>>2261430>Well, the fact that our measurements are imperfect (thanks in no small part to the dogmatic, society-wide race-denialist orthodoxy of the last 60+ years)Race is itself an "imperfect measurement", "race denialist orthodoxy" has nothing to do with "race" being an inherently flawed socially constructed categorization. The study of genetic ancestry has done fine and made leaps and bounds without the use of "race".
>does not imply that meaningful ethnic differences do not exist and influence multicultural social relations (and international relations when nations are relatively homogeneous).They largely do not in a genetic context.
>I imagine you would agree that susceptibility to various diseases is strongly correlated with genes, No one on the study of genetic ancestry denies this, this point is always brought up as a "gotcha" to try and slide in other unsupported presumptions about human genetics.
>as are purely physical attributes that make some groups better soldiers, or better farmers (at least when physical labor is necessary), better athletes, etc.Applying the "division of labour" to ethnic groups isn't "science" lol. Humans, by and large, are defined by how broadly adaptable they are, not in their specialization in socially defined roles. Our division of the labour we engage in is largely a modern on as well, people in the past would be all of those things.
>How could anyone seriously argue that these ethnic differences are limited to physical traits when the structure and function of the brain is also ultimately encoded in heritable DNA?There is a broad spectrum of physical traits in a studied genetic grouping, at least in the context of what you are talking about about. The structure of the brain is itself highly complex, and to say that such a structure is solely shaped by genetic grouping is not a very verifiable one.
>If animals of different breeds (and obviously species) have different instincts and behaviors in similar situations,Humans diversity due to genetic bottlenecks is very much not equivalent to either species or breeds.
>why are humans magically immune to these same evolutionary pressures?Bottlenecks largely, and that the evolutionary pressures applied to different human genetic groupings have been relatively subtle.
>Did the human brain stop evolving the moment the first "anatomically modern" human stepped foot out of africa?From studying early humans, we can actually say that humans in terms of "intellectual capacity" have changed very little, if at all. That's a wild thing to think about, but early humans weren't thinking and creatively drawing conclusions in any wildly different ways then we would in their situation.
>That's before you even consider the geographically heterogeneous interbreeding between homo sapiens and dozens of other known and unknown homonid species.The differences between us and the other hominid species we interacted with is vastly overstated. Neanderthals, for example, were a lot closer to us socially and intellectually then early science and anthropology thought.
When you get the time, see if you can sit in at a local college for a genetics class (many will let you do so for free if you live in the area), or talk to a student (I have the benefit of having family in the field).