If you could be any other race ?

[ForumMember77]

snip

I think I heard this one before.

The argument goes that;
Within any of the assumed racial categories that exist, the potential gene variety of all the human races can be found and expressed. Thus race doesn't exist/has no taxonomic meaning.

That is to say a black woman can have a white baby and so on, recent example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...other.html

Is this what you mean?

Because I think I remember this being debunked as left-wing political bias trying to infect science.
Whilst it's true that the genetic variety of the entire human species is present, and even expressed, in any of the assumed racial categories.
The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

And differences are not 'skin deep'.

Human racial classifications have vexed anthropologists and geneticists for the last half-century, since biologists began to question the validity of taxonomy be- low the species level (Wilson and Brown 1953). The following flaws were repeat- edly pointed out (Lieberman and Jackson 1995; Keita and Kittles 1997; Templeton 1998). (1) There are no agreed-upon criteria for when to assign formal names to groups that might more appropriately be considered aggregates of local populations. (2) Race classifications fail for phenotypically intermediate populations. (3) They fail for individuals who trace their ancestry to two or more named races. (4) They are defied by sets of characters that show independent geographic trends. (5) It has been difficult to relate many human populations as distinct evolutionary lineages.

Another objection to racial classifications has been advanced for the past 30 years. This view holds that race classifications are unjustifiable when the variation within groups exceeds the variation between groups. Lewontin (1972) showed that 85.4% of the human species diversity could be attributed to allelic variation within populations, 8.3% to variation between populations within races, and only 6.3% to interracial variation. Many other studies have reiterated this finding (Barbujani et al. 1997).

Long, J. C. & Kittles, R. A. (2003). Human genetic diversity and the non-existence of biological races. Human Biology, 75 (4), pp. 449-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hub.2003.0058
[/quote]

That's exactly how I said the argument goes, and I've already explained why it's all perceived to be wrong by many people with more knowledge in this area than either of us.

As I said, I asked why and you explained. I was a little curious to see if people were still trying to pedal this discredited idea.

Can't we just agree that your a big stupid doo doo head far too indoctrinated to grasp your wrong, and continue on with the game ?