The evolution of a species! The world it conquered! And whatever is next?

iangb · Jun 9, 2014

American said:
Hey, I want to give a shout out to all my African-American brothers and sisters out there. :2wave:

:mrgreen:

Hippy

American · Jun 9, 2014

iangb said:
Hippy

Well apparently we're all African.

lizzie · Jun 9, 2014

American said:
Well apparently we're all African.

I have a good friend from Kenya who claims I would make a better African, than American. :lol:

Legion · Jun 9, 2014

Cyborgs walk among us and have done so for decades. In the very near future people will voluntarily submit themselves to body modifications which result in a greater proportion of synthetic biology than natural components. Common definitions of "species" will no longer apply and everything about our biology will be changing so rapidly and with such divergence that attempting classifications based on today's understanding of that term will no longer be sufficient.

American · Jun 9, 2014

lizzie said:
I have a good friend from Kenya who claims I would make a better African, than American. :lol:

Why ?

lizzie · Jun 9, 2014

American said:
Why ?

Because of my core values, and the things which take priority in my life, and my philosophical approach on how to live. You'd probably have to know me pretty well to see where her opinion is coming from. (and I wasn't using American in reference to you personally, but to Americans in general).

American · Jun 9, 2014

lizzie said:
Because of my core values, and the things which take priority in my life, and my philosophical approach on how to live. You'd probably have to know me pretty well to see where her opinion is coming from. (and I wasn't using American in reference to you personally, but to Americans in general).

Seeing as how I'm an American I'm not how you couldn't reference me. But whatever, I can't speak to non-specifics.

mbig · Jun 9, 2014

rathi said:
Your made up classification is just more detailed garbage than Empiricas laughably simplistic garbage. If you want to classify someones genetic heritage, you do it using actual DNA markers. Race is nothing more than superficial physical characteristics combined with political and religious influence. Obama is considered black because he looks black, regardless of his parentage or genetic backround. Every person south of Texas is labelled under the abritrary catch all "hispanic" despite combining genes from 4 different continents. The huge amount of gene transfer around the Mediterranean doesn't stop people from trying to invent racial classifications mostly based on geography.

Bottom line, if you want to talk genetics, you deal with genes. The definition for race is so pathetically sloppy that Robert Downy Jr's makeup in the movie Tropic Thunder is enough to meet the criteria.

Empirica was just showing how we become differentiated, the Basic Geographic migrations.

I suggest you look my posts in another recent string I've already linked to in this one.
Specifically numbers 7, 9, 10.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-constructed-genetic-both.html#post1063358292

some excerpts of my posts there 1 said:
"...It's WAY more than pharmacological.
Race can be, and IS often determined by skeletal remains alone.
No 'color' need be involved.

In fact, send your blood and app $125 into NatGeo's Genographic Project (google), and they'll tell you what percent of each "indigenous people"/RACE (11) you are.
They of course use the more PC term.
If you read the OP link, you will see the Races/sub-races are easily clustered using the same means. Just DNA.

excerpt 2. Arguably world's foremost Expert n Evolution and Speciation said:
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 30.

and please see the whole posts and sequence linked above.
You have a simplistic/goofy colloquial view of race/No Scientific understanding whatsoever.
You are the classic case mentioned previously, thinking this is some kind of black/white battle.

mbig · Jun 9, 2014

ian gb said:
While it's plausible that different racial groups would eventually have speciated if they were isolated,
the very fact that all racial groups originated from Africa indicates that they were never totally isolated,
and todays global and multicultural society means that such speciation is very unlikely to ever occur.

We are the human race - grouped socially, not ethnically. We are not a group of competing races, in spite of your efforts to portray us as such.

American said:
Hey, I want to give a shout out to all my African-American brothers and sisters out there. :2wave:
:mrgreen:

You'll note ian making about an Obtuse a claim as I've ever read. That because humans originated in Africa we can't have different subspecie/race!!
One can hardly believe, nor even find allowable terminology for how Obtuse this is.
Again. it's so unbelievable inane one can decide if it's Dishonest or Obtuse. Probably both.

Why? Gorillas (and Chimps) have different subspecies/Race as well as even Different Species.. and unlike humans, they all never even left Africa/Central Africa!
But humans, who populated the whole planet and were subject to unbelievably different climatological and other pressures, can't even have race/SUBspecie.
In fact, just Every Specie/supspecie I can think of originated in One place! Then walked, floated, or were blown somewhere else and became different subspecies or species.

That's how dissociative and inane politics makes people.

Gorillas have 2 separate Species and 4 or 5 subspecies who "Never left Africa", never even left Central Africa.
(BTW, Same for Chimps)

Range of ALL the different Gorilla Species/subspecies. (Wiki map)

Yes, the Above is the Total range of Gorillas and they DO have subspecie/Race
as well as the more prominent 'Species' differential.
And they never left Africa!

Range of all the different Gorillas AND Chimpanzee Species/Subspecies:

Yup, they managed all the Speciation in Tiny Central Africa ....
unlike us, without the benefit of Wildly different selective pressures ranging from Frozen Tundra to Australian outback, to High Tibetan Plateau.
The most recently delimited Gorilla subspecies in fact, is thought to originated only in the last 20,000 years because of the Ice Age pressure/isolation that got as far south as their range. (imagine if THEY had made it to Lapland or Siberia)
Significant Human migration started 50,000-100,000 years ago.

iangb · Jun 10, 2014

American said:
Well apparently we're all African.

True fact. In fact, if you go back far enough, we're all Pangaean...

mbig said:
You'll note ian making about an Obtuse a claim as I've ever read. That because humans originated in Africa we can't have different subspecie/race!!
One can hardly believe, nor even find allowable terminology for how Obtuse this is.
Again. it's so unbelievable inane one can decide if it's Dishonest or Obtuse. Probably both.

Firstly, bwahahaha that you didn't have the courage to directly quote me, again. I'm going to have to start keeping an eye on your posts to look out for all the times you namecheck me without letting me know...

Secondly, second bwahahaha that you completely ignored the vast majority of my last response to you, and only concentrate on one minor point.

Thirdly, third bwahahaha that you've taken that one minor point and had to turn it into a strawman version in order to be able to knock it down. My argument was never that 'because we all came from the same place, we can't have different races', the argument was "because we originated from a single place but spread out to cover most of the globe, this indicates that we were never geographically isolated in the same way that most animals are (which causes subspecies differentiation)". Your gorillas example is perfect for this - the population has never spread out, geographically speaking - they stay in their environment and that's it, and so are geographically isolated/fixed and adapt to that one place. Humanity hasn't been like that since we left our original continent - otherwise, like the gorillas, we'd still be all in one place. There are genetic differences between groups of humans due to genetic drift and reproduction, not because there has never been any contact between populations.

Fourthly, fourth bwahahaha, because I did a little research. Jerry Coyne, who is the author of the blog post you have waved around repeatedly as your 'credentials' in the other thread, and then quoted at every opportunity in this one, also has not one but two blog posts which roundly tear apart the book quoted in the OP of the other thread. Another biologist has done much the same thing on his own blog. Jerry also further clarifies his position on 'race realism' - and again demonstrates his misunderstanding of sociology, when he says:
"The idea that human populations are genetically identical, and [therefore] “races” are purely social constructs, reflecting nothing about genetic differences, is simply wrong." This shows exactly what I mentioned in my response to you in this thread - 'social construct' does not mean 'all races are genetically identical', it means 'social groups are used for genetic analysis rather than doing genetic analysis of humanity as a whole and working from that'. There are certainly genetic differences between 'races', but those weren't used to determine 'race' in the first place.

mbig · Jun 10, 2014

iangb said:
True fact. In fact, if you go back far enough, we're all Pangaean...

Similarly, we were all one-celled too.
That doesn't mean there aren't different Races or Species now.

Firstly, bwahahaha that you didn't have the courage to directly quote me, again. I'm going to have to start keeping an eye on your posts to look out for all the times you namecheck me without letting me know...

I quoted you and American in separate boxes.
I quoted his abridged quote of you as I saw it.

iangb said:
Secondly, second bwahahaha that you completely ignored the vast majority of my last response to you, and only concentrate on one minor point.

The MAJOR point we were debating is whether or not there were races.
You went afield as you MUST in every post to avoid to avoid it.
See below as you did it again.

ina gb said:
Thirdly, third bwahahaha that you've taken that one minor point and had to turn it into a strawman version in order to be able to knock it down. My argument was never that 'because we all came from the same place, we can't have different races', the argument was "because we originated from a single place but spread out to cover most of the globe, this indicates that we were never geographically isolated in the same way that most animals are (which causes subspecies differentiation)".

What!
This is not even Coherent.
Because we DID spread out out over the Globe we Did, in many cases, get to be isolated, and develop subspecies More Quickly than in Chimps and Gorillas. Geographical adaptation is what creates Races (and Species and everything else) as well as the constant background of drift/mutation.
Nother Pint?

ian gb said:
Your gorillas example is perfect for this - the population has never spread out, geographically speaking - they stay in their environment and that's it, and so are geographically isolated/fixed and adapt to that one place. Humanity hasn't been like that since we left our original continent - otherwise, like the gorillas, we'd still be all in one place. There are genetic differences between groups of humans due to genetic drift and reproduction, not because there has never been any contact between populations.

What? Huh? What?
This is Incoherent Gibrish too.
Humans geographic Dispersion and continental isolation is what created the physical differences that are race/subpsecie in humans as well as it does Species in other cases.
Different Equatorial Races are darker because of geographically/climatologically different need/adaption, Not just because of a constant 'drift'.
Just one of many parts you felt free to/Dishionestly "I can snip"

mbig said:
"..Dark skin is an adaption to strong sun and is Shared by several Different Races.
Sub-saharan Africans share this Racial trait with others, such as Australian Aboriginals, even though, in genetic distance they are farther apart, than the former and Europeans. (!)

IOW, speaking of color (or disease susceptibility) alone doesn't determine race. But the same environment that produces that Race may produce that trait elsewhere for the same reason.."

So ie, Dark skin of several races isn't just 'drift' its Geographical adaption.
Same post.

mbig said:
mbig said:

In a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Pygmies, 100 East Asians, and 100 Scandinavians, what do you suppose your margin of error would be in telling them apart.
WHY?

Races have a distinct SET of genetic sequences for color, stature, Skeletal/Facial features, Hair/eye-color, Hair consistency, pharmacology, etc. based on adaptation to their geographical region. Just like other animal Species/subspecies do.

Two different races may share dark skin, but that doesn't men they don't have a Long list of other things that do make them distinct and distinguishable both in appearance and the Genes that produce that appearance.
ie, an albinistic Pymgy would still be distinguishable as such without color.

'One-race/subspecie' Human Groups have far greater morphological Difference than that of Chimp or Gorilla subspecies, maybe even species.

Click to expand...

So your use of ie, "Eye color" is Ridiculous and I hope Disingenuous rather than breathtakingly unaware of of the SETS of real differences involved in the evolution of Race/s.

Yes, these simple but powerful passages, ian says "I can snip" despite the fact they make mincemeat of his Inane claims.
Unanswered.

inagb said:
Fourthly, fourth bwahahaha, because I did a little research. Jerry Coyne, who is the author of the blog post you have waved around repeatedly as your 'credentials' in the other thread, and then quoted at every opportunity in this one, also has not one but two blog posts which roundly tearapart the book quoted in the OP of the other thread. Another biologist has done much the same thing on his own blog. Jerry also further clarifies his position on 'race realism' - and again demonstrates his misunderstanding of sociology, when he says:
"The idea that human populations are genetically identical, and [therefore] “races” are purely social constructs, reflecting nothing about genetic differences, is simply wrong." This shows exactly what I mentioned in my response to you in this thread - 'social construct' does not mean 'all races are genetically identical', it means 'social groups are used for genetic analysis rather than doing genetic analysis of humanity as a whole and working from that'. There are certainly genetic differences between 'races', but those weren't used to determine 'race' in the first place.

What? Huh? What?
What does this have to do with Race? Or Coyne's explanation Of Race?

You link to two book reviews that didn't like the (at least premature) over-reach of another author for Races into their Behavior .. um yeah?
I can give you more of the same, but by people who Do believe in race.
ie, Charles Murray (of Bell Curve fame) in the WSJ
Book Review: 'A Troublesome Inheritance' by Nicholas Wade - WSJ

How does that refute Race?
How would either of your comical reviews of a Third Party book refute Coyne or be remotely qualified to?
Nor have You tackled it.
You didn't really try either, you "snipped", deflected, and 'Blue-eyed" into rational hell.
All your posts are deflections or non sequiturs.
Please tell me the dissociation in your last two posts was Disingenuous debate rather than an honest attempt at anything.
Race is a simple and irrefutable concept, just one not applied equally across the Living Kingdom due to humanity's politics.

While I am glad to quote you fully and say On point such as my #15
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...uered-and-whatever-next-2.html#post1063372874
Again, you Dishonestly then say "I can ship the rest"! in #16.
That snip was [necessarily] of the GIST of the issue.

ie, I outlined/re-outlined in that post there are SETS of physical traits that distinguish race while you DISHONESTLY tried to say that '"blue eyes" would have to be a race too.
This despite the fact in that same passage I pointed out that a Pygmy, even without color would still be easily distinguishable as a different race.
Everyone else understood. You must have.
Nonetheless you persist/last-word with Evasive nonsense posts.

IOW, we wouldn't even have to revisit (in your case reDeflect) these points if you could answer straightforwardly.
Last-word/BS away for benefit of non-discerning others but this is a joke.

spud_meister · Jun 10, 2014

Empirica said:
Stage 2: These Homo sapiens eventually became 3 distinct genetic sub-species; Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, through which the process of natural selection genetically perfected each group to survive the varying environments of their three respective continents which they had evolved in near total isolation from each other for 100 millennium_

If you're using genetics to base your argument on, then there's a lot more than 3 sup-species of human. Any geographically isolated population will have a 10-15% difference when compared to any other isolated population. There's a 10-15% difference between Western European and Arab, Han Chinese and Indonesian, Maori and Native American, Berber and Zulu. You either class humans with dozens and dozens of sub-species, or none at all.

Anyway, the future for humans lies in technology, not evolution.

ZapFinch42 · Jun 10, 2014

mbig said:
What? Huh? What?
This is Incoherent Gibrish too.
Humans geographic Dispersion and continental isolation is what created the physical differences that are race/subpsecie in humans as well as it does Species in other cases.
Different Equatorial Races are darker because of geographically/climatologically different need/adaption, Not just because of a constant 'drift'.

The biological definition of species is a population of genetically similar organisms that can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Note that all humans clearly belong to the same species ( I realize this isn't what you're arguing, this is just important to acknowledge)

Now you are arguing that humans can then be further divided into subspecies based on geographically distributed physical characteristics. There are two points that I believe disprove this hypothesis:

1) There does not exist a consensus on whether or not "subspecies" is even a coherent classification of organism. The standard definition of a subspecies is a population of organisms that, for reasons other than genetic dissimilarity, cannot produce viable offspring. (e.g. lions and tigers) Typically, this happens for geographic reasons (e.g. lions live in Africa, tigers in Asia). By definition subspecies possess nearly identical genetic material so why then is it even necessary to divide them into smaller classifications when all the other classifications are based on significant differences in the DNA?

2) Even if we do agree that "subspecies" is a necessary classification, the term still would not apply to modern humans. Why? We have trains planes cars boats and bikes. We are more moble,by degrees of magnitude, than any other species on the planet. There is literally no barrier to our ability to produce viable offspring with other humans who might otherwise be considered another subspecies.

Basically, the same rules don't apply to us because the same limits do not effect us.

Hope that helps.

ZapFinch42 · Jun 10, 2014

This is true unless and until we begin to propagate throughout the galaxy. I have a feeling that the isolation that would create might instigate the speciation of humanity.

iangb · Jun 10, 2014

mbig said:
The MAJOR point we were debating is whether or not there were races.
You went afield as you MUST in every post to avoid to avoid it.
See below as you did it again.

I've already said that there are 'races' - there are distinct populations which have characteristic genetic signatures. I've never contested that, and if you think otherwise then your insecurity is causing you to have reading difficulties.

What I am contesting is that races are determined on a purely genetic basis, rather than as it actually is, which is a social/geographical one. Genetics is then used to find similarities and differences between the different social/geographical groups.

What!
This is not even Coherent.
Because we DID spread out out over the Globe we Did, in many cases, get to be isolated, and develop subspecies More Quickly than in Chimps and Gorillas. Geographical adaptation is what creates Races (and Species and everything else) as well as the constant background of drift/mutation.
Nother Pint?

Don't blame me if you find understanding difficult. I'm saying that isolated populations only occur if there is no movement, but humanity clearly has moved as you look back through it's history; hence human settlements would be less likely to be truly 'isolated' due to travellers etc.

What? Huh? What?
This is Incoherent Gibrish too.
Humans geographic Dispersion and continental isolation is what created the physical differences that are race/subpsecie in humans as well as it does Species in other cases.
Different Equatorial Races are darker because of geographically/climatologically different need/adaption, Not just because of a constant 'drift'.
Just one of many parts you felt free to/Dishionestly "I can snip"

So ie, Dark skin of several races isn't just 'drift' its Geographical adaption.
Same post.Yes, these simple but powerful passages, ian says "I can snip" despite the fact they make mincemeat of his Inane claims.
Unanswered.

You have no idea about how humans are adapted, with a few exceptions (Tibetans at high altitudes, for example, with large lung capacities). The blog posts I referenced say exactly that. It's possible that dark skin is an adaptation, but it's equally possible that we started off dark skinned and the melanin-producing gene happened to fade out of existence in less sunny climates.

Your 'but race is more than just skin colour!' (which I agree with, and have never said differently - again with your lack of reading comprehension) shows that race is a social construct. Again. If we were looking at a purely genetic basis, then skin colour on it's own could be a distinguishing feature between two different 'races', as could 'eye colour', and so on. Since that's not the case, you aren't coming up with 'race' from a purely genetic POV.

What? Huh? What?
What does this have to do with Race? Or Coyne's explanation Of Race?

You link to two book reviews that didn't like the (at least premature) over-reach of another author for Races into their Behavior .. um yeah?
I can give you more of the same, but by people who Do believe in race.
ie, Charles Murray (of Bell Curve fame) in the WSJ
Book Review: 'A Troublesome Inheritance' by Nicholas Wade - WSJ

How does that refute Race?
How would either of your comical reviews of a Third Party book refute Coyne or be remotely qualified to?
Nor have You tackled it.
You didn't really try either, you "snipped", deflected, and 'Blue-eyed" into rational hell.
All your posts are deflections or non sequiturs.
Please tell me the dissociation in your last two posts was Disingenuous debate rather than an honest attempt at anything.
Race is a simple and irrefutable concept, just one not applied equally across the Living Kingdom due to humanity's politics.

While I am glad to quote you fully and say On point such as my #15
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...uered-and-whatever-next-2.html#post1063372874
Again, you Dishonestly then say "I can ship the rest"! in #16.
That snip was [necessarily] of the GIST of the issue.

ie, I outlined/re-outlined in that post there are SETS of physical traits that distinguish race while you DISHONESTLY tried to say that '"blue eyes" would have to be a race too.
This despite the fact in that same passage I pointed out that a Pygmy, even without color would still be easily distinguishable as a different race.
Everyone else understood. You must have.
Nonetheless you persist/last-word with Evasive nonsense posts.

IOW, we wouldn't even have to revisit (in your case reDeflect) these points if you could answer straightforwardly.
Last-word/BS away for benefit of non-discerning others but this is a joke.

I entirely can snip the rest, because, as I said before, it is a straw man. Let me underline and bold it for you, I am not denying, or have ever denied, that 'races' exist, or have certain genetic similarities/differences. You're so caught up in proclaiming how wrong I am that you haven't even bothered to read what I'm saying.

mbig · Jun 10, 2014

Zapfinch42 said:
The biological definition of species is a population of genetically similar organisms that can interbreed to produce viable offspring. Note that all humans clearly belong to the same species ( I realize this isn't what you're arguing, this is just important to acknowledge)

I'm happy you realize that's not the issue, but even happier you mention it, since (again using consistent Taxonomic criteria), a case can even be made that human morphological and genetic distance is large enough for the more profound classification as well!

Zapfinch said:
Now you are arguing that humans can then be further divided into subspecies based on geographically distributed physical characteristics. There are two points that I believe disprove this hypothesis:
1) There does not exist a consensus on whether or not "subspecies" is even a coherent classification of organism.

According to who? Link?
See my oft posted:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-constructed-genetic-both.html#post1063358302

Zapfinch said:
The standard definition of a subspecies is a population of organisms that, for reasons other than genetic dissimilarity, cannot produce viable offspring. (e.g. lions and tigers) Typically, this happens for geographic reasons (e.g. lions live in Africa, tigers in Asia). By definition subspecies possess nearly identical genetic material so why then is it even Necessary to divide them into smaller classifications when all the other classifications are based on significant differences in the DNA?

So instead of "Lion" and "Tiger" you propose "Big Cats", as it's not "necessary" nor Informative to distinguish Lion from Tiger.
Admit it. You're trying to Help with this nonsensical example even while you disagree.
Always nice to have a/another straight man.

Of course we need not be bigoted 'specieists' and distinguish Primates from one another either.
(or Poisonous varieties of reptiles or Mushrooms from one another either even though they're virtually the same)
But thankfully we do/science does.
Knowledge marches on despite your sensibilities and weird/partisan use of "necessary".

I have already posted on the last page the subspecies of Chimpanzees and Gorillas.
Some/Most of their subspecies are Less morphologically (and genetically) distinct than our ostensible one-race.
I realize, since you're making a spectacle of yourself trying to Minimize differences, you don't think that's "necessary" either.

Again, for the sake of Expert opinion on Race and better definition than yours:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-constructed-genetic-both.html#post1063358302

"Hope that helps" but I suspect it won't.

Zapfinch said:
2) Even if we do agree that "subspecies" is a Necessary classification, the term still would not apply to modern humans. Why? We have trains planes cars boats and bikes. We are more moble,by degrees of magnitude, than any other species on the planet. There is literally no barrier to our ability to produce viable offspring with other humans who might otherwise be considered another subspecies.

This inappropriate and SPUN word "necessary" keeps appearing in your Goofy posts.
See just above.
Is it "necessary" we name the planets? stars? Car brands/Models? Star types? Galaxy types? Mushroom types/subspecies? Snake types/subspecies?

And of course above is an unwitting acknowledgment Races do exist, they're just mixing.

Zapfinch said:
Basically, the same rules don't apply to us because the same limits do not effect us.

Even in a thousand years when the lines are more blurred, Human Races will still be distinguishable, but perhaps a topic more for paleontologists. That doesn't mean they didn't exist or don't Now.
We're happy to distinguish/Name Hominid discoveries at the drop of hat.

iow, Perhaps you'd like to answer the many strong but simple points I keep posting/keep having to repost. ie, the one with 300 Naked people in the room.
Pygmies, East Asians, Scandinavians, etc, may one day be hybridized into indistinguishability, but not even close yet.

Zapfinch said:
Hope that helps.

It didn't help me at all; I've been through this many times far more deeply and with far better opponents. A search of my posts on the topic here would definitely help you though. It appears you didn't even read the ones in this string, nor even those on the last page your were responding to.

Empirica · Jun 10, 2014

Paschendale said:
The difference between various races of humans is far far narrower than between humans and chimps. Obviously. The differences between humans of various races are slim and fluid. If this is so important to you, why do you invoke a different species entirely, as to really warrant dividing ourselves up.

I did indeed "invoke a different species entirely" but simply to demonstrate the extremes produced by minute genetic variations_

Evolution has also produced measurable physical and biological differences in the 3 "sub-species" of Homo sapiens_

Keep in mind, the term Genus is a biological classification for the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms_

rather than discuss why skin color is apparently so meaningful

Do you believe a seal considers a polar bear's fur color to be it's most "meaningful" aspect or that seals are on it's menu?!

My personal opinion concerning "skin color" is that it's simply one of many evolutionary adaptions of Natural Selection_

We should view ourselves as a single human race, not separate races.

My only mention of "race" in the OP was in reference to the "human race" in terms of a singularity__sorry you missed it!

Progressive indoctrination has given rise to the proverbial PC hammer that sees the U.S. as a nation of racist nails_

Clean like not dumping tons of trash into the oceans? Clean like not pumping greenhouse gasses into the air? The melting ice caps and rising sea levels may not look dirty to you, but they're a serious problem that will cause a lot of damage to our species and might even destroy it.

Unrelated, non-issue_

The only "factor" you talked about was race. Your supposed timeline of our existence was "humans exist", "humans split up in different races", "what's next?".

I've already put this to rest quite effectively above_

It's truly a shame that you allow PC taboos to so thoroughly control your emotions and logic_

This makes rational sensible discussions with liberals to be extremely difficult much of the time_

Nothing about the developments of language, of domesticating animals, of mastering agriculture, all of which have had far more impact on our species than racial adaptations.

The things you have mentioned here are for the more part, results of human evolution_

We are not "suspicious of any subject that includes race".

Sorry but yes; liberals are notoriously "suspicious" almost every time "race" finds it's way into a discussion_

I, personally, am curious as to why you brought race into the discussion at all, since your OP is a question about the future. You stress the fundamental differences between races and even suggest that interracial relationships have some kind of detrimental effect on us.

I simply included what I consider to be one of if not the most defining elements in the history of human evolution_

The 100,000 year evolution of three totally isolated and distinct sub-species of Homo sapiens that reunite as a global community_

And it was actually you that brought race into this discussion, which is what I should have known would happen from the git-go_

I'm curious as to why and I suspect your motives in creating this thread weren't really about a look into the future, but rather a backhanded racial discussion.

Please feel free to discuss this thread based on whatever motivations you believe might have possessed me_

I was never one to stifle the opinions of others and ask only that you conduct yourself rationally and with civility_

Empirica · Jun 10, 2014

Buck Ewer said:
With the growing abundance of interracial people in the world, it would seem that the human race is heading more toward a homogenization of our genetic makeup.
I believe the result of this socio-biological phenomena is what you might call "an advancement" in the evolution of humankind.
Calling interracial people "hybrids" is at best an error of identification.
Biologically speaking hybrids are when two different species of creatures are bred together and the resultant cross is usually sterile or reproductively unstable...
All people of the world are of one species, (human).
Your use of the term "hybrid" has implications of racism as would the term "half breed".
Most people, especially interracial people would take great offense at such terminology ...and rightly so.
I suggest you re-examine you vocabulary when discussing such matters, lest you come off sounding like a racist.

If "hybrid" is your only issue Bucky, maybe this will help;

Hybrid - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
hy·brid noun \ˈhī-brəd\
Definition of HYBRID
an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera

Definition of GENERA
plural of genus

Genus - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
ge·nus noun \ˈjē-nəs, ˈje-\
biology : a group of related animals or plants that includes several or many different species
plural gen·era also ge·nus·es

Full Definition of GENUS
1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species

Empirica · Jun 11, 2014

What if...? said:
One does have to wonder what part of the admixture is responsible for the "lessening" she posits.

I'm betting she doesn't think its the white part.

I'll try to satisfy your curiosity Whif:

Sub-Saharan Africans might consider the Asian gene to be detrimental to their athletic superiority_

Asians might consider the European gene to be detrimental to their superior intelligence_

Europeans might consider the African gene to be detrimental to their unique spectrum of eye and hair colors_

Although I was admittedly referring to the major influx of third world migrants whose cognitive abilities have for many generations been strictly limited to the daily struggle for survival alone_

This mass relocation to modern civilization which has included membership in it's gene pool with locals of superior intelligence resulting from generations of good nutrition and advanced education_

The much larger and far more diverse genetic free-for-all has and continues to favor civilization's newest arrivals but a deficiency to civilization as a whole for untold generations to come_

But when migration stabilizes and the global gene pool synchronizes, hopefully our species will again revert to the natural process of a steady gradual ascension to the limits of human perfection_

I guesstimate another thousand years till synchronization occurs___Cool; I'll only be 1026 years old_ :nails

What if...? · Jun 11, 2014

Empirica said:
I'll try to satisfy your curiosity Whif:

Sub-Saharan Africans might consider the Asian gene to be detrimental to their athletic superiority_,

Asians might consider the European gene to be detrimental to their superior intelligence_

Europeans might consider the African gene to be detrimental to their unique spectrum of eye and hair colors_

Although I was admittedly referring to the major influx of third world migrants whose cognitive abilities have for many generations been strictly limited to the daily struggle for survival alone_

This mass relocation to modern civilization which has included membership in it's gene pool with locals of superior intelligence resulting from generations of good nutrition and advanced education_

The much larger and far more diverse genetic free-for-all has and continues to favor civilization's newest arrivals but a deficiency to civilization as a whole for untold generations to come_

But when migration stabilizes and the global gene pool synchronizes, hopefully our species will again revert to the natural process of a steady gradual ascension to the limits of human perfection_

I guesstimate another thousand years till synchronization occurs___Cool; I'll only be 1026 years old_ :nails

Yet geneticists that study genes and success have determined that genes only play a part in those raised outside of poverty.

In other words, a person born into poverty with all the genes that would make them a "success" will more often than not never realize that potential.

Empirica · Jun 11, 2014

mbig said:
You'll note ian making about an Obtuse a claim as I've ever read. That because humans originated in Africa we can't have different subspecie/race!!
One can hardly believe, nor even find allowable terminology for how Obtuse this is.
Again. it's so unbelievable inane one can decide if it's Dishonest or Obtuse. Probably both.

Why? Gorillas (and Chimps) have different subspecies/Race as well as even Different Species.. and unlike humans, they all never even left Africa/Central Africa!
But humans, who populated the whole planet and were subject to unbelievably different climatological and other pressures, can't even have race/SUBspecie.
In fact, just Every Specie/supspecie I can think of originated in One place! Then walked, floated, or were blown somewhere else and became different subspecies or species.

That's how dissociative and inane politics makes people.

Gorillas have 2 separate Species and 4 or 5 subspecies who "Never left Africa", never even left Central Africa.
(BTW, Same for Chimps)

Range of ALL the different Gorilla Species/subspecies. (Wiki map)

Yes, the Above is the Total range of Gorillas and they DO have subspecie/Race
as well as the more prominent 'Species' differential.
And they never left Africa!

Range of all the different Gorillas AND Chimpanzee Species/Subspecies:

Yup, they managed all the Speciation in Tiny Central Africa ....
unlike us, without the benefit of Wildly different selective pressures ranging from Frozen Tundra to Australian outback, to High Tibetan Plateau.
The most recently delimited Gorilla subspecies in fact, is thought to originated only in the last 20,000 years because of the Ice Age pressure/isolation that got as far south as their range. (imagine if THEY had made it to Lapland or Siberia)
Significant Human migration started 50,000-100,000 years ago.

You've posted some amazing material on this subject__Nice work, Mbig! :thumbs:

To deny such obvious realities as these requires a belief system based on Science seeped in Political Correctness_

Either that or they've simply abandoned Evolution and adopted divine Creation as humanity's engineer_

spud_meister said:
If you're using genetics to base your argument on, then there's a lot more than 3 sup-species of human. Any geographically isolated population will have a 10-15% difference when compared to any other isolated population. There's a 10-15% difference between Western European and Arab, Han Chinese and Indonesian, Maori and Native American, Berber and Zulu. You either class humans with dozens and dozens of sub-species, or none at all.

The three originals are the only true subspecies__The others are simply variations of those_

Anyway, the future for humans lies in technology, not evolution.

I absolutely can see human evolution taking a technological shift away from natural selection__In fact, it appears to have already begun!

ZapFinch42 said:
This is true unless and until we begin to propagate throughout the galaxy. I have a feeling that the isolation that would create might instigate the speciation of humanity.

All that's required for the same "speciation" to occur here on earth are small isolated populations and sufficient time; which indeed was the case 100,000+ years ago!

spud_meister · Jun 11, 2014

Empirica said:
The three originals are the only true subspecies__The others are simply variations of those

Based on what? Your definition of sub-species seems to be based on geography and 18th century racism rather than genetics or human migration patterns.

Empirica · Jun 12, 2014

spud_meister said:
Based on what?

Based on evolution, natural selection and empirical observation of course__please don't tell me you're a Creationist Spudster! :shock:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html
"Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection caused quite a stir when it appeared in 1859. Evidence to support evolution and natural selection, of course, has accumulated over time, and now science accepts that evolution is a fact and that natural selection explains very well how adaptive evolution takes place."

Apparently it is still causing "quite a stir" in certain circles!

Your definition of sub-species

I'm truly flattered but modesty will simply not allow me to take credit for the definition of "subspecies"_

Subspecies - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: a subdivision of a species: as

a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs

b : a named subdivision (as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species

seems to be based on geography and 18th century racism rather than genetics or human migration patterns.

Racism??? Gimme a break__Political Correctness will never dismiss Darwin's revelation of the Origin of Species_

And geography related environmental factors resulting from continental migration played a major role in human evolution_

Below is a very informative link to some very easy to understand information; courtesy of the Smithsonian:
Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

If the information I provided fails to help you dismiss your PC misconceptions, then there's little else I can do__but I tried!

spud_meister · Jun 13, 2014

Empirica said:
Based on evolution, natural selection and empirical observation of course__please don't tell me you're a Creationist Spudster! :shock:

Actionbioscience | Natural Selection: How Evolution Works
"Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection caused quite a stir when it appeared in 1859. Evidence to support evolution and natural selection, of course, has accumulated over time, and now science accepts that evolution is a fact and that natural selection explains very well how adaptive evolution takes place."

Apparently it is still causing "quite a stir" in certain circles!

I'm truly flattered but modesty will simply not allow me to take credit for the definition of "subspecies"_

Subspecies - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: a subdivision of a species: as

a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs

b : a named subdivision (as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species

None of that deals with what I said. Where do you draw the line between "Mongloid" and "Caucasiod", is it at Slavs? Arabs? Indians? Mongols? Kazakhs? Iranians? What makes "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" two separate sub-species, but doesn't apply to distinctions between Celts and Slavs?

Racism??? Gimme a break__Political Correctness will never dismiss Darwin's revelation of the Origin of Species_

And geography related environmental factors resulting from continental migration played a major role in human evolution_

Below is a very informative link to some very easy to understand information; courtesy of the Smithsonian:
Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

If the information I provided fails to help you dismiss your PC misconceptions, then there's little else I can do__but I tried!

I'm not being PC, I'm asking you to give evidence for your assertion that there's only 3 possible sub-species. You, so far, have been unable to give evidence for only 3 genetically distinct Human populations.

Empirica · Jun 13, 2014

spud_meister said:
None of that deals with what I said. Where do you draw the line between "Mongloid" and "Caucasiod", is it at Slavs? Arabs? Indians? Mongols? Kazakhs? Iranians? What makes "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" two separate sub-species, but doesn't apply to distinctions between Celts and Slavs?

I'm not being PC, I'm asking you to give evidence for your assertion that there's only 3 possible sub-species. You, so far, have been unable to give evidence for only 3 genetically distinct Human populations.

We've been exposed to the evidence our entire lives_

The only possible way to have never seen it is by choice_

And posting evidence for people with their eyes wide shut is an endeavor in futility_

The evolution of a species! The world it conquered! And whatever is next?

Lurker

Trump Grump Whisperer

New member

Trump Grump Whisperer

Trump Grump Whisperer

onomatopoeic

onomatopoeic

Lurker

onomatopoeic

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Member

Member

Lurker

onomatopoeic

~Transcend~

~Transcend~

~Transcend~

~Transcend~

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

~Transcend~

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

~Transcend~