On re-reading my response, Shockadelic, I think I owe you an apology for misrepresenting something you had said (Sorry, cold and flu tablets):

<<I can't be bother looking for your precious articles because I don't need an egghead with heaps of letters after their name to tell me that if outbreeding depression occurs in animals, it occurs in humans.>>

It’s not that you are not interested in what experts have to say (as I had claimed), it’s that you made the issue out to be a question of whether or not outbreeding depression occurs in humans too. Yet I had never denied that it did and nor was I asking for evidence that it did. I was simply trying to find evidence that it is, to any extent, detrimental in humans; particularly given our relatively small gene pool.

This sort of misreprentation seems to be a common theme in your posts. Take your quoting of me out-of-context by simply responding to the:

"How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant"

...in my comment…

“You would need to ask the chocolate [whether or not it feels discriminated against]. How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant.”

You selectively quoted me to justify introducing your unrelated (to what I had said) claim that the opinions of homosexuals who feel discriminated against are somehow unimportant, misplaced and irrelevant. You used my words to divert attention from your bungled analogy and in a way that caused them to lose all meaning.

Going back to gene pools for a minute, you’re obviously not aware that 85% of genetic variation can be seen within a single community; only 10-15% comes from the differences between continents; and the visible differences between different populations make up less than 1% of the human genome. That leaves over 99% of the human genome to lack variation and yet you make out as though the visible differences are enough to come to the conclusion that humans don’t have a small gene pool!

This is what happens when we rely on commonsense and are not interested in what “eggheads” have to say.

"How embarrassing. Such a simplistic understanding of genetics."

You're embarrassing.
Why do you think a Tibetan doesn't look like a Zulu?
Environment? Custom? Free will? The influence of mass media?

"that it is, to any extent, detrimental in humans"

Outbreeding depression is, by definition, detrimental.

"That leaves over 99% of the human genome to lack variation"

But it's the variation, and its untested recombinations, that can cause outbreeding depression!
Sheesh!

“How much of a problem is this?”

That's just it.
You don't know.
You are throwing dice.

If you breed a Zulu with a Zulu, you already know of any potential risks from past examples.

But breed a Zulu with a Tibetan, who knows?
They've never interbred before.

A genetic component that's no problem for Zulus and another that's no problem for Tibetans, when *combined* may be a big problem.

My real concern is that if you bring in millions of people from other ancestries, how are "Australians" (as the people *we* are recognised to be) going to survive?

We cannot do that if this open-to-anything (80% non-White) policy continues forever.

"In other words, you’re only interested in that which supports your preconceived ideas."

My ideas are based on research I've done.
The research came first, then the opinion.

"There’s a ton of information about genetic racial differences."

Apparently not in relation to outbreeding depression, or you'd have found some!

"the *chocolate* was the subject of the labelling; not you or even your relationship to it."

And your point is?
"Marriage" is just a label too.

It is not a description of those involved.
There are married people who love each other, hate each other, feel nothing for each other, are monogamous, are unfaithful, are kinky wife-swapping swingers, are abstinent.

The gay activists want "marriage" just as I want "chocolate".

They aren't content with "defacto", "partnership", "union" or any other *label*.

Yet for all intents and purposes, their relationships *currently* (with no legal reform) are recognised anyway by governments and many private companies.

They are petulantly clamouring for "chocolate" when they already have "cocoasolids".
The analogy holds.

Tome, Kipp and others who write short opinions I do appreciate, unfortunately with many others I tend to go to sleep with long lengthy letters, perhaps writing has changed of late, short & to the point with letter writing was my learning some years ago, I must admit I skip paragraphs when one shouldn't be doing that, do others have this problem or am I alone with OLO letters?. A short time ago we had two people writing only, no one else was writing although many had opinions in the beginning, perhaps like me they began to think what is the use of writing, leave it to the experts.

Shockadelic,

I think I'm starting to understand why you appear to quote people out-of-context, as you did with me earlier with your "irrelevant" comment earlier. You're just borrowing words from the quote. You must be. How else could such an unrelated response as this be explained..?

<<You're embarrassing.
Why do you think a Tibetan doesn't look like a Zulu?>>

But this is an improper use of quotes. It's the debating equivalent of, "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?" Very childish.

More importantly, though, why do YOU think that I think a Tibetan doesn't look like a Zulu? Apparently I've alluded to something other than environment, at some point.

<<Outbreeding depression is, by definition, detrimental.>>

I've already provided you with an example of outbreeding depression that is not detrimental. Can you point to a specific example of where it has shown itself to be detrimental in humans? Surely there must be millions of examples.

<<...it's the variation, and its untested recombinations, that can cause outbreeding depression!>>

In today's small world, it's being tested all the time. It has been tested since the invention of the wheel (and then later ships) made distant travel easier. So again, you must have no shortage of examples to point to.

For your argument to be taken seriously, you would also need to provide some reason to suspect that the less-than-1% would be such a concerning gamble, despite us having over 99 other percents that are very rarely ever a problem. What is it about this less-than-1% that is of such a concern that it makes a "rational" argument against interracial marriage? There are many untested combinations within any given community.

<<My ideas are based on research I've done.>>

Then why can't you provide reliable sources?

<<Apparently [there isn't a ton of information about genetic racial differences] in relation to outbreeding depression, or you'd have found some!>>

Or maybe it's just not a concern. My humouring of your ideas aside, we do actually know enough about genetics and the human genome to know that your concerns are unfounded.

Continued…

…Continued

<<And your point is?>>

That your analogy was invalid. You would have understood that had you not omitted the first half of that sentence of mine.

<<"Marriage" is just a label too.>>

I know, and pointing this out doesn't negate my point, because...

<<The gay activists want "marriage" just as I want "chocolate".>>

The difference is that the label "chocolate" has no symbolic significance to the person who prefers, or does not prefer, another label; and nor is it an indication of, or nor does it effect the way, society perceives/accepts them. Anyone who gets upset over the labeling of chocolate, on the other hand, is in need of psychological help. Symbology is important to humans. The fact that most of those, who want a different word for homosexual unions, just don't like "poofs" is a good example of this too.

So your analogy is still invalid, and your comparison is offensive to anyone who respects the feelings of others.

Shocker,

All this harping on about 'outbreeding depression' is just an excuse for your hatred of mixed marriages, and your generally racist attitude towards all non-whites.
'In-breeding' in humans is a far more dangerous practice - which is why it is highly inadvisable for first-cousins to marry.

Have you not heard of 'hybrid vigour'?
Even the cross-breeding with Neanderthals you mentioned previously, and with some positive delight, was a case of inter-racial marriage.

There has been some study identifying that sexual attraction is partly based on being attracted to pheromones which indicate 'differences' in genetic makeup which are 'complimentary' to one's own genetic makeup.
In this case, likes repel, and un-likes attract - and apparently for good reason, as diversity makes for strength.