I look at a sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger and I see a lot less variance than I see when I look at a pygmy, a Norwegian, an sentinel islander, and a han Chinese person
No. Multiple human subspecies did once exist (examples being Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus, and Homo Floresiensis) but only our species, Homo Sapiens, remains (with traces of Neanderthal DNA so there was some interbreeding.) However race is a cultural and social construct. Different human races are not different human subspecies. A Pygmy, a Norwegian, a Sentinel Islander, and a Han Chinese person are all the same species. The superficial variations in average height, skin color, etc. do not vary enough to constitute species differentiation - humans share 99.9% of their DNA, and the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (in other words, within "races") and not between them.
The percent difference between genomes of species is one of those tricky measures that doesn't really give good intuition. I find it much more useful to think in terms of the time since two species shared a common ancestor.
e.g. For humans and chimps, that's several million years. For Sumatran and Siberian tigers, it's around a hundred thousand years.
Tasmania may have been isolated for ~8000 years between sea level rise and European contact. But the last person of fully Aboriginal Tasmanian descent likely died in 1905.
So not that far away since modern humans began splitting up into separate subgroups outside of Africa? Of course there have been quite a bit of intermixing since then (more so in Eurasia than the more isolated parts of the world before the modern times, though)
This particular argument (I am not talking about anything else) always looked to me as "inkblot defense" (Cephalopods muddy water to defend themselves).
Genome is discrete. A single nucleotide polymorphism can have far-reaching consequences. So it's a bit like arguing that this collection of pentagons is not statistically different from this collection of hexagons because radius variation within collections is greater than between collections.
One day I've got into trouble by pointing to another genetic adaptation (EPAS1 SNPs) rather than the poster child of genetic differences: an SNP in the 6th codon of the β-globin gene. But that's another story.
But who cares about such divisions if we all can interbreed?
Species is also a social construct. Calling race a social construct isn't the persuasive argument people seem to assume.
> the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (in other words, within "races") and not between them.
This is is a fallacious argument, because there is no such thing as the "average Norwegian" and the "average Pygmy", and so you cannot even construct a meaningful sentence like "the average Norwegian and the average Pygmy are more alike than any individual Norwegian is to any other Norwegian". People need to stop using this silly argument.
I think you're being too pedantic, though, because the statement "the average Norwegian and the average Pygmy are more alike than any individual Norwegian is to any other Norwegian" is perfectly sensible within the context of this thread and relative to the supposition that genetic variability between human populations is a valid basis to justify a biological definition of race and further classifying human races as subspecies. That species is also a social construct is true, and you seem to think that it disproves the premise, but it really doesn't because species is a social construct in the sense that all scientific classification is a social construct. But when people say that race is a social construct, they mean it was created to justify white supremacy, slavery and colonialism, and that (unlike species) it serves no useful scientific purpose. You're intentionally omitting necessary context to create a false equivalence between race and species.
Here are some actual scientifically credentialed papers and statements supporting the thesis that race has no biological basis. I doubt anyone will bother reading them but here they are just for the record. Further reading is easy to find.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/
https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-s...
Yes, the modern context of what we call race today is inherently linked to notions like limpieza de sangre and casta in post-conquest Latin America - the true prototypical example of structural racism, where for several centuries and over several generations a "white" appearance was conflated with a socially elite status and a "racialized" appearance with poverty and marginalization. The Moors in Medieval, Renaissance and early modern Europe were of African origin, and sometimes even had what we would now call a Sub-Saharan appearance, but they were not considered "Black" in racial terms because that was not a notion that existed in that specific milieu.
So was the fact that ulcers weren't caused by bacteria. "Established scientific consensus" is another argument people need to stop using.
> You're intentionally omitting necessary context to create a false equivalence between race and species
No, I'm not equating race and species, I'm refuting the argument that race being a social construct makes it meaningless or scientifically useless by pointing out that species is also a social construct while being meaningful and scientifically useful. Therefore the argument that it's a social construct is a red herring.
> But when people say that race is a social construct, they mean it was created to justify white supremacy, slavery and colonialism, and that (unlike species) it serves no useful scientific purpose.
So you agree that calling it a social construct is completely besides the point, and people are not saying what they mean and merely polluting discussions with pointless red herrings.
Now whether race serves a useful purpose is highly debatable. There are plenty of statistical associations with race that are used to this day, eg. race as a risk factor in sickle cell anemia. If your argument is that we usually have better classifications than race in many circumstances, then sure, but note that this still doesn't prove the intended point that race classifications are useless, which is a claim that they never have any use.
Edit: > the statement "the average Norwegian and the average Pygmy are more alike than any individual Norwegian is to any other Norwegian" is perfectly sensible
Just want to be clear that this is still a fundamental category error. These are completely unlike measures and equating them properly yields different conclusions, eg. using pairwise genetic distance measures. See the paper, "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" for where this misunderstanding originated.
There's just not much to gain from the exercise and there are better things to spend your time on.