"The myth of major genetic differences across “races” is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence." (Owens & King, 1999).
"Although conventional ‘racial’ categories as typically understood may not be defined by particular genetic markers, ‘pockets of populations’ living in particular geographical locales could be so defined." (McCann-Mortimer et al., 2004).
"We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group." (Lee et al., 2008).
"Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities. Thus, populations are never “pure” in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g. “races”) will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary." (Jorde & Wooding, 2004).
"In short, while human biological variation certainly seems to be real, the ways that we cut it up, name and describe it are the product of our scientific imagination." (Morning, 2005).
"[...] The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). 20th and 21st Century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people." (Ossorio & Duster, 2006).
"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).
"To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." (Templeton, 1998).
"Race is an accepted socio-cultural concept that lacks supportive genetic evidence." (Kittles et al., 2007).
"Biologists also disagree about the meaning of ‘race’, and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation." (Keita et al., 2004).
"It has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." (Keita et al., 2004).
"Studies of human population genetics and evolution have generated the strongest proof that there is no scientific basis for racism, with the demonstration that human genetic diversity between populations is small, and perhaps entirely the result of climatic adaptation and random drift." (Cavalli-Sforza, 2005).
"The points of agreement in the following articles reflect a shared evolutionary perspective that focuses on describing and interpreting the apportionment of biological variation between individuals both within and among groups (see also Lee et al., 2008). We agreed that:
- There is substantial variation among individuals within populations.
- Some biological variation is apportioned between individuals in different populations and among larger population groupings.
- Patterns of within- and among-group variation have been substantially shaped by culture, language, ecology, and geography.
- Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.
- Human variation research has important social, biomedical, and forensic implications."
"There was really only one fundamental difference of opinion among the symposium participants, which was about the precise nature of the geographic patterning of human biological variation" (Edgar and Hunley, 2009; Caspari, 2009; Edgar, 2009; Gravlee, 2009; Hunley et al.,
2009; Konigsberg et al
., 2009; Long et al
., 2009; Ousley et al
., 2009; Relethford, 2009; Wolpoff, 2009).
More available on request.