How did the different human races evolve?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah ok fraggle...you are right, but neville is in a sense right that the human species is the only humanoid species that is left as you mentioned yourself, although there was a time when there were many.

But in itself it is not uncommon that a lineage is reduced to a single species or a few species. There used to be many horse species and now the count is much less.


these things happen. Some species group radiate, some species group decreases.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we covered this earlier, but:

Go back 50k years ago and you'll find 3 species of Homo: erectus (in southeas asia), neanderthalensis (in Europe) and sapiens (in Africa, Europe, Asia). It's really only in the last 35k years or so that there has been only one hominid species around (discounting the first one, some 6-7M yrs ago).

It's pretty simple to list some mammal Genuses with only one species (or group of sub-species): Manatees, Elephants, Platypus, Giraff, Panda, Hyrax, Gorilla. That was what I could come up with in about 30 sec. There must be many, many more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Taxonomy

yes...i guess i didn't read nevilles post very carefully...

 

Alright smarty pants it wasn't meant to be strictly accurate but the point i was making was (i was in a bit of a rush though).

This was the word i was looking for!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope and this is why i picked up on it, because it was specifically pointed out by the lecturer! Another example of how those 'teaching' us about the world and areas of interest are trying to sway us by presenting what they think, as fact (or at least try to twist the presentation of 'facts' to make them seem more plausible (this annoys me so much!). If people can see holes in their theory (as someone must do who attempts to present something from only a particular angle) then how can they be satisfied themselves?? Aren't these things needed before one can decide how to live? (For further description see the 'social outcast' thread'.)
A diagram was shown for a 'branch' of say reptiles, one for birds etc yet there was also one with just humans on it and this was remarked upon.

How do you know?? :bugeye:

What about the species' that were not selected by nature?? There would still be evidence of them (it is possible that we havent found them yet but given the different number/varieties of fish etc then why arent there the same number of humanoids? Are you saying that for some reason the genes within the primates are less subject to genetic mutations?? It is these mutations that produce new species'. Random genetic mutations (which the environment (nature) then selects to survive, if it is suitable for survival)

(on a different note would you say that these could be grouped as 3 main 'races' then??)

 

fossil record

 

And the fossil record only shows 3 different species of humanoids? Are you saying that The primates are less likely to experience genetic mutations than other species (all of which do seem to have a greater number of species').

Actually i suppose that if it is truly random then this is the way it would happen: sometimes within some areas there would be no mutations while in other groups (maybe all of them!) there are bursts of mutations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Argueing with myself. Talking myself down. (I care too much about the truth than finding out that my own beliefs were misguided). One should be grateful for finding out before they die.

 

i think it is actually more than 3 during the time in which many humanoids popped up in africa..but i am not sure how many and where and why and how and etc.

 

Interesting.... I've always wondered about this subject. Not to take a side-road but I have a question that I've put on a shelf for some time now... in terms of evolutionary changes, what is up with the changes that we see in family lines over the generations? I am into genealogy and I've noticed that there are reoccuring traits that seem to permeate the families that I am studying (which is understandable), but what I can't figure out are the individuals who pop up at random that have traits that are similar that skip generations and don't seem to affect the majority of the family. For instance, one man in a family is unusually tall in comparison to the rest of the family, has large features and hands but his children don't, they look like the rest of the family. then several generations later, another individual shows up with the same traits, but doesn't pass them on to his children. Why do the traits of the individual who is different than the rest of the family not show up in his children & grandchildren? You would think that as the generations went on, .some of his traits would become apparent in his line.

 

it could be a recessive allele...in that case you need 2 copies of it before the phenotype appears.

 

Neville:

I think someone already addessed this, but you cannot compare "fish" to "humans". "Fish" is a much broader category (or order) and is comparable to "mammals". There are thousands of mammal species.

Scienties don't agree on how many hominid species there were, but any given time there may have been as many as 6 or 7. If you're really interested, check out the book "Extict Humans" by Ian Tattersal.

 

wasn't it so that among vertebrates the 'group' of fish have the most species by far??? something like 20.000 or more???

i'm not sure anymore...it has been so long since i read about it.

edit:

http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/species/

"This is a preliminary version of a database containing about 53,500 described species and subspecies of fishes. Approximately 4000 of the names included are not available for use because of technical reasons. About 25,000 species are valid ones, and about 25,000 are synonyms. About 200-300 new species are still being described each year."

 

This line of question/answer is getting polluted with political correctness. Above we all agreed (well stated fetus) on scientific basis for evelutionary differences in the races. And we agreed that environment is the likely cause for much of it. Environment in this scenerio would include DIET and CULTURE as determaining forces if you go back in history to the point of this races isolation from the others, thus termed parallel evelution above.

It is sad that we allow political correctness to cloud the obvious fact that intelligence could very well have been one of the benefits of shortcomings of a races evelution due to the dietetic intake, priorities of the culture, and customs of family within the culture. This may be less prominent today, as I can walk to the corner and eat a chinese food diet. But it is safe to say the BODY (WHICH INCLUDES THE BRAIN) could be affected in its development and efficiency by 2000 years of a heavy fish diet.

I believe it to be more than likely (obvious) that different races came into the modern age (point at which all races are now mixed thouroughly) with differences in intelligence based on differences in the development of the brain. I believe them to be slight, but obviously must exist to some degree.

I do not contend that I can walk down the street, and grab a few asians, and a few blacks, and find this difference. But I do contend that one could visit an area of asia that is populated with families that havnt worked much with outside cultures or traveled, and do the same in Congo......and find definate differences in brain development. SLIGHT mind you, but definate.

I put this point forward, I believe they are so slight, because of the short perioid of time (in evelutionary unit) before the cultures began to intermix, and freely interect with each others environments and cultures. Had all the dominant cultures on the planet today decided to stay put, and isolate themselves for the next 100 million years.....is it not safe to say one culture would arrise more intelligent???

If this is as obviously a yes as it seems to me, then keep in mind this is an extrapolation, and the same thing would have occurred over the shorter period of isolation that all these cultures were geographically subjected too,....on a much less noticable scale.

IN short...dont let politcal correctness stunt your analytical thought. As it is often the creation of those at the disadvantage in the first place, and you may be getting your idea from a less intelligent source than yourself.

PS - fetus...great answers on physical differences above.

3finger - HS dropout - caucasian - 142 IQ - inner city upbringing - go figure

 

A couple of questions related to the following;

‘But I do contend that one could visit an area of Asia that is populated with families that havnt worked much with outside cultures or traveled, and do the same in Congo......and find definate differences in brain development.’

In fact the study by Price-Williams in 1961 compared Swiss children with the Tiv people in Nigeria and showed that using the the piaget-type tasks the intelligence scores were similar.

But the problems I have are two fold. 1) which difference is better, i.e. more intelligent, does this not depend on your own cultural stand point, since intelligence is defined in terms of our culture. 2) these individuals will have had different womb environments, diets, educations ect, which do not allow the differences in brain to be reduced to genetics.

I have yet to read of a study which after careful scrutiny of its methods and sampling supports a difference in race and sex IQ, or one which supports a difference in brain size.

By passing the problem of what IQ and race is, as far as I can see intelligence would be a natural selection force for all ‘races’.

 

If there is no difference in race why is it that people of african descent are known to have an extra bone in there foot and why people of asian descent have a difference in their eyes compared to other people groups and also for my last point i believe we are all descendents from the same group as a entire race but unsure how these differences occured could anybody help me understand the human chain of change.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

(You just know somebody's gonna say it, so it might as well be me...)
celtic origin - I think its because certain people learned how to break up a paragraph and avoid run-on sentences.

 

Another question id like to make is, is it true when we die that we lose 21 grams instantly, some people say it is your soul leaving your body but I do not
believe in any sort of heaven and hell so am unsure where the soul would be
going, also does anybody know what times these kind of stories came about.
I believe if we lose 21 grams instantly it must have something to do with the intestines shrinking can anybody try back up my claim or give me your points
on this accusation .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No that just BS
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1105956.htm

 

Isn't it possible that traits aquired in one's lifetime are transferred to the DNA, to be passed on to later generations?

 

Nope that not possible either.