Who says they haven't? And what does that have to do with Christianity? 

Come on. We aren't even close to understanding the human genome. It's in this ambiguity that people insert their ideology. 

Did you know that you share 50% of your genes with a banana? Slight variations to the frequency of alleles in the genome can produce different results. My point is that in 50,000 years, significant changes have taken place. Not in percentage terms of what we understand of the human genome, but in obvious, observable, testable reality.

It was just a little jab at the people who laugh at Christians for not believing in evolution while simultaneously ignoring the obvious differences between people who evolved on different parts of the planet over the last 50,000 years.

Oh and lots of people seem to have this mindset. 

Who cares? o.o

The fact that evolution has occurred implies that we are different from what we were 50,000 years ago, not that we have increased the divisions within the species. That is a different question altogether, and they shouldn't really be compounded to imply hypocrisy. 

"When I go to a doctor about, say, high blood pressure, he doesn't ask me where in the world my family originated from, he asks me if anyone in my family suffers from high blood pressure. The reason for this is because within-group variation is often much larger and more prominent than between-group variation."

the fact that in group variation is higher than between group group variation is irrelevant

if we say a range of 110 to 140 is greater than a range from 70 to 80 but then say that for our purposes we cannot exceed 100... what factors then are most important?

"since when have we divided humans based on susceptibility to high blood pressure? "

hypertension?

"Susceptibility to disease is more or less irrelevant to a school."

so why was there discussion about children going to school who were not vaccinated?

" I have a black friend who does not have a history of high blood pressure. If we are dividing based on medical characteristics, it would make far more sense to put me and hypothetical black friend in the same groups and hypothetical white friend in a separate group. Why would we use such broad brush divisions which serve poorly as a predictor?"

this is like saying why bother hitting on a girl since she might end up being gay... i mean really?

"I'm not really sure what kind of answer you are looking for on this question"

the one you presented was sufficient

She identifies as a race she is not. It's one thing if a person believes something like that but it's quite another when laws are made that make everyone else have to play along.

"As long as there's at least one flying creature that isn't a bird, and as long as there's at least one bird that can't fly; flying is not a charasteristic of birds."

lol ok

there've been people born with 8 limbs... would you as a result say that being bipedal is, therefore, not a characteristic of human beings?

"I don't know how you could possibly have concluded that out of what I wrote."

you said that the characteristics we use to categorise are artificial, the labels may be, but obviously not the characteristics themselves, or was that what you were saying? if so i apologise

"Platypus don't give birth to living youngs, yet they're mammals. Do you start to notice how complex and random these divisions are sometimes?"

i do but you don't, is your argument not that the divisions do not exist at all?

"The idea of 'cannibalism' is just as artificial as 'species'."

so there's no difference between killing and eating a cow versus a human?

"However, there's no way to strictly determine which reason is better than others."

yeah i can tell you've got the whole "everything is subjective nothing is objective" thing going on

but regardless, if there are no inherent differences between animals why can't elephants swim in fish schools?

"scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology

Nope."

really now, so what have scientists created as an example?

1) The issue is that between-group variation typically overlaps (which is something I said in my last post), leaving you with competing ranges of 70-120 vs 80-130. As such, the majority of the "difference" is virtually indistinguishable. And even still, other factors such as family history tend to be a better indicator of the potential presence of a particular trait than race. 

2) Do you consider hypertension to be a natural social division? Were you asked whether you had hypertension when you were taking the SAT? Again, if the doctor wants to know these things, that is fine, but these aren't social divisions. These are not things that are relevant in pretty much any context but the doctor's office (and even still, their relevance there is extremely limited and most of the time irrelevant). As such, to maintain these divisions outside of the extremely limited context where they have any application is to socially construct their importance. Which is what I've been arguing. So the question becomes: do you disagree that the heavy importance and social divisions built around race are socially constructed? 

3) Because that is about the potential of being contagious. High blood pressure and male pattern baldness and other diseases with a strong genetic component typically aren't contagious. To bring it up is to kind of sidestep this entire conversation.

4) How is it like that in literally any way? What is that even supposed to mean?

5) No response?

Except that this law doesn't do that... Since it explicitly states that they can reject the self identification.

I'll ask the same question that other people talking about how insane this is refuse to answer.

What would you do differently to enter data for the Delaware school computer systems?