| the-pi-guy said: You can't break people down into races by skin color any more than you can by height, hair color or anything else. Except it's even worse with skin color, because skin color changes due to sunlight exposure. Arguing that race is established on clinical grounds ignores the fact that races differ based on materials in their bodies. Different compositions could affect certain drugs, but those different compositions aren't enough to separate people into races. |
Except I'm not here to act as a member of the stormfront community (I'm not even caucasian) and I especially don't intend to define race by just skin colour (that stance is just too simplistic to hold up to scrutiny) but I'm also not interested into dealing with political tripe mixed in with science ... (I imagine it's a similar deal with most people on this side of the fence)
I'm here to look for an intellectually honest and rigorous discussion based on data rather than absolutes ...
@Underlined Which just proves my point that there ARE biological/physiological consequences for "geographical races" as I outlined in my previous post ... 
I base my argument around how these "populations" match the migratory genetic drift along the continental boundaries to define what "race" is and hope to believe this is the stance most of us holds. Unfortunately, this view does have some compatibility with that of a white supremacists which sadly undermines the hard work that human population geneticists do to collect this interesting data but what these white supremacists don't realize that by using evolution to further their argument is that there are certain trade-offs to be had with adaptations so it is not a "one-way" street so to speak ... 
