If part of Race A’s (50 unique genes) is as in the above example of water, e.g salt, now theirs a fundamental and real difference between A and B. We now have salt water and fresh water. We have our races.

^ That statement goes to prove that percentage “from a genetic point of view there is actually greater differences within racial groups than between them”, is not correlated with importance.

Neanderthal shared 99.95% of DNA as we do, thus showing that the most minute differences are the most important between RACES and SPECIES.
A monkey (not sure which one) has 98% the same DNA as us. Once again that minute 2% difference (as opposed to the genetic diversity amongst an isolated population of humans being bout 15%), plays the most important role. As the 2% led to a hairy creature (species) who spends his time in the tree’s, as apposed to a hairless, biped, making mass civilizations and using advanced communication.

Mercuris- memes do not explain anatomical differences amongst different peoples brains.

This statement “should like to see the research that you have done to justify that brains are different between races. Have you produced a new theory which supercedes DNA “-Logic, the Tasmanian aboriginals had 13,000 yrs of pure isolation and got their unique DNA. Theirs your case study. They were a true race!

Your only grounds for an argument come from the plausible fact that “if one person of African decent broke into the European population, then he would have an 80% chance of being the father of all Europeans alive today.”-dawkins. Though technically true “but the genes of this person would over thousands of years become so diluted, that it is in fact plausible, that none (genes) would have survived’-dawkins. So the Europeans became a race!

But if anyone tells me that race does not exist, if anyone tells me that the Tasmanian Aboriginals were NOT a race (due to 13,000 years of genetic isolation), they then refuse to believe in evolution, and suffer from an inability to take the multicultural blindfold off and notice reality.I,now,know,a,way,to,get,around,the,word,limit,but,will,not,abuse,this,site.

5 THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE (USA context, but relevant here as well) http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian

Banjo

You are confusing law with culture. Our laws often forbids culturally derived practices. eg smoking in pubs, drink driving, child marriages.

You are also confusing the existence of mixed cultures with a government backed policy that acknowledges that this cultural diversity exists rather than trying to socially discourage variations.

When my Jewish niece married a boy of Irish Catholic background all the guests joined in both traditional Jewish circle dancing and Irish jigs. Guinness was drunk by both sides. And they all loved it. That is what multiculturalism is about.

Obviously - look to the facts no one is denying the existence of race - go back and read what I said - it is however merely a label to differentiate - between groups.

Raineir has spelt it out in more detail than I can bother with - but read his post carefully - it is easy

Go back to the books - there are genetic differences - minor - cosmetic - BUT as I said there is a greater likely hood that there are more differences (genetic) between you and me - assuming you are a white anglo type as am I - than between me and Osama Bin Laden or Idi Amin.

It might be convenient to think the way you do but you are mistaken.

I know it is an old remedy to what seems to ail you - and you may never have even heard of it - but I suggest you take a Bex and have a good lie down - you seem a little frazzled at the moment.

It seems my vitriol (and support of similar-minded OLO'ers - apologies to those i offended with it) has achieved some purpose and benjamin can now express ideas without relying on the racist-type language that i showed was so prevalent in earlier posts (undercurrents do still exist in his new Clark Kent persona).

I’m still waiting for an answer on what:
'people' you think I am;
my 'Slogan' is that is all I am to you; and
which 'cesspool' i crawled out of?

You currently seem to think I must be a:
Supremacist Islamist,
one of their far-leftist allies, or
incapable.

It is you who is incapable of understanding that I am a moderate who is passionately opposed to the kind of simplistic bigotry you first chose to express your ideas with (moreso than the ideas themselves), as much as i am to the fanaticism within the followers of all religions, not just Islam.

Now that we are both able to clearly and more rationally express ourselves, lets find some common ground, since it seems MC requires we both live in the same country, leaving our mutual disgust in the playground where it belongs, OK?

I 'prejudged' you on the basis of the 'style' of argument presented and your apparent incapability of seeing anything other than your own self-righteousness. That style has lately been modified. I don't yet see in you an ability to see much, if any, further - sorry to say, but it is what your choices of words evoke.

It’s impossible to address your questions directly without acknowledging they have some kind of legitimacy and I and many others do not believe in legitimising even slightly, the limited view you adopt your belief and perception to. If that makes us weak in your eyes, so be it. It’ll bring you nothing but grief in the long run. The world won’t side with you over Reality.

I urge ALL to look up 'Confirmation Bias' and read why it’s 'the most subversive of all behavioural FLAWS'. We ALL have it. Some to extreme degrees.

Iraq was brought in to (cont.)

show non-western culture was far advanced of western culture at one point and that it still carries much that's of value and today we are richer for it - a fact completely lost on you. You accuse me of bringing genetics into it - nothing is further from truth but you cannot see that. Why?

'smearing "my ancestors with mud on their faces", you again reveal racism':
Wrong! I was not smearing or being racist - the smear was of actual warpaint (woad) on a person's face (still done by western military to this day), NON-derogatory and was to describe the period in your ancestor's evolution relative to Iraq's for comparison and appreciation - not to imply 'anglo's are inferior as you seem to want to make it. It seems you are the one who has to grow up here? I am not the one making ill-informed claims of cultural superiority.

Although the west has ripped-off a little technology (Chinese Gunpowder) that also was not what i was saying. I meant the West rips off the third world (and ensures they stay third world in the process) by consuming their resources, including labour, without giving FAIR compensation. We get benefits, companies make huge profits, they get to stay in poverty and are paid a pittance of the nett wealth. Slavery was a minute fraction of the ripoff.

The Real motivation for your millions migrating? to where the Money is! (values fall a distant second).

Western 'culture' is far more 'advanced' than female genital mutilation - we just cut boy's foreskins off. Western culture has made pornography into an accepted part of free-enterprise while hypocritically making censorship laws forbidding the display of love and affection (killing is fine). Laws against drugs and paedophilia while some members of the moral elite indulge in one or both (unless 'caught'). When did christianity wipe paedophilia from it's clergy?

You show only the worst of non-western culture and equate it with a concocted half-fantasy of the best from western culture. That is what I call 'racist'. 'Me'-good,-them-bad. Follow any of that? Try-putting-the-worst-of-Western-up-against-the best-of-the-rest-and-see how-you-go? (Sorry-OLO)