Do you agree with geneticists that there is no genetic basis to divide humans into races? Why or why ...

Background:
The current debate about whether there are human races is not centered on phenotypes but is focused on the type and amount of genetic variation present between populations on different continents. The average difference in genomic sequence between any two humans is 0.1. Of this, what proportion varies among populations on different continents? About 85 to 90 of this variation is found within populations on a continent, and the rest (10 to 15) is found between continental populations. The question is, does this genetic variation between continental populations justify dividing our species into racial groups? In other words, should the term race be redefined to mean the small amount of genetic variation that exists between populations on different continents?

Supporters of this view emphasize the importance of these genetic differences for the study of the evolution of our species, the dispersal of populations across the globe, and medical care based on genetic variation. Opponents point out that relying on the small amount of variation present between continental groups can lead to misidentification, and that accurate classification of individuals from different populations with continuously varying levels of genetic variation is impossible. For example, in 38 of cases in one study, Europeans were more similar to Asians than to other Europeans based on genetic variation in the alleles studied and for these individuals, their continent of origin would be identified as Asia instead of Europe.

Given the very low levels of genetic variation present in the human genome and its distribution, is there any reason to divide our species into races? At present, the vast majority of geneticists would answer no to that question and agree that there is currently no genetic basis for subdividing our species into racial groups.