Interracial Dating Destroys Diversity - Interracial Dating is Wrong

I think that there may be some confusion on my claim with geographical separation. Genetic variation in our species has occurred largely due to geographic isolation across our planet. Populations historically arrested to Asia tend to have distinct variations with those bound to North America. Races aren't merely defined by geographic separation, but geographic separation is the medium by which genetic variation occurs [1][2]. Now, let's address your other claims. From reading your arguments, I would submit that you are doing two things incorrectly. First, you are overestimating the cons of interracial reproduction. Second, you are underestimating the benefits of interracial marriage. I will address both issues separately. Overestimating the Cons I again take issue to your usage of the dye analogy. I agree with your argument in part: if we combine red and blue then those specific entities of red and blue will create purple and the individuality of red and blue will be lost as they contribute to the new color. I take great concern with how you use this truth. You are again arguing that we are dumping all of our red and all of our blue together in the entire world. Now if every person in the world had to end their existing marriage and marry and reproduce with someone of a different race, then I agree that would destroy some of the diversity in our society. However, a scenario in which an entire race is removed due to interracial marriage is extremely unlikely at best. Even in the United States, one of the most racially heterogenous nations on Earth, interracial marriages happen at a rate of about seventeen percent [3]. That's less than one fourth of all marriages. In your example, you say how two races mate to have a child that mates with a third race and then all three of those races are subsequently destroyed to create the one mixed child. This route of thinking only works if those are literally the only people on this Earth. I see what you mean by saying that as more children are mixed races, they lose the ability to produce a homogenous child. However, do also keep in mind that the population of the Earth continues to rise. It is possible, if not entirely likely, that even if more couples enter into interracial marriages, the gross number of children from homogenous marriages could continue to rise. Let’s examine a hypothetical. Let’s say every family has three children. Even if one child in every generation enters into an interracial marriage, that’s still two children that marry homogenously and conserve their stock genome. I’m being extremely generous to you in this scenario, because even in the United States the real rate is less than that at 13% (again, I stress, one of the most heterogenous countries on Earth), not 33%. Therefore, in our world it is perfectly sustainable to partake in interracial marriages since, even in my generous scenario, two homogenous children will replace their homogenous parents. Even if the percentage of homogenous populations decreases in comparison with heterogenous populations (meaning there are more racially mixed persons on the planet than not), homogenous populations are not at risk for extinction. It is important to make this distinction and not to confuse the two. We are not at danger of losing the stock genomes of our species. Overall in the world, interracial marriages are extremely rare. Meanwhile, the amount of diversity created from interracial marriages increases, which leads into my second point. Underestimating the Pros Let us return to our color analogy (it's a rather good one-- well done for selecting it). You argue that it's dangerous in terms of diversity to mix our colors. Let's assume that every race on Earth is a primary color (I know there's only three primary colors but there are far more races then that so we’ll have to use our imaginations). To move beyond our primary colors, we must mix them together. Let's create four hypothetical colors: A, B, C, and D. Now let's assume that color A and B are mixed to produce color AB. And color C and D are mixed to produce color CD. From our mixing, we have produced two different colors. I stress that these colors are different. Although both colors AB and CD are mixes of primary colors they are not the same. The same is true of genetic compositions of humans. Parents A and B produce their AB child (same with CD). I've argued from my above point that we will still have plenty of A, B, C, D and whatever other colors or genes we decide to mix with afterwards. Now, we started out with four compositions, and now we have six. But we could still mix AB with C to make ABC, CD and B to make BCD, A and C to make AC, B and D to make BD and so-on. Each of these are distinct compositions compared to their parents or previous mixes and are therefore creating diversity. Even if you could argue that our stocks would be destroyed (which would be difficult thing to do) you still need to prove that the rate of diversity destroyed by interracial marriage overcomes the rate of diversity that is created. -- I look forward our final round. Well done so far! This has been a great debate. [1] http://www.harunyahya.com...-(allopathic [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.un.org...