Race is much more than skin colour

Pro has settled on a more defined claim in the comments with me. I will be contending that there are not broad genetic differences between races in cognitive, emotional/social, or physical areas of development. [Definitions]Subspecies: I will not define sub-species, but rather point out that biologists widely disagree agree on the criteria for sub-species in general animal taxonomy (emphasis on animal classifications, not human ones). In general though, yes, genetic distinctions are a part of it. But it is not the whole of it. [An excerpt from "How objective is a definition in the subspecies debate?"]"But, as a classificatory unit, subspecies are not useful in comparative systematic and biogeographical studies because — unlike genera and families, for example — subspecies are groups of populations that are defined by hypothesized biological interactions or geographical distributions, rather than by homology (shared derived characteristics)." [1][What is skin color?]Skin color was naturally selected for in relation to the amount of ultraviolet radiation exposure. [2] "The pigment melanin is responsible for dark coloration in the skin and there are at least three genes, which control for human skin color." [3] Take a look at this diagram. Subject 1, who expresses a characteristic that we would call "white", has a dark allele like subjects 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. However, his race is still considered white. Once a certain level of pigmentation is reached, the subject is no longer considered white. Subjects 2-6 would not be considered white. It is also noteworthy to point out that subjects 2-5 contain at least 1 light allele. Although we do not consider these subjects white. I will suppose that it is common knowledge that a majority of white people are not as light as subject 0. A significant percentage of people of color are also not as dark as subject 6. [Conclusion:]In other words, people of different races commonly share genetics that can create darker or lighter skin tones than their own. Therefore, the same kind of genetic markers that contribute to subject 6's dark skin are also commonly found in people considered to be white.[Resulting Arguments:]Race is determined by skin color. "White" and "black" are two examples of race. Race can be determined by skin color alone, whereas ethnicity cannot be. Genetic information is not easily determined by appearance. The presence of alleles present in darker or lighter skinned people is highly likely. When discussing race, the genetic components of a black person's pigmentation (dark alleles) is not specific to people of color. The genetic components of a white person's pigmentation (light alleles) is not specific to white people. White and black people share genes that contribute to the other race's lighter or darker skin color. Pro has mentioned studies which note differences between races. I will argue the validity of these studies in later rounds, but for now I will note that white people in these studies are likely not split into categories such as "white people with no dark alleles", "white people with one dark allele," etc. Likewise, black people are likely not split into categories such as "black people with one light allele", etc.Simply put, you cannot simply isolate the genetic components (pertaining to skin color) of a race to one race. The genetic components (pertaining to skin color) of one race belong to many races. Furthermore, the genetic components of skin color are independent of other genes. They do not work with other genes to yield differences in cognitive, social/emotional, or physical development. I assume that pro will be discussing varying phenotypes across some races, such as epicanthic folds found in people of Asian descent. I will argue their importance on a case-by-case basis. Epicanthic folds, for example, are not a significant genetic difference when considering the following:"Epicanthal folds also may be seen in young children of any race before the bridge of the nose begins to rise." [4] Apparently, these folds are also present in at least eight health conditions humans are born with/develop. The fact that these folds are common in young children and appear in various human conditions is very suggestive that they are already written into the human genetic code but they are not always expressed. This means it's only a slight genetic difference. Anyway, there are many genes that lead to differences from human to human—some of them visually apparent, some not. In the next rounds, I will continue to argue that humans aren't significantly genetically different from each other. [1] https://www.nature.com...; [2] http://anth.la.psu.edu...; [3] https://biologydictionary.net...; [4] https://medlineplus.gov...