As for gene sequencing results, the closest I can get you is the wiki entry, although I remember reading about it in The Economist, for which I don't have an on-line subscription : "On December 9, 2007, a Sunday Times article[60] reported a claim by deCODE Genetics that 16% of Watson's DNA is of African origin and 9% is of Asian origin. deCODE's methods were not reported and details of the analysis were not published. According to deCODE's Kari Stefansson, the analysis relied on an error-ridden version of Watson's full genome sequence, and Stefansson "doubts [. . .] whether the 16 percent figure will hold up"[61]" That test cost over $2 millions clams!!!!
Next time, use google: it'll save us both time and trouble you lazy bastard.
Fine, if you want to resort to rude discourse, I will embarrass you in the same manner I did that imbecile Horton and Special Ed. If you treat me like an idiot, expect me to do the same to you.
Onwards...
Did you actually read the above before you posted it?
It's nice to see you using race-based genetic science as evidence to support your bullshit claim that race doesn't exist at the biological level, see what you've done there? Moron.
"We are all the same, but there exists 'African genes' and 'Asian genes' " - really, I couldn't make this up, you thick scumbag.
Are you aware (I doubt it) that the interpreting of the data surrounding Watson's genome analysis has been loaded with errors to the point that ensemble (funded by the Welcome trust) have stated a lack of confidence in the data and urged people not to use it?
The only conceivable reason for deCODE releasing their crap information was that they simply got carried away during a moment wherein they thought they could score points by bringing down the world's foremost biologist; manifest hubris of the finest form no less.
But let's crack on with your other points, so expertly constructed [by you] utilizing your rather deft logic.
If Watson's genetic make up did in fact comprise "16% African genes" it would show up in his very recent family history, to wit:
/you should look up his latest (i think) book. it has to do with avoiding 'boring' people - i shit you not. perhaps some pointers lie in yonder direction. 
I think it is you, dimwit, that should have perhaps taken your own prescription and "look up" the said tome.
If you had done so, you would have noted that Watson - having been born to a high end European family who had great passion for celebrating their ancestry via photographs and tradition such as the handing down of names - included in the book many pictures of/and information about his family; this material taken from "Avoid Boring People" sits together with other well known information about Watson's family background.
If one takes the time to observe that first - on Watson's maternal side - his family are documented as white; that they are descended from Scottish/Irish with no non-whites to be seen; one has to then concede that for the claims of "16% African genes" to stand, Watson must have on his paternal side a father that is at least 50% non-white and a grandparent of whom is 100% non-white; if no such non-white relative can be found, it stands that you are wrong, that your claims - as is your head - are hollow.
As stated, we can look to Watson's already mentioned book "Avoid Boring People" and other avenues for the evidence (indeed, you really should have done so before fucking with me and thus leaving me no choice but to reveal you for the thick headed person you are.
In the Watson book, there is a photograph of Watson attending the 1967 wedding of his cousin Alice; stood alongside Watson are his father and grandfather - along with Watson's sister - and they are all observably 100% white.
The anti-black socio-political climate of the time is also damning to your claims.
The Watsons were a very successful family in a profoundly anti-black America; Watson's paternal uncle (William Weldon Watson IV) was none other than the head of Yale physics department in 1940; If someone was one third black and head of a Yale department that would have been BIG news.
Watson's father was employed at the Harris Trust Company in Chicago before WWI. Watson's paternal grandfather was a stockbroker and his paternal grandmother an heiress.
Watson's paternal great-grandfather was a hotel-keeper in ritzy Lake Geneva, WI and married a banker's daughter.
His paternal great-great-grandfather was a friend and prominent supporter of Abraham Lincoln.
If there was even a hint of "Negro in the woodpile" (much less the 20%+ that you claim) none of the above would have occurred.
The entire family were high class, and nothing other than white, both observably and indeed in full documented history.
But yeah, the Watson family might have overlooked an African sat at the family Christmas dinner? And yes you might have a point?? You silly bastard.
Oh and stop referencing Venter; he has changed his position once from claiming [in 2001] we are all 99.9% the same to the point where he [in 2007] says we are 99% the same; yes, in a mere 5 years he has reduced his claims by nigh on 1%, have you any idea how big a deal that is biologically? No, no you don't, hence your shitstained hubris, a very slippery slope indeed.
It makes my cringe to hear you attempting to validate your position with references to Venter the "genome god" yet simultaneously overlooking the views of James Watson without whom Venter's work wouldn't even exist.
Chimps, you are a dullard, aptly named and ignorant in the extreme.
Discuss.
