Likewise Japanese women are around 157 CM, not 153 CM.

so what if it’s *easier* how do you draw a line. it’s arbitrary and subjective.

Kambiz, you ask how are people who share a specific genetic composition or a specific range of bi-iliac widths a socially constructed group. My answer is that they are not. Because in each hypothetical case the group is defined internally by the data under consideration – ie. by a “specific” range in that data. My question to you though is this what you are doing with your population of “Finns” or “population A”? I would argue that it is not. Instead what you do is select an arbitrary group of people (classified perhaps by some other measure: national boundaries, language, etc) and compare them to another arbitrary group. You have no idea whether they constitute a bounded breeding population or not. The difference you uncover is Relative, not Absolute – i.e. it is constructed by your comparison. You have sectioned two ends of a cline and compared them to each other. Hence this is not supportive of the concept of Race. It is merely supportive of the notion of human variation. And please note no-one has ever argued that human variation is ‘socially constructed’. Be careful not to conflate this with Race.

I will now bow out of this debate, since I don’t seem to be able to make my point clearly to you. Most of the things I have been saying are well reviewed in a Wikipedia article which summarises much of the literature on these issues. It is the page called “Race (classification of human beings)”. I try not to recommend Wikipedia articles to my students, but since this is a blog and the page in question is informative I think it’s OK here.

If you want something peer reviewed please read this article in Nature Genetics by Keita et al “Conceptualizing human variation”: doi:10.1038/ng1455
This quite clearly explains why the population studies you cite are antidotes to racial thinking. With regard to population genetics you might consider the following quote:

“Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology[15] and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or ‘racial type’). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of ‘race’ (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse[21]. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined ‘races’ are not characterized by ‘private’ distinct lineages restricted to each of them.”

I think we may both agree that Finns are people who speak Finnish, and 90% of people who live in Finland are recognized as being ethnically Finnish. That being said, people who speak a different language and have a different culture are a socially constructed group.

Last month, Razib reviewed a study which also showed that Finns have a distinct genetic population structure that is not observed in neighboring regions. How then are people who have a specific genetic composition a socially constructed group? How then are people who share a specific range in biiliac widths a socially constructed group?

Regardless, I see your point. I should have never called my groups by where they are geographically found. Imagine that I never called my population from Finland as “Finns.” Instead, I called them “Population A.” If I measured the pelvic widths of people from “Population A,” compared them to people from another population, and observed a difference, then that would be quantifiable distinction… A difference between the two populations. Noting the existence of biological differences between groups of people is not an antidote to racial thinking.

Kambiz