Geographical race.

Actually, it's not that it CAN'T exist for humans.  It's simply that it doesn't.  

Assuming you've actually read the paper, you'd know that it actually argues against your point.

Right here at the end:

A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

@Bold This line is all needed to support my assertion that certain "populations" can be defined ...

I'm not doing what he does, if you're assuming I'm cherry picking data.  You don't really find much that says that biological race is a real thing.  It's very easy to find the piles of data that support what I've been saying.  I only supplied one source since really it should be enough when the opposing side hasn't provided a single scientific source that actually supports their thesis. 

If you're assuming I was arguing that race doesn't exist as a social construct either, then that's incorrect.  It certainly does.  

It's kind of hard to understand quite what you were trying to tell me.   

The reason I was saying I could get banned is because of the way I phrased it.

There is virtually nothing in the way of criteria to naturally delineate the borders between geographical races. Definitions are vague and lacking a true taxonomic backbone allowing classification. As such, it seems like depending on who you ask, there may be three geographical races or nine geographical races or any amount in between.

This lends it the appearance of an artificial distinction, or in other words, a social construct.

Look.  We don't have enough difference among us to be different biological races. I think that's where your argument falls through.  We can all have sex with any colored person and you are only mixing minor genetic details. You still produce a kid and that child isn't another biological race.  The fact that we can all cross breed would defeat the purpose of this entire thread... oh wait.

Are you reading that line wrong?  "Most human genetic VARIATION is found within populations" meaning that there's more variation within the populations.  The point of that line is to state that despite the fact of those variations, it's possible to trace ancestry to locations with enough data.  That's not really all that surprising.

Nope, the fact that we can track geographic "populations" means that there is a biological basis for race ... 

If race is to be defined with respect to allele frequencies in combination to the geographic population then race DOES exist!

Okay I think this is self evident.   I think the best way to understand this is that life adapts to its surrounding and environment actually effects our genetics.  They was a video that once postulated that in the deep future if we colonize different planets, over millions of years we will actually see many different (actual biological)  races of human out there.

Look.  We don't have enough difference among us to be different biological races. I think that's where your argument falls through.  We can all have sex with any colored person and you are only mixing minor genetic details. You still produce a kid and that child isn't another biological race.  The fact that we can all cross breed would defeat the purpose of this entire thread... oh wait.