/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14643537
>saying shit like “sub-races” when race isn’t even a biological category, it’s a social construct.

What's the evidence for that?

I have studying this subject for like 8 months and I can't find much proof on this. I DO see many genetic studies that can trace ancestry. PCA charts like picrel.

I see videos about nose shapes and how you need to factor in different nose types, which are linked to ethnicity, when doing cosmetic surgery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPI_okeflbE&ab_channel=QOVESStudio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zEaWLAiUgQ&ab_channel=QOVESStudio

I see haplogroups, haplotype, yamnaya culture, corded ware culture.

I see the history of racial science in EUROPE where notions werent just "muh black", and it was caucasoid (which included dark skin), negroid, mongoloid. And, furthermore, europeans found people to be of the "slavic race", alpine, celtic, etc.

I find that even if the USA category is simplistic, this doesnt deny existence of a category.

I find that two different SPECIES, like lions and tigers can mix.

I find that we are 98% similiar, genetically, to chimpanzees, but we are still greatly different.

And I find aboriginals: isolated, and very VERY different than most people.

Luckily I will be going to uni next month (even though Im just a math major), so I could actually confront people on these ideas. BUT, despite everything, I dont get how race isnt a bilogical category: no more than species, or subspecies like homoneandertal and denisovan.

Could you explain everything I adressed?

>>9460039
sure it isn't