In these two publications, Andreason argues that human race is biologically real and cladistic concept explains the human biological race. Cladistic races are “ancestor-descendent sequences of breeding populations that share a common origin” (2004:430) and she views cladistic races as “geographically circumscribed breeding populations” (2004:436), or subspecies. While there are similarities between cladistic race and common sense race (for example, shared ancestry), there are significant differences as well. Common sense racial classification is based on similarities in physical characteristics, but two individuals who have similar physical characteristics can belong to different cladistic racial groups.
She believes that phylogenetic trees of human populations accurately represent evolutionary relationships between different human populations and objectively categorize people into racial groups using cladistic approach. She cites Cavalli-Sforza and Nei, and says
…many evolutionalists agree that it is possible to accurately represent human evolution as a branching pattern. As long as this is possible it is possible to define race cladistically (2004:427).
She is a philosopher of science, but it seems that she is not familiar with more recent human population genetics literatures that discuss how the gene flow and admixture have shaped the genetic variation of many human populations. She does not address the issues raised by anthropological geneticists, how the phylogenetic trees do not accurately represent the evolutionary relationship of human populations.
Following Cavalli-Sforza, she also assumes that human populations are relatively reproductively isolated due to geographic barriers and socio-cultural factors.
A ‘breeding population’ is a set of local populations that exchange genetic material through reproduction and are reasonably reproductively isolated from other such sets. For example, a tribe of bushmen might constitute a local population….Separation often results from the introduction of geographic barriers; however, in the case of humans it can also be due to socio-cultural differences.
These statements clearly suggest that she has modernist, colonialist, racial/typological thinking and in her publications, she tries to defend this view.