This reply starts by promoting specific methodologies, as though they fell from the sky. You may like them. They're still a matter of convention and choice.

This reply starts by promoting specific methodologies, as though they fell from the sky. You may like them. They're still a matter of convention and choice. There is no unambiguous cut-off - that does not mean the clusters don't exist or have descriptive value. As long as one understands the choices one made (even if they are conventional choices) in the cutoffs were subjective, which is the issue here. Infinite examples I could use to point this out, but here's one: are all genes equally important? Genetic maps tell us the Dutch and Greek person are more closely related than the Dutch and Japanese. Of course, but that's a different issue. A closer issue would be the heuristic for deciding who is a Dutch or a Greek person. Tell a clustering algorithm to find ~5 clusters in the human genome distribution, and those clusters will correspond to traditional races. The phrase 'a clustering algorithm' is weird here. It makes it sound as though developing an algorithm is objective, when developing an algorithm is subject to many choices.