Yes, my complaint is that you are highjacking an article on species differentiation in giraffes to talk about purported human subspecies. No, we emphatically d

Yes, my complaint is that you are highjacking an article on species differentiation in giraffes to talk about purported human subspecies. No, we emphatically do not have that high of a genetic difference. Quite the opposite. The diversity in human genetics is relatively small compared to other species. For example, quoting http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v27/n2/full/ng0201_155.html http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v27/n2/full/ng0201_155.html : > The extent of DNA sequence variation of chimpanzees is several-fold greater than that of humans[1]. It is unclear, however, if humans or chimpanzees are exceptional among primates in having low and high amounts of DNA sequence diversity, respectively. To address this, we have determined approximately 10,000 bp of noncoding DNA sequences at Xq13.3 (which has been extensively studied in both humans and chimpanzees[1, 2]) from 10 western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and 1 mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei; that is, from 2 of the 3 currently recognized gorilla subspecies[3]), as well as 8 Bornean (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) and 6 Sumatran (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) orang-utans, representing both currently recognized orang-utan subspecies[4]. We show that humans differ from the great apes in having a low level of genetic variation and a signal of population expansion. I'll repeat that last line for emphasis: "humans differ from the great apes in having a low level of genetic variation" The paper I linked to previously specifically compares the differences in DNA between chimpanzee subspecies to any putative human subspecies. > We know that there is human geographical variation, but does this infraspecific diversity reach a threshold that merits the designation 'subspecies', as is true with chimpanzees[14]? ... > The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (approx85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient[18], although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times[19, 20] calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence[15]. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence. ... > Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations. DNA doesn't lie. Humans lie, or are mistaken. Please demonstrate that you are not mistaken, and tell us the source of your statement that "We have greater genetic difference between races than ANY example of subspecies in existence". What are the two most distinct human subspecies, and what is their level of DNA similarity? How does that compare to the difference in chimp subspecies?