etchuck said:
Agrees with Jenn's last remark above.
Does it surprise me? No. I think most of us who have had an ear on biomedical science and genetics and the genome project have known this for a while. We are remarkably similar to chimpanzees in our genomes, and the differences between each individual is amazingly small. Just think about it... it's a difference of two books in a library of 1000 volumes.
I was going to mention that--then thought in the present context it would only muddy the waters. After all, in wishing to dismantle the fictions and pseudo-science of race it doesn't help the argument to point out how much like chimps we all are.
The old concept of species sometimes helps--species considered as a breeding population (not as a population that
can breed). Dogs and wolves produce viable offspring--yet they are different species. And the differentiation there is only about 15,000 years old. Human populations had been geographically isolated from each other by many more thousands of years.
But it's also worth noting that for a good 3,000 years or more advances in travel have allowed and encouraged humans to interbreed far more than dogs and wolves. The last 400 years has increased that interaction dramatically, and the over the past century we've established essentially a world human community.
So as the political barriers of apartheid and such are dismantled, and the social barriers are overcome through practice and familiarity, the supposed differences in race will be a thing of the receding weird past, like the Aristotelian science of substance and accident.
Still, in the present case, if we observe how similar our genetic makeup is to the chimpanzee, that will easily allow us to see that tremendous genetic similarity doesn't override important, even crucial, genetic differences.