Mornin’ James...
Your post got me to thinking about the concept of “race.”
(from Webster’s)
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. Humanity as a whole.
3. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution (the Spanish
race)
4. aA genealogical line: LINEAGE.
5. biol. An animal or plant population that differs from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits: SUBSPECIES.
b A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A characteristic quality, as the flavor of a wine.
For all of that, you are correct. Most current theories would support your assertions. (and your clarifications are appreciated as I had no intentions of misleading anyone)
With respect to evolution, and variations in physical traits, what may be typically considered as “differences” between human “races” are thought to be less distinct than they were in the past. We’re becoming a homogenous blend, and in in the most obvious senses, presumably will continue like this as more blending of the ethnicities takes place.
As is typical with me however, I’m guilty of always being aware that we have at best a limited understanding of what all has or could occur where evolution is concerned. (Assumption resistance; a lifelong occupation) I tend to think of possible exceptions that could develop due to pure randomness; unexpected environmental or cultural pressures, rather than a stable proportion of genotypes unaltered by meiosis or sexual reproduction.
So while Migration and selection (thought to be prime factors in changing the frequency of some alleles), produce variation patterns that seemingly correlate with geographical distributions, these forces and their influences may differ greatly on any given group, causing more rapid divergence for some groups, or possibly creating subtleties in genetic variations that aren’t necessarily easy to detect -- or if they have been, their evolutionary role potentials aren’t easy to categorize. Isolating barriers aren’t always obvious either. I think there’s much that we’ve yet to comprehend about that which could promote or suppress genetic variation. Thus, I’ve yet to be convinced that we can be certain how important or influential (or not) the changes or types of variations actually are, and have consistently wondered about “dark horse“ genes that could emerge and become dominant due to present though overlooked ‘causes.’
Considering what we do know, as well as all that we don’t, I’m still content to think it quite possible, even likely, that genetic variations of some types will increase as more humans (of any race) interbreed. Comes with the territory of being a “counterbalance” --leaving open doors of possibility-- because I see no reason to close them. (And it’s also a-ok with me if more evidence generated from further evolutionary progress should ultimately prove me wrong.) It’s the awareness of how advantageous it often is to keep an eye on the bigger (or sometimes smaller) picture that supports my conclusion. Despite the reasoning behind the general acceptance of some popular theories, in some instances I really
don’t know of any reason to outright dismiss some possibilities, so I don‘t.
Not that ANY of this will help to answer Eflex’s original questions,
, but rather than confuse anyone further I thought I‘d offer some clarification of my own.
~~~
Thx,
Counterbalance
