Isn't he referring to the basic evolutionary idea that people separated by location were exposed to different environmental pressures and developed distinct genetic traits?

He would be if he didn't add this phrase: "which is essentially what race stands for". Because it's not what race stands for. It never was and never will be what race stands for.

The point bears repeating: The discussion of race (which doesn't exist scientifically) must be removed from the discussion of genetic traits arising from environment pressure (which does). The two are not analogous, or even similar.

When a someone says "What an articulate (or clean) black man", does he mean "What an articulate set of of genetict traits arising from environmental pressure"? Never. The reading is absurd.

I've never held that traits don't arise from environmental pressure, merely that is has nothing to do with race. Since race exists only in people's minds, how could it?