>This concept of a "race", in terms of genetics, makes sense for classification purposes, just like all taxonomical classifications of living things. I could c

>This concept of a "race", in terms of genetics, makes sense for classification purposes, just like all taxonomical classifications of living things. I could classify computers based on the case they are in, and I would see some interesting trends given the extent that computer casing is decided by the people the build the computer and there is a very few entities who are responsible for the majority of computers. But does it really make sense to use it when you can compare it based on other factors and combinations of factors, like the internal hardware, manufacturer, and year made? Race is extremely oversimplified and groups too many people together, and comes with a lot of historical baggage in not just its usage, but the ways we considered certain groups members of certain races. I think humans can be grouped based on common genetics, but race focuses too much on certain phenotypes instead of being based on overall genotypes. Instead of looking at European or African descent, what about descent of historical population groups? Are groups from northern Africa closer to those from southern Europe or Southern Africa? Groups that share phenotypes are likely to have similar genotypes on average than those who don't, but why depend on this when we now have access to the genotypes?