Hat tip to Onar Am.

"There's no scientific definition of race that can be used to classify to every individual so the statistics are worthless anyway."
Actually, the scientific definition of race (subspecies) is:

"One of two or more populations of a species living in different subdivisions of the species' range and varying from one another by morphological characteristics .

For obvious reasons biologists are scared out of their wits of using the term race, so they go with "population" instead. A race is a:
"well-mixed, mildly inbred population of a species."

Usually this mild inbreeding results in distinct morphological differences that makes it easy to classify the populations, and usually the different races are (or have been) separated geographically for a sufficiently long time to create distinct differences.

"And forget about "self-identification" of race."

Actually, self-identification turns out to be the most objective definition of race that extends beyond conscious species, and also escapes the element of arbitrariness of a taxonomist. The perhaps best definition of a race that can be constructed is:

"A population who sexually prefers members of their own population over other populations."

That is, if a plant with a red flower happens to like mating with other members of its species who also have a red flower (as opposed to, say, a blue flower), then very quickly this leads to self-segregationand the establishment of a genetically distinct population which has a mechanism in place to maintain (and widen) those distinctions.

Notice how this is establishment of taxonomy by self-identification/ selection. No man in a lab-coat is required to create a taxonomy.

So how does this work for humans? Well, it turns out that the match between self-identified race and automatic computer categorization of DNA (e.g. k-means) is near 100%. If you have the genes of people of many different populations and you instruct the computer to divide the gene data into TWO categories only, and then ask people to self-identify which of these two categories they themselves belong to, they match up something like 99.9%.

If you repeat the experiment with THREE categories, the match between genes and self-identification is still around 99.9%. Same if you do it for four, five or six categories. In fact, the self-identification of race matches genetics almost as well as self-identified gender and sex.

This self-identification translates into real-world self-segregation and sexual selection based on self-identified race. Below is a website dedicated to making an ethnic/racial map of the United States. Zoom into the most progressive/ woke city in the nation and you will see the same pattern that is observed everywhere in the world: people self-segregate based on race/ethnicity.

This self-segregationis in fact strong evidence of the existence (and the above definition) of race. To prefer one's own race is the hallmark of the existence of race. If blacks prefer to live and mate with blacks over other populations, then that is evidence that blacks form an objectively identifiable race.

RACIALDOTMAP.DE MOGRAPHICS.COOP ERCENTER.ORG
The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

1 This is a great article that cuts through all the leftist fog about race. It's nice to see the subject discussed clinically rather than emotionally.

BTW, the included links work only if one is logged into Facebook.

2 You should be able to copy and paste it Dana. One of the problems with Facebook is it gives a Facebook link and if you are cutting from there you have to post in Notepad to lose it - something I don't always have the time to do. Inserting it as a hyperlink takes even longer. I suppose I should try to make this more professional but I have to balance quantity and quality (of technical aspect - I always seek quality in terms of the articles.)