[mikeash]

Our standard conceptions of race are also meaningless political rhetoric, so calling race a social construct seems entirely appropriate then.

We still, at least subconsciously, apply the "one drop rule" in all sorts of situations, including describing the race of the current US president. Sub-saharan Africa contains more genetic diversity than everyone else, yet we lump them all together in one "race."

Yes, there are distinct genetic differences between various groups of people, and many of those differences have real-world consequences. But the relation of those groups with what we call "race" is almost zero.

[fdsaaf]

> But the relation of those groups with what we call "race" is almost zero.

The everyday races correspond to real, observable genetic clusters. There are real characteristics shared by members of these large groups, e.g. the epicanthic fold in East Asians.

The genetic phylogeny doesn't lie. The Sub-Saharan diversity you're mentioning --- e.g., between Bushmen and the Igbo --- is about large-separation clades within the larger continental grouping.

[mikeash]

There are some real characteristics shared by some members of those large groups. Certainly not all of them, considering the arbitrary rules. 10% of American "blacks" have majority white ancestry. Are you telling me that they still have all of the real characteristics shared by others of the "black" group?

This stuff does not line up neatly. To the extent that there are genetic differences between groups of humans, the dividing lines don't match our concepts of race.