Scientists will now tell you race is not a bioligcal concept but a 'social structure'. The main reasons they will use to support this are 1= all humans share 99% of the same type of genes, therefore, many/most people have more in common genetically with someone of a different race then with someone with their own race. 2=Scientists haven't 'discovered any 'race genE' and 3=humans are too evolutionary young too have evolved into distinct subspecies/races.
1= True, all human beings do share 99.9% of the same type of genes, and it is not unlikely for me to have more in common, genetically, with a person of European descent then with another person of African descent, if you examine all 100% of our genes and not those that are racially defintive. This might sound impressive but not when put into context. Human share 20-30% of the same type of genes with common yeast and bacteria, 80% with birds, 90% with non-primate animals and 99% with both chimpanzees and mice( so it's not unlikely for me to have more in common genetically with a mouse or chimpanzee then with a fellow human being, if you examine all 100% of our genes and not the 1% that make us a completely different species). Humans even have the genes that can produce mouse tails. Considering onlt 1% of our 3.1 billion genes make us a completely different species from mice, chimpanzees and who knows what else, I'm sure .1% of our 3.1 billion genes are actually quite significant.

2=Scientists say they haven't discovered any 'race genE'( as if their is supposed to be one gene alone that determines your race ) yet, with regards to the genetic simlarites humans have with other species, there isn't any one 'human genE' either. If there were, wouldn't all humans look exactly alike and not be able to reproduce 'properly'( deformed babies due to lack of genetic diversity ). This is like buying a box of leggos and expecting their to be only one block ,instead of many blocks to make a building.

3= Scientists say human beings are too evolutionary young to have developed into subspecies, yet there are many organisms, sparrows for example, who have developed into distinct subspecies( which scientists do not find 'superfical' to classify based on phenotype )in shorter time the we. Is there a set amount of time it takes for a species of organisms to develop into subspecies?

Scientists say classifying humans into subspecies is difficult and problematic, apparently, but this never stopped them with classifying other organisms into subspecies, just because it was at first difficult or problematic. They often confuse the concept of 'race' with the concept of 'species'. The fact that humans can and do reproduce interracially and the fact that there are many bi or multi racial people or that not many of us are 'fullblooded'( supposedly) doesn't somehow prove race doesn;t exist.

The purpose for this misinterpretation that race is not bioligical, is entirely politically motivated. 'color blindness' is considered by the dominant culture to be politically correct, and this isn't the first time ideaology has hindred our understanding of science( think back to 3/4ths of a human being ). 'race deconstructionsists' seek to"debunk" the "concept" of race by using semantics and playing word games of political correctness. The only way this is possible, is with excessive interracial mating, to the point where everyone in the future is multi/biracial. This is why websites like interracialvoices.com and multiracialactivist.com focus so much on this.

Like the little boy in The Emperors New Clothing, I would much rather rely on my ow intuitive judgement and common sense then to think dependtly on the "big professional experts"