| Welcome to Quetzalcoatl: anthropology forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Races, sub-species? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 1 2009, 01:06 AM (84 Views) | |
| ren | Oct 1 2009, 01:06 AM Post #1 |
Yoda
  ![]](http://209.85.48.16/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
The very definition of race is hard to define. There's phylogenetical (if that is a word), in which all Eurasians are a subset of Africans. There's regionally adapted/selected physiology/phenotypes-->genotypes, in which case East Eurasians might be on par with sub-Saharans and West Eurasians, for example, as an independent unit. There is also race by distance, in which the latest genome-wide studies have shown that people from different countries (in Europe, Asia) can be separated into different, consistent clusters. But I was reading about tigers and lions (on the Gene Expression siteand how they can successfully reproduce fertile offspring, and it seems that they are really not two species but two sub-species of a single species. In that sense, perhaps "race" is just a more politically friendly name for "sub-species", although I definitely think the separation between human populations is way less distant and clearly-defined than the case with lions and tigers. But, in the end, it is perhaps a matter of degree between what is race and what is sub-species, and we are incipient species. If we look at the mating patterns of the most sexually active quarter of non-Muslim Nigerians most sexually non-active Chinese ((the cad society and dad society models: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=dad+cad&btnG=With+Google&domains=gnxp.com&sitesearch=gnxp.com), it seems that they are living exclusively different reproductive strategies, like lions and tigers. |
| It has already begun. | |
 |
 
|
| manju | Oct 1 2009, 01:34 AM Post #2 |
|
doubter
|
Race isn't a scientifically recognized classification as it's lower than subspecies.
Edited by manju, Oct 1 2009, 04:25 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ren | Oct 1 2009, 05:25 AM Post #3 |
|
Yoda
|
Because Wiki says so? |
| It has already begun. | |
|
|
|
| manju | Oct 1 2009, 05:35 AM Post #4 |
|
doubter
|
That isn't a helpful response. I think it quotes an authentic scientific organization. |
|
|
|
| ren | Oct 1 2009, 11:16 AM Post #5 |
|
Yoda
|
But you just the other day was referencing the new cluster study. What are the clusters if not races? Although I would like to change from my initial post this: I think we are races within a sub-species. Neanderthals would be a sub-species in relation to us. There's no reason to assume they can't interbreed with us. As far as I know, they have the same number of chromosomes. All Modern humans tend to be skeletally indistinguishable compared to the difference between tigers and lions and between Moderns and Neanderthals. |
| It has already begun. | |
|
|
|
| manju | Oct 18 2009, 04:16 PM Post #6 |
|
doubter
|
Race is more of a convenient designation and not the one chiseled in stone that need to be tom-tomed. Other day, I was listening to a promo of Neanderthal series on History channel. There the narrator said their entire "race" was exterminated as they faced Homo Sapiens. He might have downgraded a subspecies into a race as a matter of convenience. However, it is not tough to see the intention of racists, secondary racists, confused racists and rebellious racists, is to upgrade what lower than subspecies and not really worthy of scientific nomenclature to the level of species. The creation of taboo in the name of medical conditions by bio-diversity proponents (euphemism of racist in their own political correct..which is again their own definition...terminology) has already been challenged in the argument that only individual genetic profile can be the real helpful guide. The clusters are but a minor aberration that will crumble soon (soon in the long history of Homo Sapiens). |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
