The genetic reality of race

[Neuro]

It is well worth reading this piece, and the other articles on the site, if you ever doubted the politically correct version that we are all the same, and all humans alive today came from Africa some 50-70 k years ago. It just doesn't add up in terms of genetics...

http://rafonda.com/html/genetic_reality_of_race.html

[Neuro]

Here is the first part of the article:

** * In WHERE DO WE COME FROM: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent (Springer, 2002) Klein and Takahata write, on page 381,

** * ''The species, as the only biologically definable category, provides a dividing line in biological classification. Most of the other categories (genus, family, order, etc) are positioned above the species level, while only a few are in the sub-species level. The latter, which include variety, subspecies, and race, are poorly defined and ambiguous. Any deviation from the holotype, the specimen on which the description of a new species is based, is referred to as a variety, even when the deviation is in a single morphological character. A subspecies is a population or a group of phenotypically similar populations inhabiting a geographically defined region and differing from other populations of the same species in diagnostic characters. Race is used by taxonomists either as a synonymn of sub-species or as a designation of a local population within a sub-species. Different variants, subspecies, or races of the same species are either known or expected to interbreed if given the opportunity.’’

[Note that only a single character is enough to distinguish a 'variety', and SOME distinguishing designation is certainly called for between Europeans and Asians. Thus we can conservatively say Euros and Asians are different varieties.

Next, consider that statement, ''race is used by taxonomists either as a synonym of sub-species or as a designation of a local population within a sub-species''. That means race signifies a greater distinction than variety, and it might be used to distinguish a 'lesser' difference than subspecies.

Klein and Takahata discuss how the gorillas are divided into subspecies by their fur length and color or various morphological characteristics. They go on to say,]

** * ''All this is biological reality which raises few emotions. Taxonomists may disagree on the number, delineation, name, indeed on the very existence of the subdivisions in a particular species, but other than that they find nothing objectionable about the notion of species consisting of populations between which gene flow has been reduced, because of the geographical distance between them, for example.'' and ''Biologically, H. sapiens is a species like any other and as such it might be expected to be differentiated into subspecies, especially since its global distribution creates opportunities for adaptation to different climatic conditions and so for morphological divergence.''

[Commenting on the current, PC effort to deny the very existence of race, K and T write,]

** * ''The proposal to scrap the concept of race altogether is currently only one extreme in a range of views. It is certainly not shared by all anthropologists and is by no means the majority opinion of the public at large. It appears to be a conclusion reached more on the basis of political and philosophical creeds than on scientific arguments. Correspondingly, anthropologists who do hold this opinion often attempt to shout down their opponents rather than convince them by presentation of facts. Their favored method of argumentation is to label anybody who disagrees with them as racist. The public, however, seems unimpressed by their rhetoric. It refuses to believe that the differences they see are a mere figment of their imagination. A lay-person can tell with a high degree of accuracy where individuals come from just by glimpsing their features.”

[The authors give a specific example and go on to write,]

** * ''Except for some anthropologists, everybody else seems to be able to distinguish people from different parts of the world at a glance by their outward appearance. This apparently is also the view of some government administrators in countries with programs designed to fight racial discrimination. Obviously, there is a credibility gap between some anthropologists on the one side and the public, as well as the governments of some countries, on the other. One way to settle the arguments among anthropologists and to reconcile anthropologists with the public might be to move away from physical characteristics and focus on the genes. If races are real, they should have a genetic basis separable from environmental and cultural influences.'' and ''Provided the races separated a long time ago, random genetic drift should have diversified their genetic composition even in the absence of selection. It can be expected that the longer ago the races diverged, the greater the differences between them will be. Even if there has not been enough time to 'fix' different alleles in distinct races, at least differences in gene frequencies should have been generated.''

[Awoke]

Tagging

[Neuro]

Does people here believe in the 'Out of Africa'-theory explaining the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

I think the author makes a pretty good case against it... And it is well referenced too!

(Thought I would shamelessly bump my own thread!) ;)

[Spectrism]

Does people here believe in the 'Out of Africa'-theory explaining the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

I think the author makes a pretty good case against it... And it is well referenced too!

(Thought I would shamelessly bump my own thread!) ;)


I believe in the Adam & Eve version. Man was created good- no sickness or failings, no bad eyesight, no memory loss... able to live forever. But man chose a path that brought in corruption, physically & spiritually. Since then, mankind has only degraded, losing good genetic knowledge. Any off-shoot from the line will degrade faster. Any "lesser" humans show signsof inbreeding and further bad choices. There is a time limit on how long such a race can go without becoming a total idiocracy.

[steyr_m]

Does people here believe in the 'Out of Africa'-theory explaining the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

I think the author makes a pretty good case against it... And it is well referenced too!

(Thought I would shamelessly bump my own thread!) ;)

Thanks for the bump, otherwise I would have missed it