>Yes, there are genetic differences between
>people. And two dark
>humans are more likely to
>have a dark child than
>two light humans.

Thank you conceding that point.

>But
>there are enormously bigger differences
>noted within a race than
>any of the differences between
>two races.

I will concede this point.

>The reason "racial" differences are so
>noted is because they're visible.
> The incredibly few genes
>that wind up being very
>visible happen to be noticed.
> Many people presume that
>this means that the rest
>of the genes are different
>too. Not the case.

I don't think many people presume that races have huge genetic differences. Most folks think races have *cultural* differences (as in "Asian people do this", "White people do that"), but I haven't met anyone yet that things white people are a different subspecies of human being. That's outdated and considered psycho by most regular people.

>The human species happens to be
>one of the most homogeneous,
>because of our historical tendency
>to travel. All the
>genes got everywhere. It's
>just that the light skinned
>genes never survived in tropical
>areas... the sickle cell anemia
>gene never survived anywhere where
>malaria wasn't a problem.

Right, and these biological differences became the basis for racial classification. If we all looked alike, there wouldn't be racial categories as we know them.

>At the root of the matter,
>yes there are differences between
>people, but no racial classification
>can be scientifically approved.

Sure it can, by means of looking at the occurrence of biological traits associated with certain racial groups. You already spoke about "light skinned gene(s)". If it is genetic, it can be scientifically approved.

>You say a Spaniard is
>different from a Moroccan,

did i?

> but
>people have traveled back and
>forth ever since the times
>the first hominids crossed the
>straight between them. The
>genetic difference between two Spaniards
>(who are not relatives) is
>just as great as the
>difference between a Moroccan and
>either of the two Spaniards.

i concede this point.

still, this just means that classifications are arbitrary (nationality, ethnicity, etc) as none of these groupings place people together by genetic makeup (only family could, actually).

>It's not as if Africans and
>Europeans were ever at any
>point isolated from one another.
> People always traveled.
>So did genes.

Have to disagree here. Africa is a rather large continent. In the absence of relatively modern modes of travel, getting from South Africa to Sweden is a pretty arduous task. So, there was some degree of isolation.

All this said, everyone seems to agree that physcial traits between races can be distinguished. Any tendency which can be observed can be scientifically proven. And so it goes with racial difference. Someone just set up random demarcating points (if you possess these characteristics, you are ____), but it's still based on observable phenomena. Why not argue for a breakdown of ALL categorizations. Because, honestly, there's not much difference b/t any randomly chosen group of people. As such, arguing against one form of classification while supporting another appears arbitrary and illogical. There is no genetic basis at all for cultural groups. So why hould people call themselves French or German?

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.