Let me comment on a few things you said:

> I however side with you on this. Race is a bogus concept. Saying that can get you into hot water of course. People who identify as part of a certain race will think you're taking something away from them, the group identity. Well you are. That's the point. If you have to have a group identity why not it be the fellowship of humanity?

Race is used to dehumanize rather than to humanize. Race was invented primarily to dehumanize certain people for the purpose of encouraging slavery. To be impacted by racism is to have the misfortune to be born into the wrong race, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and "wrong race" is a race which is receiving negative stereotypes. These negatively stereotyped races do not experience the same feelings of group pride that a positively stereotyped race would receive. This puts memes and the mass mind in a position to influence the self esteems of millions of people for reasons which have nothing to do with merit, or accomplishment. Individual accomplishment, or team accomplishment, is different than to inherit the mistakes or successes of people grouped into a race by other people. Races are not teams, and to put race in that definition promotes racism and racial separatism. 


> People such as Klein usually say something then like, well it's easy as a member of the powerful group to be privileged enough to not have to "see" race. Those who deal with racism every day cannot be blind to it. Or in other words, dismissing the concept of race means you dismiss the reality of racism. This is tricky. How I personally view it is that the supposed scientific concept of race is bogus, but that the cultural concept of race is real, in the sense that people believe in it, and thus act on it.

Racism is the belief that race as a concept is real. The effects of racism (negative or positive stereotyping, bias in hiring, bias in treatment, etc) are side effects of the belief system itself. Colorism for example xists even among people grouped up as the same race. Black and white hispanic populations, or light and dark skinned Asian, or light and dark skinned black Americans, have to deal with this colorism where a national beauty standard or trend makes pale skin somehow the new beauty ideal. This isn't racism but is a side effect of it's own, and so even if there were no concept of race there would still be beauty standards.

Beauty takes many forms too. While skin tone is one form it can take, it can also take the form of height, or for those who are sapiosexual perhaps people who have higher IQ are similar in attractiveness to people who are taller or who have pale skin tone. I don't see these traits as anything more than traits, but beauty standards are culturally defined (and IQ is part of that). 

We know pale or dark skin does functionally matter. People with pale skin do better at absorbing vitamin D but at the same time are much more vulnerable to skin diseases. Tall people are able to do some things that short people can't do as well such as dunk a basketball but short people have certain advantages as well because people who are very tall do not seem to have as much longevity. People who have the genetics to be thin, who have a fast metabolism, are able to eat whatever they like without counting calories but then because their metabolism is faster they age faster too because we know from studies caloric minimization extends lifespan. A less efficient use of calories might not always be good even if it looks good physically.

So what does this all mean? It means these beauty standards are arbitrary. They don't seem to be rationally determined. In addition they seem to come from top down influence by thought leaders who set trends rather than anything else. So maybe in the 80s something is in fashion which for some reason isn't in fashion right now but it doesn't have to be for any rational or wise reason.

> Regardless if you call it race or not, fact is there are differences between black and white (and yellow), not only physiologically. E.g. in sprint diciplines black poeple always win, whereas in swimming whites always win. Coincidence?

My point is that none of those differences are relevant. Why should I care about group dynamics if I'm an individual with my own genome and ancestors? Those comparisons don't provide us with any relevant information is the point of my post. Race is not the same thing as ethnicity or genetics.

> Also in medicine this is increasingly recognized. E.g. a drug was licensed by FDA only in black people because it was found it doesn´t work in the other "races". 

Define which black people? If you are talking about people who have genes from Africa well that is 1.2 billion people who are considered African but to have genes from Africa doesn't even mean you are black. There are white people who have a very significant percentage of their genes from Africa. There are black people who have a very significant percentage of their genes from Europe or somewhere else. And then if you dig further, which parts of Africa specifically because genes are geographical not based on color or "race".

Ultimately, race based medicine does not work. In fact studies have proven it doesn't work and only introduces error. See this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3521477/

The formula to estimate kidney function was once conducted based on race. It turns out this formula was not the most accurate formula. It turns out in fact that you cannot determine from race what genes a person has and that is the problem with using it as a medical category. It's imprecise, vague, and at best a rough estimation.

> You think all IQ test, which constantly yield the highest scores among Asians, are all invalid? There are so many racial correlations, you can´t deny this.

No, did you read the title of my post and deliberately misrepresent my argument? I said that the question of racial differences in IQ is invalid. What this means is that the answer to this question does not further scientific knowledge and doesn't really benefit progressing the science of genetics. 

To put it into context, we have studies which say [height is correlated with higher IQ](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-genetic-link-height-iq.html). So what? Does that mean the genes which determine how tall a person is has something to do with how smart they are? They found a correlation NOT a causal relationship. In addition, unlike with "race", they actually found a genetic link. 

> Also in medicine this is increasingly recognized. E.g. a drug was licensed by FDA only in black people because it was found it doesn´t work in the other "races". The Japanese and Chinese Health Authorities are as well beyond the old "there are no races" ideologists, as they ask for clinical studies in their population as well prior approving drugs.

Only personalized medicine is precise. If your life depended on it, would you rather your specific genome be sequenced in order for the most effective treatment to be found for your genes or would you rather a doctor look at you, label you a race, and treat you based on whatever category the doctor thinks you fit into?

I'm not censoring debate, as what I'm posting advances the debate. If you believe IQ is genetic then how is race different from height? What does it mean for tall people to learn that being tall is associated with higher IQ? What does it mean for short people to learn this? What actions should the short person take to increase their IQ or potentially even edit their genes? 

> DUF1220

This is interesting. This is the first time someone has brought to my attention an actual gene associated with IQ. Now all you have to do is prove that this gene is most common in Asia, Europe, etc, and then you might have something you can say, but even if you could make a case that the gene is more common in certain populations it doesn't say anything about race.

That is because there is no gene called white or black. Those categories do not represent genetics but instead represent made up social categories. The only way anyone can determine if they have DUF1220 or other genes not related to skin tone, hair, etc, is to actually do a personalized genome sequence to discover for themselves their own genetic code.

Why are you so against genetic literacy, personalized medicine, and individualism?
What do you hope to gain or achieve by pointing out "racial differences in IQ"?
And why can't you distinguish between "racial differences in IQ" and "genetic differences in IQ" or ancestry and IQ?

The fact that people who believe in race cannot seem to distinguish the difference between these questions is part of the problem.

What do you hope to gain or achieve by pointing out "racial differences in IQ"?

And why can't you distinguish between "racial differences in IQ" and "genetic differences in IQ" or ancestry and IQ?

The fact that people who believe in race cannot seem to distinguish the difference between these questions is part of the problem.

What do you hope to gain or achieve by pointing out "racial differences in IQ"?

And why can't you distinguish between "racial differences in IQ" and "genetic differences in IQ" or ancestry and IQ?

The fact that people who believe in race cannot seem to distinguish the difference between these questions is part of the problem.

> Whites usually have access to the internet and libraries, Asians too.

To rule out these environmental factors, the [Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study) was done. Check out the results.