"There is Only One Race, The Human Race" Is an Incorrect Statement

My opponent has issued this debate based on an old debate of mine, of which concluded in a way Con doesn't like [8]. Seeing as my opponent has opted to post her arguments first, I presume she's accepted the full BoP as she hasn't said anything to the contrary. My opponent also neglected to define the term "race" in her R1, leaving me to conclude we are using the same definition used in the original debate, which was:A race is a subgroup of a species.Therefore, if I can show that there are distinct subgroups within the human genome, I will have affirmed the resolution and won the debate. Oddly enough, even though Con had access to all my arguments, her opening round didn't address any of them, and in fact all of her points are preemptively debunked in my R1 argument of the original debate, so I will reiterate my argument here and afterwards make comments on some specific points from her opening arguments. Enjoy!1. Humans are a Genus The term "human" applies to all members of the genus homo. When we say "we are human", we are claiming to be a member of a group spanning 14 distinct species of hominid. Those species are (in order from oldest to most recent) [1];H. habilisH. gautengensisH. rudolfensisH. ergasterH. erectusH. antecessorH. heidelbergensisH. cepranensisH. neanderthalensisH. rhodesiensisH. sapiens idaltuH. floresiensisDenisova homininH. sapiens sapiens(modern humans)It should be noted that a few of these, namely Neanderthals and idaltus, are not universally considered to be distinct species, but rather a sub-species (or race) of Homo Sapiens. This, by definition, already proves that there are distinct races of human, but there's a more fundamental argument at play. If human beings are a genus, and a race is a sub-group within a species, then etymologically speaking one cannot say that there is only one race of human as that would be conflating our genus (homo) with our species (sapien [sapien]). It would be akin to saying, "there is only one kind of dog breed; the canine breed", ignoring the fact that the term "canine" actually includes dingoes, wolves (of which there are 5+ breeds), jackals, coyotes and domestic dogs [2]. Therefore, to make the claim that the "human race" is the only race is immediately incorrect terminologically speaking. This statement equivocates race with genus, a jump of 2 orders, which makes it even less correct than saying "there is only one race, the sapien race" or "there is only one genus, the sapien genus", because at least these statements are only equivocating over one order of magnitude of taxonomic classification.2. Genetic MarkersEven if we shrink our scope to homo sapiens alone, we can see clear and distinct sub-groups. Even if we only observe superficial phenotype markers, it is undeniable that there are aggregate similarities within certain groups correlating to a common geographical ancestry. I won't bother explaining which physical characteristics match up with which geographical location because everyone already knows which go with where. The point is merely to establish that we can clearly see racial distinctions within humans, just as we can with any species which has distinct sub-groups in various parts of the Earth. These differences are more than just cosmetic, mind you. Consider that the total genetic diversity of the human genome is equal to about 0.32% (between Northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans). That is to say, the two most unrelated humans on Earth have a genetic similarity of about 99.68% [3]. While 1/3 of a percent might not sound like much, keep in mind that, dpeending on the genetic markers measured, chimps are estimated to be as much as 99% the same as us [4]. Clearly, small differences add up. Let us also consider the current controversy of Neanderthals. Some scientists argue that they are a separate species, while other argue that they are just a separate race. The average genetic distance between sapiens and Neanderthals is actually smaller than the total variance within the sapien genome (0.3% different) [5]. And while we don't have a large population of living Neanderthals to do genetic tests on, it's not hard to imagine that the total variance is about equal to the total variance within the sapien genome. Given that a genetic variance nearly equal to the genetic variance found within the sapien population has scientists debating on if Neanderthals are a distinct species, let alone a separate race, it is clear that there must be at least 2 different races of sapiens, since this same variation may or may not be enough for human speciation. Therefore, we cannot claim that there is only one race of sapien as the variance within the sapien genome is already nearly large enough for speciation to have occurred.3. Self Identified RaceVirtually everyone knows what their race is. The U.S. census is a proof of this [6]. Even those who don't agree with the classifications in the census know which group they fit into as self-identified race matches up with the microsatellite markers geneticists use to determine race at a rate of 99.86% [7]. Therefore, we cannot deny that multiple races exist on the grounds that virtually all of us clearly recognize racial distinctions, even if we don't like to admit it. If self-identified race didn't match up with these major genetic clusters a statistically significant amount, then perhaps one could argue that race is merely a social construct, but the evidence says that race is very real and we all know it.--Now to address some specifics of Con's argument:1. All Other Races Are ExtinctThis isn't true. There are still multiple races of Sapien alive. What Con means is that all the other species of Human are extinct, but this is irrelevant. Let's say all forms of canine died off except for the domestic dog. Would their genus suddenly change from Canis to Lupus Familiaris? No, because that's not how taxonomy works. We would still keep record of the domestic dog's species and subspecies, just as we do with ourselves.2. HorsesThis is also entirely irrelevant. Horses are not humans. The genetic variance between wild horses and domestic horses doesn't tell us anything about the racial classifications found in our species. Besides, domestic horses are a distinct subspecies from wild horses [9]. Remember, the genetic distance between Sapiens and Neanerthals is smaller than the genetic distance found between the two most distinct living human races, and neanderthals are arguably a different species from us. This is all that matters when trying to determine if the genetic variance seen in humans is enough to justify the claim that there are multiple races.3. PlantsCon says something about how we could go extinct if we limited our genetic diversity, then sites an article on crop heterogeneity in rice. Once again, this is irrelevant, as it doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the human genome contains enough genetic variation to justify the claim that there are multiple races. I think Con is saying that there isn't much genetic diversity within out species' genome, but what's her point? There isn't much genetic distance between us and chimps. Does that mean we're the same as chimps? ConclusionIn this round I have established that the statement "There is Only One Race, The Human Race" is incorrect for three main reasons, and several minor reasons. Those three reasons are 1. the statement is taxinomocally false, 2. the statement is false genetically speaking, and 3. the statement is false by the uniform agreement between self-identified race and the genetic markers denoting race.Furthermore, I've debunked Con's arguments, which surprisingly can all be refuted simply by asking "So what?". The other species of hominid have gone extinct -- so what? Domestic horses and wild horses have genetic dissimilarities -- so what? Genetic heterogeneity helps prevent disease in corn crops -- so what? To be blunt, Con's case is just a bunch of nonsense. The resolution has been affirmed. VOTE PRO1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.mun.ca...4. http://www.scientificamerican.com...5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...8. http://www.debate.org...9. http://en.wikipedia.org...