Scientifically speaking, there is no "race-specific biology". Race is a social construct. But there are ethnicities which get grouped into racial categories.
I agree with that in general, but there are issues that affect people who are more closely related along ethnic lines. The problem is the existing course racial groupings with arbitrary selections based on culture with no scientific basis.
You're going to have to elaborate for me. Given that certain races are genetically predisposed to certain diseases and conditions more than other races, how am I to make sense of your comment?
"If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B)."
Consider how many different ethnic groups have ancestry going back millenia on Africa, Europe and Asia, and all the differences between ethnic groups. Why is race primarily divided up based on skin tone instead of some other biological feature? What biological markers dictate the boundaries of racial categories? It can't be skin tone, because there are South Asians and Australians who have very dark skin. There are Southern Europeans who can be noticeably darker than some Middle Easterners and Northern Africans.
Where is the dividing line? Historically, it changes over time. If Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans weren't considered white until sometime in the 20th century, then that shows that race is a cultural construct.
There is no strict dividing line due to gene flow as a result of gradual migration patterns over the last few thousand years.
However, the existence of a dividing line shouldn't be a requirement for a useful definition of race that admits the existence of average-level genetic differences; i.e. differences in gene frequency that lead to real and meaningful differences on average, that we can observe & that matter to real-world outcomes.
That quote you shared sets up an overly strict definition of "separate racial groups" that seems designed to guarantee the conclusion of "they don't exist". The sneaky word they've used is "separate", it's a rhetorical trick that allows them to unfairly use zero allele frequency as the requirement which is guaranteed not to be met even with very small amounts of gene flow.
> race primarily divided up based on skin tone
> race is a cultural construct.
I don't agree that race is (or at least, should be) primarily defined by skin color. Racists might do that, but I don't wish to argue their perspective with you, I am arguing my perspective.
Some groups of South East Asians share the same skin tone as Africans, but Africans have no Neanderthal ancestry and some of these South East Asian groups have high Denisovan ancenstry. These are genetic differences between these two groups that have the same skin tone.
Ashkenazi Jews and whites of European descent share the same skin color, but differ in certain genetic diseases that are more prevalent in one versus the other. These are genetic differences.
The existence of these average-level genetic differences is proof that race is not just a cultural construct, even if it is in part a cultural construct only insofar as it plays itself out in everyday perception and discourse.
