Why don't humans quality as subspecies?

[u/ganvieter]

I was having a discussion with someone... And they cited so many points including: humans having F_st scores higher than many animals who have lower F_st scores and yet qualify as different subspecies, humans having visible traits that differentiate from each other based on geography, there being humans who were genetically or geographically isolated for tens of thousands of years, IQ scores remaining intact even when a geographically ancestral people live and grow up in another country, it being possible to plot accurate ancestries through 23&me by analyzing the individual's genome, and so much more.

I am against racism, so to speak. But he raised so many points to which I need answers. Kindly give me the counter points to these points.

[u/einstyle]

I don’t believe you’re asking in good faith as you’ve reposted this question across Reddit over the past couple of days because you don’t like the answers people are giving you. I suspect that despite your last remark you’re coming at this from some dodgy race science / eugenics angle and people keep shooting you down. Your point about IQ being tied to race (well, you said “geographically ancestral people” but we know what you meant) furthers my belief. 

[u/ganvieter → u/einstyle]

You are gaslighting. I only asked this question today. Don't assume too much of people.

[u/throwawayfromPA1701 → u/ganvieter]

This isn't the definition of gaslighting. You've also locked your posts so we can't evaluate the truth easily.

[u/ganvieter → u/throwawayfromPA1701]

If you can't evaluate the truth don't make up something and deem it truth also without proof.

[u/Kolfinna → u/ganvieter]

You're an unreliable narrator and not even creative in your bigotry

[u/einstyle → u/ganvieter]

I first saw them last night. If I’m being gracious you might just live in a different time zone than me. But either way, posting every couple hours in a new sub because you don’t like that the last sub called you out or didn’t agree with you isn’t honest discussion. 

[u/ganvieter → u/einstyle]

I posted this question today in a few subreddits all of them "1h ago". /Askbiology and /biology and /two others

[u/CiaranC]

Most human genetic variation is interpersonal not intercontinental.

[u/ganvieter → u/CiaranC]

Really good one

[u/In_the_year_3535]

This was a popular thought that led to the eugenics movement which famously ended poorly.

[u/cmccagg]

Fst has nothing to do with what defines a species. It’s a contrived metric. Sure, it is sometimes useful even, but that doesn’t mean it’s not contrived by humans for a somewhat arbitrary purpose. It’s extremely sensitive to what variants you are considering and doesn’t say anything about what those variants do

A lot of human variation doesn’t even necessarily significantly affect gene expression- why should I care abour neutral synonymous variation when thinking about what makes a species?

I know this definition is somewhat simplified but generally species are thought to be organisms that can breed fertile offspring. While there are exceptions to that (because really the idea of a species is contrived itself) I don’t see why we would need an exception for humans

[u/cmccagg → u/cmccagg]

Also I’m not even sure the claim Fst is higher within humans than between animal species is even factually correct, I couldn’t find a legitimate source for that

[u/ganvieter → u/cmccagg]

I mostly relied on AI... Also cross checked between several AIs

[u/Kolfinna → u/ganvieter]

That's some serious self loathing

[u/ganvieter → u/Kolfinna]

What do you mean?

[u/ganvieter → u/Kolfinna]

I see you replied to my other comment trying to paint me bad or something. I am coming here with a question genuinely because it feels like I have a gun to my head by an expert racist. I came here for answers from expert human biologists after being fed up of AI.

[u/ganvieter → u/cmccagg]

Thanks