Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You: Busting Myths About Human Nature [Hardcover]

It is hard to take this book seriously given the absurd strawman Fuentes creates to combat the "myth" of race. He suggests that there are no race specific genes, that races aren't static, entitities and the categories can change over time. This does not mean they don't exist - if that was the case then a lot of species wouldn't exist either. It would also be interesting to see how many sub-species or races would exist in other species if one were to adopt Fuentes' absurdly narrow concept of race.

A more reasonable approach is adopted by Professor Jerry Coyne, who recently wrote:

"In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called "subspecies" or "ecotypes") are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes." Coyne notes that using this approach that of course there are human races.

Fuentes also manages to avoid the work of Professor Neil Risch, the 2004 Curt Stern award winner for outstanding genetics research over the previous 10 years. Risch points out that population genetics research have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry. So to say that race and ethnicity has no biological basis is well intentioned but wrong. You might as well say there is no such thing as population biology. If there were no biological basis to race, then people who identify themselves as African American or Chinese would be no more likely to have certain genes than people who identify themselves as Native American. But that is not true. As demonstrated by Neil Risch, or more recently Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein ("Let's Celebrate Human Genetic Diversity" Nature, 2010).

Ultimately, Fuentes is concerned about group differences - and attributes these to racism. However, he does no one any favours by ignoring research that he doesn't like.

As Professor Steve Hsu, who is involved with the Cognitive Genomics Project run by the Beijing Genomics Institute, writes:

"We see that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if there is complete allele overlap between two groups - as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. But it is these distributions that are measured by the metric we defined earlier. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:

Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.

Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc.

Note H1 is under constant revision, as new genetically driven group differences (e.g., particularly in disease resistance) are being discovered. According to the mantra of H1 these must all (by definition) be superficial differences.

A standard argument against H2 is that the 50k years during which groups have been separated is not long enough for differential natural selection to cause any group differences in deep characteristics. I find this argument quite naive, given what we know about animal breeding and how evolution has affected the (ever expanding list of) "superficial" characteristics. Many genes are now suspected of having been subject to strong selection over timescales of order 5k years or less. For further discussion of H2 by Steve Pinker, see here.

The predominant view among social scientists is that H1 is obviously correct and H2 obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking. Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect.

As scientists, we don't know whether H1 or H2 is correct, but given the revolution in biotechnology, we will eventually. Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don't know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.

Finally, it is important to note that group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything definitive about a particular individual. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic makeup."

Considering the amount of strawman bashing in here I think the author is more concerned in promoting a PC rendition of some well established genetic differences between different racial groupings.
Anyone who watched the Olympic 100 metres final would be well stretched to explain the racial disparity unless it was a deterministic genetic trait (it's the shape of the hips in Afro/Caribbean men which enables quicker acceleration.)