The next genetic observation is that the things we *do* consider to be significant racial differences are actually just constellations of noticeable physical features which we have come to mentally lump into different "categories" and label as "race".
So, the "age old" understanding of race that has been overthrown is that there is a single gene for various races, and that races are marked by a single, observable, superficial characteristic.
Gee whiz, you mean science has shown that view to be false? Wow. That is fascinating. Thanks so much for coming in above the fray and clearing that up.
Of course, I don't know that you'd find anyone with a college education who ever thought there was a "negro" gene or a "white" gene, or anything similar to the view that you think has been "exploded" by modern genetic science.
As far as the cluster-of-properties view goes, that too would likely already have been accepted by someone who thinks that there is obviously something to racial categories. Why wouldn't someone just recognize the obvious and rather than saying that there is some one characteristic that is both necessary and sufficient for a particular race characterize a race by some cluster of properties? Then a person could point to the obvious fact that particular clusters arose in relatively isolated areas, and the components of the clusters are inherited traits.
And, anyway, even if someone insisted on a single-property view of race, one certainly wouldn't need genetics to show the view was false. One could simply observe the range of people that would fall within the ordinary understanding of some racial group. One could have done that in the 18th century. So showing the single-property view is wrong is hardly an achievement of modern science.
Why not just educate children in the notion of moral equality, or equal consideration of people's rights, rather than trying to force on them muddled and deceptive claims that science has "discovered" that there are no races? There's an idea.