Obviously there *are* identifiable groups within the human species. Skin color, for example, and other physiological characteristics, arising from a common ancestry and isolated geographical origin, are what have marked races historically, and these differences *exist*. I can't understand what, but ideology, would lead someone to say these things are not "real". Northern European people have lighter skin than sub-Saharan Africans, the differences exist because of historical geographical separation between the groups, and the differences are *obviously* based on the genetic inheritance of the two groups. Whites, or caucasians, of (relatively recent) European ancestry are a distinct group from Subsaharan Africans. Both groups are distinct from central and east Asians. And so on. Sheesh.
The article tells us that these differences are owing to "environmental adaptation", and not to "race". Oh, ok. Assuming anyone wants to go to the trouble to derive a coherent remark from a claim like that we're obviously going to be dealing with a straw man notion of race.
One fallacy: because there are no clear boundary lines between two groups, there is no real difference between the groups.
You'd think no one would take such a silly thought to be "scientific", much less true. There is a real difference between children and adults, one with a biological basis, despite the fact that there is no clear boundary line between one and the other. There is a real difference between a mound and a mountain, despite there being no clear boundary between them. There is a clear difference between green and blue...Etc.
Another fallacy: if there is more variation among members of each of two groups than between the average of the two groups there is no real difference between the two groups.
Does something like this even need rebutting? Obviously it could turn out that men and women differ on average by some amount in a certain kind of weight lifting, even though the difference between the strongest and weakest man was less than that between the averages of men and women. But so what? Would that show the remarkable "discovery" that there is no real difference between men and women, even in respect to weight lifting? Ugh. The mind reels.