If you could be any other race ?

[ForumMember77]

The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

No, actually we use the term ethnicity to somewhat describe that, although it is also based on other things including language culture and history, and it itself is imprecise. There are no meaningful solid distinctions. The term "race" is thousands of years old and predates science. We didn't even know what genes were when it was being used. It goes to a time when people thought that those different to them were fundamentally different - ie of a different race - when this is not the case. This isn't a left-wing political argument, it's a fact.

"We"

Last time I looked up this argument there was anything but consensus, it was being debated on the comments section of Dawkins website. As someone had tried to debunk the term race. It was called "race re-debunked" if memory serves

There were many anthropologists and other scientifically minded folk who seemed to disagree with this concept.

This was a few years ago but I can provide a link if you like.

The simple idea is that based on photographs it wold be possible to racially group people from different areas, they openly disagreed with your assertion that race has no taxonomic meaning in science.

It really does feel like a left wing bias to me.

To each their own I suppose.

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.