Either Shiao doesn?t understand social construction, or you don?t understand Shiao. You want to know which of these I think is most likely?
Have you read Shiao's article? Yes or no. You're accusing a leading sociology journal of publishing an article which doesn't understand the main subject it's discussing.
Shiao has a strong grasp, but ultimately the critique doesn�t stick. It�s been critiqued substantively in popgen, and Shiao never hit back.
You've really not followed this. Shiao in fact did "hit back" against critics with his own response. Keep in mind this all happened almost a decade ago, and at this point the data clearly show Shiao was accurate vis-a-vis his critics. At that time people were still trying to argue that continental-level clusters were an "artifact" caused by devious databank collection processes, etc. We have vastly better data now, the same results still show, and those results have been strongly reinforced through other methods, for example see Ochoa and Storey's work showing global kinship relations can be measured and match those clusters.
They seem to think any genetic information having salient presence in racial categories refutes the social construction view. That�s not true, and Shiao doesn�t make that mistake.
You apparently haven't read Shiao's article yet, despite it being directly linked many times.
The OP also frequently makes bad arguments from speciation, assuming uniformity across species. Actually, scientists specializing in species sometimes (depending on species) debate on when subspeciation occurs. Therefore, it�s not necessarily appropriate to compare human racial differences to bears, crabs, chimps, or wolves as many on both sides of this debate has done.
This paragraph seems to be a type of word soup you're putting out to sound halfway intelligent, but
...See full postlacks any real meaningful content. When have I made 'bad arguments from speciation'? Who has assumed 'uniformity across species'?
Of course scientists debate on when subspeciation occurs -- who denied that/
How does, "therefore it's not appropriate to compare racial/subspecific differences in one animal to another animal" follow from "scientists debate on when subspeciation occurs"?
I'm arguing with either one extremely stupid troll who lacks even an undergrad's understanding of the relevant subjects, or maybe sociology is such a dumbed-down discipline that there really are this many of you.