

However, what good does it do us to deny it? Saying blacks are as smart as whites makes as much sense as saying whites are as good at sprinting as blacks. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but we all know what we see with our own eyes.

There is no god. End of that aspect of the discussion.

Racism which causes poverty is the cause of lower IQs and lower health and lower values all around.

If there was a god, I wonder how he'd feel know y'all religious types blame him for racism... btw, you do know that Jesus wasn't white, right?

 

[Peter Grimm]

There is no god. End of that aspect of the discussion.

Racism which causes poverty is the cause of lower IQs and lower health and lower values all around.

If there was a god, I wonder how he'd feel know y'all religious types blame him for racism... btw, you do know that Jesus wasn't white, right?

So... you're saying that racist whites are the reason blacks are less intelligent, on average? So white people are actually making blacks dumber?

Maybe the reason so many black people are poor is because those poor, black people are unintelligent to begin with?

The science shows that IQ is about 80% determined by genetics (heritability), with the other 20% being down to good parenting and good nutrition.

So are the racist whites blasting black neighborhoods with radiation, screwing up their brain genes.... or maybe it's racist whites forcing blacks to be bad parents.... or maybe racist whites are forcing blacks to starve their kids. IDK you tell me.

Either way, it's all whitey's fault for being racists. You've convinced me of that.

 

[mbig]

...
Racism which causes poverty is the cause of lower IQs and lower health and lower values all around.
...

What about "Racism" against Asians?
Many brought here as Indentured Railway labor just as the Blacks were being freed from slavery.

Japanese interned and losing everything as late as WWII.
Their (unlike Africa) resourceLess country completely destroyed in 1945.
Look at them, or 'poor' China; or destroyed-in-1950s S Korea, Now. Look at subsaharan Africa.

How is it they have HIGHER IQs than whites who 'discriminate' against them?
Higher IQs than the culture the test was originally designed for?
Higher IQs (when adopted) than their white Middle Class parents, while black children have lower IQS in the equalized socioeconomic situation?

How is it that this (for now just) 3-way pattern is repeated Worldwide?
Whether on top or on bottom, remarkably (er rather, predictably) the numbers come out the same.

 

[Goshin]

There is no god. End of that aspect of the discussion.

Racism which causes poverty is the cause of lower IQs and lower health and lower values all around.

If there was a god, I wonder how he'd feel know y'all religious types blame him for racism... btw, you do know that Jesus wasn't white, right?

I don't even know where to begin. In fact, I'm just not. :inandout:

 

[rathi]

This is getting ridiculous. You're splitting hairs and throwing up irrelevancies in an attempt to wiggle out of the fact that ON AVERAGE it is easy to spot the differences between someone of Caucasian heritage vs someone of Sub-Saharan African vs someone of Asian heritage, and that by and large people in each of these groups share distinct observable characteristics with their ancestors, relatives and most of their fellow regional-variants indicating that these traits are mostly genetic.

Goshin, Science is about making accurate observations not sloppy generalizations. Trying to ignore the millions of people who prove your claims wrong by whining about the "average" would get your laughed out of the room. If you want to make claims about genetics, you need to actually publish results of DNA tests, allele frequencies, heritability models and the actual science of biology. You obviously have zero training in genetics, which is fine its not like most people do, but you shouldn't make stupid claims about a subject you haven't bothered to study.

 

[rathi]

It isn't quite PC. :roll:

That is quite funny. You are doing nothing but parroting the political correctness of the society in which you grew up. Making stupid claims about race and genetics is the history of the south. If you don't want to judged by that history, don't keep spouting the same ignorant prejudiced nonsense.

 

[mbig]

Goshin, Science is about making accurate observations not sloppy generalizations. Trying to ignore the millions of people who prove your claims wrong by whining about the "average" would get your laughed out of the room. If you want to make claims about genetics, you need to actually publish results of DNA tests, allele frequencies, heritability models and the actual science of biology. You obviously have zero training in genetics, which is fine its not like most people do, but you shouldn't make stupid claims about a subject you haven't bothered to study.

No that's Not true.
Even a child can tell race in humans or animals.
You have not addressed Any of My posts in this string despite me posting alot of Meat and debunking two of yours. Ergo, one Has to wonder if you Are interested in the TRUTH of the matter or just semantically critiquing Goshin.

ie, One doesn't have to be a geneticist to know Lions and Tigers are Cats but NOT the same/that there is some inherent (genetic) distinguishment.

Nor does one have to be an evolutionary Biologist to know a Pygmy/Bushmen/San couple can't be give birth to a Christie Brinkley or Ban Ki Moon.
(and it AIN'T just "melanin")
It's only a question of whether we're talking race/subspecie or species in the above cases.

Again Coyne:

"..The subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies..." (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology).​