Human races are real according to evolution

[mikemikev]

Ernst Mayr wrote:

Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

Ernst Mayr has been described as "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", and was one of the key figures in the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis.

So denying that human races exist is ignorant of biology and anti-evolution, yet it appears users on this forum deny human races. Interesting.

 

[spidergoat]

Perhaps race or subspecies is a useful term in biology, but the diversity of the human race as seen in our DNA is much less than even neighboring subspecies of chimps.

Here's a handy chart that illustrates this perfectly:

"But look at the modern humans, in red. We’re a sadly cramped little cluster; there may be a lot of us individuals, but we’re all relatively closely related. Modern humans only arose roughly 100,000 years ago, and our branch expanded numerically fairly rapidly, but we haven’t had all that much time to accumulate as much genetic variation. We’re a close-knit side branch of the primate family tree, or we ought to be close-knit — we’re brothers and sisters together.

We’re definitely set somewhat apart from Cousin Neanderthal, the light blue line. But even there, the range of genetic diversity is pitiful compared to the chimpanzees."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...ific-visualization-of-the-importance-of-race/

 

[iceaura]

You appear to be confusing sociological race with biological race.

Depending on one's exact definition, biological races exist, in humans as well as other organisms. They do not align with the sociological races in the various societies of humans, however.

If you need evidence for that generally obvious and self-evident observation (the sociological races in the US are currently based on outer coat/skin color: how likely is it that one could accurately identify races of a mammal based on coat/skin color?), a perusal of the changing sociological race classifications in the Americas should be enough - the Irish were once members of the "black" race, as were the Swedish in Ben Franklin's time, for starters.

As far as I know, there isn't anyone in the public media arena denying the possible existence of biological races, depending on the criteria of "race" adopted. What is often denied is the existence of inevitable, presumable, and observed biological significance for sociological race. And that's just common sense.

 

[Enmos]

Race = subspecies

 

[Jake Arave]

Modern Biology, in all technicality would say that Europids are the most dominant of the human races. As a race, Caucasians are an inherently more fit species for global survival - this is easily quantifiable with history. That being said, the recognition of racial superiority is not important in the modern era. We shouldn't exploit other intelligent subspecies, because it is morally and ethically wrong to do so. We should, instead, work together as a human race to ensure our long term survival as a collective species - through mixing races and non-isolation we should be able to observe less deviation among individuals and as a consequence, more global unity. There are issues which are much more pressing in this era than race - and to denote the races of individuals who are attempting peaceful assimilation is completely nonsensical. I wouldn't say that there is a biological basis for race denial (In fact, there is every reason to assume there is a distinction) but it would be detrimental to our progression of unity as a species.

 

[Enmos]

All modern humans are of the same subspecies.

 

[Jake Arave]

All modern humans are of the same subspecies.

Homo sapiens > sapiens
I'm sure it can be denoted further - if that's what you mean.

 

[spidergoat]

Modern Biology, in all technicality would say that Europids are the most dominant of the human races. As a race, Caucasians are an inherently more fit species for global survival - this is easily quantifiable with history.....

In all "technicality", you're fucking wrong. Europeans had many advantages that had nothing to do with their biology. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

 

[Enmos]

Homo sapiens > sapiens
I'm sure it can be denoted further - if that's what you mean.

See post #4.

 

[Jake Arave]

In all "technicality", you're fucking wrong. Europeans had many advantages that had nothing to do with their biology. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Advantages aside and stripping down to the biology, which, need I remind, is the topic of conversation - You can't really go so far as to say that in a modern era (I'll call this 1900-present) that Caucasians haven't done the best job of dominating every other race regardless of their obvious geographic (And evolutionary) advantages. I would implore you to believe that this isn't something based solely on Guns, Germs and Steel - though, their uses have made the largest impact. I think that the geographic needs of Caucasians have prepared them more for what the "Modern Era" has become, coincidentally. I do understand your meaning, though, but you must understand mine - there is little evidence to support these claims except recent history, which, as you pointed out, can also be attributed to Guns, Germs, and Steel.

It's also worth mentioning - that any subspecies could be just as dominant based on their particular advantages. It was more playing with an idea that could be perceived as quantifiable - rather than a blatant support of social Darwinism. I would also like to say that Environmental Determinism is arguably a less proven science than evolution. So, in all "technicality" neither of us are "fucking wrong"

 

[Jake Arave]

See post #4.

I understand your meaning, I was just clarifying it so that I could better understand.

 

[sculptor]

Sociologically, much has to do with peer group identification.
And that is a personal thing.

 

[spidergoat]

Advantages aside and stripping down to the biology, which, need I remind, is the topic of conversation - You can't really go so far as to say that in a modern era (I'll call this 1900-present) that Caucasians haven't done the best job of dominating every other race regardless of their obvious geographic (And evolutionary) advantages.

How do you put advantages aside? The advantages were everything.

 

[iceaura]

As a race, Caucasians are an inherently more fit species for global survival - this is easily quantifiable with history

The climate and landscape regimes in which transparent skinned humans have an advantage are fairly limited - the vast majority of the surface area of this planet requires far more melanistic skin than is usually included in the supposed "Caucasian" race.

It's not obvious what exactly you are talking about by "more fit for global survival".

 

[Jake Arave]

The climate and landscape regimes in which transparent skinned humans have an advantage are fairly limited - the vast majority of the surface area of this planet requires far more melanistic skin than is usually included in the supposed "Caucasian" race.

It's not obvious what exactly you are talking about by "more fit for global survival".

I mean to say that the global spread of Caucasian peoples could possibly be contributed to evolutionary advantages - and because of the increased spread of people and technology in the modern era, they might be more adaptable than others who may have not had said evolutionary traits. Human history, particularly human evolution, is something that everyone is able to speculate about. Negroid and mongoloid peoples had the same sorts of traits, but with differences that might not be as suitable.


* These posts are written with the expressed point of explaining subspecies diversity - I don't want to deviate from that.

A good example of the isolation, and evolution of subspecies in humans is the ability for middle eastern/African peoples to adapt sickle trait (which is an advantage for them to have). This means that some individuals will have an immunity to malaria, which can be ravaging to these areas. Now this is an important trait for them to have, but not so much for Europeans who have a much lower risk of contraction. I believe that it is entirely likely that similar advantages exist in Caucasians that might make them more suitable for the technological era. I could be wrong, and am willing to be proven wrong, but I've yet to hear different.

 

[iceaura]

I mean to say that the global spread of Caucasian peoples could possibly be contributed to evolutionary advantages

The only one anybody has noticed is that Caucasians carry a lot of diseases that kill other people but not them.

I believe that it is entirely likely that similar advantages exist in Caucasians that might make them more suitable for the technological era

Sure. They are more resistant than most to death by flu virus, for example, and probably cholera. So they can live in crowded hovels with poor sanitation subjected to transcontinentally imported flu viruses without dying as frequently. That's an advantage, in the slums of the modern world.

If that what you are talking about?

 

[Jake Arave]

The only one anybody has noticed is that Caucasians carry a lot of diseases that kill other people but not them.

Sure. They are more resistant than most to death by flu virus, for example, and probably cholera. So they can live in crowded hovels with poor sanitation subjected to transcontinentally imported flu viruses without dying as frequently. That's an advantage, in the slums of the modern world.

If that what you are talking about?

It's certainly one way to interpret it.

 

[Bells]

I mean to say that the global spread of Caucasian peoples could possibly be contributed to evolutionary advantages - and because of the increased spread of people and technology in the modern era, they might be more adaptable than others who may have not had said evolutionary traits. Human history, particularly human evolution, is something that everyone is able to speculate about. Negroid and mongoloid peoples had the same sorts of traits, but with differences that might not be as suitable.


* These posts are written with the expressed point of explaining subspecies diversity - I don't want to deviate from that.

A good example of the isolation, and evolution of subspecies in humans is the ability for middle eastern/African peoples to adapt sickle trait (which is an advantage for them to have). This means that some individuals will have an immunity to malaria, which can be ravaging to these areas. Now this is an important trait for them to have, but not so much for Europeans who have a much lower risk of contraction. I believe that it is entirely likely that similar advantages exist in Caucasians that might make them more suitable for the technological era. I could be wrong, and am willing to be proven wrong, but I've yet to hear different.

Not you could be wrong.

You are wrong.

The sequencing of the human genome has provided both natural and social scientists the opportunity to gain new knowledge about the complex relationships between our socio-politically constructed definitions of race, human genetic variation and health differences. Both race and ethnicity carry connotations that reflect culture, history, socioeconomic and political status, as well as an important connection to ancestral geographic origins (Collins 2004). Humans are genetically less diverse than many other mammalian species including chimpanzees (Fischer et al. 2004; Kaessmann et al. 2001). It is difficult to define human populations of significant genetic variation because of the clinal nature of our diversity (Long and Kittles 2003). Only 5 percent to 15 percent of genetic variation occurs between continental populations leaving the majority of diversity within these groups (Jorde et al. 2000). Additionally, the significance of this diversity is blurred by inconsistencies in the definition and inclusion parameters that are used to classify populations (Long and Kittles 2003). There are no gene variants that are present in all individuals of one population group and not in individuals of another. No sharp genetic boundaries can be drawn between human population groups (Bonham et al. 2005; Race Ethnicity and Genetics Working Group 2005).​

 

[TBodillia]

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"

"In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species."

University of Michigan: Cultural Anthropology-Human Diversity and "Race"

"What is race?
The textbook distinguishes between two kinds of race: biological and social. A biological race is a geographically isolated subsdivision of a species that will eventually evolve into a new species if it remains isolated long enough. Some biologists use the term race to refer to breeds of domesticated species like dogs, cattle, corn, wheat, etc. In this sense, a single species will consist of a series of different breeds that have been carefully selected, bred, and maintained by humans for generations. Human populations have not been isolated long enough to develop races, nor have we ever experienced the controlled breeding like that which has created the various dogs, horses, corn, etc. As a result, human physical and genetic variation is not distributed into discrete populations marked by abrupt shifts in gene frequencies. Rather, human physical and genetic variation is distributed along gradual shifts or clines. This means that there are no human races. A social race is a group that is assumed to have a biological basis but is actually defined in a culturally arbitrary manner. This means that each culture has its own concepts of what race is as demonstrated in the textbook's discussion of race in the U.S., Japan, and Brazil."

 

[Enoc]

The evidence for evolution and abiogenesis is enormous so that one must be really stupid to dismiss all this evidence.

Religious people just can't deal with the fact that evolution is real and that there very very probably is no loving God and that everyone alive today is going to die one day and never come back.

Many people have difficulty dealing with the finality of death and the complete pointlessness of life so that is why they go on and invent religion and Gods.

In my opinion religion has no basis in reality except to assuage people's panic fear of the finality of death and to give some subjective "meaning" to people's lives but in fact life has no meaning.