Col, you are aware that genetic diversity among sub-Saharan Africans is far greater than genetic diversity among the entire rest of the world's population? The reason for this is simple - the entire rest of the world's population are the ancestors of a small group of Africans leaving the continent some 60,000 years ago. 60,000 is not a lot of time for new genetic diversity to evolve.
A considerable number of these made it to Australia, in various waves, and formed the basis for the Aboriginal population. Much much later, what was almost certainly an even smaller subset of the original diaspora made to Europe and formed the basis of today's native European population. On that basis, it is quite likely that the average genetic difference between two white Europeans is less than the average difference between two Aboriginals.
Unfortunately I can't find any references to confirm this, although this site: http://www.biology.iastate.edu/intop/1Australia/04papers/TressaAborigOrign.htm mentions the high mtDNA diversity, whereas this paper:
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp6proc/antti.htm
mentions the *low* diversity of Europeans and high diversity of Africans.

Some of you should have a look at this book called "Race, Evolution and Behaviour", really quite incredible stuff. Explosive.

Dnicholson,
The rule as I recall it was –the further from their source humans had ventured, the less genetic diversity they had–

However, it might be more important to know in what fields a populations diversity lay.High diversity in a narrow area such as hair texture , could well bump up their diversity rating,but it would be hard to (seriously) see how it would hold much consequence .

As a geneticist, I think Col Rouge makes a good bean counter.

Human race spread from Africa-so, how it is happens that “whites” are “superior” to “blacks” with the similar genome?

Perhaps, it is superior just in figures of imaginations of so-called “professors” –money-suckers linked to an English crown somehow to legitimise existence of this walking anachronism.

I guess Jennifer Clarke's invidious "displace whitey" article well and truly elicited its intended response. Sadly though, the author never returned to back up some of her more preposterous arguments.

Afflicted by psychopathological self-hatred, Jennifer Clarke seems to share Susan Sontag's opinion that "the white race is the cancer of civilisation." Needless to say, it's really quite astonishing how racist these self-proclaimed 'anti-racists' can be. Faced with such virulent Europhobia, European-descended Australians have every legitimate reason to fear and resist a substantial shift in our nation's ethnic composition. Assimilating non-Western immigrants into Australia's traditionally European culture is becoming increasingly problematic. Europhobia makes it nearly impossible. As many of the newcomers adopt such Europhobic sentiments, Australians of European ancestry will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps even physical violence.

In 'multicultural' Australia, ethnocentrism among non-Western minorities is not only tolerated but actually encouraged. Yet, as Euro-Australians become minorities in areas heavily impacted by immigration - and eventually the whole country - the proponents of multiculturalism will have no moral ground for objecting when we follow their examples.

If the multicultis and open-borders brigade wish to radically alter the makeup of Australia, the burden of proof should rest of them to show that racism, i.e., Europhobia, is not their real motive for pushing this almost unprecedented social experiment.