Race is much more than skin colour

Frequency of traits Blond hair: In the US, 16% of people are naturally blond [1]. In the world, around 2% of people are naturally blond [2]. Hair color works much like skin color, such that more melanin causes darker hair. Less = lighter hair [3]. But there is no single gene that creates hair color. Genes that create "dark blond" can also make black hair. This study [4] says that scientists discovered 100+ genes linked to hair color. This article [5] describes a gene mutation linked to blond hair, suggesting that it is the single gene responsible for blond hair in people of European descent. Is this a broad difference between races? No, not when you consider that over a 100 genes are linked to hair color. Height: This one is a bit trickier, but also works "additively" like hair & skin color to a certain extent; i.e. certain genes may "add" much more height than others. Scientists have discovered over 700 genes linked to height [6]. Also noteworthy: height is influenced by environment. "For example, a study of adults of Japanese descent living in the United States and native Japanese found that Japanese men and women were shorter than Japanese-Americans." [7]. There is some speculation that diets may have something to do with this, but that is beside the point. Height has environmental influence. Did you know that jumping stimulates growth in children because of the growth plates in our knees? P1. Height is many genes P2. Height is influenced by environment C: It is a bit reaching to infer that height indicates broad racial differences. On lactose intolerance 1 more time: This occurs in all races at statistically significant rates. "…does not contradict that statement that 'race is much more than skin colour'" Before accepting, I commented on this debate to point out the vagueness of this claim. I then said, "If your claim is that there are broad genetic differences (significant gene differences in …" I would debate you. I'm not sure how this was taken as: "I'll debate you if that is your claim and [another claim] is also your claim." Breakdown We agree that certain genes occur in much higher frequency in certain races. Certain genes also occur in much higher frequency in certain populations of a race. We see this especially with races separated geographically. For example, black people in Haiti vs. Kenya vs. African Americans. E.G. "…higher average blood pressure levels of western hemisphere blacks when compared with African blacks" [8] We can find many genetic differences between geographically separated races. After all, genetic testing can separate much more than race. It can inform people of many heritages such as Italian, German, Russian, Irish, etc.—indicative of the many genes linked to these groups. Take a person with 99% Italian, Russian, & Irish background. We'll say they're white. We do not consider this person a mixed race. Yet there are enough genetic differences between these groups for us to identify them as "Italian" etc. There are not enough differences for us to classify these groups under a different level of taxonomy (e.g. subspecies). Which begs the question—what is the difference between higher-frequency genes within races, geographic subgroups of race, and in a single person's family tree? We can genetically test Jane Doe's family members and gene groups will show up in much higher frequency than in other families of the same race. We'll say Jane's family has high-frequency genes for baldness, Alzheimer's, smaller noses, blue eyes, freckles, lactose intolerance, etc. There are many genes listed here. This is where con's argument becomes problematic. There is no basis for comparison to the human genome. This is a very important tool that helps us evaluate differences. Humans have around 20-25,000 genes. Two people with 100 different genes would still have 99.5 to 99.6% of the same genes. Just for reference. (*Some sources estimate there being around 30k genes) "Most genes are the same in all people, but a small number of genes (less than 1 percent of the total) are slightly different between people." [9] In round 1, pro compares races to dog breeds—yet has not offered comparisons between dogs' total genetic variations to humans'. A basis for comparison is extremely important. Allow me to use a silly analogy. A gallon of milk. One might say that's a lot of milk. Is it? That depends. Is it for an 8oz cup of coffee? Then, yeah, that's 94% milk. If we are looking at genetics objectively—we need to compare wholes to wholes. Intelligence Pro links wikipedia articles to support claims. Critical review of studies, especially race-based ones is extremely relevant to this debate. Will be discussing further. [1] "Race". Webspace.ship.edu. Retrieved 2012-04-03. [2] Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 13 April 2016. [3] https://genetics.thetech.org... [4] "Genome-wide association meta-analysis…". Nature Genetics. Vol 50. Pages 652-656. Sources continued in comments