throwaway65512

It is arbitrary enough as to be utterly irrelevant in modern genomics. Some people cling to it, usually doctors who haven't gotten the memo, old school taxonomists who don't want to let go of their traditional systems, and of course Pioneer Fund recipients. But popgen/phylogeny researchers avoid using it because of how little information it conveys due to its being so poorly defined.

These concern only about a handful of genes that have been the subject of very intense selective pressure and has little to do with how phylogeny classifications are done with entire genomes at large. Not only that, this selective pressure often results in evolutionary convergence (all populations in malarial latitudes have some modicum of resistance to malaria, not just Africans) and the resulting shared traits don't say anything about populations are classified.

As your link points out, and as is widely acknowledged among the phylogeny and popgen communities, there is no single definition of race and the notion is largely discredited in modern classifications.

That's a false equivalence. Some terms are well-defined in phylogeny, and even among the murkier concepts (like species) almost all of them are clearer than race which basically covers a hodge-podge of sometimes contradictory concepts no one ever seems to agree on.

What they mean is that race is not well-defined among phylogenists/pop geneticists and thus a largely irrelevant concept to the scientific community at large