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

Extremely sorry about the last round my computer is not working properly. I suppose that this does mean that you win since I broke my own rules, but I shall attempt to finish the debate with dignity nonetheless. "(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." Argument one: "There is no accepted standard in biology on how to designate races." There is indeed a standard on how to classify races biologically. This Wikipedia article has several pictures of how anthropologists classify race, with the three races being as follows: 1: Caucasoids, who currently inhabit Europe, some of the Middle East, and North Africa. 2: The Mongoloid race, which includes those peoples of East Asia, East Russia, Central Asia, Alaska, and by extension the Native Americans. 3: The Negroid race, which includes people of Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, possibly India, and the Polynesian Islands. http://en.wikipedia.org... Scientists have classified these races based on traits such as skin colour, average cranial capacity, brain size, brain weight, facial structure, skull structure, and the chance of disease. Argument two: "The criteria used to designate biological races is not necessarily genetic (e.g. the article mentions physiological and ecological races)." I went to the Wikipedia page. The article that you presented was not specifically referring to human races, but races as a taxonomic group, so therefore this argument is technically invalid because we are referring to human races, but since I did not specify which species we would be debating, I will concede victory to this specific argument. That was my fault. Just to now clarify, we are debating over human (Homo Sapien Sapien) races. Argument 3: "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." I am afraid that you have contradicted yourself by stating that races ARE defined by identifiable characteristics, then stating that they are not. I would agree that how we classify other species is irrelevant specifically to homo sapiens. "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.' " Yes, historically, race has been primarily based on skin colour, and skin colour is determined by heritable genes, which relates to genetics, and genetics is a integral part of biology, so therefore historically, race is a biological and genetic construct, meaning that races do indeed exist biologically and genetically. "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. " I have already defined race as groups of a species that have heritable phenotypical variations. Any other theories concerning race besides the before mentioned theory would be referring to sub-races, which is below race, but above ethnicity. Some examples of are the Germanic peoples of Germany, Scandinavia, and England, the Celtic peoples of Ireland and Great Britain, the Slavic peoples of Russia and Ukraine, the Balts of the Baltic Sea region, the Mediterraneans of Southern Italy, Spain, France, and Portugal, and the Finnic peoples of Finland. "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." See argument above. "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.)" This is indeed a hard argument to refute. Remember that races are required to be of the same species as other races. As such they can interbreed with each other. This has been going on for thousands of years, decreasing genetic diversity and leading to a more homogenized human species. "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." Members of the Negroid race have been directly linked to homo erectus, and are the direct descendants of them. Caucasoids and Mongoloids however, went northward and came into contact with neanderthals, interbreeded with them, and continued to evolve for several million more years or so. Thus, Negroids are direct descendants of homo erectus, while Caucasoids and Mongoloids are related to homo erectus, as all humans must share a common ancestor, they are directly descended from the Neanderthals. "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. " There are many, such as skin colour, facial features, bone structure, brain size, brain weight, and more. " 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."" Then what should it 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." 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. "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." So then you admit that physical races are biolocigally and scientifically viable, but not mental races. See the argument above.