If humans are a product of evolution...

[Ryika]

...and evolution is the process by which populations adapt to their environment over many generations, then the logical assumption is that the people who live in one environment would evolve differently from the people who live in another, different environment, right?

In the animal kingdom, we see exactly that. Animals that have migrated into a new environment and then over time, adapted to fit that new environment better, to "survive and thrive" so to speak. We call those "subspecies", and while the decision when an animal has become a different subspecies is often arbitrary, it is a working system in which we can categorize animals and their shared characteristics.

Of course we cannot call different groups of humans "subspecies", because that would be really weird, so I'll instead use a word that is not riddled with historical baggage or weird connotations - I'll call them races. A race, that's a human phenotype that lives in a shared environment that is distinct from other environments. Yes, this means that there is not "one white race", but many white races from many different environments, and there is not "one black race", but many black races from different environments, etc. Where one race ends, and the other race begins, is again somewhat arbitrary. But one thing is clear as day: Race is real.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

If you use the word race scientifically, the way biologists use it, it's not real for humans. The genetic differences simply aren't large enough.
If you insist on using the word race americanly, or in some other way to describe something that isn't actually race in the biological sense, we can bicker over semantics until the moon gets eaten by a wolf or whatever.

 

[Senethro]

I sure would love another thread where refuse to use good terminology, instead fight about the terminology, and would then rather claim that attempts to create good terminology are in fact sinister plots that will Sapir-Whorf the next generation.

You insist on your terminology because you are a great big snowflake, I insist on my terminology due to resisting your subversive culture takeover etc.

 

[Ryika]

If you use the word race scientifically, the way biologists use it, it's not real for humans. The genetic differences simply aren't large enough.
If you insist on using the word race americanly, or in some other way to describe something that isn't actually race in the biological sense, we can bicker over semantics until the moon gets eaten by a wolf or whatever.

By what metric would you decide when differences are large enough and when they are not?

I sure would love another thread where refuse to use good terminology, instead fight about the terminology, and would then rather claim that attempts to create good terminology are in fact sinister plots that will Sapir-Whorf the next generation.

You insist on your terminology because you are a great big snowflake, I insist on my terminology due to resisting your subversive culture takeover etc.

It's not like I invented this terminology. Talk about race the way I used it can for example be found in this article, and this response to the article.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on biology or sociology, but from my understanding there is not enough of a genetic difference between people of skin colours to call someone of a different skin tone. From my understanding the criteria is far more strict for the concept of subspecies.

I haven’t encountered any solid argument that proves race doesn’t exist. However, having said that, race is a social construct, like how money is a social construct. Race is how we classify people on abritrary criteria such as skin colour and ancestry. It is not inheirently biological.

 

[Birdjaguar]

...and evolution is the process by which populations adapt to their environment over many generations, then the logical assumption is that the people who live in one environment would evolve differently from the people who live in another, different environment, right?

In the animal kingdom, we see exactly that. Animals that have migrated into a new environment and then over time, adapted to fit that new environment better, to "survive and thrive" so to speak. We call those "subspecies", and while the decision when an animal has become a different subspecies is often arbitrary, it is a working system in which we can categorize animals and their shared characteristics.

Of course we cannot call different groups of humans "subspecies", because that would be really weird, so I'll instead use a word that is not riddled with historical baggage or weird connotations - I'll call them races. A race, that's a human phenotype that lives in a shared environment that is distinct from other environments. Yes, this means that there is not "one white race", but many white races from many different environments, and there is not "one black race", but many black races from different environments, etc. Where one race ends, and the other race begins, is again somewhat arbitrary. But one thing is clear as day: Race is real.

It's Christmas, so: Jesus F. Christmas. The winking smiley? Under your plan, all urbanites would be the same race? Would all blind people be a race?

 

[Senethro]

Its not so much that the definitions are strict, than that the definitions are difficult. I get super grumpy about the HBD crowd (i.e. pseudo scientific racists) trying to make claims about supposedly well supported taxonomic divisions of humanity existing at or below species level when species itself is unsatisfactorily defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

In contrast the social construct of your race is the paper bag test or your religion. Overly simple and easily applied in the street.

I'm also both really sad and really relieved that no cousin hominids made it to the present with us. It would just bring out the worst kinds of behaviour in one of us I'm sure.

 

[Verbose]

No it's not "race", even historically — and then it is "variety". "Race" was introduced in place of "variety" by those who wanted to say "species", but knew they couldn't get away with it. (And as early as the 1930's the German-American philosopher Erich Voegelin made the observation that conceptually the conceptual thinking about "race" peaked with Johann Friedrich Blumenbach already in the 1780's, and has been in a steady decline since.)

No that it matters. There are adaptions to local conditions in various populations, but even then that doesn't make for much actual variety. The genetic sameness of humanity is rather a point against it. Too little actual diversity to be expected to do well in a situation where conditions change rapidly.

 

[Verbose]

By what metric would you decide when differences are large enough and when they are not?

Since the basic position of the articles you quoted is: "a genetic spectrum of populations that are fuzzy around the edges, but still reflect some genetic differentiation that occurred in geographic isolation", what would you?

 

[Perfection]

Subspecies typically refer to groups that can technically interbreed but due to geographical or biological isolation seldom do, thus maintaining relatively distinct genetic populations.

Humans, on the hand interbreed with different subgroups constantly making groups within the species far less distinct.

 

[Peuri]

Is this some macabre joke I am not getting, or is this serious?

If you are insisting on these subspecies, what are they? What are the differences that make up these races? You are making the claim, so give an example.

 

[Synobun]

There are minute differences between certain ethnic groups, but this is usually more in the form of disease control (be it immune system or genetics). Sickle cell is probably the most popular example you can point to for this.

But is that enough to define those people as something other than the overarching homo sapiens sapiens? I don't really think so.

The problem here is that when you try to argue about differences between 'races', the people who are most committed are those who want to feel superior above another. The people that want to consider "those uppity blacks" as being something other than human. Skin colour and hair type differences are ultimately portrayed as symptoms of being sub-human instead of a minor physical difference.

Modern humans are recent enough that there isn't really any way for there to be drastic differences between groups, regardless of the environments they breed in. There is more into classifying subspecies than simple change of appearance.

 

[stinkubus]

How many posts do you all think it will take before this thread devolves into a discussion on eugenics?

 

[Oerdin]

The short answer is humans have, they also have interbred with at least three earlier groups of proto-humans according to the DNA evidence (Neanderthals, Denisovians, and one as yet undiscovered group) all of which were out of Africa far long and who were far more locally adapted.

It is the new P.C. is to ignore this reality and to pretend everyone is just the same. I do not think these local adaptations make one better or worse they are simply the reality that real evolutionary differences exist due to different conditions.

 

[Synobun]

The short answer is humans have, they also have interbred with at least three earlier groups of proto-humans according to the DNA evidence (Neanderthals, Denisovians, and one as yet undiscovered group) all of which were out of Africa far long and who were far more locally adapted.

It is the new P.C. is to ignore this reality and to pretend everyone is just the same. I do not think these local adaptations make one better or worse they are simply the reality that real evolutionary differences exist due to different conditions.

It's not really PC to say that there's no way modern humans diverged into an entirely new species in 70,000 years when all the examples you listed took hundreds of thousands of years to develop, especially when humans are the ones that reigned supreme at the end of the day and were able to exert their genetic dominance over the others. You need separation between populations for these changes to manifest in a coherent, distinct manner. That's simply impossible now until we start throwing people at other planets.

 

[Oerdin]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human

Actually, around 300,000 year but likely longer. Everything is complicated by the interbreeding with various proto-human groups and various founder effects due to small population size and isolation.

 

[Synobun]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human

Actually, around 300,000 year but likely longer. Everything is complicated by the interbreeding with various proto-human groups and various founder effects due to small population size and isolation.

You're right, I was using the timeline for homo sapiens sapiens but that isn't very helpful/relevant for this discussion. My bad.

 

[Oerdin]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

In fact, we know sub species of humans have existed in the past and there was probably a large amount of various proto-humans being morphologically similar due to selective constraints but there being great genetic diversity which primes things for speciation. All humans are the same species but there are some pretty big genetic differences due to varying rates of interbredding with proto-haman groups and due to different environmental conditions. In any other species we would at least call them genetically distinct lineages if not outright subspecies but because humans demand they are special instead of just the other animal we are people demand facts and reality be ignored. It is rather sad and pathetic.

 

[Traitorfish]

There are three races of man: Irish, Jewish, and Miscellaneous.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Evolution stops at the neck and never proceeds further, bigot.

There are three races of man: Irish, Jewish, and Miscellaneous.

You're forgetting God's own race: the English.