Race lacks a solid scientific foundation. Initially, if racial classifications aimed to reflect genetic differences, they fail miserably. The genetic variation among certain populations in Africa can be as extensive as that between widely recognized "racial" categories elsewhere. For instance, the genetic dissimilarity between East Asians and Europeans is less than that found between the Hazda people in Tanzania and the Fulani herders from West Africa. Thus, the simplistic labels of Black, White, Asian, and others are misleading.

In light of these findings, many researchers in biological fields have opted to use "continental ancestry" instead of "race." This shift signifies a rejection of race as a biological concept, as all so-called races share the same protein-coding genes, with no distinct genetic boundary separating human groups. Utilizing "continental ancestry" also enhances the accuracy of tracing historical and geographical roots in genetic studies. For example, Barack Obama was not merely the first socially identified Black president; he also has both European and African roots.

While genetic differences might theoretically account for variations in behavior and success across nations, this explanation is improbable. The current racial categories stem from a convoluted history filled with deliberate misinformation.

It's crucial to challenge the myths surrounding genetic variation that both the left and right perpetuate. On the left, some argue against genetic bases for group differences by highlighting that genetic variation within groups often exceeds that between them, or by noting the 99.9% genetic similarity among all humans. However, these points miss the significance of the remaining genetic diversity. Our similarity to chimpanzees (over 98%) and Neanderthals (99.7%) underscores the profound implications of small genetic differences.

To put it plainly, overall genetic variation tells us less than specific, meaningful differences. Consider a hypothetical group of humans possessing a mutation in the FOXP2 gene, crucial for language development. Though they might share 99.9999% of their DNA with their neighbors, the absence of this gene would drastically alter their ability to communicate. This principle applies beyond humans; even minor genetic alterations can lead to significant phenotypic changes in other species.

Focusing solely on the shared genes among humans overlooks the essential role of gene regulation in evolutionary change. The Human Genome Project initially anticipated around 100,000 human protein-coding genes but discovered only about 20,000. Most human differences arise from when and where these genes are activated, influenced by factors like environmental stressors.

The existence of shared genes does not negate the possibility of significant differences arising from variations in regulatory regions of the genome. Rather than asking if different proteins exist among groups, we should investigate whether specific alleles differ. Alleles are simply DNA variations, and there is evidence that African populations possess the most unique alleles, reflecting a greater genetic diversity compared to populations that underwent bottlenecks during migration from Africa. This suggests that private alleles could influence group differences, contradicting the assumption that genetic variation is irrelevant.

Currently, it's essential to debunk myths regarding genetic variation promoted by both political sides. The left often claims insufficient evolutionary time exists for significant differences to develop, citing Stephen J. Gould's assertion of no biological change in humans over the last 40,000 to 50,000 years. This perspective implies that human evolution halted with the rise of anatomically modern humans, disregarding the substantial time frame available for genetic divergence among populations outside Africa.

However, meaningful group differences can arise not only from positive selection for new mutations but also from selection on traits that are polygenic, where ample genetic variation already exists. Traits like height and cognitive ability are highly polygenic, influenced by numerous minor genetic variations. If individuals with higher intelligence reproduce more successfully, significant shifts in IQ distributions could occur in just a few generations.

In their book, "The 10,000 Year Explosion," anthropologists Gregory Cochran and the late Henry Harpending argue that the Neolithic Revolution and the advent of agriculture reshaped population genetics. They contend that societal changes, rather than environmental pressures, became the main drivers of genetic evolution, leading to differences linked to agrarian lifestyles. While their claims are intriguing, they lack comprehensive empirical support and rely on circumstantial evidence.

Contrary to the left's assertions, the right also misrepresents genetic science. Authors like Nicholas Wade, in "A Troublesome Inheritance," emphasize genetic variations at specific loci to explain group disparities. While single genes can indeed exert considerable influence, those that show frequency differences across racial groups do not support broad genetic models of behavior.

Another mistake from the right is overestimating natural selection's role while underestimating genetic drift. Natural selection, where genetic variants confer survival advantages, could lead to observable differences among groups, but genetic drift—random variations—can also create distinctions unrelated to survival benefits.

Examples of selection pressures include the sickle cell genotype's prevalence in West and Central African populations, providing malaria resistance, and variations in skin tone corresponding to geographic location. However, generalizing these findings to complex human behaviors and traits can be misleading, as selective pressures that shape physical characteristics do not necessarily translate to intricate behaviors influenced by numerous genes.

The complexities of polygenic traits and the rapid social changes in the last half-century challenge simplistic genetic explanations for ethnic disparities in success. While 10,000 years may suffice for geographic genetic variations to develop, shorter time spans like 200 or 50 years are inadequate for establishing genetic differences. Recent historical examples, such as Taiwan and South Korea's economic transformations, suggest that factors beyond genetics, like institutional variations, better explain geographic differences in living standards.

A pressing question in the human sciences concerns whether genetic differences among ancestral subgroups account for observed disparities in achievement among self-identified racial groups in the U.S. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve" controversially suggested genetic inferiority among Blacks concerning cognitive ability, yet their argument lacked molecular genetic evidence.

If modern researchers were to explore this question, they might examine whether small genetic variations across average individuals from different racial groups correlate with educational attainment. However, methods like polygenic scores, which sum numerous genetic effects, have limitations. For example, height predictions derived from data trained on one population (e.g., whites) fail to accurately estimate for another (e.g., Blacks), underscoring the complexities of intergroup genetic comparisons.

Alternatively, measuring principal components could quantify genetic ancestry based on overall genetic variation. However, this approach encounters the same issue as polygenic scores: genetic markers often act as proxies for environmental factors. True genetic effects would require comparisons between siblings, where differences arise purely from random genetic variation rather than socio-economic backgrounds. Yet, this method also faces challenges, as siblings usually share similar ancestry.

Even if researchers could isolate genetic influences from social conditions, they would still need to address the question of how these genetic factors translate into observable differences. Differences in ancestry may correlate with physical traits, such as skin color, which in turn affect social treatment and opportunities. This connection between genes, race, and social dynamics complicates interpretations of cognitive differences.

The evidence of a pigmentocracy in the U.S. and other nations highlights the importance of recognizing how race influences treatment and opportunity. Despite attempts to account for skin tone, the complexities of social identity and perception are often overlooked.

Ultimately, the difficulty of scientifically addressing genes, race, and IQ contrasts sharply with the oversimplified claims of many commentators asserting a genetic basis for racial disparities in intelligence. Nonetheless, incorporating genetic data into racial discourse may illuminate the profound impact of social processes, such as discrimination. As genetic information becomes more accessible, it may challenge traditional racial categories, complicating our understanding of race and identity.