General Election 2010

I disagree- but the article is very balanced, and allows for personal bias- undoubtedly the reason it has been cited so often.
IMO-
it says that behaviour based aspects of race are unsupported by race, whereas the physical attributes are supported.
furthermore- allow it allows for and highlighs a blurring of the boundaries- i feel that this sentence sums up the article best:
"When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately"

loci are lovations of genes on a chromosome, and the individual ancestry- is down to what I would term 'race'- shared ancestral attributes.
therefore- a genetic background to 'race'.

Henry

@ seeds-
you questioned my standpoint that race can be defined genetically:
it can and has been shown in my two references.

I have redefined my understanding of race, as instead of blase posting I sat and thought it through for a while (please read my previous post which I edited)....

Thanks again Henry for your considered posts. However, I still strongly disagree with you.

"Race = shared ancestral attributes" does not seem to be a genetic definition to me.

I really strongly think that there is no acceptable scientific way to define race and that therefore we should accept that the term is a convenient shorthand, at best.

Otherwise we move into Jim Watson territory. I've met him, and he seemed like a nice old man (we had a short conversation in CSHL about tennis) but his views on race are some of the stupidest that I've ever heard.

More on your two references coming soon, if my gin-based enthusiasm doesn't desert me.