>>11
Heh.
>>12
The correct statement is that there is no scientifically rigorous definition of "race".
Yes, there is.
See: Avise JC, Ball RM. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. In: Futuyama D, Antonovics J, eds. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology. Volume 7. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990:45-67.
For instance, there is greater genetic variability among groups indigenous to Africa than there are between some "white" people and one of those groups.
No, there is not, unless you misappropriate human genetic variation in a quite ridiculous manner, like, for instance, based on single locus F_st to get those results. If you look at the whole genome when comparing different --> populations <--, the statistical significance within-population differences drop to ~0% (or even 0%) and the between-population differences rise to ~100% (or even 100%). It's simply because the within is non-structured, thus NOT something we exactly *share* (and thus not even something that is especially important to pass on in terms of genetic interests), whereas the between is structured across the racial patterns that leftists love to hate and that we can quite trivially statistically infer by comparing the genome of different races.
Long (but rather pointless and overfeeding the trolls) story:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/351
Might you explain the repetition of the 1972 arguments of a nation-wrecking Jew that have been refuted since at least 1925?
Did he actually fool you with his 'What do you believe, your lying eyes or us scientists?' act?
Distinctions along phenotypical lines are generally going to be pretty arbitrary.
Nonsense. The divisions, especially the major ones, are along the same lines as the genetic ones.
>>13
Normal people know that social construction theory is bullshit. Refuting insane people serves no purpose. If anyone believes in that shit, they're already intellectually comatose.