This is something I've heard about too and would like to know for sure...    My educated guess is that's a trick with semantics, what I think they really mean with such claim is that there is more DNA in total that is equal between two random individuals from different races than the DNA that codes for genetic variations inside a particular race.    The catch here is the total DNA code for an organism contains absolutely every single detail, from things like being bipedal, having a heart, having two eyes, five fingers, etc...    To give an example they say that the human and chimp DNA is only 2% different, that's because the 98% that is equal codes for all the things that we have in common, two kidneys, two eyes, one mouth, etc... in that 2% there's only the code that makes us different...    So we can consider that between human races there is a smaller percentage of difference that still has dramatic differences like in the case human-chimp.    So basically if you pick two random humans from different races they're going to have 99%+ of equal genetic material, the same if you pick a random monkey and a random human they're going to have 98% equal DNA, and that's much less than the variation in that 2% that codes for the differences between groups and individuals of the two species, in humans the individual variations must be much less significant percentage-wise (I'm guessing less than 1% between races and less than 0,5% between individuals within a race group)    If this is what they mean by that claim, we can see that's an unfair comparison that only follows the agenda of minimizing the argument for genetic differences between races. We can see that minimal genetic variations result in dramatic functional changes in an organism, and that a small percentage of variation results in vast possibilities for individual differences.    In the end we could make the same argument between a random human and an orange! :rolleyes: :rofl