Proposal for Origin of Various Human Races

I'm not aware of any accepted reconstructed proto languages that go back further than several thousand years or so. The reconstructions that do reach back far enough are not generally accepted as valid.Joe's talking about stuff that (according to him) happened 50k years ago or more.Comparative linguistics won't be much use here.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

You can add to this the fact that even with the original 3 classic divisions called "race" there is great variety of skin color as well as great variety of other features. As Jonathan Marks put it:"By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic — that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal — that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left — the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal — was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it — as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools — did not exist."[from Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history (1995)]

What I don't get about this whole discussion is why it isn't obvious that any group of living things, from plants to animals to human beings, develops its own limited gene pool when it becomes isolated from the rest of the population. This is what "races" are in any Species. Domestic breeding is an example of how it happens artificially by human choice: you get all the interesting breeds by isolating the genes/alleles that underlie their own peculiar characteristics, keeping them from interbreeding with other breeds of the same Species. Human beings become races simply by forming their own isolated groups and inbreeding among themselves for many generations. Sometimes a breed or race or variety of animals or plants becomes genetically incapable of interbreeding with others of their Species after being genetically reduced and isolated, but that has never happened with human races where interbreeding has always remained possible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that's what race IS, genetically speaking. You don't get particular characteristics without the specific genetic combinations that produce them, and where people have become geographically isolated in their migrations and spend generations inbreeding among themselves you're going to get exactly those "largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools" that underlie the identifiable traits of each isolated group.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How many characteristics does it take to constitute a race of people? Isn't the number of characteristics, and hence the number of fixed genetic combinations incredibly small? How many changes below neck level are required? And cannot more than one combination of genes produce a given result? Meanwhile the genes controlling non-race specific characteristics are free to have whatever variation and combination can be found. Even features like skin color are not homogeneous, nose shape, and hair coarseness vary within a race.It is by examining the genetics of the races of humans on this earth that we can know that there is no limit to the diversity of the human race. In most cases there is much more variation within the race than there is distinction from another race.How about providing us a mechanism for the death of people during the flood affecting the genomes of people or their descendants who did not die? How does someone else's death affect what Noah and sons pass on to their children and grand children? Wouldn't they instead just not pass on some combination rather than disabling something they already had?Further, dumping out traits based on inbreeding does not explain very well the correlation of traits like skin color with geographies that we see. Those correlations suggest that selection played a role in what gene combinations survived at which did not.Seriously, your answer seems to be that humans decided to make breeds out of themselves leaving no role for natural selection. The evidence does not support any of that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm concerned that issues from the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread may be bleeding over into this thread. This thread is discussing the origin of the various human races and should only touch on genetics insofar as it provides evidence for specific scenarios. The other thread is discussing the premise that speciation isn't something that really happens, that all the species progenitors were created at creation, and that reductions in genetic diversity have produced all the various sub-species we see today.

Human Races Types - HomeThis is where this info is contained for anyone who wants to know!Thanks

Any website that starts off with something like cannot be a reliable source of information. It started off with a Gish Gallop of false information.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hello all........
I was confused too when I read about humans evolution.But because I am a scientist I was able to discover the truth about human evolution after a 10 year quest searching libraries and reading so many booksI now share the results of my 10 year quest about human evolution.Visit my free eBook(edit)after I unmask myself and talk to the forum as fellow humans rather than simply spamming my book.Godfrey Oswald
BSc, MSc, PhD
London, U.K.Edited by AdminPhat, : Forcing Godfreys hand