I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'.

> "The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies."

The use of the term "European colonial contexts" betrays its intent immediately. I say this as a non-white person, of non-European origin.

> "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations"

Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility. Regardless of to what extent you believe the concept of 'race' explains population differences, there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology...

You have a bit of a contradiction going on here. Your first sentence states that you think anthropology isn't science and your last sentence cites it as an example of a "biological scientific field". The part of forensics that deals with human bodies and especially racial classification is called forensic anthropology.

Now, the relationship between academic and forensic anthropologists is pretty fraught, but not because the regular anthropologists are out there inventing new genders all the time. It's because forensic anthropology uses outdated methodologies widely considered unscientific, including racial identifications. That's why the US National Academy called for forensic science reform back in 2009 and why you still get debates like this between academics and forensic anthropologists: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513

> Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility.

Notions of race (either at the high level of what race in general is, or at the lower level of what defines specific races) are not, even approximately, consistent across either space or time. I mean, I get that it makes building arguments much easier if you can start with your conclusion and just invent whatever premises are convenient to support it, but...

RE: ... there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology

  This point falls apart with "mixed-race" individuals. People have mixed since the dawn of man. The real conflict is cultural.

No, I disagree. Colors can be mixed together, so does that mean that the color blue does not exists? Can you point me where exactly blue starts and ends on a rainbow? Let's go even further, and take two mixed colors - purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow) - they're both mixed, so does that mean that there is no difference between those two? This is a fallacy. People might've mixed, but it doesn't make everyone the same. This is blatantly false. In the actual reality you just inherit some traits from one parent and some from the other. I'm not denying cultural differences obviously, but it does not contradict anything, it's just how genetics work. Race is just a superset of ethnicity, and it's more fuzzy around the edges.

Respectfully, mixing colors in lifeforms is not as binary as "purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow)". A black rose and a white rose does not produce a gray rose. A black cat and a white cat will not give gray cat. Two black dogs can give you a gray dog with blue eyes.

If each color represents a particular heritable trait then it's more or less like that.

> I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'.

On what basis do you state that?

I think that statements like this are usually written more for political than for scientific reasons. Yes, "races do not exist" is true in the sense that 19th century classifications made by racist Europeans do not do a good job of mapping the reality of human genetic diversity. However, race does exist in the sense that, for example, two randomly selected people from China are likely to be closer to each other genetically than either is to a randomly selected person from England - and not only that, but it is also likely that the average person or, for that matter, computer algorithm will do a fairly good job of guessing people's genetic distance based on their visual appearance, at least for relatively large genetic distances.

I feel that too often, politically motivated people pick up on such academic statements and use them to justify implying that the very concept of racial difference is inherently empty or wrong and perhaps should even be tabooed. It is a bit of a motte and bailey technique: you first say, "Look at these statements - see, science rejects the very concept of race - any discussion of racial difference is thus unscientific and in any case what are you, some sort of bigot?" And if anyone pushes you more closely on the matter you can just retreat to the actually justifiable position, "Oh well of course I did not mean that there are no identifiable patterns in human genetic diversity, that would be absurd, I just meant that old European racial classifications are inaccurate."

The problem is that scientific "race" doesn't quite work that way.

To be scientific about it, you have to be willing to conclude things like that a diverse looking group of people are actually all the same race because they happen to share common genetics, or that what looks like an all white group is really 5 distinct genetic groups that just happen to look similar.

To really find what scientifically accurate genetic group a given person falls into you'd have to be scientific about it, and look at the genetics or at the very least their detailed ancestry. Simply looking at them doesn't cut it. Science is all about precision and eliminating biases.

At that point, what is even the point? You know enough about them to treat them as an individual regardless of what they happen to look like.