I can think of a couple of common adaptations such as the sicle cell blood disease (enabling people to survive malaria) and hyperlean body mass in Africa.

I'm a bit too brain-immobilized right now to think of a more coherent reaction, but nowthat I thik of it, AmerInds in general tend to be short and stocky with broad faces. There were a lot of variations, of course, but even the photos from the 1800's show them as a heavyset, stocky population.

Thanks for the post Byrd
Also interesting about American Indians that you started to touch on is their skeletal features...much broader bone structures in "mongoloid" (I hate that word) or rather, Asian craniums. African Americans tend to have much deeper and wider eye "holes" - - forget the word for that...magnum, I think - and Caucasians tend to have more indented nasal structures...what are all these for? Do they serve a purpose? Do they justify racism? (No, I'm not a racist...just posing the question)



[edit on 7/1/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

Adaptation, great film.

You want to talk adaptaion? Check out the story about the peppered moth!

Enron touched on the differences in the skulls of different ethnic groups.

I would say, as most physical anthropologists do, that race is a political rather than a biological concept. The skull is about the only place on the human form where you can make a connection with ethnicity. People have tried to connect the proportions of the femur, humerus, or ischia w/ race, but never with any success.

There's an Osteology lab manual by Bass that has all of the statistical measurements. I think it's in Bramblett & Steele also.

Take the nasal indentation of european skulls: what purpose does this serve? Well, I have a very short nose, while my wife, who is of middle eastern descent has a stronger nose. When I go out in the winter, my nose doesn't get nearly as cold as quick has hers. I know that seems trivial, but when I hunt, I notice it in my companions who have larger and more aesthetic noses. If you think on the temperature pressures in NW Europe, that kind of makes sense.

I have a lot more trouble with allergies than Frau Dr. Does. If you think about it, my nasal passages have more of a crook in them; a great place for particles to get trapped and make me sick. I miss a week of work every Spring due to sinusitis which leads into a bronchial infection.

****************************************
I collect old anthropology books. Its a hoot to spot some of the screamers that leap off the page today, but were sensical at the time (i.e. piltdown).

One thing the intro texts try to do is give an example of a variation among populations that is NOT adaptive. This is to show that mutation is a separate function from selection. Mutation needs to be random, and then selection removes the negative mutations.

The trouble is, it is hard to find a variation that is adaptively neutral. I have an old book (early 1950's) that goes on and on about eye color. Eye color, it says is random and non-adaptive. No one gets sick or dies or starves to death because their eyes are the wrong color.

But wait. My college textbook (1985) has a chart of the visible spectrum that different colored irises respond to. It shows that blue eyes tend to contract more and faster when looking at a white field. This actually affects how quickly the eye is affected by "snow-blindness," conjunctivitis caused by staring at sunshine on snow.

It turns out that green eyes are prone to colorblindness, but see oh so slightly better in low light and grey light. Most green eyes are most common in NW europe.

As a hunter, I can tell you that the best hunting is right after a snowfall. The tracks make it obvious where animals are! There is no point in hunting while snow is falling, because it fills the tracks. But after the sun comes out, its the best time. I got snowblindness in highschool from hunting on a sunny day after a blizzard, so it is a real issue. And yes, I bagged one and nobody else did.

If you are following an animal than knows it's being tracked, they will often cut through a thicket, and then try to pop out the side of the brush once you've entered. Being able to see in low light, to spot the slightest movement is way more important than color vision at a time like that.

SO there ya go. Even eye color can have adaptive pressures on it.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I would say, as most physical anthropologists do, that race is a political rather than a biological concept. The skull is about the only place on the human form where you can make a connection with ethnicity. People have tried to connect the proportions of the femur, humerus, or ischia w/ race, but never with any success.

Absolutly! But I have to admit a perverse amusement in then saying to my fellow anthropologists, "so.. what about these skull differences that seem consistant with what we think of as 'race'"? So far, I haven't gotten any answers.

There's an Osteology lab manual by Bass that has all of the statistical measurements. I think it's in Bramblett & Steele also.

I saw that online, and it's a REAL treasure! I haven't taken forensic anthro yet (hope to) but was studying up on anatomy in case I had the chance to take it in the near future.

Take the nasal indentation of european skulls: what purpose does this serve? Well, I have a very short nose, while my wife, who is of middle eastern descent has a stronger nose. When I go out in the winter, my nose doesn't get nearly as cold as quick has hers. I know that seems trivial, but when I hunt, I notice it in my companions who have larger and more aesthetic noses. If you think on the temperature pressures in NW Europe, that kind of makes sense.

That's an intriguing observation!

****************************************
I collect old anthropology books. Its a hoot to spot some of the screamers that leap off the page today, but were sensical at the time (i.e. piltdown).

Oh yeah. Of course, we have some real screamers in the modern field, too. (postmodernism would be my personal favorite, but that's just me being a tad bit biased.)

But wait. My college textbook (1985) has a chart of the visible spectrum that different colored irises respond to. It shows that blue eyes tend to contract more and faster when looking at a white field. This actually affects how quickly the eye is affected by "snow-blindness," conjunctivitis caused by staring at sunshine on snow.

It turns out that green eyes are prone to colorblindness, but see oh so slightly better in low light and grey light. Most green eyes are most common in NW europe.

As a hunter, I can tell you that the best hunting is right after a snowfall. The tracks make it obvious where animals are! There is no point in hunting while snow is falling, because it fills the tracks. But after the sun comes out, its the best time. I got snowblindness in highschool from hunting on a sunny day after a blizzard, so it is a real issue. And yes, I bagged one and nobody else did.

If you are following an animal than knows it's being tracked, they will often cut through a thicket, and then try to pop out the side of the brush once you've entered. Being able to see in low light, to spot the slightest movement is way more important than color vision at a time like that.

SO there ya go. Even eye color can have adaptive pressures on it.

Absolutly fascinating! Thanks for the insights!

generalizations about skulls into three or four ethnic groups, is, I think, sensible. European, Asian, Negroid, probably covers it for me. But notice that each of those "races" contains a billion people. Plenty of leeway for generalizations.

The trouble starts when you try to come up with more 'races.' In other words, when you try to say something concrete, you get into trouble. For instance, "the mexican race." How many ethnic groups are there in Mexico today? Probably 2 or 3 in Yucatan, Several in the Highlands, Yaqui and groups along the pacific coast. Then Spaniards, Germans, Italians. And those spaniards will include greeks, blonde kelts like Charo, Basques and 'french'. And then maybe one of you can define "mestizo"

The German "Race" is even funnier. Since Germany has no natural boundaries. And probably 4 major ethnic invasions. Plus guest-workers. Despite Hitler's view of "Der Beherrschen Ras" as blue eyed blondes, there are probably 10 obvious german types. Lets see what I can do.

1. Auburn haired, tall and stocky, with large heads. call 'em "Bavarian"
2. Barrel-Chested, stocky with blue eyes. "Dutch-thick"
3. Tall and lanky with straight blonde hair and high cheekbones: "Dutch-thin"
4. Tall, with thick lips and very curly red hair, "Danish"
5. Exetremely pale skin with black hair and sky-blue eyes "bohemian"
6. Dark skintone and heavy set, with large jaw and deepset eyes "Tyrolian"
7. Blonde hair, pinkish skin. Short with blue eyes: "swiss A"
8. Tall and Blonde, with stocky frame "swiss B"
9. Short and dark, thin. North German
10. Claudia Schiffer. (a race of her own, definitely!)

There. 10 races of germans. And none of you can disprove my racial theory either. (because there's no way to test it!)

You get my point. You can do this with any racial group.

I could be even more accurate: Hey, how about 6.4 billion races, so I cover absolutely everyone!

It's the whole linaean fallacy of grade and clade, supcategories and systems to describe unique individuals. The system ends up describing no one at all.

I always cringe at "caucasian" because of Francis Galton's racism. Most Caucasians have never been within a thousand miles of that mountain range, and neither have their great-grandparents.

seriously, if you ever get the chance, spend some time with African physical anthropologists.

As a typical white man in America, I grew up thinking of Africans as a solid, monolithic ethnic group.

Imagine my shock when talking with a group of anthropologists from a major university in Africa, and learning that they distinguish between four subsaharan races of "black." I'd never even considered such a thing! I'll see if I can find the nomenclature they used . . .

Probably most of these variations and adaptation options are built into all of us. They are expressed when some population of our species is exposed to certain environmental circumstances over a long period of time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we all come out of Africa in two migrations. One about 100,000 years ago and another 50,000 years ago? We were all black back then, now due to diverse environments various pre-existing attibutes are expressed. We're all still the same species. In fact compared to other species we are a bit incestuously closely related. There is more genetic difference between any two chimpanzees then between any two humans. I have heard that we are all no more than 16th cousins of one another. Mono-culture is risky, one virus might wipe a species out.

We are a wickedly intelligent and competitive species and feel free to use any excuse to sell our little portion of the species as 'better'.

Let the arms race of the intellect begin. (aka religion, politics, status, etc.) We do battle by flashing mental images at one another. Pretty silly when it's just empty competition. Intelligence I think runs at a slower pace. Testing and re-testing it's foundations. Standing on them when it sees them to be solid. It moves slower but stands taller.

Slank, I'm wondering about your numbers.

You mentioned that any two chimpanzee are more divergent genetically than any two people.

Hard for me to believe, since there are less than 10,000 chimps but 6.4 billion people. And some of them, like Basque versus Australian aborigine, have not had contact in at least 4000 years. hmmm.

I thought the common ancestor of humans was much further back, like 2million years or so.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of your sources, I may have a lot to catch up on.