Jay,

I would hazard a guess that there are few working biologists who studied the same text as me - it was only published in 2002, so presumably most working biologists used earlier texts. I fail to see what this has to do with the accuracy of the information presented in the text. And I should point out that the higher incidence of sickle cell anaemia (for example) in sub-Saharan African populations (NOT black people - Australian aboriginals can be black as the ace of spades, but don't share the higher incidence of sickle anaemia with their African cousins) doesn't demonstrate any biological basis for race. I guess you missed this bit of my last post:
"when selection is strong enough... populations can differentiate even in the presence of gene flow. However, even in cases such as this, gene flow will still ensure that populations are relatively homogeneous for genetic variation at other loci.

For this reason, relatively little of the variation in the human species represents differences between the described races. Indeed, one study calculated that only 8% of all genetic variation among humans could be accounted for as differences that exist among racial groups; in other words, the human racial categories do a very poor job in describing the vast majority of genetic variation that exists in humans."

Either that, or you were just too stupid and/or ignorant of biology to actually understand what it meant.

As for your paranoid ravings about white genocide: where I come from, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So prove it: show me a single example of ANYBODY calling for the 'Final Solution' to the white problem, and I'll be slightly less inclined to believe that are either barking mad, or a complete twat with the intellect of a gerbil.

TBC

continued

For the record: I am anti-Racist. I am white. I hereby deny supporting the genocide of white people. Indeed, I flat out oppose the genocide of anybody. I believe that all people are capable of racism, and I oppose unlimited migration from anywhere to anywhere. Please refrain from putting words into other people's mouths and then attacking the strawmen you have just created. And if you can't manage that, please refrain from believing that attacking strawmen gives your non-arguments any semblance of credibility.

TAR, as I said, race is down to founder effect and isolation. no isolation, no race. However, there HAD been significant isolation of populations throughout history. The Aborigines are possibly among the most isolated for longest. Polynesians haven't been isolated for long, but I don't think you'd have any trouble recognising a polynesian person.

Moreover, people have mostly tended to breed, in the abseence of something like rapes or war, within their own group, or at least, with people who look like them. This may be sociological, but it has an impact on the genetic variation within the population. Small variations are important - we share nearly all of our DNA with other species, the usual example given being chimpanzees at around 98% commonality. At one stage there was a serious consideration given to renaming Homo as a member of Pan, in much the same way Canis Domesticus has been reclassified as a subspecies (created through purposeful selection) of Canis Lupus.

Therefore, your claim that there isn't enough variation is simply not valid. Racial groupings do have distinct characteristics. They also have distinct sociological drivers in many cases. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As to what that means, don't ask me. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing preventing anybody in australia from doing as well as anybodt else, other than individual variation in capacity. It's a shame that there is so much effort made by some in the victim industry to make sure Aboriginal people have an additional burden imparted by their race.

Here's a start Rizla:

Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn't the kind of society we are."
- Malcolm Fraser [1] former Prime Minister of Australia.

"I believe that Australia will ultimately become a Eurasian country as Australian Europeans and Australian Asians marry one another. I think that a desirable trend". Bill Hayden [6]

"I believe very strongly we must fight for the end of the Anglo-Celtic domination of Australia. We must fight for the end of that situation in which those, like myself, who are descendants of the Anglo-Celts say that no one else would really be suitable in a top position in Australia".
- Professor Manning Clark.[9]

"Australia is something of a freak in Asia, a kind of ugly duckling, ruled by a transplanted European people soaking up the sun and skin cancer in a climate for which they were never intended…The Asian Australians who come here and form the links and bridges must have a sense of Australia first, a commitment to Australia and not a sense of carving out spheres of influence within Australia for the various countries from which they come. The lazy country will become the lovely country, the white society will be the honey-coloured society and the ugly duckling will become the honey coloured swan."
- Dr. Stephen Fitzgerald.[8]

Jay,

None of that is genocide: voluntary mixing, inter-marriage, friendships, multiple identities - how on earth is any of this genocide ? You really have to bend the definition of the word out of shape to link what may happen to the killing off of large numbers of people by virtue of their 'race'.

Seriously, Jay, what do you mean by genocide ?

Good luck,

Joe

Jay,

Words cannot express how stupid I think that notion is, at least not in this forum.

Tell me,

Did the Angles genocide the Saxons, or vise versa? Or did they self-genocide, some kind of 'homogenocide'? Can we call that homogenized?

Can I be sent to the Hague for having a child with an Asian woman (due next week :)?

You call it genocide, I call it natural selection. It's a global phenomena which has been happening for millennia. Get over it