Evolution of different Humans race : Myths, facts and everything in between

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there a way to find out where your past/lineage comes from? I know national geographic does a swab thing but that goes so far back to Africa doesn't it? Is there anything to find out more recent within the last few hundred years?

I know not entirely about evolutionary science but you seem knowledgeable about this stuff so...
 
1lsVrbm.jpg

_55547325_55521575.jpg


Good article on BBC on this

most of the evidence points to this.

It's lucky they had those big arrows to walk on.

Surprised on how old English and Italian people are.
 
It really doesn't take very long. If you look at the demographics of South America the percentage of people in some countries with mixed European / native heritage exceeds 60% - I believe this is true in Mexico and Chile and possibly others. And keep in mind most of this mixing occured before the invention of mass international transportation and communication.

It seems to depend on the culture. Spaniards and the Portuguese tended to mix with the native population in South-Central America, whereas the British in North America did not. The French in Canada did a bit of mixing (hence the Métis population).

Something kind of ironic about multiculturalism/ethnic diversity is that eventually (in theory anyway) it will transform society back into a more homogeneous ethnic makeup.
 
Could South Asians or Arabs be considered Caucasian ?

something I have always wondered is can you tell race from skeletal structure ?
 

That's pretty interesting actually. If I saw the white dude and the african girl I wouldn't think they had eyes similar to asians. I would think they just have small eyes. Just the way the brain is conditioned I suppose.

I think its also interesting how you can tell where someones from (with decent accuracy) just by their features. I'm Polish and sometimes I can tell someone is polish just by some facial features.
 
Imo I think a lot of people deny the concept of races due to the PC scientific community. If you start to say that there are differences and races, then people will start to conduct researches that could have negative effects (who's smarter/dumber, more violent, etc.). Yet you can look at a human skull and determine what race that person is. Same thing with blood. But there is a lot of overlap due to human migration which can complicate things.

But using biological terminology, races don't exist, since the most fine grained classification we have is sub-species and race is a subset of it. But we classify all sorts of animals using breeds even though they are social constructs just like a lot of people say races are. But I don't think a lot of people would deny that there are differences between dog, and horse breeds for example.

Having said that I think nothing good can come out of determining the different races in Humans. There are no benefits to this and would only serve to make the bigots happy.
 
In the future we will looklike this:

03.jpg


a few million years later...

27.jpg


Meet homo asteromorphus our distant ancestors adapted to zero-G.
 
Sexual selection. That "look" become the most attractive within their earliest societies.

I'd say, as far as speculation goes, it's probably just the effect of migration or small population sizes. Anytime you get a small population, whether by getting wiped out or a small migration party, genetic drift becomes extremely powerful.
 
That's pretty interesting actually. If I saw the white dude and the african girl I wouldn't think they had eyes similar to asians. I would think they just have small eyes. Just the way the brain is conditioned I suppose.

I think its also interesting how you can tell where someones from (with decent accuracy) just by their features. I'm Polish and sometimes I can tell someone is polish just by some facial features.

Yeah, I can distinguish an east African pretty easily from other Africans, and I could probably give a good guess as to what country that person is from too - I can always tell when an Ethiopian is around.
 
They now believe that Neanderthals and Humans got those similar gene from an earlier ancestor.

Who is "they" and when was "now"? That wouldn't make sense given the common ancestor would have to pre-date the African migration and Europeans are most genetically similar to Neanderthals, who surprise surprise, lived in the same areas.

The other option is that African humans and European human evolved independently from separate groups of hiedelburgenses. Which would be even more far-fetched, frankly. Jus archaeologists looking to inject their own theories. You don't get funding by agreeing with everyone else.
 
That's pretty interesting actually. If I saw the white dude and the african girl I wouldn't think they had eyes similar to asians. I would think they just have small eyes. Just the way the brain is conditioned I suppose.

I think its also interesting how you can tell where someones from (with decent accuracy) just by their features. I'm Polish and sometimes I can tell someone is polish just by some facial features.
It's not uncommon to see a group of people from specific regions tending to have particular features not seen on their neighbours.
 
Yeah, I can distinguish an east African pretty easily from other Africans, and I could probably give a good guess as to what country that person is from too - I can always tell when an Ethiopian is around.

Ethiopians/Malagasy imo can be easily told apart from the rest of Africa, the hardest people for me to tell apart are Southern Nigerians and Ghanaians.
 
Imo I think a lot of people deny the concept of races due to the PC scientific community. If you start to say that there are differences and races, then people will start to conduct researches that could have negative effects (who's smarter/dumber, more violent, etc.). Yet you can look at a human skull and determine what race that person is. Same thing with blood. But there is a lot of overlap due to human migration which can complicate things.

But using biological terminology, races don't exist, since the most fine grained classification we have is sub-species and race is a subset of it. But we classify all sorts of animals using breeds even though they are social constructs just like a lot of people say races are. But I don't think a lot of people would deny that there are differences between dog, and horse breeds for example.

Having said that I think nothing good can come out of determining the different races in Humans. There are no benefits to this and would only serve to make the bigots happy.

I pretty much agree. Although, if advanced genetic research sometime in the future determined that a certain race or races were generally more intelligent than my race, I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but then again I don't think it would bum me out since the difference would not be soo drastic, and even if it were a big difference I know I could still be happy in life:p. But, like you said, giving the bigots more shit to work with would be incredibly annoying.
 
there is a chart in op regarding this. yes they do according to one research.
Do you have resources for the research?

Your map:
Racial ideas in the 19th Century

In Blumenbach days was the description of physical characteristics such as skin color and skull profile hand in hand with the interpretation of character traits, traits and intellectual abilities. Thus, for example, the light color and relatively high brow of the "Caucasian" considered a physical expression of a soaring spirit and generous temperament. The dark skin and the slightly sloping forehead "of the Ethiopians" were seen as evidence of a larger package genetic proximity to the primates, although the skin of chimpanzees and gorillas in the white hair than the average of the "Caucasian".

From Diversity in theory is Different valence. Supposedly higher, "culturally creative" races stood lower, "culturally destructive" towards breeds. In 19th and 20th Century, a number of competing theories of race developed (best known are those of Gobineau and Chamberlain)., All the Europeans looked at the forefront of human development It has been postulated that all fair-skinned Europeans, the "Caucasian", are descended from "Aryans". Such "racial union known" views served to the "Aryan" mystify a physically and mentally superior purity and intent on "master race" that had acted in history as the warrior aristocracy and cultural charm.

Of particular influence was in this context with Gobineau's Essai sur l'inégalité the races humaines (Essay on the Inequality of Human Races, 1853/55), in which he argued that the driving force of human history is the "race question." "Miscegenation", especially with "inferior races", in his words, leads to degeneration and destruction of "peoples" and "nations".

Connected were inspired by the romance racial ideas with ideas of a rigidly constructed and postulated dualism between males and females. [20], Sun claimed the founder of the theory of evolution and natural selection theory, Charles Darwin, with philosophical gesture that must be added to general that "in women formed the ability of intuition or the gift of quick wit and maybe more of imitation" is "as in man." And he added that "but some of these capabilities also characteristic of lower races" and that therefore as "an early and low level of civilization" should be considered. [21] An equally sharp constructed gender dualism found decades later input into the writing myth 20th Century, the Nazi "racial theorist" Alfred Rosenberg. [22]

The Hegelian dialectic of a historical world-spirit following represented the early socialist Moses Hess, temporary allies of Marx and Engels, in his book Rome and Jerusalem in 1862 a kind of messianism content of faith, started that with the philosophy of Spinoza and the French Revolution, a new world age , did after the French people went through the decapitation of his monarch broke the dominance of a "Germanic race". Hess differed according to different races in the history of the world, and held under the auspices of its ideological, secular "apocalyptic" thinking a "last race struggle" necessary, he postulated the priority as the class struggle. Hess for the different races, however, were not of different valencies, but each carrier of properties that are for humanity as a whole enriching. After a chaotic period of the "struggle for existence" they should at the "end of history" a relationship of solidarity living together as "members of the body of humanity" can be achieved without losing their respective characteristics. Translated from : Source

These ideas, that I feel you might be trying to promote (along with rising militarism and distrust between nations) led to WWI. These ideas of race as a science are what the Nazis used in their propoganda during the build-up to WWII, and also is what racists still push as science today. Maybe it is the Masters of Liberal Arts tag but I feel like you are stringing something together out of ignorance or with malicious intent. Please, clarify your use of race in the OP: are you arguing that race has a scientific basis?
 
Could South Asians or Arabs be considered Caucasian ?

something I have always wondered is can you tell race from skeletal structure ?

The whole "Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid" racial classification is based around skeletal structures (not skin tones). They are often used to determine the ethnicity of a decomposed body.

race_cranial_features_2010.jpg


Europeans, Indians, and Arabs are usually classified under Caucasian. Some East-Africans (particularly near the horn) also fit under the Caucasian umbrella.
 
Could South Asians or Arabs be considered Caucasian ?

something I have always wondered is can you tell race from skeletal structure ?
As far as science is concerned, there is no such thing as race, and there is most certainly no such thing as the Caucasian race (it's something that was invented to drive a wedge between African and European indentured servants in the new world).
We're generally (but not always) look more similar to people we are more related to (i.e. share more of our genetic material with) but that's about it.
 
The whole "Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid" racial classification is based around skeletal structures (not skin tones). They are often used to determine the ethnicity of a decomposed body.

race_cranial_features_2010.jpg


Europeans, Indians, and Arabs are usually classified under Caucasian. Some East-Africans (particularly near the horn) also fit under the Caucasian umbrella.
That classification is based mostly on scientific racism, and it provides such little practical value for anything that I think it's best to just ignore that crap.
 
How would a layperson comprehend the "DNA Cluster" graph?

Also, I never knew that Indians were grouped under "Caucasians" since in every day use, it is synonymous with "white" folks. Oh well, I guess next time someone asks me where I am from (because being brown and Canadian is akin to a recurring contradiction) I can cite that connected graph and its source.
 
That classification is based mostly on scientific racism, and it provides such little practical value for anything that I think it's best to just ignore that crap.

^ more you know!!

Was race just casually selected or is there purpose behind its choice to be included in this discussion? If you are asking for a scientific discussion of these things; don't bring race and all the baggage it carries into the conversation. It is an antiquated term.

casually selected. Mod can change the title if you can suggest one that would be grat as well.
 
Neighbor joining method


From oxford regarding same method

^ this one has full paper on this.


Neighbor-joining_Tree.svg


This is what it came up with.

My research deals with evolution of certain genes and I have employed many different types of algorithms to construct phylogenetic trees. Let me give my two cents here.

Basically you have to first do an alignment of the sequence then based on that alignment you utilize other applications that can do these type of phylogenetic trees.

For example, neighbor joining method is one of these methods.

There are other algorithms to build trees such as Maximum Likelihood, Minimum Evolution, Maximum Parisomony. Please use the application called MEGA to do this: http://www.megasoftware.net/

I hope this helps explain this things here.

Also I would suggest buying this book: http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=6069
 
I always thought it was really cool how there's so many different "races" of humans.

I think asians are the ones that are most interesting. How come no one else has eyes like that?
Mind blowing fact

Almost everyone is born with epicanthic folds, but lose them as the bridge of their nose develops and their eyes recess into their sockets.
 
I understand where you are coming from now. i'll leave title changes up to more creative people and that decision for you, it is your thread and I don't want you to feel bullied. Be well.

no worries. :)

My research deals with evolution of certain genes and I have employed many different types of algorithms to construct phylogenetic trees. Let me give my two cents here.

Basically you have to first do an alignment of the sequence then based on that alignment you utilize other applications that can do these type of phylogenetic trees.

For example, neighbor joining method is one of these methods.

There are other algorithms to build trees such as Maximum Likelihood, Minimum Evolution, Maximum Parisomony. Please use the application called MEGA to do this: http://www.megasoftware.net/

I hope this helps explain this things here.

Also I would suggest buying this book: http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=6069


Woah. thanks.
 
^ more you know!!
These are all just semantics and terminology, but considering our history as a species, I think it's best to just drop the term 'race' in this context, we can discuss the great advancement and discoveries that have been made in the field of human genetics and evolution without it, and I think we'll end up with a healthier discussion.
 
These are all just semantics and terminology, but considering our history as a species, I think it's best to just drop the term 'race' in this context, we can discuss the great advancement and discoveries that have been made in the field of human genetics and evolution without it, and I think we'll end up with a healthier discussion.

I am requesting mod to remove race from title. If mod are watching this please change it and remove word race from it thanks.
 
My best advice to anyone reading this thread and who is genuinely interested in the history of "race" is to read something like The Mismeasure of Man. You'll look at this thread and see it as a lot of dangerous essentializing.

As many others have said, whatever race "is" it is certainly more of a cultural construction than anything genetic. We need to stop talking about it in terms of what science does or not does not tell us about it because it usually just ends up with people finding scientific "proof" for whatever theories of difference they set out looking for in the first place.
 
That classification is based mostly on scientific racism, and it provides such little practical value for anything that I think it's best to just ignore that crap.

Even though a lot of the research was done for racist reasons, some of the data is still useful. It's a scientific fact that skull proportions differ between ethnic groups, this doesn't mean anything in regards to "superiority" though. 99% of "racial science" in the past has been bullshit, but Anthropometric data does have practical value.

A Caucasoid can be identified with up to 95% accuracy, this can be incredibly useful for archeologists attempting to determine where someone came from.

Edit: Just so people know, I in no way agree with the idea of "human races", the whole skull thing is just a way of grouping ethnicities.
 
Even though a lot of the research was done for racist reasons, some of the data is still useful. It's a scientific fact that skull proportions differ between ethnic groups, this doesn't mean anything in regards to "superiority" though. 99% of "racial science" in the past has been bullshit, but Anthropometric data does have practical value.
No it's not.
You can tell people from certain parts of the world by their skeleton with varying degrees of confidence, but it's certainly not true that you can generally differentiate ethnic groups based on skull structure.

And I have no problems with anthropometrics (outside the fact that it has pretty limited use) just with the classification to races based on superficial traits.

A Caucasoid can be identified with up to 95% accuracy, this can be incredibly useful for archeologists attempting to determine where someone came from.
Caucasoid is not a real thing, it's a backward "proof", it's like me saying I can identify Chichikovian with 97% confidence, it's probably true, especially if I come up with a simple classification for it, but what good does it do?
That approach was such a failure, it couldn't even figure out that Australian aboriginals are genetically distinct from other "black people", I'm sure this is why in no small part modern anthropometry deal with comparative analysis instead of racial classifications.

Edit:
Edit: Just so people know, I in no way agree with the idea of "human races", the whole skull thing is just a way of grouping ethnicities.
I guess we agree then, though I think you overestimate the differences between ethnic groups and underestimate the amount of cross fucking that his happening.
 
These are all just semantics and terminology, but considering our history as a species, I think it's best to just drop the term 'race' in this context, we can discuss the great advancement and discoveries that have been made in the field of human genetics and evolution without it, and I think we'll end up with a healthier discussion.
Exactly.
 
What about the genetic bottleneck theory? The theory stating that some catastrophic event like 75,000 years ago nearly wiped out humans and is the reason we're all 99 percent genetically alike? I think we've settled on the Toba catastrophe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
I think it's fascinating, it's talked about in Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth which I highly recommend.

Edit: might want to add that book to the OP, it's perfectly relevant to this thread.
 
If you live in a multiethnic region with low racial tensions, or better yet, a multiethnic household, you begin to see just how irrelevant these differences are. Humans are so much more alike than we are different.
 
Race is an entirely man made concept born out of racism and eugenics.

Nonsense. Just because this is an area that has been abused in the past and a sensitive subject in today's world don't make it irrelevant or made up.

99.9% of all our genes are the same.

And we're 99% the same as chimps. Apparently that 1% is enough to make us a completely different species. But no, we should disaregard that too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom