You’re right that the borders are not well defined though - it is a probably distribution - just like the weights in a neural network are also a probability distribution
You maybe could sort of define a group of people coming from the same locality and having the same history , and they would have maybe some degree of biological similarity as well, but there would be a high number of those groups and even then it would be quite useless and with number of exceptions.
You implied that in order for you to be proved wrong, the test must have 100% accuracy. I was saying that 100% accuracy is an impossible standard.
No tests in the world are 100% accurate, let alone in biology, the fact that you asked for this shows you are numerically illiterate
Here is DNA clustering that shows race: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t9Va5ai9-A4/Xd0cmvRBL4I/AAAAAAAAu...
Here is a link to the Kahn Academy course on statistics: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability If you take this course, you will understand probability better, and then you wont commit the logical fallacy of "false dichotemy" where you try to reduce complexity to binary classes which is a view that is too simplistic to accuratly represent the distributions we are talking about
The reason I mentioned cats and dogs is you can tell them apart by their DNA with 100% accuracy.
That image does not contain 'race', and it comes from a paper that does not even mention the word 'race'. You have provided no arguments that race exists. The paper writes:
> This observation ... will make it a challenge to trace the ancestry of African Americans to specific ethnic groups in Africa, unless considerably more markers are used.
The more markers you use, the more different groups you get. You can of course choose to 'cluster' them, but then some precision will be lost, and what exactly will be gained?
Yes, you can see what someone's DNA is, if you look at their DNA.