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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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!

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



bye!

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...

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


read further on 'The Seven Daughters of Eve'

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....

read the paper before posting such weak generalized counterargument

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.../aa070601a.htm

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...

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

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


http://www.therussianissues.com/topi.../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.

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

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).