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)".

Whether or not you agree the positions of some of the posters in this thread, which are largely based on an ongoing scientific debate, the fact is, this "change" is functionally meaningless. No one has yet to explain any way in which being able to self-report race will result in any negative consequences within these school districts. There is nothing scary about this. It is a mundane change to make some paperwork easier.

I think the only thing scary about it is the fact that some people are so desperate to cling to divisions of race, even when those divisions are so functionally meaningless. 

lol hang on let me make sure i got this right

so according to you black people and asian people are the same?

1) The issue is that between-group variation typically overlaps (which is something I said in my last post), leaving you with competing ranges of 70-120 vs 80-130. As such, the majority of the "difference" is virtually indistinguishable. And even still, other factors such as family history tend to be a better indicator of the potential presence of a particular trait than race. 

2) Do you consider hypertension to be a natural social division? Were you asked whether you had hypertension when you were taking the SAT? Again, if the doctor wants to know these things, that is fine, but these aren't social divisions. These are not things that are relevant in pretty much any context but the doctor's office (and even still, their relevance there is extremely limited and most of the time irrelevant). As such, to maintain these divisions outside of the extremely limited context where they have any application is to socially construct their importance. Which is what I've been arguing. So the question becomes: do you disagree that the heavy importance and social divisions built around race are socially constructed? 

3) Because that is about the potential of being contagious. High blood pressure and male pattern baldness and other diseases with a strong genetic component typically aren't contagious. To bring it up is to kind of sidestep this entire conversation.

4) How is it like that in literally any way? What is that even supposed to mean?

5) No response?

LOL, it's ironic at first glance since statistics show otherwise ... 

*Sigh*  What's going on is that you've somehow interpreted "let's let people just enter their own race on a form since people are generally capable of doing so without incident and we can always contact parents on an as needed basis if someone is doing anything abnormal" into "THE DELAWARE SCHOOL SYSTEM WILL LET YOU CLAIM TO BE ANY RACE YOU WANT AND PEOPLE IDENTIFYING THEIR OWN RACE IS NEW AND SCARY AND I DON'T WANT TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE!!!"

Seriously, how else would you go about recording race?  Having children report with the option of double checking with parents as need be seems like a perfectly appropriate method.