Modern Races

[Curtis24]

How would you define modern races? Can you even do so?

[Agrippa]

A group of people sharing a similar inheritable trait combination, usually based on adaptation, specialisation or simple isolation, and usually (not always) genetic kinship.

The latter being primarily true for the (great) races, the basic adaptation & trait combinations being often much more important on the level below (racial types/subraces/variants).

[Curtis24]

A group of people sharing a similar inheritable trait combination, usually based on adaptation, specialisation or simple isolation, and usually (not always) genetic kinship.

The latter being primarily true for the (great) races, the basic adaptation & trait combinations being often much more important on the level below (racial types/subraces/variants).

What modern races are there, if such a generalization is possible?

[Agrippa]

What modern races are there, if such a generalization is possible?

Simple put, more or less successful races exist on this planet, the more successful ones spread their genes over wide territories, went through huge expansions and have many distinct populations and racial types.

The major races are Europid, Mongoloid (Mongolid proper and Indianid) and Negrid - obviously with mixtures and transitional variants-populations on the fringes.

Beside these major races exist minor "old races", which were as a rule "less successful" and being either pushed aside by the more successful major races or became isolated by chance.

These special minor races are f.e.:
Khoisanid
Bambutids (could be considered NegrOID probably)
Negritid
Melanesid
Australids (both sometimes brought together under Australoid or Australo-Melanesid)
Weddoid
Ainuid (both sometimes considered "Proto-Europoid" or "Palae-Europoid")

etc.

[Ibericus]

How would you define modern races? Can you even do so?
When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up. This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. Geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles).

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up..Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics).

[Agrippa]

For the genetic perspective, compare with this thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16427

Here a direct correlation of race, trait combinations, adaptation and genetic traits for the Mongoloid-South East Asian and Melanesid populations:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-geographical-divide-between.html

[Ibericus]

What modern races are there, if such a generalization is possible?
well based on Fst genetic distances, Cavalli Sforza created this (just an example) :

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6718/9clustertree.png

Also based on Autosomal DNA you can group pèople like this :

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/2124/mapqc.jpg


Or like this :

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/R79MXyHURCI/AAAAAAAAAFg/8MeKImXcV34/s1600/structurescience.jpg

[Curtis24]

Genetically, how are the races/subraces of European Caucasians defined, if possible?

[Andre Matheus]

Simple put, more or less successful races exist on this planet, the more successful ones spread their genes over wide territories, went through huge expansions and have many distinct populations and racial types.

The major races are Europid, Mongoloid (Mongolid proper and Indianid) and Negrid - obviously with mixtures and transitional variants-populations on the fringes.

Beside these major races exist minor "old races", which were as a rule "less successful" and being either pushed aside by the more successful major races or became isolated by chance.

These special minor races are f.e.:
Khoisanid
Bambutids (could be considered NegrOID probably)
Negritid
Melanesid
Australids (both sometimes brought together under Australoid or Australo-Melanesid)
Weddoid
Ainuid (both sometimes considered "Proto-Europoid" or "Palae-Europoid")

etc.

Someone inside the scientific community outside the Internet take you seriously?

Even if some geneticists believe in race between populations they no longer use these outdated terms!LOL.

[Stefan]

Genetically, how are the races/subraces of European Caucasians defined, if possible?

It really isn't possible if we are talking about a genetic situation. There is too much geneflow for there to be enough distinctiveness in order to determine different races based off a genetic situation. This is because race requires heritable, and therefore limited traits, and most heritable genetic traits are at significant amounts among all European populations. The best that can be done is to note a transition based off of geography and ethnic similarities, but for the most part this transition is still too fluid with only exceptions of interruption found in isolated populations(Basques, Sardinians.) Yet these isolated populations still branch from an ancestral population that doesn't allow them to be dissimilar in such a short time of divergence. So basically, from a genetic situation, there isn't enough distinctiveness among Europeans for there to be different races. Just a different matter of affinities and at different proportions, which can be better described as Ethno-Geographic differences.

[Curtis24]

It really isn't possible if we are talking about a genetic situation. There is too much geneflow for there to be enough distinctiveness in order to determine different races based off a genetic situation. This is because race requires heritable, and therefore limited traits, and most heritable genetic traits are at significant amounts among all European populations. The best that can be done is to note a transition based off of geography and ethnic similarities, but for the most part this transition is still too fluid with only exceptions of interruption found in isolated populations(Basques, Sardinians.) Yet these isolated populations still branch from an ancestral population that doesn't allow them to be dissimilar in such a short time of divergence. So basically, from a genetic situation, there isn't enough distinctiveness among Europeans for there to be different races. Just a different matter of affinities and at different proportions, which can be better described as Ethno-Geographic differences.

I'm not so sure there is as much genetic drift as that, though, for a few reasons.

For one, we know that ever since the formation of the modern European nations/ethnicities, genetic drift has probably been quite limited by language barriers.

Furthermore, people in the modern era tend to segregate according to phenotype. People who look white generally don't mix with people who look black. Even in the mixed society of America, those white ethnicities with phenotypes that tend to differ from the white norm in America - such as Italian-americans - have segregated to a large extent This rule seems to apply to all countries - mating is highly effected by physical phenotypes. You could argue this is due to biology(one interesting study I saw argued that people are attracted to those who possess facial features similar to their own, another study showed blue-eyed men preferred blue-eyed women), or social pressure, yet its universality seems to show its engrained in human society.

Now as far as if geography/other factors have created enough distinctiveness to create new races in Europe, is debatable.

However, if personality is indicated by phenotype, as many studies have indicated, this would prove false. Because if personality is indicated by phenotype, than phenotype defines race. There are wide phenotypical variations in Europe, with a wide range of skin colors, hair colors, and eye colors, as well as facial features... for instance, the average Sicilian is going to look much different than the average Swede. That, to me, shows racial distinctiveness.

One way race can be defined, IMO, is the extent to which Europeans themselves are able to perceive phenotypic differences between each other.

[Stefan]

I'm not so sure there is as much genetic drift as that, though, for a few reasons.

Here are a few PCAs that should give an idea of scope.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/FSTHGDP8bunch-uprecalculaterearr-1.gif

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6684/60550356.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TBDgV2r3hxI/AAAAAAAACck/sYi1shNB8bc/s1600/westeurasianpca.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TA_tjcMrcnI/AAAAAAAACb0/iMP8YJM3D8E/s1600/pca.jpg

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4904&d=1275832366

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4906&d=1275834726

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n12/images/ejhg2008210f5.jpg


For one, we know that ever since the formation of the modern European nations/ethnicities, genetic drift has probably been quite limited by language barriers.

We must acknowledge that anything racial will predate modern ethnicities. Mutations happen rarely, especially those that affect phenotype at such a level. The prevalence of certain mutations on the other hand, is affected by population movements, and much of Europe has had common movements from within and outside of Europe. Not only that, but from a common ancestral population. Languages change frequently, and as time passes people can adopt new languages. That is why I described the differences among Europeans as "ethnic" rather than "racial".


Furthermore, people in the modern era tend to segregate according to phenotype. People who look white generally don't mix with people who look black. Even in the mixed society of America, those white ethnicities with phenotypes that tend to differ from the white norm in America - such as Italian-americans - have segregated to a large extent This rule seems to apply to all countries - mating is highly effected by physical phenotypes. You could argue this is due to biology(one interesting study I saw argued that people are attracted to those who possess facial features similar to their own, another study showed blue-eyed men preferred blue-eyed women), or social pressure, yet its universality seems to show its engrained in human society.

In the new world this makes sense, in the old world it does not. Ethnic neighbors tend to be similar to eachother. Since Europeans have many neighbors, traits can pass on from one to another without the originating and terminating ethnic groups being all that similar. As for Italian-Americans, I think it is more likely there was segregation because of ethnic dissimilarities, and Italians being strongly connected to Italy as well as recent immigrants when compared with the average German or English-American for example. You see the same thing among Polish-Americans who diverge very little or at least less than Italian-Americans do from the "average" American population.



Now as far as if geography/other factors have created enough distinctiveness to create new races in Europe, is debatable.

However, if personality is indicated by phenotype, as many studies have indicated, this would prove false. Because if personality is indicated by phenotype, than phenotype defines race. There are wide phenotypical variations in Europe, with a wide range of skin colors, hair colors, and eye colors, as well as facial features... for instance, the average Sicilian is going to look much different than the average Swede. That, to me, shows racial distinctiveness.

I don't understand your argument of personality? Personality would be a phenotype, not affected by phenotype. Phenotype is the reflectiveness of genotypes with the addition of environment. Anything that composes a person is phenotype. Mental traits, such as personality, which is heavily affected by environment by the way, are phenotypes. As for the skin color, hair color, eye color argument, you can find blue eyes at a 'relatively' significant amount in all European countries. You can find blonde haired individuals at a 'relatively' significant amount in all European countries. The difference is prevalence. In some countries you'll find blue eyes or blonde hair more frequently. Since these traits are found at notable amounts among all populations of Europe, it is a European trait rather than, say, a "Baltic" one(where it is most frequent.) Also, there are Sicilians, even if not the average, who can fit among Swedes or vice versa. While on the other hand there will never be an ethnic Japanese individual who could fit among ethnic Nigerians. That is probably the easiest way to determine race.



One way race can be defined, IMO, is the extent to which Europeans themselves are able to perceive phenotypic differences between each other.

The problem here is that not all apparent phenotypical differences are racial traits, and not all racial traits are found in apparent phenotypes. Some are much less notable. For example, according to my 23andme results, I would have an IQ boost because of a specific genotype, if I was breastfed. That is a phenotype that one can only measure with prior insight. One cannot tell that by looking at a person.

Basically to determine a race, we must choose a population with an overwhelmingly common origin that distinguishes it from a different population, with a different origin. Then we must tell what defines that population opposed with another population; and those traits are what would be defined as "racial", while the other traits wouldn't be. When there isn't an overwhelming certainty that one person belongs to one population over another, or one trait belongs to one population over another, then it wouldn't be racial. I hope this makes sense. Basically it is all around a common ancestry, and heritable traits that would be exclusive because of this common ancestry.

[Agrippa]

Someone inside the scientific community outside the Internet take you seriously?

Even if some geneticists believe in race between populations they no longer use these outdated terms!LOL.

Rarely at least and not in the US of A, where since Boas racial science came to an end almost, for primarily ideological reasons.

They are just clear cut terms for describing a biological reality which can be easily distinguished and is of significance.

I guess you don't even know what they mean, so you are the least one to judge.

As for the racial types in Europe:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11365

[Andre Matheus]

Rarely at least and not in the US of A, where since Boas racial science came to an end almost, for primarily ideological reasons.

An exaggerated and inaccurate claim. American Universities are not one monolithic group, but rather a diverse and complex array of many voices and ideologies.



They are just clear cut terms for describing a biological reality which can be easily distinguished and is of significance.

Modern race concept to some geneticists is based in overall genome structure and adaptions to different climates, distinction which is based on 1% of human alleles.

Between them, the most famous haplogroup's geneticist, Ken Nordtvedt, believes in the existence of "race"'s concept among populations but he would never use such outdated nonsense to write an abstract defending their ideas inside scientific circles.



I guess you don't even know what they mean, so you are the least one to judge.

I refuse to waste my time with outdated terms, meaningless things.

[Eldritch]

I refuse to waste my time with outdated terms, meaningless things.

In that case your very presence on this forum is a waste of time. Your time.

[Andre Matheus]

So it looks to be a taboo in this forum discussing these unusable and outdated terms, interesting even if you believe in races or subspecies between populations I think you should update with modern genetic terms case up you want to be taken up seriously without being mocked up. We're living in the era of autossomical-DNA and haplogroup tests.

[Psychonaut]

So it looks to be a taboo in this forum discussing these unusable and outdated terms, interesting even if you believe in races or subspecies between populations I think you should update with modern genetic terms case up you want to be taken up seriously without being mocked up. We're living in the era of autossomical-DNA and haplogroup tests.

Genotype and morphotype are not the same thing. Most of the terms Agrippa uses are culled from Physical Anthropology literature and are used to describe morphological groups. That we can now analyze genotype is no reason to discard morphotypical analysis as well—that's absurd. You are putting forth a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy).

[Agrippa]

An exaggerated and inaccurate claim. American Universities are not one monolithic group, but rather a diverse and complex array of many voices and ideologies.

That's true and is the reason why it needed much time and efforts to get classical physical anthropology and racial typology out of the universities.

In Europe it was taught in many anthropological schools into the 1990's, some terms still in use with the turn coming with "political correctness", the UNESCO declaration and Cultural Marxist pressure primarily.

The main Leftist arguments at that time - I mean scientific and not just ideological ones - were based on genetic data and interpretations which are by now completely outdated, just compare with the links I brought in my 2nd post in this thread.


Modern race concept to some geneticists is based in overall genome structure and adaptions to different climates, distinction which is based on 1% of human alleles.

I would be careful with exact percentages, yet a small portion can be of huge importance, especially if considering how much of the genome we share with other primates, even fruit flies, plants too actually!

The adaptation of human races and racial types is strongly correlated with climate, that is true, which is part of the racial definition I use anyway, because it's just not viable to assume that every single trait appeared "accidently", racial types are just packages, trait combinations for a specific adaptation-specialisation.

They don't grasp the whole variation in this population, but the crucial part for the respect adaptation-specialisation of an ancient or recent character.

Also not everything in this respect is, especially in the social and cultural species Homo sapiens related to climate alone, but many other facts, including cultural customs, nutrition, hierarchy, war etc.

And of course, every adaptation being based on something which has to exist already, so f.e., even if being put under the very same conditions, Nordid and Sinid racial variants would develop somewhat different, because the starting point influences the next adaptation, in many cases.

So we often deal with accumulations in this regard, one older adaptation - next layer - next layer etc.

And the crucial packages which still exist or existed in the past, respective trait combinations which are regionally more common and inheritable, are the races and racial types, regional variants etc...


Between them, the most famous haplogroup's geneticist, Ken Nordtvedt, believes in the existence of "race"'s concept among populations but he would never use such outdated nonsense to write an abstract defending their ideas inside scientific circles.

Ah really, yet his perspective is one sided because he doesn't consider the inherited physical traits sufficiently and finally, in certain structures, he will largely come to the same conclusions.

And if "political correctness" and "re-education" wouldn't have changed the whole scientific circus, many geneticists would long write now: "Old typological classification systems verified in many fields by new genetic data..."

But think by yourself, if you are honest and not just a troll, would that be helpful for his/her career?


I refuse to waste my time with outdated terms, meaningless things.

You can't judge by yourself whether they are meaninful or meaningless without knowing them. That way, you just allow "political correctness" to determine your "correct perspective" on racial matters.

If you can't think for yourself, you waste your time indeed...


So it looks to be a taboo in this forum discussing these unusable and outdated terms, interesting even if you believe in races or subspecies between populations I think you should update with modern genetic terms case up you want to be taken up seriously without being mocked up. We're living in the era of autossomical-DNA and haplogroup tests.

That's being done, I just compare the genetic data with the physical anthropology and look for possible correlations and alternative explanations for specific patterns.

The problem is, the physical anthropology and something which could substitute racial typology for a full and better understanding of racial variation doesn't exist by now, often exactly for the reasons mentioned above, because scientific research largely stopped.

Even if it is about genetic studies, they HAVE TO write about "this new data can be helpful in determining population related disease patterns..." or the like as some sort of justification for their work to investigate in human variation.

Yet alone connecting the data of various fields to a more complete picture.

But then again, the distinction between Mongoloid and Melanesid being old and relevent, in all respects:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-geographical-divide-between.html

Also, in the past, many studies tried actually avoid the research on adaptive traits, concentrating on evolutionary and genealogical clues, this changes slowly but steadily right now, but until we are much further, and even then, racial typology should be used to describe the real patterns, because in the end, with some rare exceptions, f.e. yDNA and mtDNA are of absolutely secondary or of no relevance for adaptive process of racial specialisation.

F.e. Melanesids have a different general facial, nasal, head, body, hair shape etc. and pigmentation than Palaemongolids, the yDNA gives just genetic clues, it tells you NOTHING about the rest.

Yet if you say "Melanesid", you know suddenly - if being informed and educated about it - what racial form being meant, what basic inheritable traits it has, where it lives etc...

On this concrete issue, with this "outdated terms and methods":

From the paper:

this transition is shifted eastward relative to Wallace’s line—a boundary that separates the biogeographic regions of Asia and Wallacea. At its southern limit, Wallace’s line falls between the islands of Bali and Lombok (figure 1), which are separated by a deep-water sea channel that marks the southern edge of the Sunda
Shelf. During ice-age glacial advances, the Sunda land mass included Borneo, Bali, Java and Sumatra, together with mainland Southeast Asia. However, even in periods
of low sea level, deep water in Wallacea separated the Sunda shelf from the eastern landmass of Sahul (connecting New Guinea and Australia). While the distribution of
many flora and fauna conforms to Wallace’s line, the seafaring capabilities of human settlers to this region undoubtedly overcame this barrier to dispersal. Indeed, Asian ancestry exceeds 50 per cent as far east as the island of Alor, which is well within Wallacea and approximately 1000 km east of Bali, as well as on the island of Sulawesi, which is located east of Wallace’s line in the north (figure 1). Curiously, Wallace himself noted this difference, positing a second line in eastern Indonesia corresponding to changes in human phenotype (Wallace 1869; Cox 2008). Wallace’s second ‘phenotypic’ line broadly parallels the rapid decline in Asian admixture identified here. It is refreshing to see (for once) a paper which acknowledges that modern genetics did not discover the wheel but has to a large extent confirmed what previous generations of scientists, working with their eyes (and later their calipers) could plainly see.


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-geographical-divide-between.html

Or the difference between Negrid and Khoisanid - everything a hoax isn't it:


In the case of the San in the Kalahari Desert, adaptation to life in arid climates must have occurred as well, as several phenotypic traits have been found that are absent in other human groups.

The study, for example, found these San to have an ability to store water and lipid metabolites in their body tissues.

This showed that the San are also ill-suited to "certain perils of an agricultural lifestyle, including high-fat diets and exposure to malaria".



http://www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=9651

Negritids - "an outdated term", yet obviously if looking at the Philippines, Filipinos (Palaemongolid):
http://yeinjee.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/philippines-lifestyle-001.jpg

Aeta man (Negritid, Aetid subtype):
http://kevinhamdorfphotography.com/images/Aeta.jpg


“Forlorn Future”. An Aeta tribesman with a handed-down T-shirt, discarded U.S. Military mess kit and prized bolo (knife), rests wearily on a severed, century old tree stump amid a deforested and desecrated landscape. Pamulaklakin Forest, Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Zambales.

http://kevinhamdorfphotography.com/bio%20kevin.htm

Now many Filipinos ethnoculturally have Negritid admixture - to describe them as "part Aeta" is just not necessarily true in the strict sense and tells you little, but the Negritid racial traits can be clearly defined and distinguished. (f.e. skin color, hair shape, body proportions, body height, headshape etc.)

This definition - neither based on mixed Filipinos nor (now) often mixed Aeta people, is the racial type which makes clear that there is a specific racial form, with a specific racial history and adaptative quality, evolutionary specialisation.



Genotype and morphotype are not the same thing. Most of the terms Agrippa uses are culled from Physical Anthropology literature and are used to describe morphological groups. That we can now analyze genotype is no reason to discard morphotypical analysis as well—that's absurd. You are putting forth a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy).

Exactly, rather - if there would be free science, one should look for correlations and verifications-falsifications of older theories in an objective manner.

But even to refer to physical anthropology, especially the more exact and race oriented one from Europe - the USA were actually always weaker in this regard and had just small number of more or less respectable authors, especially C.S. Coon of course and Earnest Hooten, both stopped too early, not too much came later and J.R. Baker was largely working on the base of the German School.

Soviets too did pretty well overall with their own efforts, the USA were under pressure much earlier and developed in the wrong direction - unfortunately becoming the dominant influence on the rest of the world, with the weakest racial theories we know of from the USA being used as a strawman...

And later the established racial science was silenced in Europe, especially since the 1990's and the poisonous wave of "political correctness" - the final stage of Cultural Marxism.

Thats what I experienced at the university as well, the arguments against racial science being primarily ideological and almost always refer primarily to the lowest level efforts, rather than looking for the later and more scientific productions!

An open debate about the pro and cons of typology f.e. being not even considered and everyone considering it at a typical German speaker university would be "suspicious" - what wasnt the case before the 1990's to the same degree and especially not at all universities!

Under such conditions, an open debate, especially by including modern genetics, can rarely take place.

A new, more popular science book about racial typology, being recently published by Andreas Vonderach:
http://www.amazon.de/Anthropologie-Europas-V%C3%B6lker-Neandertaler-Gegenwart/dp/3902475528

One of the later works of the German anthropological school being that of Rainer Knussmann, his latest edition of Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie und Humangenetik, is from 1996.

The correct terms were/are still in use in many universities which don't have to care for political correctness to the same degree as in "Western" ones, especially in Eastern Europe.

Many recent craniometric studies being, if looking at the details, about morphological types which can be equated largely with Nordoid or Mediterranid, Alpinoid etc., since the respective proportions and dimensions are highly distinctive even with modern methods, if having two relatively typical (sub-) populations for a comparison.