There is so much wrong with this statement. What is the metric that you're using to reach the conclusion that the differences are insignificant? That's nothing more that a ideological declaration because you've given no reasoning to support that conclusion. The same criticism applies to your classification of "gene pool variations" being minor. Minor by what standard when the presence or absence of one gene variant can be the difference between suffering a debilitating disease and leading a normal life? Then there is the tautological nature of your opening argument, that's like saying, "the feather doesn't weigh much, as one would expect given the low weight of a feather."
Originally Posted by donsutherland1
Then you invoke the red herring of noting that races are not the same as species. This has nothing to do with anything. You seem to imply that differences only matter when they exist across cross-species boundaries. Why draw such a distinction? There is a world of difference between the Xhosa and Ashkenazi Jews when it comes to Tay-Sachs disease and clearly these two population groups are not from different species.
All non-Africans are the product of Neandthal and some Denisovan introgression. That's pretty damn significant in terms of genetic diversity.
You need to read the literature more carefully:
On the intelligence issue you raise, I am not aware of even a single credible study that shows a statistically significant difference.
Jensen (1998b, pp. 369–379) summarized 17 independent data sets of nearly 45,000 Blacks and 245,000 Whites derived from 149 psychometric tests and found that the g loadings consistently predicted the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference (r = .62, p < .05). This was borne out even among 3-year-olds administered eight subtests of the Stanford–Binet in which the rank correlation between g loadings and the mean Black–White group differences was .71 (p < .05; Peoples et al., 1995).