[tallhappy]

For one, don't look at the Times article, look at the actual article in Science.

Two, "genetic ancestry" does not mean genes. You do not understand what they looked at. The markers are not genes.

[Pharmboy]

While the markers may not be structural or regulatory genes, they are part of the genome (something you apparently don't understand). Just because we (in our ignorance) have not yet figured out what all these particular base sequences in the DNA molecule mean, doesn't mean they are not part of our genetics.

And, although I quoted from the article, I also quoted from the study itself--which you, of course, ignored ("self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry").

But never-you-mind: keep denying reality and recite the mantra: "blank slate, all environment, no genetic difference between groups or individuals that's meaningful, etc. etc."