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

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.humanphenotypes.com/

Something to help kill time until Sony conference. ;)

I've always found these phenotype pictures fascinating, the human race is beautifully diverse.

I often like to read about regional minority groups like the Berbers, Kurds, Ainu, and Sami. They can have some exotic phenotypes.

Afghanistan is a country with some interesting genetics. Many of their women have amazing eyes.

11061_f520.jpg
 
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.
Science does not recognize race as a thing.

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.
That's not true any way you cut it, and such measurement are based on rather outdated view of our genetic material (specifically around the now debunked notion of junk DNA) but in any case, the genetic distance between humans and chimps is 20 times higher than then the distance within our species.
 
Isn't there a tribe in Africa that are the people we're all decended from? They look like black europeans

Anyone know what I'm talking about?
 
Science does not recognize race as a thing.

That's not true any way you cut it, and such measurement are based on rather outdated view of our genetic material (specifically around the now debunked notion of junk DNA) but in any case, the genetic distance between humans and chimps is 20 times higher than then the distance within our species.

Say whaaaat.
 
Science does not recognize race as a thing.

It still recognizes there are differences between particular groups and the extent of which is still understudied. Whether they fit old racial categories is irrelevant.

That's not true any way you cut it, and such measurement are based on rather outdated view of our genetic material (specifically around the now debunked notion of junk DNA) but in any case, the genetic distance between humans and chimps is 20 times higher than then the distance within our species.

That still goes against the well-intentioned but misguided dogma that humans emerged as the only human species left on the planet and just stopped evolving independently from that point on, with no differentiations between groups whatsoever. Just one happy, monolithic group of humans and we shouldn't try to dig deeper with this issue.
 
It still recognizes there are differences between particular groups and the extent of which is still understudied. Whether they fit old racial categories is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant?
We have not been able to classify race in scientific terms, and believe me (and the Nazis) it wasn't for the lack of trying.

If I'm to say that all the blonde people are of the Blondian race, that's not a statement that can be scientifically evaluated?

That still goes against the well-intentioned but misguided dogma that humans emerged as the only human species left on the planet and just stopped evolving independently from that point on, with no differentiations between groups whatsoever. Just one happy, monolithic group of humans and we shouldn't try to dig deeper with this issue.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion, but it couldn't be further from the truth, for example, those studies provided ample supporting evidence to the theory of homo sapiens sapiens bred with other subspecies.
 
It's a pretty recent discovery and it's a pretty big deal.
The current term is noncoding DNA, and there's much more to be learned about it.
Holy shit.

Okay, now here is a good example of how science works.

I had long believed that the 97 percent of the genome that wasn't comprised of actual genes had little to nothing to do with the expression of your genetic code as an individual. Looks like that was possibly wrong as hell. I remember vaguely hearing about this in 2007 but seems like the research is really strong at this point... gonna read as much of this as I can understand and probably wind up changing my beliefs.
 
Holy shit.

Okay, now here is a good example of how science works.

I had long believed that the 97 percent of the genome that wasn't comprised of actual genes had anything to do with the expression of your genetic code as an individual. Looks like that was possibly wrong as hell. I remember vaguely hearing about this in 2007 but seems like the research is really strong at this point... gonna read as much of this as I can understand and probably wind up changing my beliefs.
You, me and pretty much everyone else.
Next time someone try to argue that people blindly believe in science, you can point them to this story (or you can slap them in the face, because that statement doesn't really makes sense).
 
Why is it irrelevant?
We have not been able to classify race in scientific terms, and believe me (and the Nazis) it wasn't for the lack of trying.

If I'm to say that all the blonde people are of the Blondian race, that's not a statement that can be scientifically evaluated?

But the blondian race can be debunked pretty quickly without even genetics entering the fray. Just an external characteristic appearing at different percentage rate within different groups, but no exclusive blondian race per se has ever existed. Not much different than eye color or the shape of ear lobes

Skin color is a more consistent physical characteristic between different groups living in different areas. Probably because it has a more useful function. Enough to make it a race? No, but if it can be linked to other characteristics, superficial or skin deep, then you have something that could be argued is the first step in a long series of steps that eventually separate species in the long run. Basic genetic drift.

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion, but it couldn't be further from the truth, for example, those studies provided ample supporting evidence to the theory of homo sapiens sapiens bred with other subspecies.

Because there are two different kinds of people arguing in this thread. The science heads and peaceniks everybody-is-equal types. It was more of an answer to the latter since that was what prompted me to first write a post in this thread.
 
But the blondian race can be debunked pretty quickly without even genetics entering the fray. Just an external characteristic appearing at different percentage rate within different groups, but no exclusive blondian race per se has ever existed. Not much different than eye color or the shape of ear lobes

Skin color is a more consistent physical characteristic between different groups living in different areas. Probably because it has a more useful function. Enough to make it a race? No, but if it can be linked to other characteristics, superficial or skin deep, then you have something that could be argued is the first step in a long series of steps that eventually separate species in the long run. Basic genetic drift.
You're scientifically wrong.
For example, I'm a Jew of eastern European descent, and I'm more genetically similar to Wesley Snipes than he is to Australian aboriginals, although I'm willing to bet 10 out of 10 people would say he looks more like them than me.
It's really not a useful approach.

Because there are two different kinds of people arguing in this thread. The science heads and peaceniks everybody-is-equal types. It was more of an answer to the latter since that was what prompted to first write a post in this thread.
Who are those people specifically?
And why do you reply to them when you're talking to me?
Do I strike you as such person?
Also, the people can be different and still be equal, are you seriously arguing otherwise here?

p.s.
Peaceniks?
Really?
It feels like your shadowboxing some made up liberal boogieman, war in peace literally have no relation to anything being discussed here.
 
Phew, that changes nothing. For the past 20 years it has been known that "junk DNA" held functions. It's just the death of the term, because apparently the dude hates it because it sounds like junk indeed.
You should read about it a bit more, it wasn't one eureka moment done by one hero scientist, but out understanding of those parts of our DNA had changed dramatically over the last few years.
 
I say we make use of this thread to discredit common ethnical stereotypes.

1st one to go down:

Asian men have smaller wangs.
False.

It is a racist stereotype.
 
You're scientifically wrong.
For example, I'm a Jew of eastern European descent, and I'm more genetically similar to Wesley Snipes than he is to Australian aboriginals.
It's really not a useful approach.

It's useful enough to debunk your blondian race example.

And again. without genetics, you can determine that you're probably more similar to Wesley Snipes because he probably has European ancestry to some degree being the descendant of African slaves in America.

And it doesn't take a genius to figure out why people in sunny, warm climates have black skin whereas those in colder climates lose that feature over time. Just having black skin doesn't automatically make you closer to Africans. That clue was already there before genetics considering the long distances between Australia and Africa and how humans could have plausibly spread out around the world (starting from Africa). I could even say aboriginees look nothing like Africans. :)



Who are those people specifically?
And why do you reply to them when you're talking to me?
Do I strike you as such person?

p.s.
Peaceniks?
Really?
It feels like your shadowboxing some made up liberal boogieman, war in peace literally have no relation to anything being discussed here.
Also, the people can be different and still be equal, are you seriously arguing otherwise here?

You butted in when I argued with someone else, with one of those very peaceniks :)

I have no problem with legal equality except when it colors a friendly discussion about human evolution.
 
Phew, that changes nothing. For the past 20 years it has been known that "junk DNA" held functions. It's just the death of the term, because apparently the dude hates it because it sounds like junk indeed.
That's... you're oversimplifying the shit out of it.

In 2007 some research was done that indicated that the "junk DNA" was up to something or another, and a lot of people had theories, and it was obviously considered to be more important than previously thought. But it seems like now they've identified a large number of those functions and been able to map at least some of them...
The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type. Much of the genome lies close to a regulatory event: 95% of the genome lies within 8 kilobases (kb) of a DNA–protein interaction (as assayed by bound ChIP-seq motifs or DNase I footprints), and 99% is within 1.7 kb of at least one of the biochemical events measured by ENCODE.
That definitely confounds my previously held view of the genome.. I don't know where you got the past 20 years, either. It may have been an evolving view, but the ENCODE project just finished last year, and it's a big deal.

This headline is accurate, we shouldn't call it junk DNA anymore at all. I don't know what argument I'm getting in the middle of, but I'm just saying.
 
You're scientifically wrong.
For example, I'm a Jew of eastern European descent, and I'm more genetically similar to Wesley Snipes than he is to Australian aboriginals, although I'm willing to bet 10 out of 10 people would say he looks more like them than me.
It's really not a useful approach.

It's really just the term "race"... you can simply define it by DNA differences and be done with it. I don't think someone here wants to argue about the Nazi's "Rassenlehre" by measuring skulls and what not.

Call it breeds then. E.g. dogs, also all from the same Canis lupus familiaris subspecies and you can argue that making distinctions has no meaning due to lack of taxonomic significance. Yet the fact is, that it does hold significance in other areas than mere taxonomics.
 
I say we make use of this thread to discredit common ethnical stereotypes.

1st one to go down:

Asian men have smaller wangs.
False.

It is a racist stereotype.

Hmmm... I think it's important to never ASSUME someone has a small or big penis because of their ethnicity, so let's get that out of the way.

But I was under the impression that east asians generally do measure as having 'smaller' (compared to I guess NA average size) penises? Or are those studies/smaller condoms in Japan stuff BS?
 
But miniscule genetic differences result in actual statistically signifcant differences between races. Penis size being the one that is politically correct to talk about for some reason.

France is the nation with the largest penis size on average. You're not discussing scientific fact here, you're talking stereotypes.
 
It's really just the term "race"... you can simply define it by DNA differences and be done with it. I don't think someone here wants to argue about the Nazi's "Rassenlehre" by measuring skulls and what not.

Call it breeds then. E.g. dogs, also all from the same Canis lupus familiaris subspecies and you can argue that making distinctions has no meaning due to lack of taxonomic significance. Yet the fact is, that it does hold significance in other areas than mere taxonomics.
I don't think that is a better word. To be brief there are too many "mutts," and you still encounter the "pure-bred" claims. There ought to be a better word.
 
Nicer euphemisms, but still politically incorrect considering the implication is the same as "race".

It's unfortunate this type of discussion gets bogged down by minutiae.

I do not entirely agree.
People of the same race share genetically transmitted physical characteristics. People of the same ethnicity share cultural, linguistic, religious, and often racial characteristics.

Ethnicity is broader and more useful. Racial classifications have often been imposed by outsiders, and many of the traditional classifications are now regarded as questionable from a scientific standpoint. As a result, race is more vague and less intellectually sound than ethnicity. Of course, in real-world usage, race is usually just a polite term for skin color.

Both words require caution. When used imprecisely, they tend to betray cultural biases.
Examples

Race carries heavy historical baggage and is almost always used in reference, direct or indirect, to historical racial struggles, modern racial inequalities, or culturally constructed racial identity—for example:

"Though Barack Obama never made his race a part of his presidency, he has become a national Rorschach test on the topic just by being.

[H]is good old boy Southern persona and impolitic remarks about race presented problems.

The one radical thing about Barack Obama is his race, his name."

Ethnicity is less thorny, and it’s generally more acceptable than race for describing a group of people. For example, race would create at least a slightly different meaning than ethnicity in these instances:

"His comparison of “Chinese” versus “Canadian” culture and his perplexing preoccupation with details of ethnicity might be belied by his background. [Vancouver Sun (now offline)]

The crowd, diverse in both age and ethnicity, waved American flags, snapped cell phone pictures of the scene. [Star-Ledger]

The footpath ahead was thick with hikers of every shape, size, age and ethnicity." SOURCE
 
I like Jerry Coyne's answer to the problem of "human races".

What are races?

In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human races?

Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

How many human races are there?

That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over thirty.

That's... you're oversimplifying the shit out of it.

In 2007 some research was done that indicated that the "junk DNA" was up to something or another, and a lot of people had theories, and it was obviously considered to be more important than previously thought. But it seems like now they've identified a large number of those functions and been able to map at least some of them...

That definitely confounds my previously held view of the genome.. I don't know where you got the past 20 years, either. It may have been an evolving view, but the ENCODE project just finished last year, and it's a big deal.

This headline is accurate, we shouldn't call it junk DNA anymore at all. I don't know what argument I'm getting in the middle of, but I'm just saying.
Slightly off-topic, but the 80% figure includes any biochemical activity at all. This doesn't mean it's functional (in fact, we've known for awhile that cells will often transcribe RNA, only to discard it). The ENCODE biologists certainly don't recognize that 80% figure as representing full functionality. For example, here is one ENCODE researcher discussing the significance of the results.

In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome, so this created some amount of controversy.

I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and [lead biologist] Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. In fact, I think importance of ENCODEÂ’s results on the question of what fraction of DNA is functional is very small, and that question is much better answered with other analysis, like that of evolutionary conservation. Lacking proof either way from ENCODE, there was some disagreement on the AMA regarding what the most likely true fraction is, but I think this stemmed from disagreements about definitions and willingness to hypothesize about undiscovered function, not misinterpretation of the significance of ENCODEÂ’s results.

I think many members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number. Unfortunately, such misinterpretations are always a danger in scientific communication (both among the scientific community and to the public). Whether the consortium could have done a better job explaining the results, and whether we should expect the media to more accurately represent scientific results, is hard to say.


I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I assume that what he means by the part I bolded is that the presence of significant repeating, fragmentary, and degraded DNA elements casts doubt on the possibility that 80%+ of the genome is functional. The problem with discussing the issue of "junk DNA" is that there are a lot of misconceptions. Terms like functional and junk really aren't very scientific and don't lend themselves well to casual conversations. People might have different ideas of what the term means (originally it meant non-coding). Even if much of the genome doesn't have a specific biochemical function, that doesn't mean it's useless either. For example, it could be a repository of evolutionary material. These potential nuances were recognized as far back as 1972. Here's one quote from David Comings:

These considerations suggest that up to 20% of the genome is actively used and the remaining 80+% is junk. But being junk doesnÂ’t mean it is entirely useless. Common sense suggests that anything that is completely useless would be discarded. There are several possible functions for junk DNA.
 
Hmmm... I think it's important to never ASSUME someone has a small or big penis because of their ethnicity, so let's get that out of the way.

But I was under the impression that east asians generally do measure as having 'smaller' (compared to I guess NA average size) penises? Or are those studies/smaller condoms in Japan stuff BS?

Yep, we covered it in the asian hair thread.
The most reliable sources linked to actually suggested that japanese men had larger penises than NA men - at which point the subject was promptly dropped :p
 
I say we make use of this thread to discredit common ethnical stereotypes.

1st one to go down:

Asian men have smaller wangs.
False.

It is a racist stereotype.
I have worked out in a ethnically diverse gym for the past decade and I can confirm that all stereotypes about penis size are 100% based on reality.

And again. without genetics, you can determine that you're probably more similar to Wesley Snipes because he probably has European ancestry to some degree being the descendant of African slaves in America.
So how come nobody did?
 
Even if much of the genome doesn't have a specific biochemical function, that doesn't mean it's useless either. For example, it could be a repository of evolutionary material. These potential nuances were recognized as far back as 1972. Here's one quote from David Comings:

These considerations suggest that up to 20% of the genome is actively used and the remaining 80+% is junk. But being junk doesn’t mean it is entirely useless. Common sense suggests that anything that is completely useless would be discarded. There are several possible functions for junk DNA.
Of course. But the degree to which we knew that more than the coding genes were at all responsible for genetic expression of any kind was pretty limited until much more recently. And the ENCODE findings show that at least 20 percent do participate in specific genetic functions, and that the other 60% of the 80 percent "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking" which is definitely news to me.
 
You should read about it a bit more, it wasn't one eureka moment done by one hero scientist, but out understanding of those parts of our DNA had changed dramatically over the last few years.

That's... you're oversimplifying the shit out of it.

In 2007 some research was done that indicated that the "junk DNA" was up to something or another, and a lot of people had theories, and it was obviously considered to be more important than previously thought. But it seems like now they've identified a large number of those functions and been able to map at least some of them...

That definitely confounds my previously held view of the genome.. I don't know where you got the past 20 years, either. It may have been an evolving view, but the ENCODE project just finished last year, and it's a big deal.

This headline is accurate, we shouldn't call it junk DNA anymore at all. I don't know what argument I'm getting in the middle of, but I'm just saying.

Non (protein) coding DNA (or non-transcriptable and non-translatable sequences) is a term that has been used for long (and prior the coinage of the term "Junk DNA"), and the idea of complete uselessness of those genomic portions never held strong grounds, hell even the guy that coined the term (for what would be later known as pseudogenes) didn't exclude the possibility of non-transcriptable and non-translatable sequences holding functions.

The language of the term did a disservice to itself, and as in any scientific community that has battles of interests, mischaracterizations happen.
But eh, whateverrrrr, my brother doesn't seem very helpful for a long post (he is in the process of a masters in behaviour and epigenetics of fish).

Found this article here that may prove helpful for a more insightful reading on the matter (full of links too): http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/09/skeptical-takes-elevation-junk-dna-and-o
 
Non (protein) coding DNA (or non-transcriptable and non-translatable sequences) is a term that has been used for long (and prior the coinage of the term "Junk DNA"), and the idea of complete uselessness of those genomic portions never held strong grounds, hell even the guy that coined the term (for what would be later known as pseudogenes) didn't exclude the possibility of non-transcriptable and non-translatable sequences holding functions.

The language of the term did a disservice to itself, and as in any scientific community that has battles of interests, mischaracterizations happen.
But eh, whateverrrrr, my brother doesn't seem very helpful for a long post (he is in the process of a masters in behaviour and epigenetics of fish).

Found this article here that may prove helpful for a more insightful reading on the matter (full of links too): http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/09/skeptical-takes-elevation-junk-dna-and-o
Absolutely. It seriously seems like the use of the term "junk DNA" made it a lower priority for research through the 90s.

There's a difference between "something other than complete uselessness" and the notion of significant and specific function. I'm saying that this conclusion in your skeptic's take there, when he went back and asked one of the biologists-
He did admit that the press conference mislead (sic) people by claiming that 80% of our genome was essential and useful. He puts that number at 40%.
If it's 40% or 30% or even the 20% the ENCODE project indicates does have some specific biochemical function, that's a really signifcant finding.
 
Could South Asians or Arabs be considered Caucasian ?

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

There is no such thing as a Caucasian from a genetic stand point unless you count people who actually descend form the Caucus region of the world. Some people that scientist have called Caucasian have nothing to do with other people that they have deem Caucasian. They have considered anyone with a narrow nose to be Caucasian regardless of how black they are, how kinky their hair is or how dark their eyes are or how thick their lips are. Caucasian is nothing more than European "scientist" of yore wanting to stroke their ego and expand their grip on the world with pseudo-science.

As for skeletal structures, you can make estimations based on skeletal structures and cranial shape and features. For example, Africans have a body type that based on proportions are deemed to be tropical and/or super tropical. Super tropical bodies have elongated limbs in order to dissipate heat. Eskimos on the other hand are cold adapted. They are short with a lot of subcutaneous fat in order to preserve heat. Of course there are people who fall intermediate to this body types such as the average European. Also, since humans evolved in similar climatic zones and descend from a relatively recent common ancestor you will find overlapping. So it's not always so black and white.
 
Just to throw some other stuff in here:

-Apparently we're 50% the same as bananas.
-All blue-eyed people are descended from a single dude who probably lived somewhere in the Caucasus around 9,000 years ago.
 
Just to throw some other stuff in here:

-Apparently we're 50% the same as bananas.
-All blue-eyed people are descended from a single dude who probably lived somewhere in the Caucasus around 9,000 years ago.

Aren't humans like 78% water? So we're at least that mush like bananas.
 
The concept of race is dumb. It makes more sense to factor in ethnic group than race. There are no races only clines.
 
I'm reasonably confident that this thread exists as a response to another thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=513550

As another poster in this thread mentioned, accepting these superficial racial stereotypes, as benign as they are, opens the door for much more serious stereotypes like differences in intelligence, character, and focus. If an Asian woman's breasts can (on average) be smaller than a white woman's, then surely it's also possible that she is more intelligent (on average) than a white woman.

As soon as we accept some differences can exist, then it's at least plausible that other differences exist as well.

Is there a quantitative measurement for uhhh, focus?
 
I was under the impression that the differences within a race were greater than those between races.

Also, whether*
That is correct. For example, a person of "race" A may share more genetic similarity with person of race B rather than someone else within the same race, especially in a geographic region like North America.
Is there a quantitative measurement for uhhh, focus?
The stereotype of Asians studying all the time comes to mind. So, no.
 
Is there a quantitative measurement for uhhh, focus?

As of right now? I don't think so. That doesn't strike me as proof that such a measurement doesn't exist; it strikes me as evidence that neuroscience is still in its infancy.

Only recently have we had quantitative measures of muscle fatigue; it will still be some time before we have measurements of mental fatigue. But I strongly suspect that one will eventually be discovered.

The stereotype of Asians studying all the time comes to mind. So, no.

Don't forget ADHD as well, which is a crude form of measurement of attention (and specifically a lack of it).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom