>>I agree with the idea that
>>race has no scientific backing.
>> There are gradual differences
>>in appearance and other trivial
>>genetic characteristics based on where
>>one's ancestors were from, but
>>that's about it.
>
>These differences have been scientifically noted
>and are the basis for
>racial classification. That means race
>*has* scientific backing.


THAT IS A LIE LADIES AND GENTLEMAN- racial differences must subsist on the theory of race that professes that racial classification is a means of categorizing the variant evolution of human kind.

since no variant evolution of human kind can be demonstrated genetically, scientifically, naturally, or biologicall there is not such scientific substantiation.

the fact that our skin color and physical features are varied is not enough- even among Blacks that variation exists and if it were to substantiate race claims it would still establish that there are further sub races among the races currently recognized. Are lightskinned Blacks of a different race? Nope.

>> I
>>once heard about a study
>>that showed if you take
>>two Europeans, they're as likely
>>to have as much in
>>common genetically with an African
>>as they are with each
>>other.
>
>That's because they're all one species.
>There are some genetic differences,

THAT IS ANOTHER LIE the most recent genetic science has determined positively that there is no racial variance in human genetics

>however, because if there weren't,
>we would all share a
>more uniform skin tone and
>hair texture, with MUCH less
>variation.

skin tone is mitigated by melanin- but all human bodies have melanin (with the exception of albinos) as such skin pigment is not demonstrative of variance since we all have it. The amount of melanin is provided for by your ethnic and natural origins- not those fostered by race ideology.

The fact that two
>"black" parents are more likely
>to have a "black" child
>than two "white" parents is
>indicative of _some_ genetic difference,

yuck- thats a horribly simplistic view of reproduction ethnicity and genetics.

>even if it is a
>small variation. Blondes and brunettes
>have genetic differences too (thus,
>two randomly chosen blonde parents
>are more likely to have
>a blond child than two
>randomly chosen brunette parents). This
>is basic genetics and I
>can't understand why so many
>people on this board are
>against this concept. Small differences
>ARE differences. Why people organize
>by skin tone and not
>hair color is historical and
>arguably illogical, but race *is*
>a classification based on genetic
>differences, however small.

BULLSHIT race ideology came into play several hundreds of years before genetic science- where do you come up with this stuff?