Well race is defined by genomic similarity. So you are talking nonsense
by definition. Races "as commonly understood" is rather sneaky. We were talking about clearly defined scientific races weren't we? Not "popular ideas". Trying to sneak in a little strawman due to your precarious position?
Nevertheless
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Can you back up your assertion that individuals from different races are sometimes more genetically similar? And please do return the courtesy and answer this. By the way, how are you defining races? Not the man in the street or whatever. You.
It is interesting that you say "race is defined by genomic similarity". This is exactly what I would question.
For example, in the Wiki article on the subject, which is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics it seems to state fairly clearly that genomic similarity does NOT line up with "race".
QUOTE
"According to
Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection".
[3][4][5][6][7][8]
A relative handful of genes accounts for the inherited factors shaping a person's appearance.
[9][10] Humans have an estimated 19,000-20,000 human protein-coding genes.
[11]
UNQUOTE
I assure you am not trying to be "sneaky" is talking of race as commonly understood. All I mean by that is the usual racial classifications, by skin colour, hair type, eye colour and shape etc, which result in the labels such as black, white, Asian etc. that we all use in everyday language.
Thanks for the link. However I don't think that paper support the idea of race at all.
All it says is that it is possible to group the human race into populations according to genetic similarity (obviously) and (equally obviously, when you think about it) this shows some correlation with geographical origin. (This would be due to the greater probability of genes mixing between populations in physical proximity.) But they also say the correlation is weak and have this to say at the end of the abstract:
"The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but ω remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race."
(ω in this context means the chance of a pair of individuals from the 2 groups being more similar genetically than a random pair within a group.)
Incidentally I find rather objectionable your insinuation that I have a "precarious position" and that I may be trying to argue dishonestly by introducing a "straw man". I have no dog in this fight politically, I assure you. I am well aware that race politics, especially in the USA - or Russia, or wherever you come from - is a pit of vipers and that there may be an element of self-censorship by genetic scientists wanting a quiet life. In fact that is why I am (mildly) interested in getting to the bottom of what the science has to say.