[BroJoeK]

PghBaldy: "The DNA of blacks cannot be distinguished from the DNA of Asians or the DNA of whites” -— That is not true."

We're told that DNA of all humans is 99.9% the same, but that is still four million "base pairs" with differences (alleles).
So, in terms of today's biological classifications, human "races" fall into the same category as "breeds" of animals and "varieties" of plants -- all closely enough related to have no problems with interbreeding.
In other words, scientifically, we are not "races", we are "breeds".

A useful contrast to consider is the new data on Neanderthals.
They, we are now told, were only 99% the same DNA as us -- iow, instead of 4 million potential differences in "base pairs", Neanderthals had about 40 million.
That makes them the same species, homo-sapiens, but a different sub-species, Neanderthals.
So Neanderthals could still interbreed with humans, but not so readily or successfully as other human "races" = breeds.

Actually, most dog or cat breeds are much newer than major human "races", so DNA differences amongst humans are doubtless greater than amongst breeds of dogs or cats.

So, bottom line: three words which biologically mean pretty much the same things: breeds in animals, varieties in plants and races in human beings.
All signify visible differences, sometimes dramatic (i.e., chihuahuas vs Great Dane), but in terms of underlying genetics, pretty much the same creation.

[Vigilanteman]

This WOULD be true if there was scientific and objective criteria used to define race, but there is not. If you limited it to the traditional three, maybe there would be. But that wouldn’t serve the race hustler agenda which insists that “Hispanic” is a separate race.

[bert]

No one argued that races were different species nor of a different genus.

race is the result of adaptation to different habitat over a long period of time coupled with some interbreeding at the margins that escaped into a habitat of it’s own. race is an evolutionary result