Race is a Biological and Genetic Construct caused by microevolution and segregation

Round 3: Con 0.1. Pro's last entry was structured into responses to quotes of mine from my last entry. 0.2. In this entry, I will be responding to most of these responses, and I hope that Pro will let me know if he would like me to respond to any that I don't.0.3. Also, I would like to request that voters for this debate do not take into consideration the first rule for this debate ("1. Any forfeit will result in an automatic 7-point deduction) when voting.1. Response #11.1. Original quote: 1.1.1. "(1.) There is no accepted standard in biology on how to designate races."1.2. My summary of Pro's response to this:1.2.1. There are indeed standards in race, such as skin color, facial structure, brain size, and susceptibility to various diseases. 1.3. My response:1.3.1. As Pro states in response to the 2nd quote, the source that I'm interpreting in the above quote (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is not about human racial classification specifically, but about race as a biological classification in general.1.3.2. That is to say, I am not saying that the set of races in each particular species does not have any criteria by which its set of races are distinguished, but rather that these criteria exist on an ad hoc basis, (i.e., that there is no official overall criteria to determine what these criteria should be).2. Response #22.1. Original quote: 2.1.1. "(2.) The criteria used to designate biological races is not necessarily genetic (e.g. the article mentions physiological and ecological races."2.2. My summary of Pro's response to this:2.2.1. This debate is about human races specifically, and therefore this information is irrelevant.2.3. My response: 2.3.1. I agree, this is a debate specifically about human races, but it is also, per the title of this debate, a debate about a specific kind of human races, namely, human races as "biological and genetic construct[s]" .2.3.2. Therefore, it is not irrelevant to this debate how race is defined as a biological classification in general, but of central importance. 3. Response #33.1. Original quote: 3.1.1. "Races are defined according to any identifiable characteristic, and also by gene frequencies.""Which I interpret to mean:""Members of a race do not even need to share an "identifiable characteristic;" merely, the likelihood of having a characteristic is sufficient."3.2. Pro's response to this:3.2.1. "I am afraid that you have contradicted yourself by stating that races ARE defined by identifiable characteristics, then stating that they are not."3.3. My response:3.3.1. Note: The quote from Wikipedia says "...by gene frequencies", and not simply, "by genes", or "genetically".:3.3.2. That is, when considering whether a specific population of a species should be considered a distinct race, when "gene frequencies" are used, merely the existence of a gene held frequently in the population is sufficient, hence, "...merely, the likelihood of having a characteristic is sufficient." 4. Response #44.1. Original quote: 4.1.1. "Consider the following argument:P1. Historically, race has been based on skin color.P2. Skin color is based on genetics.C. Therefore, historically, race has been based on genetics.If this is true, then the claim that race is a genetic construct is a commonplace.If this is false, then a genetic construction of race implies more than just 'obvious, heritable phenotypical variations.' "4.2. My summary of Pro's response to this:4.2.1. P1-P2-C is true, and the argument works for biological constructions of human races, too.4.3. My response:4.3.1. Pro claims to agree with P1-P2-C, and goes on to say that this argument would work for biological races as well, but then says nothing about the second half of the argument, namely, that if P1-P2-C were true, then the claim that race is a genetic construct would be a commonplace.4.3.2. That it is a commonplace is, in my experience, far from the case, and this therefore implies to me that, in the minds of a large number of people,4.3.4. "...a genetic construction of race implies more than just "obvious, heritable phenotypical variations." 4.3.5. For example, suppose that, rather than skin color, conventional human races had been historically based on any other random "obvious, heritable phenotypical variation" (e.g. hair color, eye color, height, or cleft chin).4.3.6. Would P1-P2-C still work?4.3.7. If no, then the argument is not valid (i.e. it relies on premises other than the ones stated). 5. Response #55.1. Original quote: 5.1.1. "The biological and genetic definitions of race are currently too broad, such that virtually any theory of human races could be considered biological and genetic."5.2. My summary of Pro's response to this:5.2.1. Any other definition of race than the original one given by Pro ("A separate group of people within a species that has obvious, heritable phenotypical variations") refers to subraces.5.3. My response:5.3.1. Suppose that humans had never left Africa.5.3.2. Would biological and genetic human races still exist?5.3.3. ...for surely, "separate group[s] of people within a species that ha[ve] obvious, heritable phenotypical variations" would still exist? 5.3.4. Perhaps you would say that these would be subraces, but on what basis would you call them "subraces" rather than just "races"?5.3.5. Now suppose that, in addition to never leaving Africa, the human population had never grown past 100 (e.g. once the human population first got to 100, each human couple lived to sexual maturity and had only two kids). 5.3.6. Would even subraces exist then?5.3.7. This, I believe, explains the purpose for the original quote of this section, namely, that some "minimum level of dissimilarity" should be required when defining race biologically. 6. Response #66.1. Original quote: 6.1.1. "3. That is to say, ideally, race, like any other taxonomic rank, should signify a minimum level of dissimilarity which exists between its members and the members of another race within the same species, and this degree of dissimilarity should be the same no matter which species is in question, or, for that matter which domain, kingdom, phylum, etc."6.2. My summary of Pro's response to this:6.7.2.1. This is hard to refute, but remember that races have interbred, homogenizing the species.6.3. My response:6.3.1. Pro says this is hard to refute, but this quote encapsulates the two main points that Pro has attempted to make refute thus far, namely:6.3.1.1. A biological classification of race in general, not specific to humans, is relevant (Response #2)6.3.1.2. Race can not be biologically defined simply as "A separate group of people within a species that has obvious, heritable phenotypical variations" (Response #1, #4, and #5).6.3.2. Also, if the above definition is accepted, no caveat for interbreeding is necessary; either a population meets a minimum level of dissimilarity, or it doesn't, and over time a population that once met the minimum level of dissimilarity may no longer. 7. Response #77.1. Original quote: 7.1.1. "Additionally, each member of a race (or species, or genus, or family, etc.) should share a common ancestral group with every other member of that race, which members of other races of the same species (or genus, or family, or order, etc.) do not share."7.2. My summary of Pro's response to this:7.2.1. The 3 proposed races meet this requirement.7.3. My response:7.3.1. I will not dispute the lineages Pro provides here, as I think the focus of our debate is on whether biological classifications of races should require a minimum level of dissimilarity, and if so, whether conventional human races meet that requirement.7.3.2. However, I would like to note that neither mainstream biology nor Pro make this ancestry requirement, and therefore, any unrelated group of individuals who share any "obvious, heritable phenotypical variations" (e.g. like being dwarfs or redheads) could be considered separate races by their definitions. 8. Response #8 8.1. Original quote: 8.1.1. "Based on the notion that phenotypical differences between races of whatever species should be both numerous and substantial, both heritable physical as well as mental differences should be apparent."8.2. Pro's response to this:8.2.1. "There is evidence that each of the races have different average mental capabilities. One common way this is measured is through IQ. A counter argument would claim that this is because of environment. But this does not explain why even lower class Asians have a higher average IQ than upper class Whites. I will post my source for this in the comments later because the link is not working for the debate.8.3. My response:8.3.1. In my opening round, I claimed that I believe that mental differences exist between races; specifically, mental differences as can be inferred from "differing behavioral proclivities".8.3.2. For example, in my experience, Asians kids I've known growing up have had invariably strict parents, who hold success in school in the highest regard, monitor and interfere in all aspects of their child's upbringing, and leave their child with pretty much no choice but to excel academically, whether they're genetically pre-disposed to or not.8.3.3. Higher class white kids, on the other hand, sometimes also have very pushy parents, but in my experience, much more often have very lenient parents, who allow their kids a large degree of personal freedom in their upbringing, which they often devote predominantly to non-academic activities.8.3.4. These "differing behavioral proclivities" (ie very roughly speaking, "stereotypes") can I think provide an explanation for how Pro's example of lower class Asians outperforming higher class Whites could be due to the environment, in that insofar as I think we can all agree that family has a significant influence on academic success, and that this influence is environmental, even though it's from their parents.8.3.5. I hope to discuss this issue in greater detail in future rounds.