Terrible comparison. Gender has a fundamental, undeniable biological basis.

Race does not.

No, dog breeds have been artificially split into very small groups, which have very well kept records. If humans were split off into, say, extended and isolated family groups with well kept records (like dogs) - it would be very easy to put them into line genetically.

And, as I stated before, breeds of dog were mostly created by humans over a very short span of time by total isolation, something which did not happen to humans. But in the end, dog breeds are determined only by what people think they should look like - not genetics.

So... An infant of one race, removed from that group and raised by another, will somehow lose the traits that we refer to as "race"?

That would make it a social construct.

But I am ONLY talking about the difference in appearance that has been labeled via the word race.

*sigh*

Ronin - you`re wanting to fight about this, and are interpreting my words in a way that fits into what you THINK someone would want to say about race. Which isn`t the case. I`m actually very close to agreeing with you, and only wanted to clear up the LACK OF GENETIC DISTINCTION between dog breeds - which does indeed make it similar to the human race concept. You`re taking offense at the word "race" - would it sound better if I used "groups of humans who share the same traits in appearance"? Because that is what I am trying to say it is - just as dog breeds are no more than human names for sets of traits in appearance.

Race goes beyond the traits. I've explained this.

Fair enough... perhaps I'm misinformed about the dogs... I was certain I read it somewhere.

But when we talk of genetics - the difference or lack thereof - we`re not talking about political ramifications. Your interpretation of the word "race" appears to be significantly different than my own in this discussion.

I am thinking of the genotype/phenotype - not how those are interpreted by society.

Phew. Please don`t go on the defensive so quickly.

I'm unaware of your interpretation of the term to be honest. But you've explained yourself I guess and splitting hairs beyond this is pointless. :)

I don't know about that second set... Alba looks kind of Asian, in my opinion.

That is a bit different from what I am saying. In a population of the same species (like humans, dogs, cats are regardless of "breed" or "race") I find it hard to imagine some group favoring a sickly, unintelligent population. That is the difference between breeding for specific traits and natural favoring of traits. The traits that are desired by the breeders more than often are not improving the health of the population. (Which is why certain dog breeds are very prone to disability and illness).

What do you mean by blood line? A? B? O? AB? The humans could be any of the blood lines. Or are two of them related... then it's a no brainer. Going by the traits and ignoring the fact that I know who Jessica Alba is, I can deduce the Asian girls are more likely to be related.

(Though as Jaydalert has alluded to, Alba could be related to one of them going by physical traits alone)