[InchoateHand]

"2: "The biological definition of race is an categorization of organisms with differing characteristics while maintaining enough similiarities to be a part of a common genus and species. The word race in this context can be considered synomynious with sub-species."

Where is this taken from? Because its completely false. Find me one biologist who won't discredit the notion of "races" as "subspecies" and I'll find you a total moron.

Putting numbers in front of your made up information doesn't lend your idiocy any more credence.

THERE IS MORE GENETIC VARIATION WITHIN SO CALLED RACES THAN BETWEEN THEM IF RAW GENETIC VARIATION WAS THE EQUIVALENCE OF "RACE" THAN THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE RACE OUTSIDE OF SUBSAHARAN AFRICA.

This is so incredibly old news. Which rock have you been hiding under again?

You equate phenotypic variation with "sub-species..." interesting, a taxonomist you are not.

Seriously, go get yourself educated about the history of "races," and you will find that they are socially constructed notions of in/out group identities. That they shift throughout time--in relation to shifting social meanings.

Since you like numbers so much, please try to define some "races" for me. This should be fun.