And once again, here comes the already-debunked pretense that it's about skin color alone and nothing else. What's the point in repeating a lie that you've already been caught at and know won't fool anybody?
Anyway, about the already-debunked blood-type herring, here's another new way to debunk it. When you divide a species up by different traits, you get different groups. If you're using certain blood proteins & immune factors, you get blood-type groups. If you're using left/right-handedness, you get handedness groups. If you're using height, you get different height groups. If you're using a combination of various traits including skin color which all happen to be linked to each other and to certain regions of the world, you get races. The fact that each one such grouping method can be done has no effect on the fact that another one can too, any more than the fact that grouping cars by color proves that they can't also be grouped by engine displacement. So what in the world is supposed to be the connection or relevance?
You've already been shown the non-arbitrary allele clusters, and their
distribution map. Nobody made those that way. They're just there, and that's just the way they are.
Every genetic trait is still inherited from ancestors whether it happens to code for a visible trait or an invisible one.
That's not
what the races are, but just
something about them. A lack of a superiority/inferiority spectrum to attribute to them does not make them go away.
That's simply false. Even before genetics, there were at least a couple dozen observable, measurable differences. (Gould mentions this when he says that some of them, such as the height of the navel, seem to be pretty silly trifles, but he doesn't pretend that that means they didn't exist.)
Maybe not, but an argument about whether there are groups at all is entirely different from an argument about their "meaningfulness".
This is another classic piece of race-denier BS. You claim to be arguing that races don't exist, but you know they do exist and you know that everybody knows you know they do exist, so instead you switch to arguing something else about them, like whether they're "meaningful" or "significant" or "important" and so on. At best it's a goal-post shift, defending one position while pretending that that defense applies to another that you're actually abandoning. At worst it's both that and a well-poisoning straw-man, trying to position the other side as being in favor of assigning some vague "importance" to race.
If the different groups with different physical and genetic traits exist in different parts of the world, then there they are. That's existence. That's all there is to it.
And despite the claims to think that they don't, the people making such claims still have yet to produce one single argument that they don't. They just keep throwing out a bunch of arguments to prove some other point instead, one which isn't in dispute or isn't even related to the subject.
One of these days, you should embellish on these vague allusions about how much genetic knowledge has increased since some past time, by adding to it some specific bit of knowledge that actually has something specific to do with the subject of the existence of races.
The claim was that they don't
exist. How big those differences are is a different question which has, built in to it, an acknowledgement of the fact that they do exist, because it would make no sense to discuss the greater-than-zero magnitude of something that doesn't.
If you don't want to defend the claim of non-existence, that's no problem, but then the non-self-contradictory thing to do would be to acknowledge that you have no defense for the claim that they don't exist and don't intend to try to defend it.
