Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Are race differences big enough? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]kidd rune[/m] at 9:50 pm on June 13, 2012[quote]Quote: from [m]Bud2400[/m] at 12:37 am on June 14, 2012[quote]I don't know if I'd say they're big enough to warrant separation into different species - after all, the difference races of man are able to produce perfectly fertile and capable offspring, unlike other species (ie. a mule, the offspring of a horse and donkey, which is always sterile). Sub-species perhaps, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say beyond that.[/quote]But other, separate species can produce fertile offspring as well - Chimps and bonobos, wolves and dogs, coyotes and jackals, different orangutan species, and different bird species. Honestly we should be anything but MORE SPECIFIC with human classifications, because we are the dominant ones on this planet and they have a larger effect on us as a whole. It doesn't really matter if wolves and dogs are the same species, it only helps us to understand the differences between them, but a small - but measurable - difference in humans seems to be incredibly significant and should not be ignored by our taxonomic and scientific categorizations. That's at least my opinion, and idc really if we classify humans into separate species officially (although it seems to be warranted), but we shouldn't ignore these differences and pretend that race doesn't exist.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post kidd rune Posted at 4:40 pm on June 13, 2012 Are the biological differences between human populations, the so-called races of man, large enough to rationally classify them into different sub-species'? Or even different species for that matter? A rough map of the distribution of the human races prior to imperialism: NOTE: hornoid is theoretical and could actually just be a unique mixture of archaic proto-races, but I purposely added it to distinguish East Africa from being Negroid like people often mistake it as. The pic also underrepresents the Australoid influence on the Indian subcontinent as well. ---- Some data regarding the differences between human races: "The differences in morphology (cranial and facial features) between human races are typically around ten times the corresponding differences between the sexes within a given race, larger even than the comparable differences taxonomists use to distinguish the two chimpanzee species from each other. To the best of our knowledge, human racial differences exceed those for any other non-domesticated species. One must look to the breeds of dogs to find a comparable degree of within-species differences in morphology." From V Sarich (2004) "Race: The Reality of Human Differences" page 9 NOTE: Humans are more genetically diverse than dogs; heterozygosity for humans is 0.7, but only 0.4 for dogs. The genetic distance between the two species of gorilla, Gorilla gorilla and G. beringei, 0.04%, (http://tinyurl.com/6webfo8 & http://tinyurl.com/6tlcv83) is nearly six times less than the genetic distance between Blacks (Bantu) and Whites (English), 0.23%. The genetic distance between the common chimp and the bonobo is 0.103% (see table 2), which is half that of Blacks vs Whites at .23%. Although wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a different species (lupus) than coyotes (Canis latrans), "there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings..." (source page 33) Until the 60's Neanderthals were classified as Homo Neanderthalensis, a different species from humans - Homo sapiens. But the genetic difference (<0.08%) (see figure 2; table 3; also) is less than the distance between 2 chimpanzee species (0.103). Now they are classified as Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies, while we are homo sapiens sapiens, another subspecies. The genetic difference between Blacks and Whites (0.23%) is more than 2x the distance between living humans and Neanderthals (0.08%). "Thus, the largest difference observed between any two human sequences was two substitutions larger than the smallest difference between a human and the Neandertal." (source) Perhaps even more interesting is the genetic difference between Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus, estimated at 0.170 (table 3) is 3/4 of the difference between Whites and Blacks. Thus, homo sapiens are more closely related to Homo erectus than Whites are to Blacks. Furthermore, although we can reproduce with other "Races" - and in the animal kingdom there are other examples of different species being able to. The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) are separate species yet they can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed despite having different chromosomal numbers. So can the two species of chimpanzee, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo chimpanzee (Pan paniscus) and many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), can interbreed. So I wonder what exactly it is that justifies the denial of race when in fact it seems that the human races could rationally be classified into different species. Thoughts?

Replies kidd rune Posted at 12:11 pm on June 15, 2012 Quote: from Natsy at 8:28 am on June 15, 2012 Species is difficult enough to define. We tend to go with Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" But I addressed this in my OP towards the bottom - many species can interbreed and create fertile offspring with entirely different species. And furthermore, that doesn't necessarily mean we aren't different subspecies. We're loving the mixed-racial thing atm, there's too much fluidity in race and mixing and so on. Just look Costa Rica and the mixing that goes on there [I know it happens elsewhere, but this is all I can think of atm]. Maybe it would have been a more realistic possibility if each ~race~ had remained isolated from the others for another million years or so. This race mixing is completely foreign to humans and has detrimental health effects. It doesn't seem like it's a very positive thing, and the recent trend is only happening in the Western nation due to propaganda spread by Jewish intellectuals and Jewish political movements. There's also the issue of a bunch of us having 5% Neanderthal DNA. We don't really know how much of that is expressed though, so whatever. So should we pick those groups apart and define them as a separate species too? It's not that simple, and that study was problematic for a variety of reasons. I posted about it a while ago and if you're really interested in hearing about it I'll try to find those threads again. Also what would this race/species be, the "5% Neanderthal race/species"? Doesn't make any sense, it seems like they'd just be 95% one species and 5% the other, so essentially their neanderthal DNA would be negligible (5-15% is significant, >15% is very significant) This is an evolutionary tree based on the out of Asia theory, one the Chinese anthropologists seem to be very fond of while us Westerners are stuck with the beloved "We all used to be Black!" nonsense. Dotted lines indicate that the genetic contribution was minor; "Hn" is the Neanderthals, "He" is Homo erectus, and "Aus" is Australopithecus. Lines are not proportional to time and dates are approximate. Natsy Posted at 5:28 am on June 15, 2012 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:13 am on June 14, 2012 Quote: from Natsy at 8:45 pm on June 13, 2012 no. Why not? Species is difficult enough to define. We tend to go with Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" We're loving the mixed-racial thing atm, there's too much fluidity in race and mixing and so on. Just look Costa Rica and the mixing that goes on there [I know it happens elsewhere, but this is all I can think of atm]. Maybe it would have been a more realistic possibility if each ~race~ had remained isolated from the others for another million years or so. There's also the issue of a bunch of us having 5% Neanderthal DNA. We don't really know how much of that is expressed though, so whatever. So should we pick those groups apart and define them as a separate species too? kidd rune Posted at 12:59 am on June 14, 2012 You may have a point, but even then the difference between Whites and Blacks is TWICE the difference between chimps and bonobos anyway, so it's not really that valid of a point to begin with. Further, eastern and western gorillas are considered different species, while these two have a genetic difference 6x smaller than the difference between Whites and Blacks. And even if these genetic differences don't warrant classification into separate species for human races, they most certainly justify separate sub-species classifications. allsmiles Posted at 12:37 am on June 14, 2012 Quote: from kidd rune at 8:36 am on June 14, 2012 Quote: from allsmiles at 3:22 am on June 14, 2012 Bonobos are a subspecies of chimps, though. It's a misclassification to say that they're separate species. I bet the same could be argued for the other examples you gave. Wikipedia: The bonobo, Pan paniscus, previously called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee, is a great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan; the other is Pan troglodytes, or the common chimpanzee." Not as of yesterday. kidd rune Posted at 12:36 am on June 14, 2012 Quote: from allsmiles at 3:22 am on June 14, 2012 Bonobos are a subspecies of chimps, though. It's a misclassification to say that they're separate species. I bet the same could be argued for the other examples you gave. Wikipedia: The bonobo, Pan paniscus, previously called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee, is a great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan; the other is Pan troglodytes, or the common chimpanzee." allsmiles Posted at 12:22 am on June 14, 2012 Bonobos are a subspecies of chimps, though. It's a misclassification to say that they're separate species. I bet the same could be argued for the other examples you gave. kidd rune Posted at 9:50 pm on June 13, 2012 Quote: from Bud2400 at 12:37 am on June 14, 2012 I don't know if I'd say they're big enough to warrant separation into different species - after all, the difference races of man are able to produce perfectly fertile and capable offspring, unlike other species (ie. a mule, the offspring of a horse and donkey, which is always sterile). Sub-species perhaps, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say beyond that. But other, separate species can produce fertile offspring as well - Chimps and bonobos, wolves and dogs, coyotes and jackals, different orangutan species, and different bird species. Honestly we should be anything but MORE SPECIFIC with human classifications, because we are the dominant ones on this planet and they have a larger effect on us as a whole. It doesn't really matter if wolves and dogs are the same species, it only helps us to understand the differences between them, but a small - but measurable - difference in humans seems to be incredibly significant and should not be ignored by our taxonomic and scientific categorizations. That's at least my opinion, and idc really if we classify humans into separate species officially (although it seems to be warranted), but we shouldn't ignore these differences and pretend that race doesn't exist. Bud2400 Posted at 9:37 pm on June 13, 2012 I don't know if I'd say they're big enough to warrant separation into different species - after all, the difference races of man are able to produce perfectly fertile and capable offspring, unlike other species (ie. a mule, the offspring of a horse and donkey, which is always sterile).  Sub-species perhaps, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say beyond that. kidd rune Posted at 6:13 pm on June 13, 2012 Quote: from Natsy at 8:45 pm on June 13, 2012 no. Why not? kidd rune Posted at 6:13 pm on June 13, 2012 Quote: from nyn at 8:12 pm on June 13, 2012 nowadays i doubt it, and i can't really fathom why it matters anyway How do you justify considering all human races the same species while scientists use smaller differences to differentiate non-human populations into different species? It matters because the evidence suggests that these differences are so vast it's impossible for multiple human populations to live together in one single nation under the guise of "Diversity" Natsy Posted at 5:45 pm on June 13, 2012 no. nyn Posted at 5:12 pm on June 13, 2012 nowadays i doubt it, and i can't really fathom why it matters anyway kidd rune Posted at 5:03 pm on June 13, 2012 Quote: from nyn at 8:02 pm on June 13, 2012 sorry, big enough? enough for what Big enough to warrant classification into separate subspecies or even species. Read the question in the OP which I couldn't put in the topic title for size reasons: "Are the biological differences between human populations, the so-called races of man, large enough to rationally classify them into different sub-species'? Or even different species for that matter?" nyn Posted at 5:02 pm on June 13, 2012 sorry, big enough? enough for what kidd rune Posted at 4:46 pm on June 13, 2012 Quote: from Cosmo Brown at 7:42 pm on June 13, 2012 Sorry, KR, but I can't stop laughing at "Hornoid." Oops, I thought I specified that hornoid was theoretical and could actually just be a unique mixture of archaic proto-races, I'll edit the OP. Done, I had it in my original draft of the post open in notepad. Most recent 15 of 16 previous replies displayed.