I'm not uncomfortable with race, but as I pointed out scientists refer to DNA being about ancestry than race.
It's not stigma, it's just factually wrong to equate DNA with race because of the vast evidence I've posted here.
You can choose to disagree with all of science if you want.
The 50-year-old consensus has long been disproven with modern methodology. Gene frequency analysis and gene cluster analysis indicate that not only do biological racial markers exist (Jorde & Wooding, 2004), they also correspond with traditional perceptions of race (Tang & collegues, 2005), sometimes perfectly, sometimes imperfectly depending on the distribution. It's also true that a population's self-identification effectively perfectly aligns with their genetic makeup (Paschou, 2010), which logically they would have no way of knowing beyond a couple generations. The reason why they do is because they know, more or less, where they came from - this is not a shocking revelation. This is further compounded by what's called genetic distance, which increases with geographic distance - an understandable consequence to increased difficulty of migration across natural barriers. When analysed from this angle, you eventually come up with a distribution model that contains five clusters - Africa, Eurasia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas (Rosenberg & collegues, 2005). You are more than welcome to disagree with these findings, but to say that geneticists themselves, or I, "disagree with science" is ridiculous. I'm also fine with you calling those results "ancestry", or whatever word you want to use to avoid the word "race", since in real world applications the two are effectively the same.
