On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:11:47 +0000 (UTC), Tim Tyler 
wrote:

>Dick Beldin  wrote:
>
>: The fact that DNA variability "within" racial groups is so
close to general
>: DNA variability is what makes "race" a biologically
uninformative term. We
>: don't need it in biological issues, so why bring it up?
>
>Except it clearly does have biological relevance.
>
>Consider skin colour.
>
>Variation in skin colour is but a tiny fraction of the variation present
>in all the other genes in the genome.
>
>However that does not make it "biologially uninformative".  It affects
>susceptibility to skin cancer.  It affects the ability of the organism
>to synthesize Vitamin D.  Indeed it changes the whole surface colour of
>the organism.  Like it or not, these *are* "biological issues".
>
>The argument that the number of genes involved is small is an
>irrelevant one - since a very small number of genes can have
>very large effects.
>
>What is much more significint than their number is what the
>genes in question *do*.

Humans vary in eye color.  This is clearly a molecular biological/
biochemical/cell biological character -- that is, it is a "biological
issue".  There is clearly a genetic basis, even if not the intro
biology, Mendelian, single dominant dark gene.  No doubt, if you
really push it, you could find some "value" or "adaptive
signficance"
to having dark or to having light eyes.

That doesn't mean that eye color is therefore the basis for dividing
the human species into biological races.

The notion of "race" involves more than simply the ability to tell one
person apart from another.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/28/03 11:30:37 AM