Hey there, I'm curious about a few things months later. You say this:

Of the coding differences, we actually find regional allelic distributions, rather than those following the common conception of "race," or they're instead clinal, and most are adaptions to either climate or immunological in nature.

Does that mean most of the differences we can observe between "races" (phenotypes), such as musculature, facial structure, height differences, skin color, etc, are all chiefly adaptations to climate or environment?

And I've recently learned that behavioral geneticists universally agree that behaviors like intelligence, aggressiveness, empathy, etc, are controlled by countless genes, not just a few. So the likelihood of these countless genes all selecting across "races" enough to make a difference is extremely unlikely, no? And in turn, are the notable phenotypes we see, like skin color, controlled by only a few genes and thus they were more easily selected throughout a population? If so, why are psychologists on both sides of the spectrum still continuing the debate?