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

Round 1: ConWhat does it mean to define race biologically and genetically?1. Defining race biologically:The Wikipedia article on race as a term of biological classification (http://en.wikipedia.org...) says the following:1. "Race is an informal taxonomic rank,"2. "Races may be distinct phenotypic populations, or they may be defined in other ways,"3. "Races are defined according to any identifiable characteristic, and also by gene frequencies."4. "Race differences are relative, not absolute."Which I interpret to mean:(1.) There is no accepted standard in biology on how to designate races.(2.) The criteria used to designate biological races is not necessarily genetic (e.g. the article mentions physiological and ecological races).(3.) Members of a race do not even need to share an "identifiable characteristic;" merely, the likelihood of having a characteristic is sufficient.(4.) How other species are classified into races is irrelevant to understanding how to classify human races.2. Defining race genetically: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."3. What should be meant by a biological and genetic construction of race: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. 2. Consequently, a biological and genetic construction of race should be understood in terms of biology and genetics at a fundamental level, and not in the terms that professional biologists and geneticists today use.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. 4. (For example, all organisms within a common domain should be at least 95% dissimilar with any organism from a different domain, kingdoms 90%, phyla 85%, etc.)5. 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.4. What the minimum level of dissimilarity for race should be:1. A racial classification should include more than just obvious, heritable phenotypical variations. 2. It should include many obvious, heritable phenotypical variations, and substantial ones at that. 3. Supposing that "race" is the level of classification just below species, it should have an equal degree of dissimilarity to species as species does to genus, as genus does to family, as family does to order, and so on. 4. It should not jump all the way from "can reproduce together" (i.e. the definition of species) to "has some heritable phenotypical trait in common."5. What the minimum level of dissimilarity for human races should be: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.6. Does race as it is defined socially meet this threshold?: 1. Firstly, I do believe that some biological classification would fit the social classification of race that currently exists, since members of each social race appear to have a common ancestral group, as well as a certain degree of similarity as evidenced by skin color and facial structure.2. Additionally, I believe that in addition to obvious physical differences there are also obvious mental differences between races (specifically, mental differences as can be inferred from different behavioral proclivities). 3. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the mental differences observed between social races are attributable to heredity and not to the environment. 4. (I intend to be more specific in future rounds as to the nature of racial differences and why I don't think these differences merit social races also being denominated biological races.) And thanks to Anarcho-Socialist for the debate.