"Which number has no validity, as we don't yet have sufficient complete genome data available to identify the "race-specific" gene clusters"
Depends on how much of a racist one is (and I don't mean that in the pejoritive sense of the word but as a matter of study of the differences between humans.)
At some point you get into what percent a person is of one race or another and it gets down right silly.
For example, what percent of any race does Tiger Woods, or Baraka Obama have to be to be called either one race or another? 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/50th? Are there any people who are 100% Native Americna Indians? Even if we can decide on a percent, for what purpose?
Wrong---it is literally "deathly serious" (see below).
"For example, what percent of any race does Tiger Woods, or Baraka Obama have to be to be called either one race or another? 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/50th? Are there any people who are 100% Native Americna Indians? Even if we can decide on a percent, for what purpose?"
For treatment of illness, for one very important thing. There is already a problem in finding sufficiently close genetic matches for some mixed-race children for organ transplants, to name just one example. Some races have specific diseases to which others are more immune (sickle cell anemia for "blacks"--superior AIDS resistance for "whites"---I'm sure there are others).