[ZULU]

This an argumnet like the one between “lupmers” and “splitters” in biology.

But the simple fact remains that it is possible with a high degree of accuracy to indentify individuals by “race” and that depsite allegations from the geneticists, morphological differences and bicochemical differences do exist beteen the races and they are significnat.

[ndt]

"...it is possible ... to indentify individuals by “race” and that depsite allegations from the geneticists, morphological differences and bicochemical differences do exist beteen the races and they are significnat."

You are, I think missing the point. The morphological differences can and usually are utterly superficial in regards to relatedness and genetic similarity. A European can have more genetically in common with an African than one African has with another.

By using gross morphology (race) as your standard, you end up grouping populations by an tiny subset of their genetic makeup (i.e. the few genes responsible for things such an skin color and hair type).