
Originally Posted by
Ecurb
Until the last 50 years or so, the standard anthopological wisdom was that "race" was a reasonable way of thinking about human genetic diversity. However, since then -- and in particular since DNA testing became possible -- the notion has been discredited. The four so-called "races" (caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, and aboriginal) have been clearly demonstrated to be a very lousy description of human genetic diversity.
In fact, a great many "caucasoids" are gentically more similar to some "negroids" than many other "negroids" are (my apologies for the old-fashioned racial terms). Phenotype (and anthropologists used to measure skull shapes and phenotypic characteristics other than skin color) just turned out to be a lousy predictor of genotyple.
Now (or back 25 years ago, when I was in grad school in anthropology) gene clines are used, because they are more accurate descriptions of human genetic diversity than the old racial designations. "Clines" are overlapping circles. Supposed "caucasoids" from Northern Africa, for example, are more similar to 'negroids" from Northern Africa than those same negroids are to negroids from southern Africa, when one looks at their actual genetic make-up.
Of course human genetic diversity does exist -- and genetic tenedencies vary from place to place. It's just that the old racial categories are a very inaccurate way of describing them.