which is what the underlying data shows

Question

there is no 'objective' genetic clustering

So,

we could pick any number of races we wanted to support any political agenda we want therefore rendering the concept of races in the scientific community useless.

Would you say that anglo-Saxons are the same as that one indigenous group that has not been contacted by man?

this is why medicine is moving away from the crude aproximation of race to gauge people's geneitic background rather than highly sophiscated specific gene testing

The one in india

They've been separated long enough, that I think they can be put into different classifications

we're all homo-sapien-sapiens

Another question

'seperated enough' the geneflow doesn't show any division it's like a long bucket chain where local groups intermixed from groups outside of their general grouping leading to the spread of genes

When is something considered a different race?

^continuum fallacy

well again there is no actual scientific grounding for 'race' it have been used to manipulatively mean several things overtime including cline deme and subspecies.

so which one do you mean in this case?

A bird, let's say a finch

This finch develops a different beak and different colored feathers for different things

"There is no scientific grounding for race"
If you honestly believe this, you're hopeless.

Is it a different race from the bird before it?

It's a different kind of bird, yes.

using phenotypical appearance to gauge whether something is a different 'race' or whatever is inaccurate it would require looking at the genetics aswell.

Well red heads have different genes when compared to brown haired people

Red heads have 25 percent higher resistance to electricity

this is jumping to an assumption that you can neatly genetically cluster 'brown haired people'

They're more likely to develop skin cancer

"There's many shades of grey. Black doesn't exist."

well again colour actually doesn't exist it's A) A mind trick played when we experience light
and B) is socially constructed not everyone agrees on what colours are precisely.

to say colour is a PHYSICAL property of objects is wrong

But what we perceive is different from genetics

Imagine being so retarded that you think pigment is a social construct.

physical objects have chemical compounds that absorb or reflect different wavelengths

but that isn't colour

pigments don't have 'inherent' physical colours

they have a physical property that affects light

Black people need 6 times more sunlight than white people, as blacks developed for hot weather in Africa and White developed in cold weather in Europe.

^

Pigments determine what colors are perceived.

that's jumping to the assumption black people can be genetically clustered neatly

By the average human

which you haven't proved