How did the different human races evolve?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't saying it's there, only that it could be given that lackign comprehension of the full scope of DNA's impact.

It was just a passing thought anyway. Seems like something like that must be in play for species to adapt as they do, but then again, I'm simply retarded when it comes to biology type stuff, so I'll shutup and yield to superior knowledge.
 
Randolfo said:
check this out:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm


from:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/dna.htminteresting points in red bold lettering
Click to expand...
Is it out of place here to suggest that there is more credible evidence that human beings were bred by alien colonists for their own manual labor purposes using earth and alien DNA mixtures? If nothing else this senario explains the convoluted attempts to explain away the huge accelerated advancement in the human species (Neandrthals included) far exceeding any credible and rational "evolution" mode. Similarly to the unbelievably rapid rise in the Sumarian culture from a state of dum-dum spear chuckers to sophistication in architecture, medicine, law, trade, astronomy, education, shipping ,transportation, organized warfare, mathamatics, business, religion, pyramid construction styled similarly in all parts of the earth, etc.
 
Except that on the principle of Occams razor, it is invalid, since it massively multiplies the unknowns and complexities involved in human history, and lacks any real evidence.
 
I'm very sure that all of you see that evolution occours when a genetic mutation happends at birth,which is either a few errors in the DNA make-up up or 20. With all of the (mentally-retarded) babies being born today, your telling me not one has had an extreame amount of errors and inherits a monkey/Human look.Most people believe that animals experience challenges in their life which create's changes in DNA, not possible....
The errors are birth defects

Correct me if im wrong
 
rage_hard_cor said:
I'm very sure that all of you see that evolution occours when a genetic mutation happends at birth,which is either a few errors in the DNA make-up up or 20. [/SIZE]
Click to expand...
DNA errors in complex lifeforms, usually end up dead or un-mated. many animals have such a narrow definition of what the 'best' mate is, that they will reject the 'inferior' one; some are so complex, like orchids & their pollenators, bird dances &/or calls, etc...
one error, may bring a favorable mutation, like Delta 32 for BP & HIV/AIDS or an unfavorable one like trisomy 21
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002541.html
With all of the (mentally-retarded) babies being born today, your telling me not one has had an extreame amount of errors and inherits a monkey/Human look.
Click to expand...
actually, MR can be caused by just one error, a third chromosome 21 where there should be only two
http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cn...zdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_s_32zPzhtm#10148578

Most people believe that animals experience challenges in their life which create's changes in DNA, not possible....
The errors are birth defects
Click to expand...
single cell organisms usually mutate to live when faced with challenges,birth defect in higher lifeforms cause death in the natural world, humans now let them live; premies, crack babies, simese twins, hydrocephalus, etc
Correct me if im wrong
Click to expand...
need a biologist for that, I'm just an amateur like you
 
New to this malarky so not sure i've got the right thread here but aren't i correct in thinking that scientifically there are no such thing as human races apart from the one to which we all belong? 'Race' is simply the human reaction/adaptation/evolutionary process to geological locations. ie we are where we live
 
Sniffy,
you are broadly correct. We all find it easy to identify different 'races', whether in the general - caucasian, asian - or the more specific - scandinavian, mediterranean. But when we analyse the distribution of features we find there is a continuum. There is far less genetic variation in humans than in any other common large mammal. This was probably due to some sort of crisis around 80,000 years ago that almost wiped us out.
 
Ophiolite said:
Sniffy,
you are broadly correct. We all find it easy to identify different 'races', whether in the general - caucasian, asian - or the more specific - scandinavian, mediterranean. But when we analyse the distribution of features we find there is a continuum. There is far less genetic variation in humans than in any other common large mammal. This was probably due to some sort of crisis around 80,000 years ago that almost wiped us out.
Click to expand...
It's just that science ought to be spreading the word much more vociferously about this (not a new 'theory' after all). It would be a useful and scientifically sound way to combat racism, nationalism and, indeed religious fundamentalism. In other words, genetically speaking, there is no reason why we "can't all just get along".
 
It's a nice thought, but there are issues.

We are very much victims, as well as beneficaries, of our prehistoric heritage. For most of the time we have been human - lets call it 180,000 years - and for all our previous time as proto humans, we have been a tribal animal, living in small groups. Anyone we did not recognise was therefore from another group and potentially dangerous. That instinctive distrust of the unfamiliar was a survival trait until we became civilised (which remember means, literally, city dwellers). Now it is a liability.
Habits can change quickly - instincts take longer to craft.
 
At any one point in time in any healthy non stressed population of anything, there is homegenous (bell curve) spread in variation. Tall ones, small ones black ones yellow ones you name it it's there. Isolate a group and put it under some enviromental stress of any sort and the curve will be skewed in favour of those variants that are better able to survive. This is raciation. Variation is the key to survival for any species, too little and they can be extinct very rapidely. If the populations get repeatedly isolated and then reinstalled then speciation will not occur. A group that gets isolated for long enough so that genetic mutation occurs to a large enough extent can become a seperate species. Sub species can still interbreed, species generally do not - some may produce infertile hybridisation. Humans and Chimpanzees are different species which produce a infertile hybrid (a mule).

Africa has the widest variation in genetic variation, this underlines the out of Africa theory. As humans have spread and repeatedly got isolated then small variations are emphasised which are most suitable to the environment they find themselves in. Repeated waves of migration have "homogenised" these regional variations to the extent of not dividing us into different sub or species.

Mitochondrial DNA is not a certain guide to the age of Homo Sapiens, our ancestors though different species may have had the same Mitichondrial DNA.
 
Ophiolite said:
It's a nice thought, but there are issues.

We are very much victims, as well as beneficaries, of our prehistoric heritage. For most of the time we have been human - lets call it 180,000 years - and for all our previous time as proto humans, we have been a tribal animal, living in small groups. Anyone we did not recognise was therefore from another group and potentially dangerous. That instinctive distrust of the unfamiliar was a survival trait until we became civilised (which remember means, literally, city dwellers). Now it is a liability.
Habits can change quickly - instincts take longer to craft.
Click to expand...

Ophiolite
Well yes of course we are 'victims' of our heritage both evolutionary and social but we are also sentient beings. Much of the behaviour that we have inherited is recognised and documented as a product of our evolution (not to even start on social conditioning). My original point was that it would benefit humankind greatly if more of what we know to be true were communicated to the widest possible audiences and here on the internet seems a good place. i'm just shocked to read in a science forum that people are still talking about race as if it were an evolutionary trait unaffected by climate and geography and that some folk still think some 'races' are more 'intelligent' than others. :eek:
 
isolate a group (by any means) and you will start to create a race. Climate, geography, culture anything. Use the term race to describe any group of people then you are stating that there are physiological differences between you. A pigeon from the USA is probably subtley different to one from Europe (prosuming there is no intermingling).

Skin colour, height, eye shape, teeth shape - these differences are all factors of variation and when reinforced by isolation become racial differences.Intelligence would be one of those variants but a very hard one to quantify. Intelligence, and the ability to use it, is the factor that has enabled man's success so it is a prerequisite that any race would have intelligence to survive in a new environment.
 
Last edited:
okconor said:
isolate a group (by any means) and you will start to create a race. Climate, geography, culture anything. Use the term race
Click to expand...
"race" is a misnomer, "breed" is probably more correct, because you would have to isolate populations for longer periods than previously, to create what I think people want to mean by "race" (a separate species).

we're just like "dogs"; some of us are "rots", some "dobs", some "chi's", all can mate & breed.

woof, woof
 
Browsing through this thread I noticed Spidergoat's question of 7-19-04, and its summary execution by Electric Fetus. I believe there are adequate indications that some mechanism of "evolution" might be at play in the way certain species, when abruptly faced with a strange environment, somehow miraculously change to survive. For instance the birds blown up on an island with a different ecology than the bird´s homeland. Faced with having to find a new food source, some developed beaks suited for sucking nectar, others developed beaks suited for eating fruits, etc. etc. And all this took place rapidly for their very survival was at stake. Now just what this mechanism is, I´m not sure. I believe it has to do with the interplay of consciousness and the body´s endocrine system, and that yes, it can be effecting DNA. Of course you might notice that I have a lot of "mights", "could be´s" in my statements. I really don´t know. I´m just repeating what this funny-looking green-eyed genie sitting on my shoulder is whispering to me. woowoo
 
Which department would you recommend? Religion, or something to do with psychology???? I tried to lock up ol green-eyes, but he kept hiding under the bed. My point, to be serious for a moment, in all my posts is that consciousness itself is an integral part of all our "equations", and that in itself, to me, ties everything into that "unknown mystery" of life that some might call God. Om Shanti Remember Saint Bob Dylan said Einstein was being followed by a jealous priest. But I didn't say that. Ol green eyes did. I'll leave you guys alone for awhile as I´m leaving Peru again, and I only have time to play while down here. Chau
 
Randolfo said:
"race" is a misnomer, "breed" is probably more correct, because you would have to isolate populations for longer periods than previously, to create what I think people want to mean by "race" (a separate species).

we're just like "dogs"; some of us are "rots", some "dobs", some "chi's", all can mate & breed.

woof, woof
Click to expand...

On that note: after several thousands of years of interbreeding dogs, we still have to see the first signs of that process leading to a new 'race', however much we do our best. A chihuahua could still mate with a danish dog.

He'd have to stand on a chair, but ok. You get my point, I hope. :)
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Because dogs were never bred with the goal to produce a new species?



Are there any records of such a mating that is unassisted by humans?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone 'breeds' with the intention to create a new species. It 'just' happens, according to evolution theory. Any adaptation fitter than the previous one has a better chance of remaining. Most aren't. They are called mutations, abominations and probably end up flushed through a nameless toilet, or eaten by the mother. Happens more than you think, if the litter smells really wrong they're history.

Yet after a few thousand years, AFAIK there is not enough differences in the dog DNA to prohibit it. They may look different, but that's just variety, nothing more. Apart from 'technical' reasons there is no thing stopping you from creating a Chihuahua Dane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top