"The only thing that could make a difference is diet and exercise and acceptable forms thereof in a circumscribed community."This statement is completely false. The fact of the matter is that some races have been proven to be at a higher risk to certain diseases/conditions. Again, just like certain diseases are hereditary, many are also more abundant in specific races.

Proven is a strong word... one doesnt prove in science, instead they support.And no the statement isnt false, race as a concept is. There is more genetic variation between races than within races and the american race concept is a social contruction on top of that. There is no asian gene and there is not black or white gene (or set of genes) either.There can be a higher frequency of certain alleles in geographic area (ie sickle cell)but to consider this as a reason for saying that asians have a longer life span seems absurd.The sorts of hereditary diseases that one finds are usually simple biochemical pathways such as improperly folded hemoglobin or an inability to break down certain amino acids. Remeber that genes code for proteins which in turn are used as in biochemical pathways. They do not code for social traits!Lolo, what seems more plausible? A trait present in asians (and what is meant by asians? do you consider turks and sri lankens as asians, or just east and southeast asians) that defies all explanation by genetics, biochemistry, proteonics, and physical anthropology, or an explanation that based on cultural behaviors such as vegetarian buddist women who practice tae chi live longer than men who eat greasy starches and red meat then watch tv all day?Next time before you comment and bluntly say someones well researched posting is false do a little homework. By the way I am a physical anthropologist who researches traditional medicine and its relationship to lifespan in southeast asia so I am an expert on this subject.

Correction, I mean there is more genetic variation within races than between races (Jorde and Wooding, 2004). To say the reverse would make my entire arguement illogical.

Look up some diseases; brain tumors, heart disease, various other cancers, etc. If you do, you will see STATISTICALLY certain racial populations (as well as gender and age differences) have higher instances of contracting/developing such diseases. This can be due to the lifestyles of particular persons, genetic predispositions, and so forth. Everyone who is freaking out, and making this a "racial" issue is simply ignorant to science and statistics. All a stat tells you is the probability; the fact of the matter is anyone can get anything if exposed to the right circumstances. Science neither proves nor disproves ANYTHING, it simply expresses data that supports or rejects a hypothesis. Anyone who has taken an intro to research class is taught this. Read people, then you won't have to sound so absurdly ignorant.

The sociological study on race and logevity is absurd. No human group on the planet has an ingrained genetic basis to live longer, this article makes it seem that asians are long lived and blacks are short lived. The only thing that could make a difference is diet and exercise and acceptable forms thereof in a circumscribed community. The researcher should have dug deeper into causes of senescience than to bluntly suggest race a valid marker.