Message 31 of 49 (510792) 06-03-2009 1:38 PM

Race is a shorthand that developed when Europeans began world travel. They described the peoples they met largely in physical terms, and equated that to all sorts of other characteristics such as cultural and mental development.

When anthropologists started studying this they were largely limited to physical traits at first, but with the discovery of genetics and DNA and the like they quickly went beyond that level. It was found that pretty much all of the traits that were both observed and genetic existed in clines, and that these clines overlapped a great deal. This made the concept of race extremely complicated to scientists who studied those traits, and it didn't take long before the concept of race was found to be inadequate to describe what was going on.

But laymen continue to see those observed traits and insist that they can see races. In doing so, they are missing out on a lot of things that scientists discovered and dealt with decades ago.

Message 32 of 49 (510801) 06-03-2009 2:20 PM

Reply to: Message 25 by Meldinoor 06-03-2009 2:52 AM

Which clearly indicates that it is more than a social concept.
It also goes without saying that there are more genetic similarities between races than differences.
Who would believe otherwise?
To my way of thinking genetics did not reveal anything unexpected in this regard.

Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

Message 33 of 49 (510805) 06-03-2009 3:22 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by TheWhale 06-03-2009 2:20 PM

Genetics reveals different data than the classical (visible) traits.

For example, fingerprint patterns show a different distribution than do classical traits. So do blood types. So do dozens of other traits. Physical form has more to do with geography and environmental conditions than anything else, while genetics has more to do with patterns of descent.

There are at least three Pygmy- or Negrito-type groups around the world. These groups share many physical traits but are quite different genetically.

Message 34 of 49 (510810) 06-03-2009 5:28 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by TheWhale 06-03-2009 2:20 PM

Here is the link to the American Anthropological Association's statement on race, which AustinG provided upthread (by the way, Austin, your hyperlinks didn't work: you've got the web addresses written as "http:///" with nothing following it).

Here's the relevant part:

quote:

---

Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them.

---

Here are some recent citations on the subject:

Witherspoon et al 2007 (should be free access)
Long et al 2009 (abstract: full text is not free)

Both of these support the notion that races are not genetically distinct from one another.

-----

The following is a recent paper that suggests that race is an appropriate categorization system:

Edwards 2003 (abstract: full text is not free)

Basically, Edwards says that the variation between races is mostly in the form of varying allele frequencies, whereas the numbers the American Anthropological Association quote above uses only talk about presence/absence.

It's a valid argument, except that, like Coyote said, allele frequencies are not distinct categories, but gradients, so it's hard to draw a line between two races.

For your information, the other two papers I referenced are, in part, rebuttals to Edwards' paper.

Edited by Bluejay, : I prefer capital letters at the beginning of sentences, but that's just me.

Darwin loves you.

Message 35 of 49 (510814) 06-03-2009 6:32 PM

I'd have to say that we'd be seeing slavery on a scale we never saw in our history of our particular time line.

Message 36 of 49 (510840) 06-04-2009 12:28 AM

Reply to: Message 35 by Taz 06-03-2009 6:32 PM

Creationist arguments:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/06/return-hobbits
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/neanderthal.asp

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Message 37 of 49 (510841) 06-04-2009 12:38 AM

Reply to: Message 36 by Meldinoor 06-04-2009 12:28 AM

Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Message 38 of 49 (510842) 06-04-2009 12:50 AM

Reply to: Message 37 by Son 06-04-2009 12:38 AM

People would ask, what then constitutes a human? And Creationists would be hard pressed to find definitive differences of quality, not just scale, between us and the Homo Erectus. I think they'd just take the easy way out and call them microcephalic humans.

One of the Answers in Genesis articles I cited in my last post states:

:) Explains their use of "hunting"? Are lions descended from Adam too?

Message 40 of 49 (510844) 06-04-2009 1:12 AM

Reply to: Message 39 by AustinG 06-04-2009 12:58 AM

We'd find out if Darwin was right about the above statement. I'd also be fascinated to see whether spiritual development was a gradual process (would Homo Erectus be superstitious or religious) or something that happened recently in our history. I think this would have profound implications for theologians.

Edited by Meldinoor, : Fixed typo

Message 41 of 49 (510872) 06-04-2009 9:12 AM

Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay 06-03-2009 12:30 PM

Not really. Your Y-chromosone haplogroup only records your direct male line ancestry, so sharing the haplogroup with someone on another continent may just record just one isolated common ancestor from many many generations ago who just happens to be the direct male line ancestor of you both. You're still going to be more genetically similar to the rest of your tribe, generally.

A bit more on topic, we already have other species on the planet that can demonstrate self-awareness, problem solving abilities, tool use etc. We can already see that our differences are matters of degree. I think an interesting question that would be raised by living Homo erectus would be whether we have a greater responsibility towards other non-human animals. If we extend to them greater rights and legal protection than we offer for animals, some people are going to ask whether chimpanzees and dolphins shouldn't have greater rights and protection than salamanders and beetles (for example).

Message 42 of 49 (510874) 06-04-2009 9:41 AM

Reply to: Message 41 by caffeine 06-04-2009 9:12 AM

Well, of course: it's an oversimplification, but the principle is still the same.

-----

And, naturally, you may have people use this "slippery slope" argument as a reason to not give Homo erectus civil rights.

-----

New random question:

Would you vote for a Homo erectus for president?

Darwin loves you.

Message 43 of 49 (510884) 06-04-2009 11:22 AM

Reply to: Message 42 by Blue Jay 06-04-2009 9:41 AM

Yes, if he were running against the likes of U. S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or G. W. Bush, but no, if he were running against Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. This would be in according to his political beliefs not in the fact he was an erectus.

Edited by bluescat48, : sp what else?¿

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Message 44 of 49 (510923) 06-04-2009 5:34 PM

Reply to: Message 39 by AustinG 06-04-2009 12:58 AM

Actually, wiki has a pretty good depiction of H. erectus.

The differences between a real H. erectus and the movie depictions are the jaw and lack of a forehead. These are hard to replicate on a human model.