Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, its the difference in quantity and quality of hominid admixture.
No. Its the result of one modern human group mating with regional hominids. Travel technology was not available to the resulting "races" until sometime after (and not even then for many).
No. Equator dwelling hominids had darker skin tone. See any reconstruction of Homo Erectus, Habilis, etc.
True, but that doesn't provide any significant information.
Almost all due to mixing between the very dark and the very light races on either side of those regions.
North Africans are Arabs mixed with Europeans. Europeans used to dominate the region before the Arab invasion.
LOL...where? Spain? Your attributing the racial mix in Spain or perhaps Italy to evolution?? This isn't even debatable. The invasions that changed these regions are relatively recent and very well documented.
Dravidians are Central Asians (modern Europeans) mixed with another group.
East Asians are a modern human group mixed with East Asian Neanderthal and Denisovan.
Modern Central Asians are Western Europeans mixed with Mongoloid blood (Mongols). These are Turkish peoples. Original Central Asians (Cauc-Asians) now inhabit Western Europe.
Asians (high Neanderthal / Denisovan admixture with a human group) with a tan and some minor (height, IQ, etc) adaptations to elevation, sun, and nutrient supply.
Literally the same stock as South Central Americans.
Most of your "distinct physical characteristics" come from one modern human group mating with hominids around the globe. Any actual environmental adaptations are both minor and tend to manifest excessively slowly. See the most minor of difference between AmerIndians and East Asians.
You'd have to justify significant evolutionary differences, which led to the phenotypically distinct races, from the point of the earliest modern human evidence that we have: which is Cro Magnid man only about thirty thousand years ago. It can't be done. Such a relatively wide difference, brought about solely by genetic mutation, could never come about that quickly.
Moreover, the difference in quality and quantity of hominid admixture provides a much clearer (more obvious) and better explanation for the differences. The genetic mutation theory, which depends on evolution from a single thirty thousand year old Cro Magnid group, is just that. And it doesn't hold water. Whereas we know for certain that we differ according to quality and quantity of hominid admixture. It is much more likely that this Cro Magnid group traveled and their women were raped by hominids (there is no hominid mtDNA lines in the human genepool, meaning that all cross breeding was male hominids with female humans) to create the difference in racial groups.
That is how we are so genetically similar but at the same time different, as well as phenotypically, behaviorally, etc different. We share most of our blood from one group, with the addition of the genetic admixture from various hominid groups accounting for the primary racial differences. The admixture percentage ranges from .5-7% (verified) or possibly greater for any modern human individual across the globe. Moreover, the type of hominid admixture varies and comes from multiple largely unrelated species (verified). That's an amazingly wide difference in genomic composition for differing human racial groups.
It’s not that race is meaningless. Obviously people living together for millennia will look similar and share similar genes. But when you try and come up with a hard definition it becomes a bit difficult. Just look at the three main definitions of race that people know, white, black and asian. Two are based on color and one is based on a huuuuuge continent. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. And what about the millions of “others” that fall out of that range? Are Iranians Asians or Aryans? Which is what Iranian means actually. Maybe they’re Asian Aryans?
Obviously given our countries history, race was used to distinguish “good folks” from “bad folks.” That’s why the definitions are a bit skewed. I read not long ago that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than there is outside of Africa. Considering you have the Pygmies and the Zulu living in fairly close proximity to each other that’s not all that surprising an idea.
In humans, race biologically doesn't exist. It is a social phenomenon that you, OP described, that is based upon arbitrary facial/physical features - it is sociological pattern recognition. That's all.
It’s not that race is meaningless. Obviously people living together for millennia will look similar and share similar genes. But when you try and come up with a hard definition it becomes a bit difficult. Just look at the three main definitions of race that people know, white, black and asian. Two are based on color and one is based on a huuuuuge continent. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. And what about the millions of “others” that fall out of that range? Are Iranians Asians or Aryans? Which is what Iranian means actually. Maybe they’re Asian Aryans?
Obviously given our countries history, race was used to distinguish “good folks” from “bad folks.” That’s why the definitions are a bit skewed. I read not long ago that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than there is outside of Africa. Considering you have the Pygmies and the Zulu living in fairly close proximity to each other that’s not all that surprising an idea.
I agree with the above. It is also interesting to note that Europe is not really a continent in and of itself - it is attached to Asia - really it is the Eurasian continent.
Also Africa has a variety of people of different physical attributes. New research shows that light/white skin may have started first in Africa and evolutionary adaptions are making scientist believe that darker skin - that people associate with Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the evolutionary adaptations and not the other way around.
North Africans are some of the oldest African populations and many of them are lighter skinned and people that many whites consider "white" (which makes those white people view North Africans as not being "of Africa" when they are).
Africa is the birthplace of our species and that is why the genetic diversity is so great on that continent.
ETA: I also don't think it is "meaningless" however it only has meaning IMO from a sociological and psychological perspective in regards to how people view and subsequently treat other people of a different "race."
race is a reason to feel discriminated against. Successful people aren't effected by race.
Really? Let’s take it back a bit...
Was Jackie Robinson successful? Was MLK successful? Cesar Chavez? Thurgood Marshall? Louie Armstrong?
None of them were affected by race? Never?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
