Odd that, in the same paragraph, you refer to Asians and Animals, yet later write that referring to "allies" that alter skin color is 'quite racist.'
Recall that you were the first to even use the term "race" in this laughably inept cavalcade of whimsy in which hybridization can make an Asian and an African out of a Middle eastern...
By the way - show us all how a middle eastern becomes an Asian by mating with another middle eastern.
Because you didn’t pay attention. As explained to Sarah, skin color has nothing to do with it. Africans weren’t called Africans because they had black skin, but because the occupied the continent of Africa.
But you all consistently attempt to turn it into an issue of skin color. As Sarah did, even though I had to point out to get that even if a mutation made an African skin turn purple, we could identify them genetically as African.
And here you are, still trying to make it an issue of skin color....
How could I show you that? A middle eastern mating with a middle eastern would produce only a middle eastern. Have t you been paying attention? Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Middle eastern mates with middle eastern and produces only middle eastern. Only when the middle eastern mates with another non middle eastern, does a new race come into being.
But there you go again, ignoring that perfect genome from the beginning that through mutational error now has 90+% non functional DNA..... half of which was used to create the female....
Yes, because Africans and Asians are real things. Nobody has said different.
And missing common ancestors are things of fantasyland, nobody has said different.
We have been trying to get you to provide evidence that 2 middle easterners with identical genomes can produce offspring that become Africans and Asians solely by mating with/among their own middle eastern offspring, and you are 100% incapable of even understanding the question, it seems, much less explaining the genetics behind that impossibility.
Because 1) you start with the flawed assumption that it was not perfect, despite over the years becoming 90+% non functional because of errors.
And 2) assume that Adam and Eve were both of the same type.
And 3) continue to ignore tha over 100 breeds of dog species came from one wolf genome.....
Then reject the idea that a mere 12 to 15 races can come from one human genome....
A contradiction of the highest order....
But not other traits? Why not? why the arbitrary and unfounded demarcation?
Nothing unfounded or arbitrary about it. Simply breeding for selected traits, the same way we got a chiwawah from a wolf.
Then what are the "phonetic" traits that distinguishes an Asian from a middle eastern created man?
Do tell! And try not to be racist!
Your the only one being raciest since I have repeated many times it’s not the color of the skin that allows us to distinguish genetically between Asian, African or middle eastern...
We narrow down suspects by DNA testing without knowing the color of their skin.
Typical evolutionist, trying to turn a subject that has nothing to do with race into one of race, because they are on the loosing side of the debate.
Sure - you can look for genetic markers that tend to cluster within certain populations, haplotypes.
What do you think such things do?
Why do specific haplotypes tend to be found in certain populations?
Could it be that there is a relationship between these 'genetic strains' and "phonetic" traits?
shocking!
Sure their is a relationship because the all descended from the eight aboard the Ark, which inherited those traits from Adam and Eve.
Unlike claims of mutation randomly occurring in one individual, then magically fixing itself in the rest of the population without direct descent from that person.
I expect that relationship.