Race is much more than skin colour

[Race] I did not define race, but rather point out that it can be determined by skin color alone. Certain skin tones are almost infallibly considered to belong to white people. If I showed you a picture of a white hand, we can readily determine the person is white. I do not argue that phenotypes can help classify other races. If I showed you a picture of a dark skinned hand, we cannot readily determine if the person is e.g. Asian or black. Pro's points about ethnicity are not invalid, but they do not relate to my argument. I was making a point about what race was not. Here is a list of races defined by the US government: 1) American Indian or Alaska Native 2) Asian 3) Black or African American 4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 5) White [1] ["Race is determined by groups of alleles, not a single one."] I never disagreed with this. 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. African hair texture is not exclusive to black people and straight hair is also not exclusive to non-African races. [2] ["concept of race… common alleles at the GROUP level"]I do not argue this. 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. [Epicanthic folds] 1. I did not say they were exclusive to Asians 2. I did not suggest epicanthic folds were not useful for determining race The case by case basis can also apply to the gene(s) for lactose intolerance. Lactose intolerance is a relatively common phenomenon throughout the world. Asian people are simply highly likely to be lactose intolerant. [Asian Differences] 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. When genes for these traits are found together, we can better conclude the person is of Asian descent. I do not argue this. But Asian people can indeed have naturally occurring traits such as curly hair, blond hair, tall stature, and bigger noses. 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. [Intelligence] Intelligence is a very broad concept. The definition of intelligence is still widely argued over by scientists. I am interested in how pro defines intelligence and what tests pro considers to accurately measure IQ. I'm aware that sometimes multiple IQ tests are given to ensure reliability, but this does not ensure accuracy. IQ tests may also not take into account various types of intelligence such as the mulitple intelligenes identified by Howard Gardener. "One advocate of the idea of multiple intelligences... Sternberg has proposed a triarchic (three-part) theory of intelligence that proposes that people may display more or less analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence. Sternberg (1985, 2003) argued that traditional intelligence tests assess analytical intelligence, the ability to answer problems with a single right answer, but that they do not well assess creativity…" [3] [Intelligence Genes] Genetic components of intelligence are nowhere near as easily isolated as say, skin color or other phenotypes described in this debate so far. "Like that Formula One car’s performance, intelligence is an emergent property of the whole system. There is no dedicated genetic module “for intelligence” that can be acted on independently by natural selection…" [4] This article describes how thousands of variants affect intelligence. There are very strong environmental influences on the development of IQ scores which would easily explain IQ scores of different races growing further apart as children aged in the article you linked. This is not an indicator of poor intelligence-related genetics but the influence of nature vs. nurture. Intelligence is indeed nurtured from a very early age. Furthermore: "…a team of European and American scientists announced on Monday that they had identified 52 genes linked to intelligence in nearly 80,000 people. These genes do not determine intelligence, however. Their combined influence is minuscule, the researchers said, suggesting that thousands more are likely to be involved and still await discovery. Just as important, intelligence is profoundly shaped by the environment." [5] [1] http://www.ir.ufl.edu... [2] https://genetics.thetech.org... [3] http://open.lib.umn.edu... [4] https://www.theguardian.com... [5] https://www.nytimes.com...