All the discussion and research in the thread you responded to is about genetics, not race. So you're either not following carefully or you're trying to create

All the discussion and research in the thread you responded to is about genetics, not race. So you're either not following carefully or you're trying to create a politically charged tangent. Either way I think it's worth responding because your argument is very common and misinformed. The issue here is partially semantic (the worst kind of argument), but you're on the other side of most scientists for very good reason. The way race is defined in the West is a terrible proxy for genetics, which to me is enough to declare it a social construct. Compare the pygmy Mbenga people of Cameroon with the Dinka people of South Sudan, and you'll find two "black" populations with a two foot height difference and totally different genetics. You could define race in a more principled manner, but then you'd end up with 1000s of races with arbitrary distinctions between them.