Do Different Human Races Exist?

[goofyfish]

Is the biological concept of "race" a scientifically meaningful way of explaining human variation?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but arguably there is no one group of humans that is completely distinct according to any bodily characteristic or group of characteristics (hair, skin, etc), blood type, or DNA. There is just as much genetic difference between two people of the same ethnic population as there is between any two humans on earth at random. If that’s true, it means that what distinction does exist is simply due to the fact that we are individuals instead of members of a biologically distinct race.

Many anthropological organizations reject "race" as a way of understanding human diversity. Instead of distinct races, some have suggested that humanity is more of a continuum with gradual changes.

Please keep in mind that culturally based "ethnicity" does exist, as do racial perceptions. These should not be confused with the question that I am pursuing.

Peace.

[Eflex tha Vybe Scientist]

Race is a social construct.

Ethnicities do exist, no doubt.

but grouping hundreds of millions of humans into categories such as yellow,red,black,white and brown is illogical

there is but one race, the human race.

[KneD]

I've always learned that there are a few sorts of human races:

-European kind...
-Asian kind..
-African kind....

offcourse wrong names, but I quess everyone knows what I mean. All the other sorts are based on these three.

offcourse these 3 are based on one kind too (only found out recently, there has always been a theory of two human ancestors...who met eachother in Africa once, and separated to africa and australia....but recently they found out only one of these species survived and became humans...after splitting up in two groups: australian and african)
This Homo sapiens splitted up in three groups who developed into humans separated.

I quess we have to take a pigeon example. For most humans pigeons all look the same....but different feathers make them different species/races.
That's how it is with humans too I think.

[Eflex tha Vybe Scientist]

Race is a term historically used to describe a human population distinguishable from others based on shared biological traits. All living human beings belong to one species, Homo sapiens. The concept of race stems from the idea that the human species can be naturally subdivided into biologically distinct groups. In practice, however, scientists have found it impossible to separate humans into clearly defined races. Most scientists today reject the concept of biological race and instead see human biological variation as falling along a continuum.

[Eflex tha Vybe Scientist]

Originally posted by KneD


I quess we have to take a pigeon example. For most humans pigeons all look the same....but different feathers make them different species/races.
That's how it is with humans too I think.

Racial classification of some birds is easy. Throat color, voice, plummage and habitat preference all vary geographically in yellow-rumped warblers, but the variation of those three traits is "concordant"--that is, voice differences or habitat differences lead to the same racial classification as differences in throat color because the same populations that differ in throat color also differ in voice and habitat.

Racial classification of many other species, though, presents problems of concordance. For instance, a Pacific island bird species called the golden whistler varies from one island to the next. Some populations consist of big birds, some of small birds; some have black-winged males, others green-winged males; some have yellow-breasted females, others gray- breasted females; many other characteristics vary as well. But, unfortunately for humans like me who study these birds, those characteristics don't vary concordantly. Islands with green-winged males can have either yellow-breasted or gray-breasted females, and green-winged males are big on some islands but small on other islands. As a result, if you classified golden whistlers into races based on single traits, you would get entirely different classifications depending on which trait you chose.


Humanity is even MORE complex.

[kmguru]

May be the physical location on the planet changes the features over a very long periods (like 10,000 years)...just a thought.

[paulsamuel]

Race is a sort of antiquated word. It was coined by naturalists when species were thought to be immutable (pre-Darwinian). However, naturalists could not blatantly disregard the variation in species seen between habitats, or traits that varied with latitude (or altitude for that matter). These variable populations were termed races.

Today, the term is not seriously used by us biologists. We biologists may refer to populations or subspecies and these may concord with what were once termed races.

In humans, there are genetically distinct populations that can concord with geographic location (i.e Americas, Africa, Europe, Asia). These populations are distinguishable phylogenetically, however Eflex is correct when pointing out that the genetic variation within these populations is far greater than variation between them.

[Adam]

I don't know if this applies or not, but a Malaysian buddy was just telling me that all Asians are lactose intolerant. Due to not eating dairy stuff much over most of Asian history, blah blah blah...

[Rick]

Biologically,
there was a specie totally different that ours(super specie i mean)that was called Neanderthal man.this man had larger cranial capacity than us,but it became extinct!!:(
we dont have a clue as yet how.



bye!

[Rick]

also as far as i remember,his chin wasnt protuding like ours...



bye!

[kmguru]

Biologically, there was a specie totally different that ours(super specie i mean)that was called Neanderthal man.this man had larger cranial capacity than us,but it became extinct!!
we dont have a clue as yet how.

Could be too smart for their own good...have you heard of nuclear weapons or the galaxy bombs? May be they produced these and wiped everything on planet earth. Too bad, you can not prove a negative...

[ChristCrusher]

bah, there is complete evolutionary genetic evidence towards the concept of 'races' within the human population.


read further on 'The Seven Daughters of Eve'

[kmguru]

Ofcourse there is evidence...

Evidence

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place.

or could be someone threw a rock or a tornado perhaps...

It is the conclusion that gets tricky....

[ChristCrusher]

read the paper before posting such weak generalized counterargument

[(Q)]

Adam

I don't know if this applies or not, but a Malaysian buddy was just telling me that all Asians are lactose intolerant. Due to not eating dairy stuff much over most of Asian history, blah blah blah...

Merry White, an anthropologist at Boston University, reflected on the global reach and role of ice cream. She pointed out, for instance, that ice cream was sold in Yokohama as early as 1869, which makes it as Japanese as, well, baseball. And with the most popular flavors in Japan actually being vanilla and strawberry...

http://www.sciam.com/2002/0502issue/0502antimatter.html

It's true - the Chinese are thought to have invented the first frozen ice concoction around 2,000 B.C., either by leaving it outdoors in the cold mountain winds or by freezing the ingredients in a mixture of ice and coarse salt. Furthermore, there is a theory that iced dairy products were introduced to the west by travelers returning from China.*

http://chinesefood.about.com/library/weekly/aa070601a.htm

[kmguru]

Originally posted by ChristCrusher
read the paper before posting such weak generalized counterargument

My son told me, never argue with a fool, listeners can not diffrentiate which one is which....sorry, did not see the paper in the forum...my mistake...the posting stands on its own..take it or leave it...

[Lesion42]

Whether there is or not doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, we're all just one big happy family, right? Right? No? Hmm.... Maybe it just possibly could matter. but I don't really think so :p

[kmguru]

In another thread we are talking about possibilities of advanced human civilization 120 million years ago. Would that matter?....Hmmm...


http://www.therussianissues.com/topics/55/02/04/02/14403.html

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/04/30/28149.html

Excerpts:

It was difficult to determine even an approximate age of the slab. At first, radiocarbonic analysis was carried out, afterwards levels of stab were scanned with uranium chronometer, though the investigations showed different results and the age of the stab remained unclear. While examining the stone, two shells were found on its surface. The age of one of them – Navicopsina munitus of Gyrodeidae family - is about 50 million years, while of the second one – Ecculiomphalus princeps of Ecculiomphalinae subfamily - is about 120 million years. Namely that age was accepted as a “working version.” “The map was probably created at the time when the Earth’s magnetic pole situated in the today’s area of Franz Josef Land, while this was exactly 120 million years ago, - professor Chuvyrov says. – The map we have is beyond of traditional perception of mankind and we need a long time to get used to it. We have got used to our miracle.

As a physicist, Chuvyrov believes only in facts coming from research, and here are the facts. The slab consists of three layers. Solid dolomite forms its 14 cm base. The second layer is the most interesting - it is "made" of diopside glass. That is where the map is actually situated. A 2 mm layer consists of calcium porcelain protects the map from damage. Dr. Chuvyrov notes that the map was not carved by hand. X-rays show that high-precision mechanisms were used to work the stone.

The most intriguing part of it all is why the map was created in the first place. When the center of historical cartography in Wisconsin looked at the map, the Americans pronounced their verdict: a three-dimensional map could only be used for navigational purposes. It could only be made using of aerospace photography. As a matter of fact, work is under way in the United States to create a three-dimensional map of the world; the project is expected to be completed only in 2010, given that the Americans will have to process an enormous mass of numbers.

[Eflex tha Vybe Scientist]

Originally posted by ChristCrusher
bah, there is complete evolutionary genetic evidence towards the concept of 'races' within the human population.


read further on 'The Seven Daughters of Eve'

please site this evidence or cut and paste excerpts from this book of yours.

[ScotiaB]

Biologically, there was a specie totally different that ours(super specie i mean)that was called Neanderthal man.this man had larger cranial capacity than us,but it became extinct!!



Neanderthals were not a super species. Their cranial capacity was larger than ours, yes, but that does not make them intelligent. Neaderthals were much less intelligent than Homo Sapiens. Neanderthals were larger, and it is theorized they had bad eyes. Their brains were used even less than the Homo Sapien brain (We still only use about 10%). To current theory, it is theorized that Neaderthals could not focus on more than one thing at a time.


Remember, bigger brain does not mean more intelligent. Their EQ ratio was smaller than ours (remember their brain was not a great deal larger).

[kmguru]

Their brains were used even less than the Homo Sapien brain (We still only use about 10%).

NOT True. It is a jester's tale that we use only 10% of our brain....and it keeps going and going....

Remember, bigger brain does not mean more intelligent.

I dont remember :D. But could be true under certain circumstances. It is how one uses it. It is that Nerd vs Jock issue...

[ScotiaB]

50 000 (Give or take) our minds had a "Big Bang". We started using them as we do today. 100 000 years ago, same brain size, same species, however they were much dumber (brain did not function as it now does).

Much much much dumber.

Same brain, we more intelligent than our ancestors. Prefect example of how brain size does not dictate intelligence. We also had the same EQ ratio =P.


(Btw, there is currently no static theory about what caused the "minds big bang")



About the 10% thing, even the best of us get caught in wivestales (If you pardon the pun). =)

[paulsamuel]

Neanderthals ARE humans: species, Homo sapiens.

There is NO "races" concept in human evolutionary genetics. There is evidence of genetic distinctiveness between human geographic populations.

There's no evidence that Neanderthals were "dumber." They were probably as smart or smarter.

[ScotiaB]

Neanderthals by most experts are thought to be different. You're thinking of the minority opinion, they are not Homo Sapiens. There are many physical differences.



Also, Neanderthals have been THEORIZED to be dumber. This can be interpolated from cranial structure and also bone strucutre.

Remember, THEORY............. theory.

I'm not saying you're wrong, all i'm saying is you're in the minority.

[Adam]

Originally posted by (Q)

Merry White, an anthropologist at Boston University, reflected on the global reach and role of ice cream. She pointed out, for instance, that ice cream was sold in Yokohama as early as 1869, which makes it as Japanese as, well, baseball. And with the most popular flavors in Japan actually being vanilla and strawberry...

It's true - the Chinese are thought to have invented the first frozen ice concoction around 2,000 B.C., either by leaving it outdoors in the cold mountain winds or by freezing the ingredients in a mixture of ice and coarse salt. Furthermore, there is a theory that iced dairy products were introduced to the west by travelers returning from China.*


I don't doubt it. But I wonder if such dairy foods remained a delicacy or were as common as in Europe.

[Eflex tha Vybe Scientist]

Originally posted by ScotiaB
50 000 (Give or take) our minds had a "Big Bang". We started using them as we do today. 100 000 years ago, same brain size, same species, however they were much dumber (brain did not function as it now does).



where is the evidence for the humans of 50,000 yeas ago being dumber?

I mean, its not like we have a bunch of 50,000 year old IQ tests laying around.

[ScotiaB]

There is much development in tools used and also a huge change in behavior. It is easy to see something occurred to our brains. We lived hundreds of thousands of years with no wihtout change, at 50 000 change occurs. Anthropologists don't agree on how it happened, but they all agree that it did.

The "Minds big bang" is one of the things that most anthropologists agree upon. There are also other factors they used which I cannot remember, but at the time of study it all made sense.



Hope that helps!

[kmguru]

I think, in time series, the changes are exponential rather than one big bang and linear development. If we take the bigbang theory, then we must have had another bang in about 1945, in comaprision to the past 2000 years. Another in 1995 and another may come in 2025.

When one plots the discontinuos and step functions with a long exponent and the step function amplitude itself rising in a log scale - it is a whole different story.

If one group died out because of external factors (virus, meteor etc) does not mean they were dumber - may be they were late bloomers that did not have a chance....

Some say the Afrikans are dumber as a group - but the same people moved to other parts and raised from childhood adjust well to society. May be there are other factors here at play....just a thought....

[Eflex tha Vybe Scientist]

Originally posted by kmguru

Some say the Afrikans are dumber as a group - but the same people moved to other parts and raised from childhood adjust well to society. May be there are other factors here at play....just a thought....

I'm Nigerian.
We're pretty smart folks.

[kmguru]

Originally posted by Eflex tha Vybe Scientist
I'm Nigerian.
We're pretty smart folks.

I know! I get atleast one email a week per email address to share their 30 million dollars in the strong box in a hiding place somewhere in Nigeria! :D :D

[Howlin Wolf]

From my reading, which has been quite deliberate because I am a active anti-racist, the DNA of different populations is not sufficiently or consistently different from one group to another to justify sub-categorising Homo Sapiens Sapiens. In fact, it seems that there is greater genetic differentiation between east as opposed to west Africans than there is between either of these groups and any other human population. This would, in turn, arise from this having been the earliest population split in human history.

[Adam]

An active anti-racist? Does that mean you're not going to tolerate their intolerance?

[Joeman]

Dudes, I am surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. Intelligence has mostly to do with the number of neuron connections and how it is connected. It is not proven because we don't know how brain really works officially, but it is a very widely accepted hypothesis. Every time you learn something you make new connections or re-arrange existing connections in some way.

Now the question is can our offsprings benefit from our life experience by inheriting some of our neural connections. If humans can increase the complexity of our neural networks generations after generations, that would explain how we can be smarter than 5000 years ago.

[Howlin Wolf]

Yes, Adam, it includes being intolerant of the social & political intolerance of racists, in the sense of opposing their views, activities and policies when these are played out in the public arena, as has recently been the case in the North of England (the British National Party), among other places in the western world. Where possible, courtesy of open internet forums, it can nowadays also involve publically debating their policies and ideology. Unfortunately, they are typically extremely reluctant to enter into a detailed defence of either. Indeed, it is their very lack of openness about their intentions which makes them beyond the pale as far as most people are concerned.

[thoth]

Neanderthal: Distinct species of human due to DNA characteristics
Human; yes. Same as Homo Sapien; No
If there can be more than one distinct species of human on the same planet, could this hold true for other worlds

[Adam]

So what you're saying is, some intolerance is okay and some isn't. And your type of intolerance is acceptable? Based on your beliefs? And because your intolerance is based on your beliefs, that makes it better than any other kind of intolerance?

[Howlin Wolf]

Mmmm! Interesting that you seem uninterested in what I contributed to the issue this thread is concerned about but want instead to entrap me in some 'logic' of your own construction in order to 'demonstrate' a fundamental flaw in opposing racism.

I think I have explained that I actively debate with racists when the opportunity arises. Is this intolerance in the sense of seeking to deny them their voice? - I think not!

Could you please do what I have done and come clean about your own beliefs about racism? In particular, could you address the issue which this thread is all about?

[Adam]

Certainly. As in many things, I'm quite happy for everyone to have different beliefs, as long as they don't harm each other over them. I don't really care if people hate each other based on skin colour or whatever. As long as it remains only words, and does not become physical.

I once saw on the news a rally in New York of KKK/neo-NAZI types. Opposing them was a large crowd of "active anti-racists". The anti-racists started the violence, started throwing things and hitting the KKK types with signs and such. Personally, I would much prefer the company of the KKK types, regardless of what I think of their opinions; they proved themselves much safer and more humane than the anti-racists.

Simply put, whether it is about race or ideology, anti-racists are logically the very same thing as racists; they are against some portion of the community based on beliefs, race, whatever. And like the NAZIs, they (some of them at least) are willing to use violence to press their beliefs.

[kmguru]

Originally posted by Joeman
Dudes, I am surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. Intelligence has mostly to do with the number of neuron connections and how it is connected. It is not proven because we don't know how brain really works officially, but it is a very widely accepted hypothesis. Every time you learn something you make new connections or re-arrange existing connections in some way.

Now the question is can our offsprings benefit from our life experience by inheriting some of our neural connections. If humans can increase the complexity of our neural networks generations after generations, that would explain how we can be smarter than 5000 years ago.

IMHO: The new connections are like new programs you buy for your computer after it was bought from the store, then you create new programs and documents. The way you use the system defines how you are going to buy the next computer from the store. But not the documents and other items that you created. Similarly, your children can inherit the connection methodology but not the connection themselves or the data. This is a slight impovement (nature does not like radical improvement) over you as far as hardware is concerned but not the "data". Data must be accumulated by your kids to become intelligent.

For lack of better terms, assume, you and your wife have each an IQ of 100, then you accumulated knowledge of 140 EQ points. Then, your child get an IQ of 110. Sometimes minor mutations can occur based on your grand-generations that can push the childs IQ higher even if you did not acquire PhDs. Either way, IQ as tested by standard tests tells a part of the story (we discussed this in another threads). One must have proper data and make connections the right way inorder to increase true IQ.

Sometimes I find certain music in the background increases my ability to solve complex problems while at other times it distracts. Anyway...yes, I think kids do inherit the propensity to make the connections the right way - but if the stimulus is not present, that connection may not happen.

This idea should be further investigated...

[Howlin Wolf]

1 What do you have to say about whether or not there are different races?

2 Can you not see a moral difference between opposing something about a person which they can change (their beliefs) and opposing them because of something they can't (their skin colour)?

3 Is there nothing more local in Melbourne or Australia on which you can base your views about racists and their opponents, rather than on TV news items from a country thousands of miles away?

[Adam]

1) I'm not sure. I'll have to look in some biology textbooks and stuff and find out the defition or "race" first.

2) Unless you wish to get into pure survival terms, there is no moral difference between hating someone for their beliefs or for their skin colour. The result is the same: you're pointing to a segment of society and saying "You suck, I'm so glad I'm better than you".

3) I chose that rally in the USA as an example because it very clearly illustrated a point.

[Joeman]

Some idealists want people to believe all races are equal. Why do Asians appear to be better at math? Since it is not biological then what is it?

[Adam]

Three-quarters of students in my course are Asian/Indian, et cetera. For some maths they are way better than me, mostly because I have never really studied any maths. But as the lecturer explains things, it is most often me who understands the concepts involved. Most of the Asian/Indian students tend to be very good at following formulae, learning by rote, et cetera. At least that's how it seems for the chaps I know personally.

[kmguru]

That is true. The Asians (including Indians) do study math very well at an early age.Because of the way they study - it is more rote than concepts (in general), while we study here as "chug and dump". The other part is the activities in high school that distracts American kids. Now the same Asians/Indians born and raised here in a standard white culture follow the same path as whites with same level of success. So, I think it has more to do with culture than race. The African-Americans usually have their culture separate from the white culture and hence results differ.

[anim8er]

Race is just a definition of cosmetic differences between peoples. As I understand it, there is greater genetic variation in blacks. While whites and asians may be catagorized as a "race", negros are actually a number of races. Depending upon what criteria of cosmetic differences you want to use to define "race", there are probably dozens of human "race"s.

A neighbor of mine mentioned to me that people of all races have been made into slaves at one time. In America, blacks were the choice for enslavement just as a practical matter. A white slave could run away and blend in with other whites some place else. A native American could run away and blend in with other native Americans. But a black person got to this continent on a slave ship. So, there was no doubt that he was not a free person. There was nothing else intrensic to being a slave other than they were easy to identify.

On the flip side, people who are of the mentality to enslave another human being really don't care about the person's race. Such people can always find an excuse to disrespect another human being. This attitude that someone has the "right" to enslave another still exists in society. It only takes other forms of disrespect.

[Xenu]

If I remember correctly, biologically the term "race" is only applied if members from each group are so different they can no longer mate with each other and biologically produce "successful" offspring. So there wouldn't be any separate human races. I wish I hadn't sold my old bio book so I could look it up again. But I'm damn sure this is what I was taught.

It's all in how you define the word "race".

-Xenu

[Xenu]

Some idealists want people to believe all races are equal. Why do Asians appear to be better at math? Since it is not biological then what is it?

social.

[anim8er]

In order for an Asian to make the trip to America, they probably already have some economic and educational background that places them above your average Asian. Both by design and practicality, emigrants coming to the US are the "cream of the crop". I work for an engineering comany and we have people from all over the world. (Russia, India, Iran, Vietnam, Mexico etc....) Many of these were degreed and educated at home and came here because the jobs were better. One thing that keeps America on top is it's brain drain of the rest of the world. It is better here and these people are not stupid.

[paulsamuel]

Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalis), as opposed to us (Homo sapiens sapiens), is the same species as modern man. This is not controversial. This is accepted taxonomic fact. They are definately different, hence a different subspecies (or race if you want to use an antiquated term) but, as definately, the same species. There is evidence that there was indeed genetic mixing between H.s.neanderthalis and H.s.sapiens.

As a biological term, race is antiquated and not used by us (biologists) much anymore. Maybe it's used more by botanists.

[thoth]

paulsamuel

In the most recent of their two studies, the scientists found an average of 35.3 differences between the Neanderthal sequences and those of living humans, compared to only 10.9 differences between the sequences of living people. They concluded that the mtDNA lineage of Neanderthals branched off prior to the common ancestor of all present-day lineages, probably around 465,000 B.P. Also, the Neanderthal was genetically no closer to living Europeans than to people from other regions, casting doubt on a Neanderthal ancestry for modern Europeans.

The verdict on common ancestry for HSN and HSS is still out, however, due to the differences in body structures and variations in mtDNA, one would have to take the position that HSN and HSS are two distinct species.
This of course can change as more data is acquired.

[paulsamuel]

Thanks for the data update re. neanderthals.

Just a few notes

1) I never suspected or stated that Neanderthals and modern humans did not have significant genetic differences, I only stated the "taxonimic fact" that Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species with as much taxonomic validity as any other taxonomic designation.

2) The mtDNA data is based on a hypervariable region used for population genetics studies. This region is too variable for higher taxonomic comparisons, the reason being that the change in this region is not linear in relation to time so there is the introduction of a lot of homoplasies to correct for in the comparisons.

3) It is not surprising to find that the genetic data don't support the hypothesis that Neanderthals were the ancestors of modern man since they were contemporary.

Finally, you said,

"however, due to the differences in body structures and variations in mtDNA, one would have to take the position that HSN and HSS are two distinct species."

Based on the molecular data I have seen, there is no evidence that H.s.n. and H.s.s. should be considered different species, in fact, quite the contrary.

[thoth]

paulsamuel

Sorry, I meant to say race not species,,,,,it was late here,,,
results of nuclear DNA are still under review.
The original ? was Do different human races exist?
The correct answer is no but did.

[Dacian Prince]

Dear fellows,

All of you, in my oppinion, have some points that are corect, but all of you ignore the whole and therefore your theories are incomplete and just too influenced by your whishes.

For example, the Neanderthal men and the Cro-Magnon.
Last year I was at some European Championship, so I get the chance to see all the kinds of people of Europe.
To my surprise, I discover that according to the definiton, the Neanderthal man still exist today: low forehead, big eyes arcade, skull with a small angle. The proud heirs of Neadhertal men were some french and polish. All the other characteristics were normal, they were blondes, blue eyes, white, etc.
So, my conclusion is that since not all the french and poles look like that, the Neanderthal men mingle with others and hasn't disapear.

[Avatar]

if you had seen some russians living in the south parts of the country:rolleyes:

edit to add- they did mingle actually. There has been found a sceleton of a young stoneage girl that had properties of both - the Neanderthal man and Homo Sapiens.

off topic-
I think it was in France they found this one stoneage man and he had some preserved organic material (don't remember what, but his head wasn't preserved).
So anyway the scientist out of a joke took genetic samples of the local people. And what you know, they actaully found a descendant of the stone age man! Some 55 (on the look) year old man.

talk of family trees:rolleyes: :eek:
he must have the oldest known relative:cool:

[paulsamuel]

Your perceptions are incorrect. Neanderthals have distinct morphological (skeletal) characteristics that are not present today in modern humans, this is indisputable. However, it is accepted that modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) interbred with Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). This purported interbreeding does not prevent us from discriminating between modern humans and Neanderthals.

As thoth pointed out, human races do not currently exist, but they once did, i.e. when Neanderthals were extant.

Best, Paul

[NenarTronian]

Anybody ever read "Almost Adam", by Petru Popescu? Or something like it. Basically, this irate archeologist somehow found a place in the african primordial jungle where two species of proto-humans were living side by side, as enemies though. One was species X (because i forget what they called it), and the other (the bad ones) were the Robusts. And in the book there were half/half children, too. I dunno, just a thought.

[Avatar]

do you know that scientists have concluded that
human-human is 100% possible
human-chimpanzee (sp) is possible!
we have only some 1-3 percent of genetical difference and that difference isn't so crucial that an offspring can not be made. scary huh?!

[NenarTronian]

I thought we had only .001% difference? Besides, who wants to create a human/chimp hybrid? It'd be an ungodly weird looking creature..and people would only use it as a pet, butler, or worker in an acid mind :mad: And that wouldnt be cool.

[Avatar]

of course it wouldn't be cool. disgusting, but possible

and I checked the web and found that we have a 1 - 2 percent of genetical difference. that is only ~50 genes.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/docsdis/2002/dc-02-07.htm
http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2002/04_08_Varki.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/facts.html
http://www.cnpt.embrapa.br/redbiobr/nov_1020.htm

[NenarTronian]

OOoh, okay, thanks for the clarification. That .001% difference must be between one human and another.

[paulsamuel]

There's no possibility of human chimp hybridization. Can't happen and no scientist ever said it could.

[Avatar]

just said what was writen in one local science journal. there was one interview. But ok- maybe it was some pseudo-scientist. I don't know.

but I'll take your word for it. can you assure me that at the nowaday level of technological and genetical advancement there is no way we can create a human-ape (chimpanzee) creature.

if not, what prevents us (not that I wanted to be the new dr. Moreau)

[glaucon]

I can only assume that when you use the word 'race' you are using it in the biologically defined sense. That being the case, there's only one human race.

[Avatar]

humans, really? Or there is just one Homo Sapiens race.
Because even if you coint neanderthals in as human there is a point where you'll have problems in deviding human from a monkey.
So we might agree that humans are Neanderthals+Homo Sapiens.

[glaucon]

Ummm.. Nope.
Neandertalis, Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, etc., etc., all of our genetic ancestors were exactly that: a different genome.
Ergo, different race.

[Avatar]

OK- Homo Sapiens is what we regard as "human race"

or better- "current human race"
because maybe in 15000 years there will be
Homo Electronicus who will think itself human.

[Skull]

What would the term humanoid relate to? Appearance, intelligence? Something else?


Surfing as life.
Comes in waves.
There is NO handbrake.

T.T.Phelpe

[Avatar]

apperance only

[Skull]

Slight variations such as a fifth limb or non-carbon lifeform that looks humanoid... Then what category? Or would that be un/non defined?

[paulsamuel]

Neanderthals are Homo sapiens, are human and a different sub-species (race) than modern humans.

[Zoidberg]

Aparrantly, we, Homo Sapiens, wiped out Neanderthals when the human species first explored Europe. Humans, it's believed, originated in Africa.

[le coq]

I don't believe modern biology uses the term "race" any longer as much as it uses "population." The same species can occupy different areas and develop different traits to adapt or in response to mutation, and can still "cross-breed." Once the separate populations can no longer interbreed, they have become separate species. All dogs are the same species, and yet they have probably the widest variety of phenotypes of all earthly species, from behavior to body structure. Humans are not dogs, but it's not a great leap to understand that some populations will have distinct externally discernable traits as well as internal traits. For example, the population called "negroids" have a predominance for sickle-cell anemia, which was an adapative trait to fend off old-world malaria. Half of Asiatics (and a good number of American Indians) lack an enzyme to efficiently break down alcohol, which causes a red skin flush and contributes to a greater susceptibility to alcoholism, and may have contributed to retarding alcohol production and commerce in Asian countries, in contrast to European viticulture, beer and spirit production. I have recently read of the Asian susceptibility to SUNDS, Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome, though this malady is not confined to Asians. Used in this manner, race can be a biologically useful term, as we can separate the concept of genetically heritable traits from culturally reinforced behavior or environmental factors, as well as how they may interact. There are politically motivated groups who don't like the idea of biological race or population study, claiming that it will only lead back to eugenics and oppression. This is the danger of politics and science at all times, however, from using science to build bombs or vaccines.

Has anyone here taken a look at the Bell Curve? I've tried to read it, as well as its critiques. The book is too damn long and boring, and the critiques are mostly rhetorical and all lead back to quote Stephen Jay Gould anyway. I don't believe that any particular race or population is "superior" in regards to eternity or religious primacy (as Nazis and Nation of Islam followers believe), but, much as humans have selected traits to isolate in dogs, it doesn't seem farfetched that certain human populations can be selected for particular traits, either wittingly or not. The political end of the Bell Curve seems to support that paying certain segments of the population to have children that are more than likely to have an overall detrimental effect on society, to wit, that paying welfare to inner city blacks to support more and more kids, without much educational opportunity, in greater risk and proximity to criminal lifestyle, cannot be good. (I think, besides providing the immediate perception that their premise was that blacks are genetically inferior in regards to overall intelligence, that the authors' mistake was to emphasize that welfare was disastrous, rather than call for more economic and educational development in the geographies in question). Over time, this "population" will possibly reinforce certain heritable traits. This logic would be valid anywhere, even to describe people of all societies in different socio-economic levels. It has been noted that many royal families across Europe have bred various recognizable behavioral traits amongst themselves. The caveat, however, is that even royal "superior" families, due to zealous exclusion of their gene pool, had begun to develop imbecility, insanity, and other undesirable traits among them: "inbreeding.", e.g. John, Peter the Great's half-brother. I wonder if any extensive genetic and sociobiological study has been done on Indian caste societies, who have historically controlled their breeding within the same class very closely for millenia.

I think the differences between "races" that we see today are the result of thousands of years of geographical influence. The white skin of northern europeans comes from eons of covering up the skin from the sun, the opposite being true for Africans. While they kept the bulk of their populations separate, the geographies were never so distant as to prevent the curious, wandering human from someday coming in contact again, and the genetic differences never amounted to so much as preventing them to interbreed again. Hence, all human beings have remained the same species.

An earlier post mentioned that Neandertals had larger brain-cases and whether this correlated to intelligence, etc. I'm not sure without looking it up, but I think Homo Erectus and some other human proto-species are supposed to have had larger brain-cases too. The difference lies in that our brains are constructed differently, with more sulci or folds in the brain tissue, actually adding more surface area for neurons to grow continuously. Other parts of the brain, especially the olfactory bulb and more evolutionary archaic regions are smaller as well, yet homo sapiens have the most developed frontal cortex, the region of our higher cognition. A smaller head may have helped us to stand up straighter, among other things.

John Le Coq

[Erunion]

The white skin of northern europeans comes from eons of covering up the skin from the sun, the opposite being true for Africans

Actually, Im almost certain european's white skin is due to the ice age(s), during which it would have been overcast, snowing, raining etc all year around leading to little sun exposure. White skin is far more effective at producing vit D from sunlight then darker skin, taking advantage of what light was available. Africans who recieved all the sunlight they needed did not have to worry about this. And yes Africans who do not recieve enough sunlight can suffer from lack of vitamin D, same for everyone else, but its less common in Europeans. So "race" is a set of adaptations abtained to adjust to specific surroundings, but also they influenced by the promixity to others of different envirnments. Lets see if i can explain this right. Say if there were 2 groups of people from 2 completely different types of locations but they came in contact often. They would not develope into 2 different races even though they had different challenges, because there genepools mixxed the adaptations would be hampered. Well i cant support this, its all pulled out of my ass. but whatever

[kmguru]

My observation on race and intelligence are:

1. Humans mutate to a higher order. At the same time, the original unmutated group also do remain within a specific timeline. For example, certain aborigins in India remain within their life style and social structure and have somewhat distinct social patterns. Intelligence wise, the bell curve within their sample group may be somewhat skewed to the so called advanced groups - but only to the extent of socio-cultural upbringing. Genetic factors could be minor.

2. If adaptability is considered higher intelligence, then the Asian group would take the medal against the spanish or middleeast group. However - the same Asian group did not move along the adaptability curve until recently: such as China. This theory falls apart when you examine North Korea vs South Korea. The gene pool of both countries seem identical (from US perspective). Yet the adaptability or success in economy can be easily distingushable.

So, may be we are just like dogs with various traits for various functions. As long as each function is equally covetted so that each group is happy in a social order - everything would be great. Let the Indians do the computer, the blacks do the basket ball, the chinese cook foods, the Italians design cars and Germans build them - then we all will be happy in a new caste system....

The key is finding meaningful occupation for everybody so that no group is bred out of existence. Perhaps that is how the caste system started...otherwise, we would be constantly putting square pegs in round holes thus reducing the total growth of the human race. Unlike caste system, we now have technolgy to test each child as if he/she is an undifferentiated cell and find the shape of the child to move him/her in the right direction. Something like that could prevent the normal mutation issues within a group. Today, certain castes of India just change their names and move to another location to change their caste and hence their social order.

[le coq]

Originally posted by Erunion


Actually, Im almost certain european's white skin is due to the ice age(s), during which it would have been overcast, snowing, raining etc all year around leading to little sun exposure. White skin is far more effective at producing vit D from sunlight then darker skin, taking advantage of what light was available. Africans who recieved all the sunlight they needed did not have to worry about this.

This sounds plausible, the skin taking advantage of whatever sunlight in can get; however, there's more to it than just coincidence that one skin type utilizes sunlight for Vitamin D better and the color of the skin. There's some connection between sunlight -> melanin (pigment) -> melatonin (neurotransmitter) -> mood/sleep cycles, which is why Seattleites have the highest suicide rates, along with Alaskans/Scandinavians, who use special spectrum bulbs in their houses. I'm just wondering if the sunlight/melanin connection has a more profound genetic involvement in the "races".

Humans mutate to a higher order. At the same time, the original unmutated group also do remain within a specific timeline. For example, certain aborigins in India remain within their life style and social structure and have somewhat distinct social patterns. Intelligence wise, the bell curve within their sample group may be somewhat skewed to the so called advanced groups - but only to the extent of socio-cultural upbringing. Genetic factors could be minor. (kmguru)

This passage isn't very clear. What is a "higher order" in this case, and when has it (mutation) been observed to effect such a large population as to deserve the term "humans"? Only genes mutate, the salient ones being involved in sexual processes, and the offspring is either more succesful for a particular environment than all other offspring, or not, and is able to outdo the others for reproduction. The success of a new gene does not always indicate a progression to a higher "order," rather just horizontal adapatability. Someday the cockroach may just be the most suited for life on earth.

A longitudinal study across the caste systems for GI would be interesting. The mobility across caste lines was almost nil for centuries. Would overly intelligent people find the mind-numbing tedium of the lower castes (some castes existed solely to carry sewage, or hundreds of other specialized menial tasks to serve the upper castes) unbearable and not be as viable for reproduction? This is one of the arguments/explanations for the perceived/fabricated data that supports a lower GI median for African Americans, that Europeans selected for strength, and that four centuries of menial labor selected against the heritable traits of intelligence, which would be less compatible for a lifetime of demeaning physical labour and subjugation.

Which brings us to another interesting question, is it just a myth or is there something to the perception that the most intelligent people tend to be ectomorphs, that brawn and brains are usually inversely proportional? There will be outliers to this perception, no doubt, but is this generally true, and why?

John Le Coq

[kmguru]

higher order: meaning high per capita income or buying parity, high GDP from low GDP. Meaning on the top of global 1000. Per capita income could be a good indicator, because that includes high level of education, health and welfare.

The mutation in this case I am talking about is not biological but social-economic. As in computers, the hardware take a long time to mutate while softwares such as genetic algorithms and other twiks can quickly surpass ROI over the hardware. So, mutations in thinking process can come from the infrastructure itself that adds to creativity and hence higher order.

What I am not sure is how cognitive functions play a role and how they are distributed among different groups. There must be a relationship because Wal-Mart and Target do so well while K-Mart is in the crapper. So there must be a few idiots of a lesser order out there....:D

Which brings us to another interesting question, is it just a myth or is there something to the perception that the most intelligent people tend to be ectomorphs, that brawn and brains are usually inversely proportional? There will be outliers to this perception, no doubt, but is this generally true, and why?

I think it has to do with the social infrastructure. I have a very high IQ kid who is also very big. Due to his feet problem (bone spurs) he could not play in major sports. That gave him time to do other stuff and I encouraged him to study. So he is doing pretty well in the brain department. I think, it is the nurture part that is different with respect to brawn side.

[jimmie]

The Human race came from one common ancestor, which then spread out far and wide,.before the so called big bang of the mind, they were at the mercy of the forces of nature, and made many physical changes to compensate, each different and better suited for each groups climate, then as the change happened in the brain, they no longer were forced by nature to change, they could build housing to shade them from cold, heat, ect ect. And along with intelligence came compassion, and the weak no longer simply died, the strong would help the weak thus allowing them to live and pass on there genome.
Thus the only changes now would be the smart survived. So the differences you see today in different groups of people are very much they way that group of peoples appearance was when the so called big bang of the brain happened. So all the small amount of differences each so called race has is the product of the amount of time from the birth of the common anscestor to the time that the individual group had its big bang.

[iceaura]

"If we were dogs we'd all be the same breed" PJ O'Rourke

More or less accurate.

[Dan (Edmond)]

Is the biological concept of "race" a scientifically meaningful way of explaining human variation?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but arguably there is no one group of humans that is completely distinct according to any bodily characteristic or group of characteristics (hair, skin, etc), blood type, or DNA. There is just as much genetic difference between two people of the same ethnic population as there is between any two humans on earth at random. If that’s true, it means that what distinction does exist is simply due to the fact that we are individuals instead of members of a biologically distinct race.

Many anthropological organizations reject "race" as a way of understanding human diversity. Instead of distinct races, some have suggested that humanity is more of a continuum with gradual changes.

Please keep in mind that culturally based "ethnicity" does exist, as do racial perceptions. These should not be confused with the question that I am pursuing.

Peace.

I seem to be of a different species. My feet are flat, My intellect is on a different scale, my logic is opposite to an average person, and I have 5 brain related disorders, and when I was younger, on a 100m dash, I had a sustained speed of 45.8km/h... At thirteen, I'm now a fair bit slower. I did have shorter legs back then though... I guess I have to spend less time at the computer!

--------------------------------Signature

I am a strange, 13 year old loop.

[swivel]

There's no possibility of human chimp hybridization. Can't happen and no scientist ever said it could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6NkRUbI38&mode=related&search=

[Prince_James]

Swivel:

Oliver the chimp has been disproven to be a humanzee.

Jimmie:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMITETH THREAD NECROMANCY. Seriously. This is a -5 year old thread-. It is very rude. Don't do it again. For real.

[kmguru]

Rumour has it that human-Gorrila hybrid has been tried without success. We do not have two different kind of intelligent/speech based humanoid specis. That does not mean, there would not be a separations of the human specis in the future.

Idiots and Smarts that can not have babies together....:D

[darksidZz]

This is really one of the best questions I've ever heard, well done.

[swivel]

Swivel:

Oliver the chimp has been disproven to be a humanzee.

Jimmie:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMITETH THREAD NECROMANCY. Seriously. This is a -5 year old thread-. It is very rude. Don't do it again. For real.

I'm aware of that. Just being funny.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Neanderthals ARE humans: species, Homo sapiens.

There is NO "races" concept in human evolutionary genetics. There is evidence of genetic distinctiveness between human geographic populations.

There's no evidence that Neanderthals were "dumber." They were probably as smart or smarter.

why would the neanderthal use the same tool (a piece of rock) for thousands and thousands of years and never evolve the tool or enhance it in any way, humans can adapt there equipment and we have the ability to alter and adapt our tools to meet different needs over the past millenia,

neanderthals used a piece of rock to do everything it was there only tool,

i would say we were smarter than them, and we ate them all so we win,

:)

peace.

[jimmie]

Hey yall ...Im the 5 year old thread police, fear my power..[Deleted]

[redarmy11]

Ignore the Prince, jimmie. He's always had a right old bee in his bonnet about this. Most peculiar.

Where is he anyway? :confused:

[Huggins293]

I think I have explained that I actively debate with racists when the opportunity arises. Is this intolerance in the sense of seeking to deny them their voice? - I think not!


Howling wolf, please join youtube. Many whitenationalists(which I am NOT) would love to debate with you. Currently I am debating this clown on the white Egypt vid. He seems to think that the oringial egyptians were white and argues larger brain sizes for white makes them better thinkers than blacks. Please debate him.

[kmguru]

....the oringial egyptians were white and argues larger brain sizes for white makes them better thinkers than blacks.

So, exactly what happened to Egyptians? They soaked all the sunshine and turned black? :D

My friend works for a company that does business in Africa. He said that Blacks in Southern Africa are more stupid than blacks in Northern Africa. As a matter of fact he said that English speaking blacks in Cameroon are smarter than their French speaking southerners.

Which goes to show you that one can not generalize on this issue.

[iceaura]

He said that Blacks in Southern Africa are more stupid than blacks in Northern Africa. As a matter of fact he said that English speaking blacks in Cameroon are smarter than their French speaking southerners. I have heard the same pattern claimed for whites in Canada and the US.

Always by English speaking, northern whites.

Random factoid: moderate, non-disease level iodine deficiency in childhood can cause a 15 point deficit in adult IQ.

[TruthSeeker]

Is the biological concept of "race" a scientifically meaningful way of explaining human variation?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but arguably there is no one group of humans that is completely distinct according to any bodily characteristic or group of characteristics (hair, skin, etc), blood type, or DNA. There is just as much genetic difference between two people of the same ethnic population as there is between any two humans on earth at random. If that’s true, it means that what distinction does exist is simply due to the fact that we are individuals instead of members of a biologically distinct race.

Many anthropological organizations reject "race" as a way of understanding human diversity. Instead of distinct races, some have suggested that humanity is more of a continuum with gradual changes.

Please keep in mind that culturally based "ethnicity" does exist, as do racial perceptions. These should not be confused with the question that I am pursuing.

Peace.
Flowers of the same species can be white, pink, red.... so can humans...
Well, not THOSE colors... :D

[kmguru]

I have heard the same pattern claimed for whites in Canada and the US.

Always by English speaking, northern whites.

Random factoid: moderate, non-disease level iodine deficiency in childhood can cause a 15 point deficit in adult IQ.

Funny, you bring up US and Canada. Many years ago, I used to teach "Creativity" classes as a hobby in schools and colleges. A company in Canada approached me to do the same to Canadian executives as they seem to get stressed and get into drugs due to US competitive environment.

Darn...I think I lost 15 points in IQ as I grew up with non-iodized salt. Otherwise I would be pushing 210+ :D

[Satyr]

Is the biological concept of "race" a scientifically meaningful way of explaining human variation?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but arguably there is no one group of humans that is completely distinct according to any bodily characteristic or group of characteristics (hair, skin, etc), blood type, or DNA. There is just as much genetic difference between two people of the same ethnic population as there is between any two humans on earth at random. If that’s true, it means that what distinction does exist is simply due to the fact that we are individuals instead of members of a biologically distinct race.

Many anthropological organizations reject "race" as a way of understanding human diversity. Instead of distinct races, some have suggested that humanity is more of a continuum with gradual changes.

Please keep in mind that culturally based "ethnicity" does exist, as do racial perceptions. These should not be confused with the question that I am pursuing.

Peace.No, human races do not exist…but then neither do species.

What about dog breeds?

[Fraggle Rocker]

So, exactly what happened to Egyptians? They soaked all the sunshine and turned black?The Egyptian civilization was destroyed by Muslim Arab invaders. Today's "Egyptians" are of Arabic ancestry with a smattering of Egyptian blood.

Regardless, skin color is one of the most ephemeral human characteristics. It's ironic that it's the one on which so many of us place so much importance. A population that moves far to the north or south adapts to the sunlight and develops a lower or higher melanin level within less than 2,000 years. Compare the people of Bangla Desh with their rather close cousins, the Ukrainians.No, human races do not exist…but then neither do species.I don't understand that statement. "Species" is a fairly standardized scientific category based on DNA and mating behavior.What about dog breeds?Those are real too. Within the past three or four years they completed the mapping of the dog genome. Send in a sample of your dog's DNA and they can tell you which breeds are in his ancestry if he's not a complete mongrel. The surprise was finding that dogs and wolves are a single species. The average mongrel dog's DNA is closer to a wolf than a greyhound is to a Pekinese. In a sense, the wolf is merely the original "breed" of dog.

[DeepThought]

Regardless, skin color is one of the most ephemeral human characteristics. It's ironic that it's the one on which so many of us place so much importance. A population that moves far to the north or south adapts to the sunlight and develops a lower or higher melanin level within less than 2,000 years.

It's NOT skin colour that's being debated.

It's race.

The differences between whites and blacks are not just skin deep. They extend to bone structure, tissue content and cerebral structure.

These all manifest themselves in physical appearance and behavior.

[Fraggle Rocker]

It's NOT skin colour that's being debated. It's race.When people talk about race, the dominant characteristic is often skin color. See below for a typical example from this very thread.So, exactly what happened to Egyptians? They soaked all the sunshine and turned black?

[Michael]

Just 50 years ago the Germans, Polish, French, Italians, Greeks, Norse, Russians, French, Spanish, English were all considered different "races".

[Zephyr]

Just 50 years ago the Germans, Polish, French, Italians, Greeks, Norse, Russians, French, Spanish, English were all considered different "races".

Some European racists still think that way. But in America there's been so much intermarriage that the white nationalist recruiters have to move their goalposts. The "wogs" of yesterday (Italians, Greeks, Irish) can still be taught to hate blacks, and it boosts their numbers. With the rate of Mexican intermarriage, they'll probably accept Latinos as white in a few decades too.

[Fraggle Rocker]

With the rate of Mexican intermarriage, they'll probably accept Latinos as white in a few decades too.When I lived in L.A. ten years ago, the rednecks looked around at all the Asian faces and started saying, "Ya know, them Messicans really are kinda white."

[Zephyr]

Heh!

And if there are lots of blacks, they'll start looking at the Asians the same way. The South African Apartheid government treated Japanese as "honorary whites".

Even racists understand that you need numbers to be properly supremacist. One wonders why they seldom make the next logical step in realising that the divide is arbitrary and . . . unnecessary.

[peta9]

I respect a true racist or white nationalist more than a racist supremacist. The latter have no respect for others culture, values or race. At least with a true racist, they just want to keep their own culture and race intact, not outbreed others or use thier race to oppress or subjugate other races or people.

[DeepThought]

Do Different Human Races Exist?

http://www.loe.org/images/051014/Bushman-man.gif http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/54/28/22152854.jpg


Yes.

There are whites, Asians and blacks.

The above two people are black.

White liberals - especially the kind that say there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of race - are frightened and confused by the presence of black people.

Their strategy is to then deny them their physical existence.

This is a psychological continuation of slavery.

[S.A.M.]

This is a psychological continuation of slavery.

This is an interesting new tactic of racists.

[DeepThought]

This is an interesting new tactic of racists.

S.A.M,

Please elaborate.

[iceaura]

The differences between whites and blacks are not just skin deep. They extend to bone structure, tissue content and cerebral structure.

These all manifest themselves in physical appearance and behavior. Now that your assumption is clear, all you need is some data on all these correlations.

Controlled for geography, diet, etc, of course - which means genetic basis.

Good luck.