Race is much more than skin colour

In regards to use of the word ethincity I would just like to avoid it since the definition is highly ambiguous.--"I did not define race, but rather point out that it can be determined by skin color alone."You posted a quote that said "subspecies (races) are groups of populations that are defined by hypothesized biological interactions or geographical distributions, rather than by homology"Also, you seem to immediately contradict yourself here: "it (race) can be determined by skin color alone"... "If I showed you a picture of a dark skinned hand, we cannot readily determine if the person is e.g. Asian or black." I assumed your whole point on dark-skin alleles was to point out that race exists on a continuum, and I dealt with it as such in Round 2. If it wasnt, im not sure what the point was at all, since in no way does it contradict my statement that 'race is much more than skin colour', nor the statement 'there are broad genetic differences between races in cognitive, emotional/social, or physical areas of development.'"My point was that you cannot isolate the genetic components of a race's skin color to one race. This can pertain to genetics outside skin color, such as hair texture." This point also does not contradict that statement that 'race is much more than skin colour', or that there are broad genetic differences between races in cognitive, emotional/social, or physical areas of development.' --"The fact that allele combinations are frequently occurring in members of a given race does not signify that races have significant genetic differences in the aforementioned areas relevant to this debate."Technically correct, but misleading. By saying "allele combinations are frequently occuring in memebrs of a given race", you are also implying that these respective allele combinations DO NOT occur frequently in other races. In fact, the greater the combinations tested for, the less frequently they will appear, and once you reach a certain threshold of combined alleles, they will not appear at all. This is how DNA tests work. And when these allele combinations result in such an amount of physical/social/cognitive differences that we can observe huge disparities in nations/cities/societies inhabited by respective races, we can reasonably conclude that the genetic differences can be significant. --"The differences pro listed—except perhaps for yellow skin tone—are not a given for members of their race. It is true that the genes contributing to these traits are in higher number in Asian populations."Much higher."When genes for these traits are found together, we can better conclude the person is of Asian descent."Yes, but more accurately, when genes for these traits are found together (as they very frequently are), it is useful to keep our social classifications of race the same, because they correlate extremely well."But Asian people can indeed have naturally occurring traits such as curly hair, blond hair, tall stature, and bigger noses."Clutching at straws. Most of these are so rare as to be almost unheard of, but again, this does not contradict my thesis. When these traits (and many more) are all found in combination, the person cannot be defined as Asian, and thus your quote:"the fact that allele combinations are frequently occurring in members of a given race does not signify that races have significant genetic differences in the aforementioned areas relevant to this debate" is misleadin.--"Pro also listed these traits: "…large cranial capacity… and have an IQ of 105". I ask that pro provide sources to the study methods of the given studies."Race and intelligence has been an area studied for some time now. https://en.wikipedia.org...We have over 100 years of IQ test data to call upon, and there has been a difference in IQ scores between races since United States Army recruits in World War I were tested. Results consistenly show an IQ gap between blacks and whites, and a smaller gap between whites and orientals. So analysing the method of one or two tests seems to be clutching at straws a bit. The same goes for brain size and cranial capacity. https://en.wikipedia.org...;"Based on craniometry data, Morton claimed in Crania Americana [1878] that the Caucasians had the biggest brains, averaging 87 cubic inches, Indians were in the middle with an average of 82 cubic inches and Negroes had the smallest brains with an average of 78 cubic inches... Stephen Jay Gould studied these craniometric works in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) and claimed Samuel Morton had fudged data and in order to justify his preconceived notions on racial differences... In 2011, physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, published a study that concluded that almost every detail of Gould’s analysis was wrong."Intelligence is a very important difference, but by not the whole picture There are disparities in other significant areas, but I only allowed 5000 characters.