Originally posted by patch70
If you take two random people of the same race, the chances are that they will be more different than if you compare an average white and an average black person.
You make some good points that I was about to make, but you beat me to the punch. Another example of how little genetic diversity there is among races is highlighted by the following: there is more genetic diversity among members of ones own, immediate family (i.e., brothers and sisters) than there is between the gene pools of any two races. To say that people of different races should not interbreed certainly has little scientific merit.
In the following statement, Memphman confuses culture with race. Culture is learned; race is a matter of DNA.
Originally posted by Memphmann
If you want to keep your race healthy. No matter what race it is. Inter mixing just loses a bit of race culture every generation.
The above is a fallacy. Keeping your race healthy means not subjecting the gene pool to forces which are counter to its survival. Interbreeding from one race to another does no such thing. Losing race culture, on the other hand, is a matter of communication and learning. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the gene pool. This is why an eskimo raised with a black family in Brooklyn, New York will have the mannerisms, gestures and speech, including accent, of the black family, not the eskimos in Alaska. I have seen this, and this is only one example. I have seen many such examples of culture being learned from members of one race to another race. With improvements in communications and the internet world wide, I suspect there will be less localization of cultures and a broader, more mainstream culture worldwide. And what's wrong with that? People can choose to accept or reject what they like from any culture around the globe because we can expose ourselves to such influences much more easily now than we could only 30 years ago. We don't have to limit our learning to our regional location or to our race.