>>23637Well, at the very least, if we want to classify people into different races we are talking about differences in detail:
Homo sapiens sapiens Ebola-Americanicus
Homo sapiens sapiens aryansupermanicus
Homo sapiens sapiens squityeyesicus
and so on.
What
>>23617 showed is SUPREME DEGREE of idiocy as it equated "race" not into SUB-SUB-species but into species. It apptributed "race" above rather than below subspecies.
There is no "human race". We have "human species". And "modern human subspecies". If we talk about race, we talk about Ebola-Americans, caucasians, chinks, Japs, aboriginals, etc.
Or course the problem with sub-sub-species (i.e "race" or "breed" or "ethnicity") level categorization is that unlike with species, we don't have a much chance of testing whether people are of same race or not. With species it's simpler: make cat and dog fuck each other. If they make fertile offspring, that cat is the same species as the dog. Subspecies can occasionally reproduce (and even have fertile offspring) and subsubspecies crossbreeding certainly produce offspring so how do you classify them?
Of course there's even problem with the species classification: testing two individuals whether they're the same species is possible but "species" is a continuous thing (see: ring species). A and B may be capable of breeding. B and C might be capable of breeding. But A and C might not necessarily be able.
The problem isn't with the concept of species, the problem is taxonomy. The entire idea of taxonomy is a big "FUCK YOU" toward actual understanding of process of natural evolution. It is a somewhat handy tool, though, but it was created back when people didn't really understand that much about the details of evolution, back when we still wanted to organize animals into "kinds". Well, it was a step to the right direction, nevertheless.