Meaningful genetic differences do indeed exist. And if Wade had left it at that then it would be possible to take some of his other proposals more seriously. But Wade insists that meaningful genetic differences define races, and this is simply absurd. As for the rest, yes, in principle, it’s possible that “genetic differences are responsible for some important regional differences in intelligence and behaviour.” And of course it’s always interesting to speculate. However, there is no real evidence to support most of Wade’s speculations, especially the controversial ones. He makes the mistake of confusing correlation with causation and then, despite his insistence that he is “only” speculating, he writes as though any other possible explanations are unlikely. That simply isn’t true. Also the fact that so many of his theores are so blatantly provocative makes his book irresponsible, if not out and out racist.

The second point [that these genetic “differences are responsible for some important regional differences in intelligence and behavior”] is completely speculative and would have been hard to argue even if there was good evidence for it, which there isn’t, at least not yet.

Well, it’s not completely speculative, and many scientists who study evolution make these behavioral arguments all the time for other animal species. Differences in group IQ, for example, are not just speculative.

In fact, none of Wade’s speculations would’ve been even remotely controversial, scientifically, if he were talking about something other than humans.

What race realism needs is another Darwin’s Bulldog, a fierce and informed public advocate who knows the subject well and is prepared to meet all comers in the public arena when discussing it. He probably should be a scientist (like T.H. Huxley), but it’s more critical that he is a tireless and effective public advocate – more Chris Hitchens than Carl Sagan, good debating in print as well as on the tube.

Wade is not that fellow. He has neither the temperament nor the knowledge for that kind of fight. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

None of Fuentes’ arguments should’ve caught Wade by surprise. He should’ve been prepared for them. But he’s not a public intellectual accustomed to participating in partisan debates. He’s a journalist and an old man.

Contemplating the effects of such an event, I wrote: “Egalitarian values might . . . go by the boards in a situation where the strong can only survive at the expense of the weak. And the weak survive only if protected by someone stronger — and more aggressive. Once such a situation is established, it’s very easy to see how it could become a self-perpetuating tradition.” Since my focus was on tradition, I neglected to consider the possible evolutionary effects of a situation where those with genetic predispositions to violence and competitiveness might well prevail, to pass on not only their antisocial values, but their antisocial genes to subsequent generations.

Reading these days about Nicholas Wade’s theories regarding what he calls “recent” biological evolution, I must say that, in view of the issues raised in my own book, I can’t deny that he could have a point. What’s most interesting, perhaps, is the difficulty in deciding whether cultural or biological factors are more important in determining the fate of future generations. Until we can isolate specific genes for such behaviors, there will be no way of knowing for sure, I suppose. But the possibility of some sort of biological determinism in this respect does remain. Of course, if some sort of post Out of Africa event triggered adaptations leading to increased violence, that would actually turn Wade’s assumptions regarding an increased propensity to violence on the part of Africans upside down.

I must add, by the way, that NONE of the above has the slightest to do with “race,” no matter how one might want to define it.

I seriously wonder whether a definition of race as Wade sees it is really possible. The more technical definitions I’ve seen could just as easily be applied to concepts in population genetics as race, so even if race were biologically meaningful, it would be redundant. In other words we would have nothing more to learn by describing human biodiversity in terms of race than we already do when we describe it in the language of population genetics.

In his Time article, based on the book, Wade presents a brief argument for the biological reality of race that is truly bizarre. Referring initially to “mixed race populations,” he points to the fact that “geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.”

This is a blatant non sequitur. No one has ever doubted that every human has ancestors. And the ability to track them is a technological achievement, not a theoretical breakthrough. Yet for Wade the technology seems to be some sort of alchemical formula that transforms ancestry into race. Presto chango!

Wade’s logic is also circular — he begins by referring to “mixed race” populations, thus anticipating his conclusion at the outset of his argument. Sorry, Nicholas, but it is ancestry that has a basis in biological reality, NOT race. Unless the two are the same, which you forgot to demonstrate.

I don’t see how this follows at all. Was Lysenko a Creationist? No, he was a scientist whose theories turned out to be incorrect. If one side of this debate is correct about the science and the other side is wrong, does that mean scholars publishing work on the “wrong” idea are not scientists? This seems less than a half-step removed from ad hominem name calling.