Race does exist, there is no point denying it. The proof being skin colour of people. It is not exactly the best way to classify people though.
The fact that race is not a good criterion to apply to our species doesn't mean that humans are all the same. If someone said such absurdity, now that would be either politically correct or just straight up stupid, but here we're talking about biologists, not politicians or public figures trying to push an agenda.Existence of races within the human species is a proven scientific fact, no matter how much the world dictatorship of political correctness bothers and tries to deny it.
One point i'd like to stress is that human evolution and diversity is complex while race draws a very simplicistic scenario imo, hence the two things cannot stay together(this is not the only reason of course).I have played so much around with all that that I favor the view that humans divided into 5 races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Amerindian and Australoid) is nor valid. But there is not only one race, this is also false.
Why? Because it depends on the data and method, there is no ultimate answer.
There is a taxonomy discussion for many other species, so it is nothing special in general.
The genetic data we have today is very incomplete. We don’t know all functions of SNPs, don’t even have WGS data from enough people around the word.
The whole genetic thing creates more question than it creates answers. Bones are much more simple, but cannot tell the whole story. Also Haplogroups cannot.
What to measure? Measure everything? Then Cavalli Sforza is right (According to non-WGS data of today) and nothing makes sense anymore and groups are obsolete, individual genetics are more important. Measuring only physical traits? This is also very diffuse, because different SNPs causing the same adaptive traits but are not the same in terms of genetics.
Ancestry components? Does not say enough about the look of people and their personality.
People don’t agree at all, what race is. Social Sciences believe it has something to do with oppression and not biology. We can only measure things that we can define ourselves, we cannot define race beyond social construction. Measuring only isolated genetic traits, is a social construction of race too.
We can use Apes as a root for clustering and use cosine similarity with SNPs for physical, medical and psychological traits:
This represents the idea that Slavs are the most closest to Mesolithic HGs and that human migration happened on a route from Africa to Australia and after that into Asia.
This is the opposite concept to ancestry components, who place Aboriginal Australians far away from Africans. In this tree they can be seen as a subspecies(Sahulid) and close to Negroids and Paleo-Eurasians.
Sami are not related to Mesolithic Europeans, but Paleo-Eurasians and close to Mongoloids.
Yamnaya appears as Iranian related and not Slavic.
South Indians are not a separate race and most closely related to Iranian/Eastern Fertile Crescent people and not Sahulids. The South Indian sample is of very good quality and Kurumba in terms of ancestry components.
What is also interesting is that Romans and Celts are linked, it was sometimes speculated that they originated both in the Alpine region.
Reduced version, excluding many samples that are strongly mixed/modern:
This thread has been viewed 58299 times.