juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.Yes you did. You're the one to started the meta-debate about race, no-one else.
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.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?
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).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.
For example?TOO MANY exceptions could be raised to that answer.
Another example of your beliefs failing to reflect reality.I don't believe you are satisfied with that at all.
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.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?
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).
Why not? Do you deny it?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.
If you talked about science, I will reply.
Otherwise, enjoy your political rubbish yourself.
Listen to yourself. Do you really think you answered the question?
Suit yourself.
TOO MANY exceptions could be raised to that answer.
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?
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.
The word is 'explanations'.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".
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.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 evidence suggests that humans evolved in Africa, so the African phenotype is probably foundational phenotype from which other variants evolved.The black communities in Africa is impressive and is a good illustration to me. What caused that "race" to exist?
The fact is that there is more sunlight and stronger sunlight (especially UV-B) in equatorial regions than at higher latitudes.Don't tell me the sunlight is more intense at that corner of the earth.
OK, I'm sure you can find it on an atlas....don't tell me the Africa continent is isolated in the middle of the ocean.
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).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.
I am still waiting for @juvenissun to tell me how TagliatelliMonster stating that juvenissun is ignoring over 150 years of scientific evidence is 'politics'.
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?
The easiest way to end your waiting is to say something smelled like science.
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.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?)
Great. When are you going to ask such a question?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.
I don't know -- maybe try thinking about it a little, or learning something about the subject?Tell me, how could I take the idea of evolution seriously?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?