Don't like the implications?

[juvenissun]

Why are you getting so bent up on this? Your topic about races has absolutely nothing to do with the OP topic. If you want to be sincere about this topic, then start your own thread on it.

I did not start this.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I did not start this.

Yes you did. You're the one to started the meta-debate about race, no-one else.

 

[Armoured]

Yes you did. You're the one to started the meta-debate about race, no-one else.

When you're shown to be mistaken, what else should you do? Accept it and acknowledge the error? Change your mind in light of new evidence? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[sfs]

Travel through a continent from equator to the north pole or the south pole, how many "race" could you find, if elements you listed are the determining factors?

We would find as many populations as we actually do find. The genetic and phenotypic differences between groups of people are exactly what we would expect to find, given the degree to which groups have been isolated by distance. Most of the genetic differences, and some of the phenotypic ones, are the result of genetic drift. Some of the more obvious phenotypic differences (skin color and stature, for example) have been driven by natural selection. Whether people describe the differences in terms of "race" or not is a sociological question, not a scientific one.

Do you have any actual evidence that this explanation is wrong? Or is your strategy simply to insult anyone who offers it?

 

[juvenissun]

We would find as many populations as we actually do find. The genetic and phenotypic differences between groups of people are exactly what we would expect to find, given the degree to which groups have been isolated by distance. Most of the genetic differences, and some of the phenotypic ones, are the result of genetic drift. Some of the more obvious phenotypic differences (skin color and stature, for example) have been driven by natural selection. Whether people describe the differences in terms of "race" or not is a sociological question, not a scientific one.

Do you have any actual evidence that this explanation is wrong? Or is your strategy simply to insult anyone who offers it?

Good. I can count on you who always gives a true scientific argument.

So, how many of these phenotypes we could identify? Do we know exactly how did ONE (any one) of these phenotypes occur? Just say mutation or natural selection is NOT good enough. It only means that we do not know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that the outline of the answer as we know it at the present? If it is, then it simply says that we do not know.

It's the answer as I understand it at the present. It says we do know what caused it - the selective advantage of better adapted individuals. The genetic markers for many 'racial' traits have been identified, although they constitute only 10-15% of the genetic variation among population groups. See Genetic Variation, Classification, and 'Race' (Nature: genetics).

TOO MANY exceptions could be raised to that answer.

For example?

I don't believe you are satisfied with that at all.

Another example of your beliefs failing to reflect reality.

What are the conditions for the so-called "isolation"? You may go to the Himalayan region where one small tribe is separated from another by big mountains since the beginning of human history. Are they different races?

Race is poorly defined and controversial categorization. If you read the 'conclusions' section of the paper linked above, you'll find a discussion of it from a biological and population genetics viewpoint.

 

[juvenissun]

It's the answer as I understand it at the present. It says we do know what caused it - the selective advantage of better adapted individuals. The genetic markers for many 'racial' traits have been identified, although they constitute only 10-15% of the genetic variation among population groups. See Genetic Variation, Classification, and 'Race' (Nature: genetics).

We can analyze and describe "race" as detail as we could. But the information does not explain the origin. Selective advantage, adaptation, etc. are, in fact, only "excuses".

What I like to see is a report which clearly says: This and this and this conditions, caused this "race", with many examples and no or little exception. The black communities in Africa is impressive and is a good illustration to me. What caused that "race" to exist? Don't tell me the sunlight is more intense at that corner of the earth. And don't tell me the Africa continent is isolated in the middle of the ocean.

 

[Speedwell]

Don't tell me the sunlight is more intense at that corner of the earth. And don't tell me the Africa continent is isolated in the middle of the ocean.

Why not? Do you deny it?

The amount of melanin in the skin varies from individual to individual. This variation tends to be heritable, so if a population finds itself in an environment in which more melanin in the skin provides a survival advantage, the population over many generations with gradually become darker. If not, why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you talked about science, I will reply.
Otherwise, enjoy your political rubbish yourself.

I note that you didn't answer my request to give me your BEST "unanswered" question, which lead you to believing that evolution is false.

Do you wish to still answer it?

So that we can actually discuss something of substance instead of your one-liners and/or rejections at face value?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Listen to yourself. Do you really think you answered the question?

Suit yourself.

The question was answered.

I can give you a couple pictures of human faces and simply by the skin of their color or the shape of their eyes you will INSTANTLY now from what part of the world their ancestors come from, isn't that correct?

Clearly "races" are tied to geographic location.

Evolution explains why this is the case.

How does creationism explain this? Considering that all humans supposedly come from a single couple (6000 years ago?), how did we end up with blacks, caucasians, asians,...? How did we even end up with more then 2 bloodtypes, for that matter?

How do YOU explain that from an Adam & Eve perspective, if not by evolutionary processes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

TOO MANY exceptions could be raised to that answer.

I'll ask you to give an example of a single one that is supposedly problematic.
Give your BEST example.

What are the conditions for the so-called "isolation"?

Que?

You may go to the Himalayan region where one small tribe is separated from another by big mountains since the beginning of human history. Are they different races?

Actually, Tibetans have uniques gene sequences which are beneficial if you live at high altituteds - you don't get any altitude sickness.

If you and I would go live there, we'ld probably pass out by the end of day 2.

Again, evolution explains this. How does the Adam & Eve story explain this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The black communities in Africa is impressive and is a good illustration to me. What caused that "race" to exist? Don't tell me the sunlight is more intense at that corner of the earth.

Are you joking?
You aren't aware that Africa is "slightly hotter" then for example northern europe?

It seems that you didn't just sleep through biology class while in high school...

And don't tell me the Africa continent is isolated in the middle of the ocean.

Right, because 10.000 years ago, African tribes regurarly visited Asia to make babies with asians.

For crying out loud.......

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We can analyze and describe "race" as detail as we could. But the information does not explain the origin. Selective advantage, adaptation, etc. are, in fact, only "excuses".

The word is 'explanations'.

What I like to see is a report which clearly says: This and this and this conditions, caused this "race", with many examples and no or little exception.

There are articles that explain human differentiation in terms of racial groupings, such as this: Human Differentiation - Evolution of Racial Characteristics, but one should bear in mind the caveats mentioned in the Nature article I linked earlier.

The black communities in Africa is impressive and is a good illustration to me. What caused that "race" to exist?

The evidence suggests that humans evolved in Africa, so the African phenotype is probably foundational phenotype from which other variants evolved.

Don't tell me the sunlight is more intense at that corner of the earth.

The fact is that there is more sunlight and stronger sunlight (especially UV-B) in equatorial regions than at higher latitudes.

"When the sun is directly overhead, forming a 90° angle with the surface, sunlight is spread over the minimum area. Also, the light only has to pass through the atmosphere directly above the surface. An increased angle between the sun and the surface—due to latitude, time of day, and season—spreads the same amount of energy over a wider area, and the sunlight passes through more atmosphere, diffusing the light. Therefore, UV-B radiation is stronger at the equator than the poles, stronger at noon than evening, and stronger in summer than winter." (NASA EarthObservatory)​

...don't tell me the Africa continent is isolated in the middle of the ocean.

OK, I'm sure you can find it on an atlas.

 

[sfs]

So, how many of these phenotypes we could identify? Do we know exactly how did ONE (any one) of these phenotypes occur? Just say mutation or natural selection is NOT good enough. It only means that we do not know.

Off the top of my head. . . For all of these we know the genetic variants involved: lactose tolerance in Europe and (independently) East Africa. Light skin pigmentation in Europe. Light skin pigmentation in Asia (some overlap with Europe, but mostly independent mutations). Taller stature in northern Europe. Shorter stature in southern Europe (in both cases, dozens to hundreds of variants are involved). Very short stature in central Africa. Independent high altitude adaptation in Tibet, Ethiopia and the Andes. Fatty acid metabolism in Greenland. Hair texture in East Asia. Resistance to vivax malaria in most of Africa. Resistance to falciparum malaria in West Africa, the Mediterranean, in Asia (independent mutations).

In each of these cases, we know the part of the genome responsible, and we know that the differences are the result of natural selection. In most cases we know or can guess the selective pressure involved. We can also estimate how long populations have been separated, how large their founding populations were (which can be confirmed by historical/archeological sources in some cases, like Finland and Iceland). We can roughly estimate how much gene flow there has been between populations. We know a lot of stuff about this subject.

All in all, this is one of the worst possible questions you could have raised about evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am still waiting for @juvenissun to tell me how TagliatelliMonster stating that juvenissun is ignoring over 150 years of scientific evidence is 'politics'.

 

[juvenissun]

Off the top of my head. . . For all of these we know the genetic variants involved: lactose tolerance in Europe and (independently) East Africa. Light skin pigmentation in Europe. Light skin pigmentation in Asia (some overlap with Europe, but mostly independent mutations. Taller stature in northern Europe. Shorter stature in southern Europe (in both cases, dozens to hundreds of variants are involved). Very short stature in central Africa. Independent high altitude adaptation in Tibet, Ethiopia and the Andes. Fatty acid metabolism in Greenland. Hair texture in East Asia. Resistance to vivax malaria in most of Africa. Resistance to falciparum malaria in West Africa, the Mediterranean, in Asia (independent mutations).

In each of these cases, we know the part of the genome responsible, and we know that the differences are the result of natural selection. In most cases we know or can guess the selective pressure involved. We can also estimate how long populations have been separated, how large their founding populations were (which can be confirmed by historical/archeological sources in some cases, like Finland and Iceland). We can roughly estimate how much gene flow there has been between populations. We know a lot of stuff about this subject.

All in all, this is one of the worst possible questions you could have raised about evolution.

With all the information you pointed out, my question could be the easiest question to answer. Now, pick and choose some factors and features you listed and explain why is the black African different from, say, the black South American. (don't tell me there is no black South American. If so, ask yourself: why not?)

As I said, I can easily ask a question about evolution, so that an evolution scholar such as you wouldn't even have a slightest idea about the answer.

Tell me, how could I take the idea of evolution seriously?

 

[juvenissun]

I am still waiting for @juvenissun to tell me how TagliatelliMonster stating that juvenissun is ignoring over 150 years of scientific evidence is 'politics'.

The easiest way to end your waiting is to say something smelled like science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

With all the information you pointed out, my question could be the easiest question to answer. Now, pick and choose some factors and features you listed and explain why is the black African different from, say, the black South American. (don't tell me there is no black South American. If so, ask yourself: why not?)

As I said, I can easily ask a question about evolution, so that an evolution scholar such as you wouldn't even have a slightest idea about the answer.

Tell me, how could I take the idea of evolution seriously?

You do know that the large majority of the black population of South America comes from African slaves brought over by the Spanish and Portuguese, right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The easiest way to end your waiting is to say something smelled like science.

Or you could answer this question: how is TagliatelliMonster stating that juvenissun (you) are ignoring over 150 years of scientific evidence 'politics'?
And actually try to answer the question in plain, simple English.

 

[sfs]

With all the information you pointed out, my question could be the easiest question to answer. Now, pick and choose some factors and features you listed and explain why is the black African different from, say, the black South American. (don't tell me there is no black South American. If so, ask yourself: why not?)

I assume you mean South Americans with long-term ancestry from that continent. So let's see. . . There are no adaptations for falciparum malaria because malaria has only been present in South America for a few hundred years, far too short a time for adaptation to have occurred. High altitude adaptations are present in both -- independent mutations in the same pathway. Adaptation for lactose tolerance isn't present since the vast majority of ancestral Americans didn't herd animals and thus didn't have milk to drink. Native Americans in the tropics have darker skin pigmentation than their North/East Asian ancestors, just as Africans do, but the genetics in this case have not been studied. (They're not as dark as most sub-Saharan Africans, but they've also only been living there for less than 10,000 years, compared to hundreds of thousands of years for Africans.) I've never seen a study of stature among Native Americans, so I can't make a comparison for that trait.

Now, what exactly was your point? What does this question have to do with all of the examples of well-understood local adaptation that you've already been given?

As I said, I can easily ask a question about evolution, so that an evolution scholar such as you wouldn't even have a slightest idea about the answer.

Great. When are you going to ask such a question?

Tell me, how could I take the idea of evolution seriously?

I don't know -- maybe try thinking about it a little, or learning something about the subject?