>>497045>The paper “debunked” itselfNot how it works. For someone who studies biology you don’t seem to understand how to read journals. You’re assuming a hypothesis that isn’t presented in the paper
1) Again, geographic ancestral groups =/= race and the authors are very clear about it, especially for clinical applications
2) They mention that this “thousands of loci” thing is only true if you sample only a few specific populations and not the world at large. Essentially, that’s saying that if you sample Hutus, Danes and Mongolians using thousands of Loci, and not any other groups that may possibly be in-between. More importantly, the Richards paper used only a few hundred loci to try and establish “Lewontin’s Fallacy”, Rosenberg (2002) used 377 and the Authors themselves said the minimum threshold is around 100 Loci and can determine geographic ancestry with 100% accuracy.
Saying that “a few hundred loci isn’t much” is what we scientifically call a cope. Just like how geographic ancestry is the same as race.