Thread: Evolution of different races

My wife has just told me that one of her guy friends told her that the reason why black people have their certain shape noses is to keep the temperature of their bodies down and that other white people have their certain shape noses to keep their temperature up.

Can anyone clarify if this is true ?

I suppose by being broader and having more surface area it could be helpful in cooling. But one particular difference between white european and africans is that africans have larger either sweat glands or pores(cant remember which)to help aid cooling

Before you go talking about the evolution of separate races it may help to try define what you mean by race - and this is not as easy as it sounds btw.

river rat is right, the idea of race is deceptive. The human species is one big family when compared to other closely related species. There's more genetic diversity in the mitochondrial DNA of a troop of wild chimps than there is in the entire human race.

i always see the different races as the 5 classic races with different anatomical differences, its not as diverse as you think(well when it comes to anatomy).

Eg white europeans, middle eastern and south asian area(india etc) all belong to one race(in the classic sense)as caucasoids. Theres two races in africa, one for asian(mongoloids)which also covers inuets, pacific island etc. And one on their own which are the aboriginies

Those are the true races as opposed to regional differences

There isn't any human races, in a biological point of vue.
What people call race is just physical phenotype based upon the color of the skin, the nose, the eyelids, or other such small details.

If you study the blood type (ABO), you will discover a different pattern of geographical distribution.

So instead of race, we should speak of ethnic phenotypes

So instead of race, we should speak of ethnic phenotypes

Or you could just accept that race equates to ethnic phenotype. The anti-racists won't be any happier speaking of ethnic phenotype than they would about race.

As to the nose. Another consideration is that the larger nostrils allow more air to be inhaled at a time without opening the mouth.

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

So instead of race, we should speak of ethnic phenotypes

Or you could just accept that race equates to ethnic phenotype. The anti-racists won't be any happier speaking of ethnic phenotype than they would about race.

As to the nose. Another consideration is that the larger nostrils allow more air to be inhaled at a time without opening the mouth.

I can accept it, but the background involved with the human races is huge, and not particulary great.
For the record I have an encyclopedia from Larousse of the early twenty century, call the human races. Larousse, was supposed to be a encyclopedia of light and knowledge. I can tell you that book is racist, but not nazi racism, the racism of the "enlighted" people of this time. I keep it, to watch one day this book to my childs, to see how people dealed with the races in the past.

Originally Posted by Powerdoc

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

So instead of race, we should speak of ethnic phenotypes

Or you could just accept that race equates to ethnic phenotype. The anti-racists won't be any happier speaking of ethnic phenotype than they would about race.

As to the nose. Another consideration is that the larger nostrils allow more air to be inhaled at a time without opening the mouth.

I can accept it, but the background involved with the human races is huge, and not particulary great.
For the record I have an encyclopedia from Larousse of the early twenty century, call the human races. Larousse, was supposed to be a encyclopedia of light and knowledge. I can tell you that book is racist, but not nazi racism, the racism of the "enlighted" people of this time. I keep it, to watch one day this book to my childs, to see how people dealed with the races in the past.

racist in what way?

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

racist in what way?

some quote (translated from the french)


" about the nigers : Their muscular devellopement is huge, and in any work recquiering, only muscle, the niger is better than the average european, but whenever the work recquiere some judgement, he is cleary inferior"

" the most intelligent of the african races , the peuls"

" the most primitive of african races , the pygmees"

" about german education : the tendancy of specialisation tend to make the german very savant, but somehow narrow minded, and diminue the value, that a more general culture would have bringed him"

" the italian : the most cute race, brillant but superficials"

" about indians : the fuegian woman, is at the lowest step of humanity ..."

In the introduction : " what show is now offered from humanity : an infinite variety, in the skin color point of vue, of the face traits, crane shape, corpse proportions, of the spirit no less than the blood, of the social aspect, of the aptitudes, and the degree reached in the scale of civilisation"

" the black race, wich is the one the closest to the nature, a face like a goat, the bestial eye ..."

The funny thing, is that this book is written people, who considered themselves from being "enlighted"

yeah i see what you mean. I thought you were going to say that pointng out anitomical differences was racist, but that is something else

My views on 5 races is a factual one based on actual differences, that book doesn't even stop at races but comments on nationality and supposed observations of race

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

yeah i see what you mean. I thought you were going to say that pointng out anitomical differences was racist, but that is something else

My views on 5 races is a factual one based on actual differences, that book doesn't even stop at races but comments on nationality and supposed observations of race

Of course there is anatomical differences* , but the old and still living concept of race, do not only limitate the concept of race to appearance.

The concept, of morphopsychology behind the races, is not totally dead in particular.

Now if someone clearly think that race are only appearances, and nothing more, it's ok for me. Unfortunately, I think that this conception is not shared at 100 % by every people. That's why I don't like the word race.

Add that what we call race, is only a way to divise humankind according to their appearance in 5 greats families : white , red , yellow .... Note also that we can divise the humankind using genetic in differents groups, that are not automatically in phasis with this classical classification of race. For example, anthropologist study group migration, with the help of the blood types.

Originally Posted by Powerdoc

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

yeah i see what you mean. I thought you were going to say that pointng out anitomical differences was racist, but that is something else

My views on 5 races is a factual one based on actual differences, that book doesn't even stop at races but comments on nationality and supposed observations of race

Of course there is anatomical differences* , but the old and still living concept of race, do not only limitate the concept of race to appearance.

The concept, of morphopsychology behind the races, is not totally dead in particular.

Now if someone clearly think that race are only appearances, and nothing more, it's ok for me. Unfortunately, I think that this conception is not shared at 100 % by every people. That's why I don't like the word race.

Add that what we call race, is only a way to divise humankind according to their appearance in 5 greats families : white , red , yellow .... Note also that we can divise the humankind using genetic in differents groups, that are not automatically in phasis with this classical classification of race. For example, anthropologist study group migration, with the help of the blood types.

i know what your saying but i was answering it in respect to the question asked at the start of the thread, which is an anitomical one based on the obvious physical differences :wink:

Add that what we call race, is only a way to divise humankind according to their appearance in 5 greats families : white , red , yellow

remember that the 5 races put white europeans in the same race as people from india, pakistan, middle east also. they are all classed as caucasoid, so not really just a colour thing, we have the same bone structures, muscle mass hair type etc

Originally Posted by DarcgreY

river rat is right, the idea of race is deceptive. The human species is one big family when compared to other closely related species. There's more genetic diversity in the mitochondrial DNA of a troop of wild chimps than there is in the entire human race.

True - Yet, DNA is only the first step. The variations of the human genome are vastly overshadowed by the genetic diversity of most other species on this planet. But I think that the few variations we do have in our DNA has caused an effect that is greater, or at least equal, to the effects that are caused by genetic diversity in other lifeforms.

In other words, the physical differences of the human species (Bone structure, skin pigmentation ect ect) are no where near as extreme as the physical differences that can be found within other species. But the effect of those differences is no less significant. This is because of human intelligence. Our physical differences are simply a result of environmental differences. Nothing more.

Yet even the most subtle variation of ones physical form can be greatly amplified by the complexity of ones mental capacity. An ethnic difference can go a long way. From complex intelligence springs complex social behaviors which then leads to culture. Or in this case, various cultures. Language, laws, customs, etiquette, spiritual beliefs and so on and so on. Over the history of mankind these cultural variations, just like the variations of the physical environment, may cause additional shifts in our DNA. Genetic predispositions as a result of ones ethnic, environmental "and" cultural lineage.

So from a practical point of view, I would say there are major differences between myself, a caucasian of Germanic descent, and an African or Afro American of, what would obviously be, African descent.

So Yes, "Race" is a relative term. But I do believe in racial differences - even racial inferiorities and superiorities.

Inferiorities and superiorities are subjective and created by the cultures we grow up in. Our species probably went through a bottleneck within the last 200,000 years that only saw a few individuals survive. These individuals went on to propagate the entire species, now numbering over six billion. Genetically we are all closely related.

IMO the differences between ethnic groups are played up to be much more significant than they truly are.

Greetings all,

There is no such things as "race" in biology.

The concept of "race" is a SOCIAL construct.

There is no genetic or biological basis to "race".

Biologists do NOT talk about "race" any more.

It's an outdated concept.
An oudated concept that's mostly about social division.


Iasion

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

My views on 5 races is a factual one based on actual differences, that book doesn't even stop at races but comments on nationality and supposed observations of race

False.
"Race" is not a fact.

There is no actual biological basis to "race".

"Race" is a social concept - there is as as much variation amongst so-called "races" as there is between them.

Biology and genetics does NOT use the concept of "race" any more because it has been shown to be a false concept.


Iasion

Biology considers mankind as a species. The common usage of the word 'race', in my opinion is nothing more than a class of species denoting a group. One might say "The Japanese are a race apart" indicating only some quality they may possess or lack. I believe the word race merely came from 'line' as in line of decent.

I agree, the giberish human race concept is an arbitrary fabrication that is only transitory

Our physical differences are simply a result of environmental differences. Nothing more.

Mate selection and cultural effects (which are an unseen part of the environment) are also factors thar affect appearance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhlFrpTtnuI

The first 2-3 minutes are boring rehash stuff followed by an intro about japanese myth that initally appears utterly pointless but if you are patient it then becomes freakishly facsinating.

Originally Posted by Iasion

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

My views on 5 races is a factual one based on actual differences, that book doesn't even stop at races but comments on nationality and supposed observations of race

False.
"Race" is not a fact.

There is no actual biological basis to "race".

"Race" is a social concept - there is as as much variation amongst so-called "races" as there is between them.

Biology and genetics does NOT use the concept of "race" any more because it has been shown to be a false concept.


Iasion

what is the term used instead of race for the physical differences in different sets of humans?


Is sub species a better choice of word?

Certainly not sub-species. Minor variant perhaps.
The problem Caveman is that, as previously noted, there are more genetic variations within any of these so-called races than between the races. Many significant genetic differences, for example blood type, cut right across 'racial lines'. Mankind has always been a traveller and we have all kinds of mixed ancestry in our lineage.
I'm happy enough to use the term race, just as long as nobody expects me to take it too seriously.

There is no such things as "race" in biology.

bollock race exist in biology since there are different races in a species such as DOGS
humans have also races that got different characteristics but its not like they are less intelligent or so. but with time it will be one race only in humans

as i understand it; all races have genes of other races but there is a small but significant difference in each. this comes from a group trying to come up with genetic cures based on ancestry. skin pigment is not the main or only difference.

the current theory based on a gene mutation found in whites is what is thought to have come from black or browns living in Africa, estimated at 50k years ago. this one mutant in theory was where all other races may have come from. environment and diets (primarily Vit D) helping the process and humans migrated from Africa.

since these are biologist working on medical programs, they give question to race not being a factor. Google, race-genetic structure.

my interest is in the reason mankind became aware of intelligence. to reason, communicate, speak, write and so on. today brain size in all humans are near the same. Africans today use very little of capacity, yet their descendants in Europe or elsewhere seem to near equal their host. on the other side of the spectrum, Orientals, the Chinese and others for much of time and their descendants where ever seem to excel. this includes descendants from orientals to their host. i understand that many factors can be involved, but the over all picture is Orientals do show mental capacity above all races, yet have the smallest structures. to contrary this, the people that did the first farming, mining, pottery makers and things we know of where black.

I though sub species fits the bill perfectly, some dictionary definitions are

[sub-SPEE-shees] a subdivision of a species, usually a geographic race that varies in size, color, or other characteristics; the different subspecies of a species are ordinarily not sharply differentiated and intergrade with one another as they are capable of interbreeding

a form of a species having a distinctive identity and occupying a particular habitat or region

In my opinion there are smaller differences in many species of animal that are sub-species of each other than differences in certain races of man

Theres far more anatomical difference between races than skin pingmentation, differences inc bone structure, pore sizes, hair structure, facial features, and the issues of certain races inability to take organ transpalants or to contract certain specific illness's eg sickle cell anemia

There are fewer differences in certain areas of nature when sub-species are discovered/named

Originally Posted by Zelos

bollock

What, only one? You're missing out there, most of us have two.....

I think I'd say 'regional variation' when classifying humans...

"RACE"[ Biology].
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

From the online ecyclopath. - sorry paedia...

Greetings again,

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

what is the term used instead of race for the physical differences in different sets of humans?
Is sub species a better choice of word?

I don't think you got my point.
It's not the term that is the problem.
It's the CONCEPT that is wrong.

It's not a "race", it's not a "sub species".

There is no biological or genetic basis to the concept you are describing at all.

Yes,
there are differences among humans.

But those differences do NOT classify humans into "races" or "sub species" or anything like that.

There is just as much difference amongst what you are calling a "race" as there is between them.


Iasion

Originally Posted by Zelos

There is no such things as "race" in biology.

bollock race exist in biology since there are different races in a species such as DOGS
humans have also races that got different characteristics but its not like they are less intelligent or so. but with time it will be one race only in humans

I'm sorry, but you are completely incorrect.

There is no biological or genetic basis to what you call human "races".

If YOU think there is, please present an example.

Yes,
there are differences amongst humans - so what?

But there is as much difference amongst the so-called "races" as there is between them.

If you study a particular "race" - you will NOT find a genetic marker common to all of them and only them.

If you study a particular trait - you will NOT find it is common to one race and only that race.

Modern biologists are certain - ther is NO GENETIC or BIOLOGICAL basis to what you call a human "race" - none.


Iasion

Greetings,

Originally Posted by jackson33

Africans today use very little of capacity, yet their descendants in Europe or elsewhere seem to near equal their host. on the other side of the spectrum, Orientals, the Chinese and others for much of time and their descendants where ever seem to excel. this includes descendants from orientals to their host. i understand that many factors can be involved, but the over all picture is Orientals do show mental capacity above all races, yet have the smallest structures.

This is a perfect example of what human "races" are all about - claiming that some group of humans is generally "better" in some way than another group.

The concept of human "races" is merely a social construct used by some groups to pretend they are better than some other groups in general.


Sure, some Orientals may be smarter than some Occidentals.

So what?

Some Occidentals are smarter than some Orientals.

Some Orientals are smarter than some other Orientals.

Some Occidentals are smarter than some other Occidentals.

However - it is NOT TRUE that all Orientals are smarter than all Occidentals.

It's just that humans DIFFER.


But in biology the facts are 100% completely crystal clear - there is no biological or genetic basis to human "races".

If YOU think there is, present a clear cut case, and you will win the Nobel Prize.

I won't hold my breath :-)


Iasion

You see, Black absorbs heat, white reflects heat. I would have thought that having black skin would have given you the functional advantage of absorbing more heat. So common sense would have told me that black people should come from colder climates and white people from hotter ones. but the reverse is true. Very strange.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

You see, Black absorbs heat, white reflects heat. I would have thought that having black skin would have given you the functional advantage of absorbing more heat. So common sense would have told me that black people should come from colder climates and white people from hotter ones. but the reverse is true. Very strange.

I've never been able to work that one out either. Why did we (Cold climate people) evolve to have white skin ?

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings again,

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

what is the term used instead of race for the physical differences in different sets of humans?
Is sub species a better choice of word?

I don't think you got my point.
It's not the term that is the problem.
It's the CONCEPT that is wrong.

It's not a "race", it's not a "sub species".

There is no biological or genetic basis to the concept you are describing at all.

Yes,
there are differences among humans.

But those differences do NOT classify humans into "races" or "sub species" or anything like that.

There is just as much difference amongst what you are calling a "race" as there is between them.


Iasion

No, I think your missing the point these differences on an anitomical level

How can there not be "no biological or genetic basis ", can you explain why people from an afro carribean origin can have sickle cell anemia when people who are caucasian cannot? Can you explain why all members of the mongoloid race have extra pieces of skin arounf their eyes which are not in any other race?

But most importantly Can you explain why certain races cannot accept organ donations from other races even with the same blood groups

Look at the dictionary difitions, race and sub-species are differences based on geographics

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings,

Originally Posted by jackson33

Africans today use very little of capacity, yet their descendants in Europe or elsewhere seem to near equal their host. on the other side of the spectrum, Orientals, the Chinese and others for much of time and their descendants where ever seem to excel. this includes descendants from orientals to their host. i understand that many factors can be involved, but the over all picture is Orientals do show mental capacity above all races, yet have the smallest structures.

This is a perfect example of what human "races" are all about - claiming that some group of humans is generally "better" in some way than another group.

The concept of human "races" is merely a social construct used by some groups to pretend they are better than some other groups in general.


Sure, some Orientals may be smarter than some Occidentals.

So what?

Some Occidentals are smarter than some Orientals.

Some Orientals are smarter than some other Orientals.

Some Occidentals are smarter than some other Occidentals.

However - it is NOT TRUE that all Orientals are smarter than all Occidentals.

It's just that humans DIFFER.


But in biology the facts are 100% completely crystal clear - there is no biological or genetic basis to human "races".

If YOU think there is, present a clear cut case, and you will win the Nobel Prize.

I won't hold my breath :-)


Iasion

i was reluctant to post on this issue, but i do have interest in understanding what has triggered or caused intelligence of sorts to come from what should be instinct. i pointed this out and only referenced the races to show lack of consistency to any races development. my opinions and stated as such were accurate to groups. Orientals, SEEM to have a record of excelling in math and sciences through out history, including today.

as to racist, it would hardly be beneficial to mention the theory that all mankind came from Blacks. until recently i was trying to figure a means to evolve white from black through others, but it appears (according to a study) that THEY have found whites were the mutant and from blacks. the others developed from this combination, if THEY are correct.

no doubt some animal is smarter than an entirely different animal. they are still simply different species. yes, all homo-sapians are capable of identical intelligence, if thats what you want. my desire is to understand how this species (humans) evolved and in regards to intelligence. what triggered this about 50 to 75k years ago. something happened and i have some ideas.

yes there are differences, in both the genetics and DNA of each race but this is also true in each individual of all in that race. i mentioned that these differences are also found in some of all other races as well.

CC I think you are wrong - I understand biologists use terms like 'regional variation' - there are millions of differences between the genetic coding of individuals - in fact there are hundreds of billions [at least!] otherwise somebody in africa might have the exact same genetic make up as an unrelated individual anywhere else in the world. I believe it was mentioned earlier that two individuals native to a particular area can easily have a wider gene pool between them than any other two people however far apart. - you can blame the bloody Victorians who saw almost every other non-european as inferior - right up until the 50's in print were references to africans as.. well.. let's say 'of originating from Niger' - what you see in a person is a handful of genes which go to decide height, skin-tone and general build - it is known to be a tiny portion of the total pool - what you cannot see is the internal affects.

If you want to sub-divide the human race [and you mentioned sicle-cell anemia] - use blood group for a start - that is one parameter that is poisonous to non-members of your group. Next plot them from around the world and you will see you are taking people from every corner of the globe - blood group then clearly was established prior to migration from Africa - ie older than variation in skin tone and many other features you indicate. Surely, logically, a far more valid parameter should one wish to divide the species.

Maybe i used bad examples, but surely the sub-species or race definitions fit to the physical characteristics of each group.

The shape of nose of afro-carribeans, the extra piece of skin on eastern asian people, surely these are evolutionary changes due to geographical differences and are valid differences to fit a sub-species/race criteria

In the rat snake family, some sub-species from different parts of north america come down to marginal different scale counts across the head and body, that justifys a different sub-species, why cant/dont the same thing happen with people? Is it clouded by political correctness or holding the human status above that of other animals?

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Maybe i used bad examples, but surely the sub-species or race definitions fit to the physical characteristics of each group.

IN the nicest possible way, bollocks! - physical characteristics? - that has to be due [to an extent] to environmental issues - eg people who live in mountainous area may be of more muscular build, whether in africa or south america - they could have identical physical characteristics yet be genetically more closely related to the people in their local valleys.. hence 'regional variation'

No, I say if you are going to class people by thier genetic diversity then you use the earliest changes first - in acordance with evolution and that as I said would/may be blood. It is older than the migration from africa, at which time we can consider the whole human race was dark skinned.

Anyway this is biology And I shouldn't be in here so now I've wrecked your day (actually I thought you'd rather be stabbed in the back by a friend. (:wink - oh look at last I've found a bloody smiley that shows my last 2 strands of hair!

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

No, I think your missing the point these differences on an anitomical level

Of course they are.
But they are not specific to what you call a "race".
They are merely traits found in some humans and not in others, and indeed more common in some regions than others.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

How can there not be "no biological or genetic basis ", can you explain why people from an afro carribean origin can have sickle cell anemia when people who are caucasian cannot?

That is simply not true.
I did NOT say there is no genetic basis to genetic traits.
You simply do not understand what I am saying.

Some people can get sickle-cell anemia.
Some people are resistant.

It is NOT TRUE that only one "race" gets it, and NO-ONE from another race gets it.

(Although it IS TRUE, that the trait is more common in some areas.)

Some "caucasians" can get it.
Some "caucasians" are resistant.

Some "afro carribeans" can get it.
Some "afro carribeans" are resistant.

More of one group is resistant, more of one group is not.

But it is NOT TRUE than only one "race" can get it, and the other "races" cannot.

Simply not true.


Iasion

Here is a another way of saying it :

It is NOT TRUE that :
All those of human "race" R have trait T.

It is NOT TRUE that :
All those with trait T are from "race" R.

I hope that makes it clear.


Q.

Iasion is expressing my views on this matter better than I can, so I'll just lend my support to all his posts. :-D . Right on brother!

Of course they are.
But they are not specific to what you call a "race".
They are merely traits found in some humans and not in others, and indeed more common in some regions than others

how do you mean more common in some regions? When was a black or asian person born to a white family in say the 16th century?

When has a caucasian's physical features ben born to a black tribe in a tribe in africa?

In africa ALL natives are black, so thats not "more common" but the rule, In Northern europe the same thing with white people, how can that not be from either geographical reasons, or following down one family path

I still believe each race(as i call call it :wink: ) is down to evolutionary changes in their geographical conditions which gives them their appearence and hence different sub-species standing

CC you are wrong on so many levels and in so many ways I don't know where to begin. This is not like you. Usually you are very sensible and discerning. When I return home I shall try to remember to post the details of a book that will conivnce you in ways that I am unable to do.

Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

CC you are wrong on so many levels and in so many ways I don't know where to begin. This is not like you. Usually you are very sensible and discerning. When I return home I shall try to remember to post the details of a book that will conivnce you in ways that I am unable to do.

Ophiolite

wrong how? Is it just a coincidence that people near the equator are all darker skinned in the hotter climate? Is that all just down to the genetic make up of the ancestors who live there or from years of evolution in that climate?

This kinda regional differences happen in many areas of nature, all adaptations to fit their enviroment through evolution, why is it different in humans? including facial differences

Why is it that africans and aborigines both have similar facial structure throughout their range even though there is such a wide gap in their genetic paths? Is it a coincidence they both live in hot arrid areas?

Is the amount of melanin in the skin not from evolution?

Originally Posted by leohopkins

You see, Black absorbs heat, white reflects heat. I would have thought that having black skin would have given you the functional advantage of absorbing more heat. So common sense would have told me that black people should come from colder climates and white people from hotter ones. but the reverse is true. Very strange.

I think this has less to do with heat, and more to do about blocking intense UV radiation. White skin in more transparent and will allow more sunlight through, so we can make vitamin D. Too much sunlight and we burn...so our bodies create melonin to protect us. If we live in a sunny enviorment for many generations, a "good tan" comes factory installed.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Originally Posted by leohopkins

You see, Black absorbs heat, white reflects heat. I would have thought that having black skin would have given you the functional advantage of absorbing more heat. So common sense would have told me that black people should come from colder climates and white people from hotter ones. but the reverse is true. Very strange.

I think this has less to do with heat, and more to do about blocking intense UV radiation. White skin in more transparent and will allow more sunlight through, so we can make vitamin D. Too much sunlight and we burn...so our bodies create melonin to protect us. If we live in a sunny enviorment for many generations, a "good tan" comes factory installed.

from what i understand, certain races are almost unheard of getting certain skin cancers because of their menalin levels

Well,

I did my best,
CC just will not listen, oh well.

Thanks for your comments - and good luck Ophiolite :-)

(I saw a scientific paper recently which discussed certain traits and their distribution amongst different peoples - it did not use the word "race" ONCE - this is becoming quite common now - biologists simply don't use this out of date concept.)


Iasion

Originally Posted by Iasion

Well,

I did my best,
CC just will not listen, oh well.

Thanks for your comments - and good luck Ophiolite :-)

(I saw a scientific paper recently which discussed certain traits and their distribution amongst different peoples - it did not use the word "race" ONCE - this is becoming quite common now - biologists simply don't use this out of date concept.)


Iasion

so explain to me why all afro carribeans have the shape of face they do? why east asians have the face shape and eye shape they do, same with hair etc

With the greatest respect CC why will you not drop the [IMO] outdated, incorrect description of [what you see as] 'race' for the more descriptive 'regional variation' ? - then I feel, the debate might move forward.

Since migrating from Africa man appears to have developed 'local characteristics' - and indeed there is argument that if the african were to swap places with the european en masse then within some period the characteristics would reverse. This does not suggest to me any form of 'mutation' merely a flexible ability to adapt to some environmental conditions that are at the root of this debate - changes that can be truly 'reversed' whereas 'mutation' cannot be truly reversed.

I await your comments..

Originally Posted by Megabrain

With the greatest respect CC why will you not drop the [IMO] outdated, incorrect description of [what you see as] 'race' for the more descriptive 'regional variation' ? - then I feel, the debate might move forward.

Since migrating from Africa man appears to have developed 'local characteristics' - and indeed there is argument that if the african were to swap places with the european en masse then within some period the characteristics would reverse. This does not suggest to me any form of 'mutation' merely a flexible ability to adapt to some environmental conditions that are at the root of this debate - changes that can be truly 'reversed' whereas 'mutation' cannot be truly reversed.

I await your comments..

But this the point i have been trying to make since the start. The facial characteristics, skin colour and hair etc are all down to geographics, and as you said if the places were reversed then white europeans would develop these characteristics over time.

Some of these characteristics would happen through mutations as in other areas of natural selection, (eg in northern europe the paler skinned offspring would have an advantage with vitamin d intake etc), adaptation to fit the enviroment

That is why i used the sub-species term, because it is used for local differences in species that have adapted because of their enviroment


How is that out-dated? Is evolution from the enviroment out-dated?


Do you agree that the physical differences in apperance between two different "groups" is/could be down to enviromental differences?

Originally Posted by CC

Some of these characteristics would happen through mutations

No I believe all of the characteristics you mention are reversible adaptations.

A mutation is a permanent change to a species resulting in a sub-spieces -there is no human on earth who can be classed as a 'sub-species'

I would urge you not to associate yourself with such a position which many might challenge is 'akin' to the mistakes of the 1930's.

'Regional variation bringing about minor genetic variation' is the stance I would prefer you to take.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by CC

Some of these characteristics would happen through mutations

No I believe all of the characteristics you mention are reversible adaptations.

A mutation is a permanent change to a species resulting in a sub-spieces -there is no human on earth who can be classed as a 'sub-species'

I would urge you not to associate yourself with such a position which many might challenge is 'akin' to the mistakes of the 1930's.

.'Regional variation bringing about minor genetic variation' is the stance I would prefer you to take

Maybe my wording is incorrect then, i dont understand what you mean by the 1930's comment. Are you accusing my comments as racist? I dont see any race as inferior or has any other traits but those visible. Infact the subspecies to me is an adaptation from the origin of man. Eg i see white europeans as a subspecies of man, adapted to live in a temperate area of the northern hemisphere

The dictionary definitions of subspecies do not make any references to wether adaptations are reversable or not, they just state

A sub-division of a species, usually inhabiting a particular area: visibly different from other populations of the same species but still able to interbreed with them

does this still not apply?

your comment

'Regional variation bringing about minor genetic variation' is the stance I would prefer you to take

Is this not also minute genetic mutations through the enviroment?

Dont confuse my comments with certain people through history's views on the superior race etc. Im just looking at humans(all humans)as animals and fitting the same divisions based on visual characteristics that entomologists, herpetoligists(sp) or any other area would. Im only talking about the visuals we all see and nothing else.

a division of a species. Different populations of a species, usually separated by different body coloration, vocalizations, and/or behaviors

[sub-SPEE-shees] a subdivision of a species, usually a geographic race that varies in size, color, or other characteristics; the different subspecies of a species are ordinarily not sharply differentiated and intergrade with one another as they are capable of interbreeding

A uniform, genetically distinct population of a species, often in a specific geographic region

Physically distinguishable populations within a species

and theres many more

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ition&ct=title

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by CC

Some of these characteristics would happen through mutations

No I believe all of the characteristics you mention are reversible adaptations.

A mutation is a permanent change to a species resulting in a sub-spieces -there is no human on earth who can be classed as a 'sub-species'

I would urge you not to associate yourself with such a position which many might challenge is 'akin' to the mistakes of the 1930's.

.'Regional variation bringing about minor genetic variation' is the stance I would prefer you to take

Maybe my wording is incorrect then, i dont understand what you mean by the 1930's comment. Are you accusing my comments as racist? I dont see any race as inferior or has any other traits but those visible. Infact the subspecies to me is an adaptation from the origin of man. Eg i see white europeans as a subspecies of man, adapted to live in a temperate area of the northern hemisphere

I am quite convinced you are using words in what you believe is their scientific sense, however those same words can be mis-construed [and indeed sometimes are] by some who may level an unfair accusation against you.

There are many instances of this throughout history, one that readily springs to mind is that of Dawin himself, he was asked 'which of your grandparents was the monkey' - I believe that the term 'sub-species' is not PC when applied to the human race - others also appear to take this position. I take that position here because it is a public forum, that is, a place where any person may view it's contents.

I once compiled a report into a serious production problem and in my summary I concluded "I therefore believe the final solution is to..."
I won't make that mistake again. I thought it crazy - sheer bloody crazy!
Just because a 3rd line Engineering manager was of jewish origin, a fact I did not know until then.

sorry no, im going on a purely scientific wording with no disrespect to any group because no group is excluded and all are included.

Based solely on the scientific meaning of subspecies and in no way meaning subspecies=sub-standard or however else it could be taken.

All humans have caracteristics that could fit them into one catagory or another, but thats not to seperate people or group them, theres enough of that already with race,colour,creed,religion, sex,age etc etc

I personally don't see why any group of animals, including ourselves should be too high to fit the scientific ordering

Many species have a third word after their latin purely for this reason

an example close to my heart is the north american rat snake, Elaphe obsoleta, which has subspecies based on small variations that are found on that one continent

Elaphe obsoleta lindheimeri (Texas Ratsnake)
Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta (Black Ratsnake)
Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata (Yellow Ratsnake)
Elaphe obsoleta rossalleni (Everglades Ratsnake)
Elaphe obsoleta spiloides (Gray Ratsnake)

And i see no problem theoretically on a scientific level to use

homo sapien ________ etc

Off coure this is is not PC or there is no point to doing so, but the point im making is on a scientic level the physical differences COULD warrant a subspecies label off all "races" but im not saying it SHOULD

Hopefully someone can understand what im trying to say?

CC

Could you perhaps enlighten us as to the extent, of the small variations in the snake populations as you describe, and what are thought to be the reasons [if known] ?

Reasons for some of these im unsure on, thats a mother nature question on many parts.

Many have colouration differences due to their habitat and surroundings, the other differences are slight variations to length, number and pattern of saddles and belly scales and the slight differences in facial structures and shape

The only true way to tell certain snakes apart is by subcaudal scales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcaudals

plus certain different facial scale counts , eg the supralabial scales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supralabials

there are other scale counts and presence of, or lack of scales that are widely used in field, im not privvy to all those though

Scale counts are used generally across many species of snake when it comes to assigning subspecies status, the ones above are for elaphe obseleta, but some could also be used to take it back to the elaphe family itself(as obseleta is a subspecies in itself)

Also as sub species these can all breed with other elaphe species including what i breed the corn snake elaphe guttata guttata, which are slightly different again,

Thanks for that. To summarise: the scale variation of snakes is enough to classify the snake to a sub-species, similar and greater [apparent]differences among humans for reasons of 'PC' do not allow similar 'sub-species' classiication. - agreed? - yeah I know...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Thanks for that. To summarise: the scale variation of snakes is enough to classify the snake to a sub-species, similar and greater [apparent]differences among humans for reasons of 'PC' do not allow similar 'sub-species' classiication. - agreed? - yeah I know...

scale variations along with colour and patterns generally but because of over-lapping regions and the potential of subspecies to breed, scale counts the most accurate. In some cases its facially shapes too, but only minor differences to that :-D

Does it matter - Looks like they've all phucked off anyway - I'll leave you to put the lights out. :wink:

i think i may have upset some people not intentionally though

Well I'm sure if they pop back and read it through they'll understand - then maybe they will debate whever the original question was - something about varieties of nut's wasn't it?

I wonder if it would be a racial prejudice if I declared "I don't think the human race is fit to dominate the world" - can I say that as I'm a member? - hang on there's a copper at the door....

hmm, i said that in a poem in the art and culture bit, i proposed that the cockroaches should rule

I think you'll find it's us cat's that already rule the world.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

I think you'll find it's us cat's that already rule the world.

I thought it was mice, well according to douglas adams

It's the bells, the bells....

Please visit here for more details...

MOD EDIT: PLease do not just post a link and 'sod off', give a description or whatever. - Megabrain

ALL RACES COME FROM INBREED BLACK WHITE


you people have no understanding, i will tell you the truth but thats only if you want to know. first you should learn about genetics and natural selection. your own people hind the truth from you. after you read this, instead of debating get knowledge. read and learn , and then sort out the information today's theories are that the white came about because moving north, because of less uv light, false, by the way im not that good in spelling or punctuation's --theories are : their is a natural mutation in the genes of human that causes lighter skin. the mutation rate in this gene is the same for all races ,african,euoupean, etc, but they claim that the mutation in this gene wouldnt cause people to get lighter in Africa because of the high uv rays(would kill the lighter ones out). but when people move north to europe less uv rays allowed people to get lighter and lighter (false). they say people wouldn't get lighter in africa because every time a mutation would happen and someone would get lighter skin they would have a less servival rate do to cancer, not true because the death age of skin cancer would be above the age of reproduction(child birth :so they would have the same chance to have children as other people ) <second why this is not true.if people moved to euorpe with less uv rays ,,,they say because of the less uv rays, the mutation in the gene that cause lighter skin was allowed to servive then over time it would get lighter and lighter....not true because ,let me explain it to you in a simple way.. let me give you an example of this mutation: two dark dark black people of the same color have a baby thats lighter than them that has brown skin... now what they dont tell you is this mutation can happen both ways,, two dark dark people can have babys that have brown skin / and two brown skin people can have a child with dark black skin..... they say people turned white this way. let me tell you why this couldnt happen in a simpler way.... take a very very very big tub of black paint this represents a larg population of black people . now take a dripper and drip small drops of white paint in the black tub this is the mutation .. now if you do this for hours the paint would get grey intill it turn white... now the white race could have come this way but no remember what i just told you,, the mutation happens both ways .....so for example if you dripped in a drop of white paint and then a drop of black paint you could do this forever and it wouldnt turn white.

so where do white people come from, i will tell you but you wont exept it because you have no understanding . i am not here to down you . i am here only to give the truth......... ALBINOS ......it is simple i dont even have to explain it in detail it is very simple. people will tell you that white people are not and can not come from albinos because albinos have no pigmentation at all . this is tru white people do have just a little bit more pigmentation than albinos. but let me explain that , self expiriment on albino mice . albino mice have white fur and red eyes. the fur is whit because of no pigment,, their eyes are red because of no pigment. you can take a whole population of albino mice put them in a box and they will breed only albino mice. but if you put in black or brown mice with the albino, but not too much, because it would wipe out the whole population of the albino mice if you put to much dark mice. but if you put in just a little of dark mice every so often and let them breed for generations...it would breed pigment into the albino mice.. you would start to see white mice with black eyes. and you can see this example in the human population ......most albinos are born with blonde hair and blue eyes...

example this is how you can breed pigment into albinos::::if you take todays white people (not albinos,, plain white people) but get all white people with blonde hair and blue eyes and put them on an island and do the same example above after years and years and years all the white people would have dark hair and dark eyes. but you cant put in to much dark people at a time you have to take it slow or the facial features of the white people would be lost because of the dominant features of dark people. so if its done slow they would remain white people but have darker hair and eyes

and i know you are looking for another answer:: when black people in africa have albino they still look like black people. this is very simple if you just learn a little about genetics and natural salection and evolution. it is genetic facts that the dna coding in human and all animals have natural mutations . the resond why people have differient facial features is because of natural salection...the enviroment has some affect on natural salection but mostly for animals . and people too. but when people deveoped intelligence they can play a larg roll in thier own natural salection from what they choose most of. if a population would begend to favor shortness and choose that,, over time all would be short

MOST ALBINOS HAVE BLONDE HAIR BLUE EYES. THIS BOY HAS BLONDE HAIR DARK EYES

recently, while searching this issue, i ran across a new finding by those folks who study race/genetic-health relationships. they say, a defective gen has been found in white people, which spawned whites from black. they also realized that of the three basic races each had maintained some differences and by location these differences have decreased. environment and vit-D, did play a role, but the fundamental differences are maintained to some degree. they noted that treatments of many disease or problems for each can be increased in value to a race, while another may not have any response.

i have felt, the albino, was the most logical means of pigment changes and felt the last race to evolve were white. the idea that whites were a malfunction of genetics and others evolved via the white black combination presents an explanation to the genetic differences. where these studies can take us is not sure. add in the pigment/hair color of mammals in general, it becomes hard to explain in location or vit-D. there are additionally albinos today, in all the races, locations of people and climates. i will also suggest that the darker skin of any race in a couple will dominate in general the offspring.

I found this topic, and wanted to share another of my theories here too. I think you will start to find that as my posts lean toward the direction of evolution and linguistics, they start to take on an almost pseudo-scientific look and feel. I assure you, however, that my theories are rather well developed, and will one day become mainstream.

Introduction

I would like to start by addressing some of the points brought up in this thread, namely, the definition of ‘race,’ the variability of the human population, the evolutionary history of the human population, and the origin of the ‘white man.’ When we put these definitions and theories together, we will see how modern science has quite a misunderstanding of race and human evolution.

Definition of ‘Race’

In the biological sense, I see race as being the classified groups of a species based on differences which occur and are present in some populations but not in others. Primarily for this post ‘race’ will be used to mean structural differences, i.e., differences in physically measurable aspects—mostly bones—, not colour differences, or hair texture, etc.; and also genetic differences. These groups are not necessarily—and probably never have been, nor will be—the same groups created for ‘races’ on the social side of the issue, such as White, African, Latino/a, etc. The definitions used in this post also give each race a much wider area. Where social races may be based on boundaries such as certain landmasses, countries, or even states/provinces or other localities; the boundaries used in the definition of race as used in this post are based on the race itself: where it generally exists, its natural boundaries, historical location, and perhaps even origin. This means that a race starts and stops at the lines where the differences in one race become something else in the other. Generally, this is not a solid line, however, and the points at which races meet is generally mixed with some differences from one race and some from another. It is with this, much more biologically based, definition of race in mind that I use the term in my post. I also find this definition suffices not just for my own use, but for the use of race discussions in general.

Variability of the Human Population

This is an excellent place to start when looking at race. Humans have had the label of being less genetically diverse than almost all other species on the planet. One explanation is that our evolutionary history simply does not go back far enough for such diversity to have arisen at higher levels. Another, much better, explanation is that what we consider humans today (Homo sapiens) is in reality just a single variety within a larger species. If we consider H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis, and others as far back as them, to be part of the sapiens line, I think we will find much more the variation we find with other animals. That these ‘pre-humans’, namely erectus are also part of our modern species (though of a different variety, i.e., subspecies) has been suggested by Milford Wolpoff. I will not go into too much detail on his studies here, as they should be readily accessible with an Internet search, but I will sum up his conclusion, which was that currently classified H. erectus should be classified instead as H. sapiens erectus.¹ I would like to point out that a status as a subspecies is not necessarily implicative of being ‘lower-levelled.’ Modern humans are, ourselves, a subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens, though are considered by many biologists to be the only subspecies in all of our species.

Many modern-day studies on human variability focus on the genetic variance from population to population. Because of this, I will admit, my theory lacks the ability to be proven or disproven, and so must remain a hypothesis until other methods are developed for finding and extracting H. sapiens erectus DNA for modern comparison. Neanderthal (H. neanderthalensis) DNA has been extracted, and evidence such as the ‘ginger gene’ show a continuity between Neanderthals and modern Europeans, which would mean they were able to reproduce with the modern variation of humans, and so should be considered the same species.

Evolutionary History of the Human Population

Many of the racial differences of modern humans we see today can be explained if we understand that modern humans are only a variation of the entire species that once existed. Others have done far too much writing on this for me to ignore it and write this on my own. I will instead offer a link to a page that should provide a reasonable summation of the model I believe to represent accurately the evolutionary history of modern humans. Multiregional Model - Wikipedia.

The Origin of Whiteness

I would not generally reserve an entire heading for this subject, but because it has been discussed so much in this thread, I feel I must offer some of what I believe to be the true story behind this. Whiteness evolved long ago, much earlier than the modern human variation. I've shown the ginger gene as evidence of the red-hair-light-skin-freckle combination found in modern Europeans and ancient Neanderthals. This would suggest that whiteness is a racial characteristic much older than most Out of Africa theorists would like to believe. Why would whiteness be selected for? In far north climates sunlight levels are low, especially during the time of the Ice Age, yet important. In equatorial, more or less, climates sunlight is extremely plentiful. Sunlight is required for vitamin D synthesis. In darker-skinned people living in northern climates the sunlight would be too low so as to lead to poor vitamin D synthesis, poor calcium, and soft bones.² Lighter skin people alternatively, are able to absorb much more sunlight and synthesis the appropriate amounts of vitamin D to ensure survival. In a northern climate settled by darker-skinned ‘pre-humans,’ we would expect the population to move toward a lighter skin average.

Conclusion

Modern mainstream science has erred in its acceptance of an African origin of modern humans. It has failed to take into account interbreeding capabilities of erectue and neanderthalensis with sapiens, which would show them all to be of one species. It has not adequately taken into account genetic similarities between Neanderthals and modern Europeans that are better explained by breeding than through a second and identical evolution of the same trait. It has also not recognized the importance of regional continuity as shown in Asian sapiens skulls and erectus skulls from the same area.

It is of my opinion that racial differences, as the term is used in this post, arose at least 1 mya in erectus populations that had spread from Africa, and that later evolved into sapiens populations, keeping connected enough on a world level to maintain status as a single species. I do not accept the Out of Africa implications that would require ancient ‘pre-human’ characteristics to evolve first in the ‘pre-human’ populations, and then later and independently in modern human populations, and not giving any credence to the clear fact that there is regional continuity between these ‘pre-humans’ and modern humans. Such continuity is best explained by accepting that:

1. modern humans were capable of breeding with ‘pre-humans,’ indicating they are of the same species.
2. racial differences did not arise roughly 150 kya, but have instead been present in humanity for a very long time.
3. the modern variation of humans did not evolve in Africa as a separate species, but rather evolved in the entire Old World all as one from earlier varieties.

Regards,
Rv. Jon

___________________________
¹ Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, Race and Human Evolution (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 252.
² Eytan Avital and Eva Jablonka, Animal Traditions, Behavioural Inheritance in Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 14.