The distinction that you're making is a meaningless one. Let me explain.
Originally Posted by donsutherland1
Pulled randomly from today's news:
The top Republican in Congress on Thursday dismissed President Barack Obama's jobs-creation package as a "poor substitute" for policies that would boost the economy and ruled out tax increases as a way to close the country's budget gap.
Compare that news quote to the following statement:
Square matrices without full rank have at least one zero eigenvalue
Most of us can immediately recognize that those two sentences have no relation to each other. Your argument though is that there is no difference because both sentences use common letters of the alphabet. The second sentence is different because it uses the letter Q in a word and the first sentence doesn't.
The fact that the HGP found 99.9% genetic similarity across the human species is a meaningless fact. Let me demonstrate with another example.
Using the same methodology as that used in the HGP I could declare that a human male has more in common with a male chimpanzee than he does with a human female, because females don't possess the Y chromosome and the male human and male chimpanzee do and that similarity swamps the difference between species, where humans and chimpanzees are 98% similar.
Going back to my text based example, the meaning of the two samples of text is found in the correlation of letters to each other, that is words have meaning and the same principle is in play with how race is detailed - the meaning of race is found within the correlational structure of the genome. This is how computer programs can very accurately categorize people into racial groups. If we were all 99.9% the same then the program wouldn't be able to bring about a sort.
You keep saying that the differences are insignificant but you don't define what you mean by the term. Are the differences between the two text examples I used also insignificant? The information that I extract from both samples of text conveys two very significantly different meanings despite the fact that both samples have highly similar use of letters.
The differences among humans, however one wants to group them, are insignificant.
Who says? Not Sewall Wright:
Furthermore, you completely misunderstood the analogy that references races (or any other grouping of humans) and species. Intra-species differences are very small compared to inter-species ones.
By contrast, Sewall Wright, who can hardly be taken for a dilettante in questions of population genetics, has stated emphatically that if differences of this magnitude were observed in any other species, the groups they distinguish would be called subspecies.
One can extend Wright’s argument even further. The more than 200 species of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria differ from each other much less than the human races in their neutral genes, although they are presumably distinguished by genes that control differences in their external appearances. The same can be said about at least some of the currently recognized species of Darwin’s finches and about other examples of recent adaptive radiations. In all these cases, reproductively isolated groups are impossible to tell apart by the methods used to measure differences between human races. Obviously, human races are not reproductively isolated (interracial marriages are common and the progenies of such marriages are fully fertile) but the external differences between them are comparable to those between the cichlid fishes and Darwin’s finches. Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion? How much difference would Lewontin and those who side with him consider nontrivial?
I've seen this fallacy used numerous times. I'm tired of moved goalposts as a standard as well as the tactic of idiosyncratic definitions of credible. Next you'll be telling me that you only consider studies published in journals which use red ink to be credible and that any study published in a journal that uses black ink doesn't qualify by your standards as being credible.
I said "credible" studies.