<DIV>Luke, you're wrong here. I have never seen any respectable arguments by any serious biologist that suggests that race has any biological reality. The diversity within any so-called racial group is greater than the diversity between any such group. Race serves no serious biological explanatory function, and not even any serious cladistic function. And I don't see this out of PC. I'd be happy to concede the existence of races if they were biologically useful, or even that there was a serious debate about their explanatory value. But I am not aware that there is even that. jks Charles Brown <cbrown@michiganlegal.org> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">From: "Luke Weiger" <LWEIGER@UMICH.EDU> It is true that the chacteristics differentiating one species from another are clearer than those separating one sex from another, which are clearer than those separating one race from another. However, I think the shakiness of arguments to the effect "species don't really exist" is also shared in kind (though not nearly to the same degree) by arguments that conclude that "races don't really exist." ^^^^^^ Charles: What are some of your arguments that human, biololgical races do exist ? What is the unclarity in differentiting one sex from another other ? Isn't the difference being able to have fertile sex with the different sex ? ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/">SBC Yahoo! DSL</a> - Now only $29.95 per month!