>Race (for those who skipped genetics
>class) implies sub-species.

No, it doesn't imply that unless you believe in outdated disproven theories...no modern geneticist would argue that the difference races are "subspecies" of the human race. You must be reading genetics books from the 1850s.

> Sub-species cannot
>interbreed or produce offspring. Of
>the few known exceptions to
>this rule, the offspring produced
>is sterile.
>What you are arguing is that
>phenotypes equal racial identifiers,

That's not what I'm arguing at all. I didn't even use the word phenotypes. ;-)

> and
>that is simply not the
>case. Homo sapiens (which is
>what we are biologically and
>scientifically speaking) are for the
>most part genotypically homogeneous. There
>is very little real variation.

But there is some variation. And that variation correlates with racial categorization. Two "black" parents are more likely to produce a brown-skinned baby than two "white" parents. That variation is the basis for racial classification.

>Phenotypically, we span a spectrum/continuum
>that also has very little
>variation. We are not comparing
>house cats and tigers here
>(two different races).

Two different SPECIES.

> We are
>talking about homo sapiens/humans (one
>race).

You are mixing up the concept of species and race. I'd like to see what genetics book you're reading from, I'm sure it's outdated.

> Our phenotypical variation depends
>largely on climate and selective
>breeding, which again does not
>equate to race.

Not in your species/race paradigm, but for folks who use race to categorize folks with minor variations like skin tone and hair texture, those phenological variations, to use your terminology, are how are people are categorized.

> You can
>argue all you want that
>there are black and white
>races, but there isn't any
>real science that will back
>you up.

"real science"? pray tell, what is that?

> Thus we only
>have ethnicities and cultures,

I disagree. How does "ethnicity and culture" explain the likelihood that two "black" parents are more likely to create a child of a certain skin tone/hair texture than two "white" parents? It doesn't.

and
>those are closer identifiers of
>who we really are socially
>because scientifically we are all
>pretty much the same.
>While this is mainly between you
>and Koala, I felt the
>need to explain this from
>a scientific/common sense perspective. I
>hope this helps.

Science and common sense are two seperate concepts. Science often refutes "common sense".

>Thanks for reading. I love you.

I love you too, but I disagree entirely.

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.