> Firstly, there's only one sentient primate race: Homo Sapiens.

Nope, species, not race - or arguable sub-species.

As your link says race is a social construct, so it is whatever society says it means. It means different things in different societies. This is something I experience personally so I am very aware of it: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different

> However, when genetic variation is compared both between and within those groups, we see more variation within those once isolated groups than we do between those groups

Which is why genetic similarity does not work well as a way defining race, and why the concept of race has no biological basis. This is covered by the wikipedia link in my previous comment too.

> What's more, even within such groups genetic variation is only around 0.5-1.5%.

Yes, but that is just normal for a species. We share a lot of DNA (98%?) with chimpanzees and something like 70% with fish! its not really meaningful. However, its not the main argument, because the variation within vs (lack of) between groups is really the killer argument.

>Nope, species, not race - or arguable sub-species.

Yes. You are absolutely correct.

That said, I meant it in this sense:

From: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/human-ra...

   the human race

   noun [ S ]

   all the people in the world, considered as a group

>Which is why genetic similarity does not work well as a way defining race, and why the concept of race has no biological basis. This is covered by the wikipedia link in my previous comment too.

Exactly. Which is why I brought up how genetically similar we all are, regardless of, well, anything.

>Yes, but that is just normal for a species. We share a lot of DNA (98%?) with chimpanzees and something like 70% with fish! its not really meaningful. However, its not the main argument, because the variation within vs (lack of) between groups is really the killer argument.

Yes. And we share anywhere up to 60% of DNA with plants too.

I thought that's what I said. My apologies if I wasn't clear.

The upshot is, as we both are trying to elucidate (at least I think you are as well), that from a biological/genetic standpoint humans, regardless of geographic origin, melanin content and/or other physical features, are incredibly similar.

So much so that trying to define groups of humans by such physical features is idiotic in the extreme. Sadly, that doesn't stop some of our fellow humans from trying to do so. And more's the pity.