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

In a nutshell:

Stage 1: Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago spread out over one large land mass which also comprised Europe and Asia where these early humans separated into three basic groups on three separate continents which for all intent and purposes for that period of time might as well have been three alien worlds_

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_

Stage 3: The mass migration of modern civilization has resulted in ever increasing numbers of sub-specie hybrids, some benefiting more than others with possibly a slight disruption to human advancement in the short term but this new access to a larger global gene pool is expected to eventually benefit the human race as a whole in the long term_

Stage 4: ??? Providing you agree with any, all, or part of Stages 1, 2, and 3; how do you believe Stage 4 will play out for the Human Race and planet Earth??? Or maybe even for their place in the Universe; providing they survive their weaknesses and perfect their self-control???

Nothing but tan people.

These "sub-species" aren't really very distinct. There's also no such thing as genetic perfection. Nor is there any reason to think that our "advancement" (please define what you mean here) has slowed, and no reason to attribute such a thing to interracial couples.

Stage 4, as you put it, will go fine as long as we stop polluting the planet, changing the climate, depleting the ozone layer, and poisoning the air we breathe and the water we drink.

But seriously, what's with the creepy racial vibe in this? Why do you boil down our evolution into a story of creating separate races?

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.

Empirica said:

In a nutshell:

Stage 1: Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago spread out over one large land mass which also comprised Europe and Asia where these early humans separated into three basic groups on three separate continents which for all intent and purposes for that period of time might as well have been three alien worlds_

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_

Stage 3: The mass migration of modern civilization has resulted in ever increasing numbers of sub-specie hybrids, some benefiting more than others with possibly a slight disruption to human advancement in the short term but this new access to a larger global gene pool is expected to eventually benefit the human race as a whole in the long term_

Stage 4: ??? Providing you agree with any, all, or part of Stages 1, 2, and 3; how do you believe Stage 4 will play out for the Human Race and planet Earth??? Or maybe even for their place in the Universe; providing they survive their weaknesses and perfect their self-control???

Click to expand...

Stage 4;

With the use of genetic manipulation and augmentation of bionic devices the human species ceases to be limited by much at all.

Now able to see in the dark, communicate via various electronic means with anyone any where and having access to vast memory devices either internet based or internal people will be super men and women.

Lives will be free from aging and natural death. Disease will have been conquered. life will be lived until the person has had enough of it.

Space travel will be normal within the closer solar system. Lots of humanity's industry will be located in orbit around the Earth using resources from asteroids. The Earth it's self will be turned into a sort of wilderness park. Tourism will be the thing mostly done on Earth.

Long distance journeys to other solar systems will be underway within 2 centuries. These may well take many centuries to reach other solar systems but since people are able to live so long that will not be a vast problem. The ships will be sufficiently large that many millions of people will travel in such habitats.

Gradually we will spread across the whole galaxy. Our impact will be less than expected however. Mostly just stocking up on resources from asteroids. We will become a species of wanderers.

Paschendale said:

These "sub-species" aren't really very distinct. There's also no such thing as genetic perfection. Nor is there any reason to think that our "advancement" (please define what you mean here) has slowed, and no reason to attribute such a thing to interracial couples.

Click to expand...

Actually these three groups are each amazingly distinct on a genetic level_

Just consider the amazing differences in humans and chimpanzees with almost 99% identical DNA_

"How similar are chimps and humans in genetic makeup?
When we finished the chimpanzee genome in 2005 and lined it up next to the human genome, we made the amazing discovery that our DNA is almost 99 percent identical. That seems like a bit of a paradox given all the differences we see between ourselves and chimps. But, in fact, it's not a paradox, because all it takes to make a new species, all it takes to make a human, is a few changes in just the right places.

How did you begin to hone in on those "right places"?
Given that our DNA sequence has about three billion "letters" in it, one percent is still a pretty vast territory to search. There are about 15 million human-specific letters that have changed in the last six million years, since humans and chimps had a common ancestor."
NOVA | The DNA of Human Evolution

Stage 4, as you put it, will go fine as long as we stop polluting the planet, changing the climate, depleting the ozone layer, and poisoning the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression we were getting better every day at keeping the planet clean?!

But seriously, what's with the creepy racial vibe in this? Why do you boil down our evolution into a story of creating separate races?

Click to expand...

I simply included factors that are important to the evolution and progress of the human race; which is the basis of this thread_

And I actually said "sub-species" but I'm ok with "race" if that's your preference__They're only words_

Why is it you people are so suspicious of any subject that includes "race"?! For christ sake; lighten up!

iangb 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.

Click to expand...

Sorry but society and ethnicity had nothing to do with genetic evolution although geography did play an important role_

We are not a group of competing races, in spite of your efforts to portray us as such.

Click to expand...

Actually we're a very uniquely competitive species that groups itself into many categories; sometimes even "race"_

KevinKohler said:

Nothing but tan people.

Click to expand...

hopefully, then we can get past this race nonsense

also this: Scientific racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia people should read this and then reread the op

Empirica said:

In a nutshell:


Stage 4: ??? Providing you agree with any, all, or part of Stages 1, 2, and 3; how do you believe Stage 4 will play out for the Human Race and planet Earth??? Or maybe even for their place in the Universe; providing they survive their weaknesses and perfect their self-control???

Click to expand...

That will depend entirely on what strengths are best suited for survival, and therefore procreation. As global travel and commerce increases, though, individual races will become increasingly less relevant.

Empirica said:

Actually these three groups are each amazingly distinct on a genetic level_

Just consider the amazing differences in humans and chimpanzees with almost 99% identical DNA_

Click to expand...

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, rather than discuss why skin color is apparently so meaningful as to really warrant dividing ourselves up. We should view ourselves as a single human race, not separate races.

I was under the impression we were getting better every day at keeping the planet clean?!

Click to expand...

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.

I simply included factors that are important to the evolution and progress of the human race; which is the basis of this thread_

And I actually said "sub-species" but I'm ok with "race" if that's your preference__They're only words_

Why is it you people are so suspicious of any subject that includes "race"?! For christ sake; lighten up!

Click to expand...

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

Empirica said:

Sorry but society and ethnicity had nothing to do with genetic evolution although geography did play an important role

Click to expand...

That's not true, strictly speaking - social structure would feasibly have also played a part in determining reproductive partners, so some genes would have inevitably been influenced by this.

However, in general geography is the main factor - you are quite correct. The only problem with your statement is that I wasn't talking about 'had', I was talking about 'has' - nowadays, geography (or at least, the geography of one's ancestry) plays a minimal role in reproduction.

Actually we're a very uniquely competitive species that groups itself into many categories; sometimes even "race"_

Click to expand...

Individuals are in competition with each other, but races as a whole are not. Your idea fails.

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, rather than discuss why skin color is apparently so meaningful as to really warrant dividing ourselves up. We should view ourselves as a single human race, not separate races.

Click to expand...

We should view ourselves OBJECTVELY using the same objective criteria we use for other living things.
In which case we easily qualify as different Races/Subspecies.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-constructed-genetic-both.html#post1063358302

Paschendale said:

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

Click to expand...

Correct but you draw the wrong conclusion.

You need to take a look at the book "The 10,000 Year Explosion". (google away)
It points out that things like the geographical agricultural evolution and other societal need/advances, only Increased the differences in Races.
Vastly speeding up the mental development of some races and accounting for alot of what we DO see today in Continents/countries/IQ etc.

Like iangb you're a hopeless liberal PCer.
Liberal Creationists

Most of the time in this section I'm arguing with people who don't believe in Evolution.
But some of the rest of the time in this section and others,
I'm arguing against people who believe Evolution stopped 100,000 years ago because of THEIR Politics.

Witness iangb Ignoring a Real and highly educated and Authoritative Definition of race:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-constructed-genetic-both.html#post1063358302
to attempt to deceive with his own raging PC BS.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...onstructed-genetic-both-2.html#post1063359834

Paschendale does it in every discussion of race and then he folds when I blow his OCD Political contortions.
You and iangb are No different than Conservative creationists; your views on evolution are warped by politics.

mbig said:

Paschendale does it in every discussion of race and then he folds when I blow his OCD Political contortions.
You and iangb are No different than Conservative creationists; your views on evolution are warped by politics.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's dreadfully PC of us to think that race doesn't matter if we stop making it matter.

I don't see any really difference between me and a person of another race. I don't see any different worth noting. I don't know why you're so preoccupied trying to divide people like that, but I don't care to. Something like skin color isn't worth dividing ourselves over.

mbig said:

Like iangb you're a hopeless liberal PCer.
Liberal Creationists

Most of the time in this section I'm arguing with people who don't believe in Evolution.
But some of the rest of the time in this section and others,
I'm arguing against people who believe Evolution stopped 100,000 years ago because of THEIR Politics.

Witness iangb Ignoring a Real and highly educated and Authoritative Definition of race:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-constructed-genetic-both.html#post1063358302
to attempt to deceive with his own raging PC BS.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...onstructed-genetic-both-2.html#post1063359834

Paschendale does it in every discussion of race and then he folds when I blow his OCD Political contortions.
You and iangb are No different than Conservative creationists; your views on evolution are warped by politics.

Click to expand...

Hey wow, you'd rather make snide remarks about my posts to others than quote them directly so I have a chance to see them and justly knock you out of the sky? Brave style!

It is a fallacy to say "We should view ourselves OBJECTVELY using the same objective criteria we use for other living things." and then use that to conclude that there are different 'races', because 'race' is not a biological or objective term, but a sociological one. Organisms are grouped in biology by Domain --> Kingdom --> Phylum --> Class --> Order --> Family --> Genus --> Species --> Subspecies, 'race' is not in there. Furthermore 'race' is a term used exclusively to describe humans - you wouldn't say that Indian and African elephants are of different 'races' - you would say that they are of different 'subspecies'.

The article you link to is misapplying the sociological term 'race' and equivocating it to the biological term 'subspecies', which has been done historically but should no longer occur. The authors misunderstanding is that he thinks the "PC brigade" is denying that there are morphological (phenotypical and genotypical) differences between geographically isolated populations. This is patently false - I've said this fact myself in the post of mine you reference above. Instead, my beef stems from the fact that, as the author correctly says, there are no clear rules on what constitutes different 'races' (subspecies). To quote:

As such, as I mentioned - again, in that post of mine you link to - that scientifically speaking, people with different hair colour could be considered to be different races, or people with different eye colour, and so on. However, when people talk about 'race' they are generally only differentiating by skin colour (with a few exceptions). There isn't a scientific reason why this is - as the author mentions, there could be lots of different criteria - which means that the reason 'skin colour' is always chosen in discussions like these is a sociological one. Morphological differences between human organisms certainly exist - but choosing 'skin colour' as the only grouping factor is a misapplication of the scientific definition of subspecies, and the sociological definition of race (using skin tone, but no other, to differentiate between human subspecies) is not scientific. Hence, 'race' (grouping people by skin tone, but not eye colour)does not exist in scientific terms.

To summarise: "Race" is a sociological term which refers to groups of people being differentiated between (mostly) by skin colour. "Subspecies" is a scientific term which refers to groups of organisms being differentiated by a great many factors, of which skin colour is just one. If you want to say people are objectively of a different 'race', that's OK - as long as you also say that green-eyed and blue-eyed people are of a different 'race', since that's what the science says. If, however, you simply want to focus on skin colour (or the other couple of features) then you are not being scientific, but are being sociological.

To then take it to the next level, as the OP here is doing, is even more absurd. To insist that somehow white people and black people are in an evolutionary competition with each other, but that brown-haired people and blonde-haired people are not, is not an objectively correct POV.

Stage 4,the Darwinian eugenecists create GMO, and put it in their kids corn flakes. GaMeOver

iangb said:

Hey wow, you'd rather make snide remarks about my posts to others than quote them directly so I have a chance to see them and justly knock you out of the sky? Brave style!

Click to expand...

That's an Ironic response considering it was YOU who Ignored MY Large Post with Double-Quote-Box with said definition at the bottom of Page One by your entry on Page Two!

iangb said:

It is a fallacy to say "We should view ourselves OBJECTVELY using the same objective criteria we use for other living things." and then use that to conclude that there are different 'races', because 'race' is not a biological or objective term, but a sociological one. Organisms are grouped in biology by Domain --> Kingdom --> Phylum --> Class --> Order --> Family --> Genus --> Species --> Subspecies, 'race' is not in there. Furthermore 'race' is a term used exclusively to describe humans - you wouldn't say that Indian and African elephants are of different 'races' - you would say that they are of different 'subspecies'.

Click to expand...

Race has traditionally been used on Humans instead of subspecies. It doesn't make the concept invalid or inconsistent.

iangb said:

The article you link to is misapplying the sociological term 'race' and equivocating it to the biological term 'subspecies', which has been done historically but should no longer occur. The authors misunderstanding is that he thinks the "PC brigade" is denying that there are morphological (phenotypical and genotypical) differences between geographically isolated populations. This is patently false - I've said this fact myself in the post of mine you reference above. Instead, my beef stems from the fact that, as the author correctly says, there are no clear rules on what constitutes different 'races' (subspecies). To quote:

"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."​

As such, as I mentioned - again, in that post of mine you link to - that scientifically speaking, people with different hair colour could be considered to be different races, or people with different eye colour, and so on. However, when people talk about 'race' they are generally only differentiating by skin colour (with a few exceptions).
There isn't a scientific reason why this is - as the author mentions, there could be lots of different criteria - which means that the reason 'skin colour' is always chosen in discussions like these is a sociological one. Morphological differences between human organisms certainly exist - but choosing 'skin colour' as the only grouping factor is a misapplication of the scientific definition of subspecies, and the sociological definition of race (using skin tone, but no other, to differentiate between human subspecies) is not scientific. Hence, 'race' (grouping people by skin tone, but not eye colour)does not hexist in scientific terms.

Click to expand...

That's Not true at all and I went to great lengths in other posts in that string with the definition you cite.

mbig in to brother_n in that string said:

Because it's not exclusive to One race doesn't mean it's not racial or statistically infinitely higher probability in it.
Geography, not coincidentally, determined Race too.
ie, Native Northern Europeans would be unlikely to get Sickle Cell.

"said another way": 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. (malarial climate)

Click to expand...

So saying race is only skin tone is Ridiculous.
Race, as I said, Is a Laundry list that Includes skin tone.

Yet ANOTHER post Excerpt of mine to Brother_n in that string you didn't take issue with!
and quite similarly. Rehighlighted now.

mbig to brother_n in other string II 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.

And besides ignoring everything I posted, you are also capitalizing on Coyne's attempt to be a little PC himself by minimizing Race differences that I'm sure, were it not for PC and His Career, he would be glad to distinguish/delimit further. That's why He used the minimalist mice example.
He mentioned "biologists have identified 3 to 30 races" as well, which shows, the 30 does, it's Not just about "skin/eye color". Obviously.

And I might add now, the overly simple '3' races (as well as others/more) are still identifiable from skeletal remains and other means including DNA, with No skin whatsoever.
Forensic anthropologists do it daily and in courts of law.

iangb said:

To summarise: "Race" is a sociological term which refers to groups of people being differentiated between (mostly) by skin colour. "Subspecies" is a scientific term which refers to groups of organisms being differentiated by a great many factors, of which skin colour is just one. .....

Click to expand...

See my examples above. This is a nonsense conclusion, which Again, took effort to ignore my posts which refute, as well as Sandwich yours, in order to foist. Even as You complain about indirectness!

mbig said:

Race has traditionally been used on Humans instead of subspecies. It doesn't make the concept invalid or inconsistent.

Click to expand...

It does if you (as you were) insist on treating humans in the same way you treat other animals. Not my fault you're bing inconsistent.

That's Not true at all and I went to great lengths in other posts in that string with the definition you cite.

Click to expand...

I can snip out the rest of your post, because it boils down to one thing - you making a strawman that "race is just about skin colour", and then knocking down that strawman.

However, I never said race was just about skin colour, I said that skin colour was a dominant factor but that it was not the only one. My main point, which I also emphasised, was that race did not consider all phenotypical differences, which is what makes it a non-scientific term.

As I said - if you start with the science and work outwards, you get the 'blonde hair' race, the 'green eye' race, the 'huntingdons' race and so on. However, that's not what happens when you start with 'race' and move backwards - instead you group peoples into 'race' by geography and then look for distinguishing feature, rather than looking for distinguishing features and using them to determine race.

DNA is big and complex enough that any group of organisms will have certain things more in common than any other group of organisms (of the same species). When you choose what human groups to examine and compare though, you're doing so for sociological reasons.

Empirica said:

In a nutshell:

Stage 1: Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago spread out over one large land mass which also comprised Europe and Asia where these early humans separated into three basic groups on three separate continents which for all intent and purposes for that period of time might as well have been three alien worlds_

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_

Stage 3: The mass migration of modern civilization has resulted in ever increasing numbers of sub-specie hybrids, some benefiting more than others with possibly a slight disruption to human advancement in the short term but this new access to a larger global gene pool is expected to eventually benefit the human race as a whole in the long term_

Stage 4: ??? Providing you agree with any, all, or part of Stages 1, 2, and 3; how do you believe Stage 4 will play out for the Human Race and planet Earth??? Or maybe even for their place in the Universe; providing they survive their weaknesses and perfect their self-control???

Click to expand...

mixed race people have slowed down are advancement?

Tim the plumber said:

Stage 4;

With the use of genetic manipulation and augmentation of bionic devices the human species ceases to be limited by much at all.

Now able to see in the dark, communicate via various electronic means with anyone any where and having access to vast memory devices either internet based or internal people will be super men and women.

Lives will be free from aging and natural death. Disease will have been conquered. life will be lived until the person has had enough of it.

Space travel will be normal within the closer solar system. Lots of humanity's industry will be located in orbit around the Earth using resources from asteroids. The Earth it's self will be turned into a sort of wilderness park. Tourism will be the thing mostly done on Earth.

Long distance journeys to other solar systems will be underway within 2 centuries. These may well take many centuries to reach other solar systems but since people are able to live so long that will not be a vast problem. The ships will be sufficiently large that many millions of people will travel in such habitats.

Gradually we will spread across the whole galaxy. Our impact will be less than expected however. Mostly just stocking up on resources from asteroids. We will become a species of wanderers.

Click to expand...

sounds nice

Empirica said:

[



Stage 3: The mass migration of modern civilization has resulted in ever increasing numbers of sub-specie hybrids, some benefiting more than others with possibly a slight disruption to human advancement in the short term but this new access to a larger global gene pool is expected to eventually benefit the human race as a whole in the long term_

Stage 4: ??? Providing you agree with any, all, or part of Stages 1, 2, and 3; how do you believe Stage 4 will play out for the Human Race and planet Earth??? Or maybe even for their place in the Universe; providing they survive their weaknesses and perfect their self-control???

Click to expand...

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.

tacomancer said:

hopefully, then we can get past this race nonsense

also this: Scientific racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia people should read this and then reread the op

Click to expand...

To be fair, she didn't seem judge any specific ethnicity as better or worse.

The view of human development is certainty antiquated, but I don't think its necessarily bigoted.

Racists are always laughably ignorant about genetics. Forgetting two whole continents full of native americans in your made up classification system is pretty sloppy.

Republic Now! said:

To be fair, she didn't seem judge any specific ethnicity as better or worse.

The view of human development is certainty antiquated, but I don't think its necessarily bigoted.

Click to expand...

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.

rathi said:

Racists are always laughably ignorant about genetics. Forgetting two whole continents full of native americans in your made up classification system is pretty sloppy.

Click to expand...

Which "racists" are you talking about?
I don't see any in this string who've neglected Native Americans.
For instance, my source in this string alone claims 3-30 races have been delimited.
(and I have included them by name in previous more elaborate strings on this.. in Racial groupings as small as 9)
Empirica's OP starts/outlines with three major groups/migrations but wouldn't end there, and mentions additional subspecie hybrids.
If You are advocating that "we"/they missed a group, You are admitting there are Races but missing the whole point/concept of geographical evolution of them.

There are those ignoramuses/knee-jerk politicos who think Race is just about black/white, but I find them At Least as plentiful on the PC/Race-denial side.
That's why they accuse others of racism/White supremacism/KKK even as the 'racists' demonstrate ie, East Asians have the IQ advantage.

Anyone who can't confront she or I directly, but who emptily hit 'likes' for opposing views throughout is also welcome to chime in.

mbig said:

Which "racists" are you talking about?
I don't see any in this string who've neglected Native Americans.
For instance, my source in this string alone claims 3-30 races have been delimited.
(and I have included them by name in previous more elaborate strings on this.. in Racial groupings as small as 9)
Empirica's OP starts/outlines with three major groups/migrations but wouldn't end there, and mentions additional subspecie hybrids.
If You are advocating that "we"/they missed a group, You are admitting there are Races but missing the whole point/concept of geographical evolution of them.

There are those ignoramuses/knee-jerk politicos who think Race is just about black/white, but I find them At Least as plentiful on the PC/Race-denial side.
That's why they accuse others of racism/White supremacism/KKK even as the 'racists' demonstrate ie, East Asians have the IQ advantage.

Anyone who can't confront she or I directly, but who emptily hit 'likes' for opposing views throughout is also welcome to chime in.

Click to expand...

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.

iangb 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.

Click to expand...

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


:mrgreen: