The Evolution of Racial Differences

[DJ_Ghost]

I think Christians are willing to accept small gene frequency changes, such as changes in skin color, immunity to disease, intelligence, behavior, etc. But they probably would not believe in such a large a change that chimps turned into humans.

1). The theory of evolution does not claim that Chimps turned into humans. It claims we share a common ancestor.
2). If you mean Christians would not accept speciation, many do, I am one of them.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Many anthropologists and human geneticists say the entire concept of "race" is nonsense. There is simply variation in the human species.

This is very true, it carries into most social sciences. Race is not an accurate term at all since there is only one human race with a lot of fairly minor differences, ethnicity is our preferred term.

Ghost

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

We're all headed for biological amalgamation.

 

[Hermit]

2). If you mean Christians would not accept speciation, many do, I am one of them.
Ghost

Yes, but you are not true christians.

 

[Loudmouth]

whats the equivilent of race in the rest of the animal kingdom? breeds?

Subspecies is the scientific term. Breeds or "local varieties" are more colloquial.

whats the equivelent of breeds in humans? anyone know? ive always wondered... well for a week or so

I suppose you could claim that there are subspecies of humans. I would bet my bottom dollar that you would have a tough time separating out different human races by skeletal analysis alone. The term "races" didn't always have the same negative connotation that it does now, so whatever term makes you and others feel comfortable is probably the best one to use.

There is one important thing to realize, however. If you were to take skin color, for example, and correlate it to geographic origin you would find that not one "race" is completely separate from the other. That is, some europeans will have darker skin than some africans. This applies to every human characteristic consider a marker for this race or that.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Yes, but you are not true christians.

Yeah we were re-constituted from a packet, just add boiling water, stir and let stand for 1 minute.
Insta-Christian, all the flavour of real Christians in an instant.

Ghost
(With thanks to the old Smash adverts)

 

[AlecEiffel]

Anyone have any idea what physical traits would dominate if we were to mix every race? Is this even possible? Sometime in the future, as populations arent so isolated? I've always wondered what it would look like. Yeah, sorry, im not too big on actual science, I just like party tricks.

 

[USincognito]

Anyone have any idea what physical traits would dominate if we were to mix every race? Is this even possible? Sometime in the future, as populations arent so isolated? I've always wondered what it would look like. Yeah, sorry, im not too big on actual science, I just like party tricks.

Check out the current Betty Crocker. As I understand it (and I'm too lazy to look it up) when they gave her a makeover, they used a computer to create an ethnic amalgam to make her more appealing to a broader variety of people.

 

[USincognito]

This is very true, it carries into most social sciences. Race is not an accurate term at all since there is only one human race with a lot of fairly minor differences, ethnicity is our preferred term.

Ethnicity can still be a little dicey, at least when using census terms or laymans terms.

For instance someone living in Llubuljana, Croatia would be Caucasian and then subsetted as a Slav. Unless he were Jewish or Muslim, in which case that would likely be his subset.

Similarly a woman in Rome is Caucasian, then a Latin because of her language. But someone living in Caracas would also be a Latin because of language, though would be more properly a Hispanic because of her language.

And a guy living in Ames, Iowa would be Latin because of his heritage, and be Hispanic, even if he doesn't speak Spanish, which is what Hispanic means...

And if that isn't crazy enough, a woman living in Dallas whose great-grandparents were slaves is an African-American, while a immigrant citizen from Nairobi would be African-American but with an entirely different context.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Check out the current Betty Crocker. As I understand it (and I'm too lazy to look it up) when they gave her a makeover, they used a computer to create an ethnic amalgam to make her more appealing to a broader variety of people.

Ahh, there's evolution for you! It's almost like the skulls picture.

And I'm never too lazy to look up some obscure and unimportant fact.

 

[Hydra009]

Ethnicity can still be a little dicey, at least when using census terms or laymans terms.

Very true. That's why I try not to designate people one "race" or another. There are so many people that don't fit the mold (mixed-race people, for example) that it is arbitrary at best and can be insulting at worst.

And if that isn't crazy enough, a woman living in Dallas whose great-grandparents were slaves is an African-American, while a immigrant citizen from Nairobi would be African-American but with an entirely different context.

Another example would be a "white" person who is native to South Africa and who moved to the United States and was granted citizenship there. Technically, that person would be an African-American -- but in an entirely different sense than what is usually meant by the term. (I knew a guy at school who fit this situation)

 

[funyun]

Race is really, objectively, a complete fantasy. I mean, you can look at a black guy and a white guy and an Oriental guy and give a rough guess where each's ancestors comes from geographically, but the more I look into backgrounds of ethnicity (I am fascinated by ethno-linguistics), the more I find that in many places, especially like Central Asia, the Middle East, and North America, everyone is so mixed together that the terms are so irrelevant. I mean, in Central Asia, everybody is everything.

The only real way of ethnic classification is by language, and though that can get murky it is nothing compared to "race".

 

[USincognito]

Very true. That's why I try not to designate people one "race" or another. There are so many people that don't fit the mold (mixed-race people, for example) that it is arbitrary at best and can be insulting at worst.

A very close friend of mine from a skeptic forum was in a chat room and she referred to her "community" (she's black/Latina) and I felt so clever when I asked her, "What community is that? The skeptical community?"

 

[tryptophan]

Thanks .



I must really get some sleep now, but I will ask this anyway. You are saying that Christians cannot accept large-scale genetic changes? I know that I am alone in saying that I, as a Christian, can, and do, accept speciation.

I'm a Christian, and I also accept speciation.

 

[JohnR7]

The only real way of ethnic classification is by language, and though that can get murky it is nothing compared to "race".

Creationists and evolutionists have two totally different language theorys.

 

[Hydra009]

Creationists and evolutionists have two totally different language theorys.

Like the language theory that "theories" should be spelled with ies at the end?

 

[funyun]

Creationists and evolutionists have two totally different language theorys.

Yeah, one method is based on proposed geneologies that are impossible to verify, and another is based on actual known elements of languages.

 

[Randall McNally]

Creationists and evolutionists have two totally different language theorys.

Creationism has no theory of language, it has a story.