>>935974223
>using gene markers that are only good for defining geographic ancestry as indicators of racial attributes.
Just like astrologists use actual existing stars and planets and alignments as proof. It only takes a few generations of a familial gene pool to take on the traits of genepools from the same area which renders race datasets pointless.
>but anon, they obviously cross bred for that.
Except they don't have to. The genepools take on similar features anyway because environment affects DNA evolution. White south Africans DNA is no longer the same as their Dutch and German contemporaries and begins to exhibit traits of Africans from the area, just cause they spent a bunch of time in a different environment, even if they didn't fuck the locals. Same with Australians and Brits, or yanks and euro anglos
>>935974276
It's a social construct from the 14th century that a bunch of idiots cherry picked into the science of the time. But when viewed with modern scientific method, it's revealed it was a load of bollocks to support pre-existing prejudices and has no scientific value except to skew data sets.
>>935977213
Sure it does, it's just as fallacious as the concept it's based on though.
>>935984643
You'll see the Chinese in Africa begin to exhibit changes in DNA that separate them from mainland Chinese sorts in a few generations. What then, new race?
It's not defining race in any other terms, it's simply pointing out that race does not hold nearly as much water as you superiority complex wankers think.
Time and environment define genetic factors, not some arbitrary grouping of cultural ideals.
