If you picked the dust from a person you could make this exact same discovery.

>That doesn't mean if it has pollens from one place or another that it's significant in any meaningful way, or that you can make statements about a car based on that.

You can make statements on where they've been, but not what they are. You can look into a car and see it's a V-6 with a CVT, and you can make a lot of statements on its actual performance, how large it is, how it accelerates, etc. This is the same as looking at the DNA of a person.

>Most of the differences we know about account for things like skin color (which, in turn depends on vitamin D versus cancer for a given latitude), local diseases immunity, and similar things. Some account for random things which have no impact on natural selection (e.g. aesthetic details like hair color or thickness).

And height, and lactose intolerance, and how well alcohol is digested, and baldness, and everything that makes a human human.

>We have no evidence for things related to personality, intelligence

This is extremely wrong. Intelligence is something like 70% inherited, it is directly related to your DNA. Tendencies between groups for suffering from things such as schizophrenia are also inheritable and different between races and smaller ethnic groups.

>or anything associated with classic constructs of race and racism

There are generally true statements to make between different ethnic groups, and different races that still match classic constructs: East Asians are more likely to be lactose intolerable, Black Americans are more likely to have sickle cell, Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to be schizophrenic, White Europeans are more likely to suffer from melanoma, etc.