It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution, Enviroment & Human races.

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 



Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You are totally off.


No, I'm really not/



I had stated that race is not a social construct as someone else had stated.


It really is, but I'll get to that in a minute.



I said that race is a biological construct meaning that there are different races of humans each containing biological differences.


Which is true, but it doesn't fall along the racial constructs of society, it falls along geographical separations.



The person that said race is a social construct is implying that there are NO races but only 1 race, the human race.


I think this is where I failed to misrepresent my position. I'm not saying there aren't genetic variances between humans, but I find that the term 'race' as used in popular society is purely a social construct. If you look at things they fall along geographical lines, not skin tone lines.

"Caucasian", "Black", "Asian", etc. All of those terms are meaningless.



I strongly disagree with that because there ARE biological differences amongst the races.


Yes, but those are due to geography. There is also as much genetic difference within races.

In fact, the difference between races and the difference within race is negligible.


In 1972 Richard Lewontin performed a statistical analysis of the data available on blood proteins. His results showed that the majority of genetic differences between humans, about 85%, were found within a population. 7% of genetic differences were found between populations within a race. Only 8% on average was found to differentiate the various races.

Source



The concept of race does not trend around "skin tone" alone. Please reread my first post, over and over again if you need to because there I indirectly list the differences in the races therefore backing my argument that race is not a social construct.


Yes...and you don't provide any evidence for them. Also, you don't provide any evidence that the same variation isn't found within geographic groups within a race as much as it is found between races.



Certain races physically and sexualy mature faster than other races.


Source?



Is that a social construct? NO, it is a biological construct. One race has more fast twitch muscle fiber than other races. Social construct? NO, a biological construct. ETC...


Again, sources.

Also, you provided a link to a source that regarded a geographic 'race' group rather than a 'race'. African-Americans are a geographic group rather than a race among themselves.




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You bring up some good points, I think I like you
. The link I posted below will back up pretty much everything I stated. Now, this guy was called a racist, I believe he is a race realist because he uses data and scientific evidence to back his claims. The PC crew called him a racist, and blah blah blah but he nowhere states, that I could see anyway, that one race is superior to another. dictionary.reference.com... . It is an interesting read none the less. I believe this guy even taught at a university and was thrown out after publishing this article? Not sure but give it a look...
www.harbornet.com...
edit on 14-12-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


I think the difference we have if that I don't like the use of the term 'race', it's sloppy. I'm not objecting to genetic variation, it's just the use of the word.

The other fact is that conceptions of race don't actually fall along lines of actual human genetic variation. We go for surface variations in these conceptions rather than genetic ones.

And I like you too.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

edit on 15/12/10 by Astyanax because: double post. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWhite665
 


Races are species - Common Sense

No, species are unable to produce viable offspring through interbreeding, so it is clear that 'races', whatever you think they may be, are not species.


Akhil Bkshai claims the races evolved from different ancestors.

Akhil Bakshi (correct spelling) is not a scientist. He is a photographer with a management qualification and no expertise whatsoever in palaeontology or molecular biology.


A PUBLIC CLAIM by a fellow of the prestigious Royal Geographic Society

The RGS is not the Royal Society. It is not prestigious. Anyone can join, and anyone who's been a member for over five years can become a Fellow.

Akhil Bakshi's fellowship in the RGS gives no credibility whatsoever to his ignorant, spurious claims.

And by the way, trying to support your claims with articles from a white-supremacist web site doesn't help your case; it merely helps identify where your own sympathies lie.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR

Originally posted by hautmess a bunch of words


you are clearly misinformed, here read this:

There is only 1 race: the human one...


The researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there was no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race. Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent.

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program,

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

In other words, while the concept of separate human sub-species called "races" was developed four hundred years ago, during a time when white supremacists and the slave trade were seeking to justify the enslavement of Blacks, as well as the social, economic and political exaltation of whites, however, the most recent in-depth study of human DNA ever completed has shown that "race" does not exist.


Hope that clears up your thoughts , fellow human


You forgot to include the source, so I found the original study for you.

Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by UsernameCory
I see race linked with sex chromosome. I will fail to produce off spring that have the y chromosome of a white or black man - even if I can have an off spring with a white or black woman. And I suppose without my own y chromosome, my people would have failed to first leave Asian and arrive in the new world.

Yes, I have a multi-racial background, but as an off spring, I had only one type of sex chromosome that differs from other people.


Y-chromosomes don't come in various colours.
There is just as much variation in sex chromosomes between Asians as there is between Asians and "the rest".



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UsernameCory
I think you guys use out dated references when referring to scientist talking about the non existences of race. It has come back, though the discovery of pharmaceutical drugs targeting race, in a scientific way that races do matter in science. Though using this fact to justify negative racism, I would have to object that science has suggested that route by acknowledging race.
Races exist; get over it.


Some drugs work differently for different ethnic groups. Ethnic groups are not races.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWhite665
Races are species - Common Sense
Akhil Bkshai claims the races evolved from different ancestors.
A PUBLIC CLAIM by a fellow of the prestigious Royal Geographic Society that humans did not all come from Africa — and that blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors — has been dismissed by world experts as “dangerous,” “wrong” and “racist.” (ILLUSTRATION: Two women, two species? Women from New Guinea and Greece respectively.)
nationalvanguard.org...

Why am I not surprised to see Bakshi's ideas being pushed in a white supremicist site?
Bakshi has already been thoroughly debunked.

Blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
The example you gave of the Africans from the different areas is correct, somewhat. But the fact is is that, yes the do have their differences but, they all . . . have on average the same bone density, have on average the same cranial capacity etc.


very poor logic, kimish.


An average is a midline figure.
You cannot say anything about the variation of a trait within a population based merely on the average of that trait for the population.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Ethnic groups are not races.


I think this is the important difference that people often miss in these kinds of discussions.

As far as I see it, the only genetic differences between groups of humans would occur in isolated ethnic groups, and even then, any differences would be largely negligible due to the timeframe, and wouldn't necessarily apply to all members of that group.

I find it strange that people talk about differences between 'whites' and 'blacks', as races, even so there are so many differences within these 'races'.

For example, people frequently just class Barack Obama as 'black', even so his people ( on his father's side ) are Luo from East Africa, who are completely different to most of the black Americans who are descended from people in West Africa !



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


... So than a different race of a different species??
Remember, there is evidence that homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals and we're not sure if their offspring were viable or not. They most likely are because the gene that causes "red heads" is linked directly to Neanderthals. In lieu of that, two different species reproducing and having viable offspring (homo sapiens + Neanderthal which would also go against some peoples arguments that different species breeding don't produce viable offspring which is not the case I have stated above), it doesn't sound too far fetched that the 3 main races have evolved from different species many many years ago. Just food for thought



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
... So than a different race of a different species??

Like to translate that into English?


Remember, there is evidence that homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals and we're not sure if their offspring were viable or not.

We know they were viable because 2/3rds of humans alive today are descended from the offspring of those unions.


In lieu of that, two different species reproducing and having viable offspring (homo sapiens + Neanderthal which would also go against some peoples arguments that different species breeding don't produce viable offspring which is not the case I have stated above)

This is why scientists are beginning to class Neanderthals as a subset of homo-sapiens, instead of classing them as a separate species.


it doesn't sound too far fetched that the 3 main races have evolved from different species many many years ago.

If you're talking about Bakshi's ideas, he was postulating that many different races evolved separately on the various landmasses, from different species of the the earliest mammals, and just happened to end up all looking humanoid and being interfertile.

Genetically, what he is suggesting is completely impossible.
Breeding wise, it's also impossible.

The reason he gives for his ideas is the supposed impossibility of primitive man crossing oceans. However it's already been proven that early man did have craft making such journeys, and that's been tested by making such journeys in the traditional primitive craft.


However if your talking about a theory some scientists hold that there were several waves of humans coming out of Africa and each wave after the first interbred to some extent with the natives they encountered in the various regions they went to, that's not impossible.


edit on 15/12/10 by Kailassa because: force of habit.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa



However if your talking about a theory some scientists hold that there were several waves of humans coming out of Africa and each wave after the first interbred to some extent with the natives they encountered in the various regions they went to, that's not impossible.


edit on 15/12/10 by Kailassa because: force of habit.


You bring up some good points
. What if the races of humans today are not races but a subspecies of an obsolete race? Just a thought. Any who, I heard an interesting theory, I don't remember where, but it stated that Negroids mature more quickly and have higher levels of sex hormones because it was important for them to produce as many children as possible to help harvest food and such, which in tropical regions is available year round. More children = more food harvested. Where in the north with Caucasoids, food was only available at certain times of the year because of winter so having alot of children would have been detrimental because food wasn't as readily available. More children = less food and more mouths to feed. So the Caucasoids had to expend energy on harvesting and preserving food for the winter months as opposed to reproducing and raising many children. It all sounds feasible to me.
edit on 15-12-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join