Now let's all reminisce about days gone by.

Here.

Humans are much more genetically stable than animals in which 'breed' can be defined, such as dogs. Part of this comes from our rather recent emergence as a species and part of it may have to do with our habit of wandering about. Alot of this may have to do with the paucity of members of humanity in relatively recent times. As a species, we are NOT a very diverse bunch.

Now, if you can empirically demonstrate that genetic 'breedline' matters, at all, in behavior, temperment, intelligence or ANYTHING outside of pigmentation, body part size, and average height, then I will withdraw the following insult:

Here.

Take a modern sample of white folk and throw it next to a sample of black folk and there will be nearly NO clear and accurate genetic discernment of one from another. You might get a few probabilistic evaluations, but really not better than chance.

Here.

Where was I factually wrong about genetic discenability, subspeciation or geographic isolation WRT the population of HSS, both modern and neolithic? Bring your facts to the table, Lee. I challenge you. Do it. Show yourself as not a racist twitwit.

There are many more such examples spread throughout the HZ fossil record.

Now compare to this quote from Tom's posting on Off Topic of the article.

The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.

It seems the ability to discern as now been developed. And only 3+ years after the very notion of discenability was scoffed at by a certain Yeti.