Biology Isn't Fair

Cathexis, it's not the researcher's argument that biological diversity threatens equal identity. That's the argument of many modern progressives (a group that I frequently vote with) who assert that biology must be irrelevant to justice, except when it is exculpating (mental illness, etc.).

Equality of outcome (a dubious goal) starts from an assumption that there is equality of biology and if we follow through with equality of treatment, we can all live in a level of comfort that is both fair and equal. If equality of biology is unattainable and getting farther away, an expectation of equal outcomes can't be sustained. I'm a little alarmed by increasing acknowledgment of biological inequity, as it would be a mistake for inequalities of biology and opportunity to be translated into permanent power disparities, but such a trend may be inevitable.

Individuals do not evolve by themselves.
Groups evolve as a result of environmental pressures. This is biology 101.
If I'm a black guy and my friend is a white guy and the last common ancestor we share is one that dates back 20,000 years, there is still less than 1% difference in our actual genes.
We are both the same species, Homosapien.
Homosapies (the "we" everyone keeps mentioning) have not evolved and no longer need to evolve because now "we" pressure our environment to conform to us instead of the other way around.

Post Script:
To peterbbultman,
I take it from your non-sentence that you are a proponent of eugenics. Shut up you racist D-bag. Dude, don't wait for baby jesus to bring the rapture, just preform a post-natal abortion on yourself right now.
Peace.

Look at crime states and tell me that the races aren't different. Pro-Eugenics. www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com

I find the argument disinegenuous. "Justice" has to be premised on 'equal identity" and biological diversity threatens that? Nonsense! Why in the world would Justice be dependent on such a thing?!?

I suggest that the speaker takes an unfounded/unproven personal belief and proceeds to build up an argument about "acceptance" and such upon that. Taking trivialities such as musical ability, and conflating individual genetics with racial genetics is deceptive, at best. I don't believe anyone doubts individual genetics. However, the genetic differences between human races is incredibly small and the speaker makes no substantive c ase as to why "Justice" should vary based on any tiny differences.

Human diversity is not just due to huge increase in the population, but though (1) a selective elimination through death and destruction by wars and ethnic aggression imposed by a select few groups on another set of select few. , as well as through (2) mass starvation and death due to famines. In either case, the eliminated ones constitute the part of those selected against from Darwinian way of looking at the scenario. Nonetheless, the definition of equality has to be made carefully, not interms of the equality of the phenotype but the equal opportunity which is exactly what was not alloowed during past 2000 years of human
civilizational advance. In the era of Genom ics we have very quickly passed the stage where chimps were considered so close to humans that any intrahuman diversity was excluded. Not so any more. Indeed, mostgenomics guys have forgotten or egnored the possibility that weven with all genes being present and/or similar, the decisive factors involves the expression program of the pattern forming gene clusters and the epigenetic implications of physical and social environment.

I can see only flaw in this statement of "challenge our notions of justice" based on individuality. Science and research are just that. The studying, analyzing, and theorizing of something. All of which in themselves is challenged by the question until that is all you have. A question with no definite answers, because of evolution. We are what we are now, and until we physically transform let us abide by the law of one for all, and all for one.