>>15694971>1 they're not "completely different"I don't understand what you're responding to here, this just seems like a strawman. There are group differences in genetics between white and black people, this is a fact. Is your assertion that racists say they are 100% different, which is untrue, therefore race isn't real? No one says that. Is your assertion instead perhaps that the genetic difference between them is too small to matter? Is that why you're talking about the genetic difference between different sub-Saharan African ethnic groups? Those Africans would still be more genetically similar to each other than they would be to any European, by the way. This fails to even address the claim of meaningful genetic differences between groups which we may call "races". I was expecting something more along the lines of Lewontin's fallacy. Maybe that's what is intended but the phrasing is just poor.
Maybe what's meant is "Two people from different tribes in Southern Africa will be more genetically different from each other than [either of them would be from] a Sri Lankan, a Māori and a Russian". Even if this is the intended point, it's still incorrect. Members of different populations can only be more genetically similar to each other than to other members of their group when very few loci (in this case: alleles) are examined. When the number of loci examined is 1, the rate of misclassifying someone as a member of another group may be as high as 30%, according to Lewontin. However, when using thousands of loci (or more), the chance of misclassification for non-mixed peoples diminishes to 0% and the rate at which members of different populations are more genetically similar to each other than to members of their own respective populations is never.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/It's a little like this image. The fewer the pixels, the more likely you are to misclassify the "shape". But that doesn't mean there are no definable "shapes".
