[proslaviy]

You keep tripping over significance, meaning and now importance.

Yep, because you seem to expect some social/philosophical meaning, but you never clearly state what you expect, although I repeatedly asked.

What kind of scientific concept is race if it is insignificant, meaningless and unimportant? Are there many scientific concepts that lack significance, meaning and importance? A lot. For significance, meaning & importance are always relative. Race has a certain significance to understand & to categorise homo sapiens, it has absolutely no significance for my dinner.

When people with bigger brains then mine and yours are arguing over its very existence and not just details and definition, I think we can say it is far from a fact. Nope. I'm not an elitist. That someone belonging to some intellectual elite (what a crappy concept, pretty much like racism) doesn't accept a certain terminology does not mean that I have to subscribe to that very same opinion. Furthermore, those working in the field (eg. biologists) generally do not have a problem with the concept of race, but with the related terminology (due to political pressure from the PC faction).

People divide themselves into Races for all kinds of reasons that are entirely unscientific. So what?

Different people draw different lines, and almost no one I know uses seventeenth century European terms "caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid" That doesn't mean much. You obviously have no contact to biologists. & AFAIK in the US the crappy PC faction is busy to eradicate even these -oid terms.

(Except possibly 17th century europeans.) You know 17th century Europeans personally?
Anyway, at least try to educate yourself of the subject you're talking about. Negroid is 1st attested 1859, mongoloid & caucasoid are from around the same time (1st they used mongolian [1868] & caucasian [1795])

If we are going to use race as some deliminator, why not use a non-European such as the Chinese, Japanese, Dinka, Somoan or Navajo system? Because I am European. Chinese et al. may very well use their own terminology. I can't really see your point here.

Is there some reason why the antiquated European system is superior to any of the other 17th century systems? Why antiquated? Genetics is a rather recent development & can very well be applied to the systematics.
Which other 17th century systems?

Maybe you europeans just have sharper eyes? Don't know. At least our PC faction is not (yet) quite as fascistic in its attempts to dictate science what it should do.