I can relate. My father is white and my mother is black. I ended up being black and my brother white. Same family, opportunities and etc. Its fun how I can have access to some benefits like joinning a public university and my brother dont. 

Race should never be asked for in any official document which pigeon holes people, cultural sensitivities on the other hand can be reasonably asked

That regulation proposal affects race and gender. 

I guess that depends:  does masturbation count? 

I stand corrected.  The race discussion had monopolized the thread but you are entirely correct.  Thank you. 

I thought it went without saying that they’re a bunch of wankers.

"It is, since that's an abnormality, it's not heritable (I think? If it is heritable, and if a whole dynasty of eight-limbed people arises, then scientists will probably adjust their definition of a 'human'.)

wtf... right here you accept "human" as a valid classification, how can you and still claim that there is no differentiation between different animals?

"Scientists could just as well have considered that the platypus is a bird since it lays eggs"

no, scientists never use one criteria to group animals

we know a bird is a bird because it has wings AND a beak AND feathers AND lays eggs etc etc etc

"But you can never draw a clear line to divide the animal kingdom into groups."

you acknowledge that we can and do when we notice that elephants do not swim in fish schools

"Almost all biological notions, going from 'life' to 'bird' to 'great tit', are created and defined by people/scientists."

"scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology"

so... birds didn't exist until scientists named them?

Lewontin's fallacy, it never gets old how you guys keep falling into the trap that we can't make genetic identifications for different geographic populations ... 

It posits that it's flawed to look at just a single locus to classify individuals according to different populations and that we need to take into account many loci as accurate predictors of an individual's correlation to specific populations ... 

In this extremely important study by Noah Rosenberg, he analyzed 377 DNA sequences from 1056 samples across the 52 populations from worldwide using a computer program called structure in an attempt to rationally divide the sets of data. When the program was asked to divide the two sets of data the first group consisted of Africa, Europe and western Asia while the second group included eastern Asia, Australia and native America. When the program was asked to divide the data sets into 3 groups the second group was left untouched while the first group subdivided between the population of Sub-Saharan Africa and the other being the rest (Europe and western Asia). As the they've iteratively subdivided the sets of data again into 4 groups, the program created a new group by separating the populations of eastern Asia and native America however last but not least when the program was asked to create the fifth group eastern Asia and Australasia became separated ... 

Now it must be my eyes but I could swear from the image above that it's not some crazy coincidence how the computer generated geographical population groups seems to match the migratory patterns of humans based on the genetic drift of the data set ... 

It appears as if though MDMAlliance along with the others has sinister intentions based off of their political motivations to dismiss the years of research established by human population geneticists as to how they've shown a clear link to the relationship between these "geographical races" and migratory patterns along the continental boundaries ...

People need to realize that these "populations" or as what most would refer to as "geographical races" are not just purely social constructs as the concept is based on a physically reality (there ARE genetically skewed clusters among populations and there are many other biological consequences too) as much as the idea of gravity does so those people need to #DealWithIt ...

How exactly do you take the assertion that there are genetic differences between certain populations to be a refutation of the idea that there are genetic differences between certain populations?

My argument was not and has never been that genetic differences between geographical locations do not exist. My argument was instead, the exact divisions elucidating how to break apart humanity into "geographical races" are not clear or exact. 

I demonstrated this by using the example of Finland, which is full of white people, yet fits the literal definition for a separate "geographical race". They are geographically separated by distance and they are distinguishable through genetic characteristics.

So, since you seem to have not only ignored my question, but somehow interpreted it as saying the exact opposite of what it actually said, I will ask it again:

Because we can separate out the Finnish based on genetic characteristics from other white populations, should they be considered a different race?

EDIT:

Also, it is worth noting that the study you quoted is not a study about race. It is a study about ancestry, and these two concepts are not the same. "Because all populations are genetically diverse, and because there is a complex relation between ancestry, genetic makeup and phenotype, and because racial categories are based on subjective evaluations of the traits, there is no specific gene that can be used to determine a person's race."

Also, it is worth noting that "Lewontin's fallacy" isn't really a true "fallacy". It is more of an argument than the identification of a true logical fallacy. And it certainly hasn't been the final step in this debate. In 2015, a group of researchers (who had once criticized Lewontin's research) used more sophisticated methodology to conclude: "In sum, we concur with Lewontin’s conclusion that Western-based racial classifications have no taxonomic significance, and we hope that this research, which takes into account our current understanding of the structure of human diversity, places his seminal finding on firmer evolutionary footing".

My argument however more closely mirrors that of Kaplan and Graves, who state "that, while differences in particular allele frequencies can be used to identify populations that loosely correspond to the racial categories common in Western social discourse, the differences are of no more biological significance than the differences found between any human populations (e.g., the Spanish and Portuguese)".

Except I'm not here to act as a member of the stormfront community (I'm not even caucasian) and I especially don't intend to define race by just skin colour (that stance is just too simplistic to hold up to scrutiny) but I'm also not interested into dealing with political tripe mixed in with science ... (I imagine it's a similar deal with most people on this side of the fence)

I'm here to look for an intellectually honest and rigorous discussion based on data rather than absolutes ... 

@Underlined Which just proves my point that there ARE biological/physiological consequences for "geographical races" as I outlined in my previous post ...  

I base my argument around how these "populations" match the migratory genetic drift along the continental boundaries to define what "race" is and hope to believe this is the stance most of us holds. Unfortunately, this view does have some compatibility with that of a white supremacists which sadly undermines the hard work that human population geneticists do to collect this interesting data but what these white supremacists don't realize that by using evolution to further their argument is that there are certain trade-offs to be had with adaptations so it is not a "one-way" street so to speak ...