PDA

View Full Version : How many Races exist?



Mortimer
04-16-2012, 10:39 AM
How many Races are out there, and how do you name them? Describe your opinion how many Races exist?

Aidan
04-16-2012, 10:50 AM
There's three elementary races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) and their many sub-races.

finþaų
04-16-2012, 12:56 PM
There's three elementary races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) and their many sub-races.

I'd like to extend that and at the very least add Australoid. The amount of subraces seem to vary heavily depending on which 19th century phrenologist has written your particular literature.

Paluga
04-16-2012, 01:07 PM
Lots of subraces,and I bet there are lots of more in the world which aren't known yet.There's still lots of scientifical potential in this interesting faculty.
For me the most important races are the main races of Europe. Nordid, Mediterranid,Faelid, Alpinid, Osteuropid and Dinarid.

Insuperable
04-16-2012, 01:07 PM
Three elementary

Today are defined the following races

European
Middle Eastern
Sub-Saharan African
East Asian
Indian
Australoid
Native American

Comte Arnau
04-16-2012, 01:30 PM
http://www.andaman.org/Background/WorldGenetics.jpg

Mortimer
04-16-2012, 01:32 PM
http://www.andaman.org/Background/WorldGenetics.jpg

whats that? can you explain it in short. thanks

Midori
04-16-2012, 01:35 PM
Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid. Mixing of the following produced some other in-between ''races'' like Middle Easterners and Indians

gold_fenix
04-16-2012, 01:41 PM
Caucasoid, Mongoloid, congoid and Australoid, the amerindian and orientalid are the same race but it seem they have a important separation and the people of Pacific, some native american i suppose they are protomongoloid (archaic mongoloid near to archaich caucasoid)

Mortimer
04-16-2012, 01:44 PM
Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid. Mixing of the following produced some other in-between ''races'' like Middle Easterners and Indians

there are people who believe that especially indians (or gypsies) are mullatos, i think its because of their brown skin. my cousin said once such a thing, and a in law relative thought that gypsies are of the negroid race or mixed with negroids. but i doubt it. when a australian aboriginal mixes with an white person the phenotype is usually different than that of an indian or gypsy person. but who knows, its impossible to know.

Aramis
04-16-2012, 02:25 PM
Three elementary

Today are defined the following races

European
Middle Eastern
Sub-Saharan African
East Asian
Indian
Australoid
Native American

Those listed sound more like geographic areas than races.

You put a Korean (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UOvkf4TAoqo/TFS5iYe94qI/AAAAAAAAAQM/zAp0GSI-B4I/s640/sexy+fasion+korean+man+celebrities.jpg) or north Chinese (http://www.painetworks.com/photos/ha/ha1023.JPG) in the same basket as a Filipino man (http://akojo.com/img/member_images/akojo-com-image-of-Filipino-man-Mahiligako_24599.jpg), yet make of all middle-easterns (1 (http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6389601163_8dbe027874.jpg) or 2 (http://photos.worldsingles.com/user_pics/Ir/220526.jpg)), a distinct category to all Europeans (http://images2.fanpop.com/images/polls/247000/247739_1244237265224_full.jpg)?
What about the Khoisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan)? By some anthropologist they are thought of as a separate race to (Bantu) Negroids, i.e. the Capoid race (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Capoid_race).
And the Polynesian population? They sure had to be a distinct group as well then.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fap9eolzmU8/SHjXbNB3qGI/AAAAAAAAAfs/U6GgAjzVjr4/s400/maoritongue.jpg


As for me personally, I don't think races are existent in nature as such. There is human variation created through evolutionary mechanisms, and a closer similarity of one group to another (in genotype, phenotype, intellect, behavior etc.) as a result of them being exposed to a likewisee similar enviroment and living conditions.
Now, you may call them Caucasoids and Mongoloids, Blacks or Whites, Nordid and Mediterranid, but that's all up to the scientist and the applyed criteria. Such notions still lack importance in extra-hominid nature itself i.e. races as we understand them are rather culturally than biologically determined.

Just my two cents.

Arne
04-16-2012, 02:27 PM
In India there is only one Gipsie Race.

CelticViking
04-16-2012, 02:44 PM
And the Polynesian population? They sure had to be a distinct group as well then.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fap9eolzmU8/SHjXbNB3qGI/AAAAAAAAAfs/U6GgAjzVjr4/s400/maoritongue.jpg


.

Modern Maori= Mongoloid- Micronesian(Polynesian) + Melanesian + Europoid. (Because of their low population, they lived mainly in North Island and all modern Maori have European ancestors.)

Other Polynesians are Micronesian + Melanesian but some may have Europoid.

Hevneren
04-16-2012, 02:47 PM
To my knowledge, one.

Insuperable
04-16-2012, 02:50 PM
Those listed sound more like geographic areas than races.

You put a Korean (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UOvkf4TAoqo/TFS5iYe94qI/AAAAAAAAAQM/zAp0GSI-B4I/s640/sexy+fasion+korean+man+celebrities.jpg) or north Chinese (http://www.painetworks.com/photos/ha/ha1023.JPG) in the same basket as a Filipino man (http://akojo.com/img/member_images/akojo-com-image-of-Filipino-man-Mahiligako_24599.jpg), yet make of all middle-easterns (1 (http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6389601163_8dbe027874.jpg) or 2 (http://photos.worldsingles.com/user_pics/Ir/220526.jpg)), a distinct category to all Europeans (http://images2.fanpop.com/images/polls/247000/247739_1244237265224_full.jpg)?
What about the Khoisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan)? By some anthropologist they are thought of as a separate race to (Bantu) Negroids, i.e. the Capoid race (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Capoid_race).
And the Polynesian population? They sure had to be a distinct group as well then.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fap9eolzmU8/SHjXbNB3qGI/AAAAAAAAAfs/U6GgAjzVjr4/s400/maoritongue.jpg


As for me personally, I don't think races are existent in nature as such. There is human variation created through evolutionary mechanisms, and a closer similarity of one group to another (in genotype, phenotype, intellect, behavior etc.) as a result of them being exposed to a likewisee similar enviroment and living conditions.
Now, you may call them Caucasoids and Mongoloids, Blacks or Whites, Nordid and Mediterranid, but that's all up to the scientist and the applyed criteria. Such notions still lack importance in extra-hominid nature itself i.e. races as we understand them are rather culturally than biologically determined.

Just my two cents.

I did write that there are three elementary races
For example Indians are mixture of all three elementary races but officialy they are called Asian Indian race today
on genetics tests someone will get south Asian or Asian Indian admixture probably because their genome now constitues a separate race
I am not well informed about this. I write what I read

Vasconcelos
04-16-2012, 02:51 PM
To my knowledge, one.

Shouldn't perhaps Humans be classified as a species rather than race?

Furnace
04-16-2012, 02:58 PM
Shouldn't perhaps Humans be classified as a species rather than race?

Yes, the common mistake is "There is only one race, the human race", it should be "There is only one specie, the human specie". :coffee:

2Cool
04-16-2012, 02:59 PM
Those listed sound more like geographic areas than races.

You put a Korean (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UOvkf4TAoqo/TFS5iYe94qI/AAAAAAAAAQM/zAp0GSI-B4I/s640/sexy+fasion+korean+man+celebrities.jpg) or north Chinese (http://www.painetworks.com/photos/ha/ha1023.JPG) in the same basket as a Filipino man (http://akojo.com/img/member_images/akojo-com-image-of-Filipino-man-Mahiligako_24599.jpg), yet make of all middle-easterns (1 (http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6389601163_8dbe027874.jpg) or 2 (http://photos.worldsingles.com/user_pics/Ir/220526.jpg)), a distinct category to all Europeans (http://images2.fanpop.com/images/polls/247000/247739_1244237265224_full.jpg)?
What about the Khoisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan)? By some anthropologist they are thought of as a separate race to (Bantu) Negroids, i.e. the Capoid race (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Capoid_race).
And the Polynesian population? They sure had to be a distinct group as well then.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fap9eolzmU8/SHjXbNB3qGI/AAAAAAAAAfs/U6GgAjzVjr4/s400/maoritongue.jpg


As for me personally, I don't think races are existent in nature as such. There is human variation created through evolutionary mechanisms, and a closer similarity of one group to another (in genotype, phenotype, intellect, behavior etc.) as a result of them being exposed to a likewisee similar enviroment and living conditions.
Now, you may call them Caucasoids and Mongoloids, Blacks or Whites, Nordid and Mediterranid, but that's all up to the scientist and the applyed criteria. Such notions still lack importance in extra-hominid nature itself i.e. races as we understand them are rather culturally than biologically determined.

Just my two cents.


Finally. Someone who gets it.

If you guys want proof that race is a social construct you just have to look at this thread. Everybody has a different answer.

Mortimer
04-16-2012, 03:00 PM
I did write that there are three elementary races
For example Indians are mixture of all three elementary races but officialy they are called Asian Indian race today
on genetics tests someone will get south Asian or Asian Indian admixture probably because their genome now constitues a separate race
I am not well informed about this. I write what I read

so do you think that caucasoids need to be white skinned to be pure?

Vasconcelos
04-16-2012, 03:01 PM
Finally. Someone who gets it.

If you guys want proof that race is a social construct you just have to look at this thread. Everybody has a different answer.

True to a point, keep in mind hardly anyone has a graduation in such a field of expertise, and as such these are just opinions based on personal perception.

Aramis
04-16-2012, 03:07 PM
For example Indians are mixture of all three elementary races but officialy they are called Asian Indian race today

Well, this example implies their race being a product of caucassoid, mongoloid and negroid intermixture which took place on the Indian sub-continent. Yet to my knowledge, there were no negroids, to begin with, in these parts of the World, or most of Asia.
That's why I don't understand their categorization as a mixture, while mongoloids are supposed to be... pure?

Don't get me wrong, I haven't read much into this subject myself. I'm simply questioning for no other reason but to better understand.
Who knows, there might be something about Dravidians and Africans. Some might say there is an undisputable connection (http://arutkural.tripod.com/tolcampus/drav-african.htm) after all.

Insuperable
04-16-2012, 03:09 PM
so do you think that caucasoids need to be white skinned to be pure?

Caucasoids are not pure in the first place

Hevneren
04-16-2012, 03:11 PM
Shouldn't perhaps Humans be classified as a species rather than race?

That's the thing. The word "race" is ill defined.

Mortimer
04-16-2012, 03:12 PM
Caucasoids are not pure in the first place

ok, but why you classified indians as a mixture of 3 races? do you think only europeans are the real caucasoids? i dont get your point

Aramis
04-16-2012, 03:15 PM
Only Puritans are pure. Solus genus, as goes the maxim they live in accordance with.

CelticViking
04-16-2012, 03:15 PM
Kingdom:  Animals - living things other than bacteria and plants

Phylum:  Chordates - protected spinal chords

Subphylum:  Vertebrates – boney spines and skulls
Class:  Mammals – warm-blooded with hair and a four-chambered heart; 2 females nourish their young from mammary glands

Order:  Primates – mammals with an opposable thumb, e.g., man, apes, monkeys, lemurs, tarsiers

Family:  Hominids – bipedal primates, e.g., extinct bipedal apes and man, and living man

Genus:  Homo – tool-making hominids, e.g., habilis, ergaster, erectus, archaic man and living man

Species:  sapiens – extinct nearly modern man, Neanderthals, and living man

Sub-species:  sapiens – modern man
There are no labels on plants and animals, however that tell us what their classification is. Nature does not classify her critters; only man classifies things that are, or were, living. The decision as to how something should be classified is made by taxonomists according to how different a population is from related populations, which is bound to be somewhat arbitrary.
    As evolution does its magic, old species, orders, and even phyla die out and new ones arise. There is, however, no sharp dividing line between a preceding species and the species it evolves into. Even if a species splits into two populations that become so different as to be classified as separate species, it is usually not clear into which of the three species individuals who lived near the time of the split belonged. When a species evolves, it gradually changes, though a few of the changes may be “sudden” in geological time; i.e., they may occur in one individual, then spread throughout the population in tens of thousands of years instead of millions.
    Changes from one generation to the next are almost always so small that no individual can justifiably be placed in a different species from its parents. Even if we knew the genome of each and every individual in our lineage, it would be difficult to point to particular mothers and say, “She and her child are different species.” Paleoanthropologists spend a significant amount of their time arguing over whether a fossil is a member of an existing species or is a new species. Often the line that divides species is drawn where in-between fossils have not yet been found. But even if the bones of every individual from the first to the last were available and in the correct sequence, placing lines that divided the sequence into species would still be arbitrary.
    Many people believe that if two animals cannot interbreed they are different species and, conversely, if they can interbreed they are the same species. If two animals cannot interbreed they are always classified as different species. 3 But if two animals can interbreed, they may or may not be classified as different species. There are many examples where taxonomists have classified two animals as different species even though they can and do interbreed. Even most dictionaries will not define “species” as populations that are incapable of interbreeding. Indeed, one dictionary 4 specifically states, “… related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding … “ Many “species” can interbreed, but typically do not. For example, many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), can interbreed. The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) have different species names (lupus, latrans, and aureus), yet they can all interbreed and produce fertile progeny. Even the two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed (Angier, 1995), despite having different chromosome numbers, 5 and so can the two species of chimpanzee, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). 6 So the fact that all human races can interbreed to produce fertile progeny does not mean that they should be classified as a single species. 7
    The determination of when a population has become sufficiently different from another population to be classified as a “new” species or sub-species is especially important at the interface between archaic man, Homo sapiens, and his immediate predecessor, Homo erectus, and between archaic man and modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens). None of the populations thus classified suddenly leaped into a different classification. Erectus, for example, was around for about two million years and gradually changed from a very primitive early erectus (ergaster) to a less primitive late erectus, after which taxonomists decided to call him archaic “sapiens” instead of “erectus.” So, although early erectus might not have been able to produce hybrids with Hss, certainly late erectus could have. Some scientists estimate “that periods of around 2 million years are required to produce sufficient genetic distance to represent speciation.” (Curnoe, 2003).
    Again, man alone decides whether a population is or is not distinctive enough to be classified as a different species. 8 However, we can ask taxonomists to at least be consistent in making these decisions. That is, whatever their criteria are for labeling one population of living things as a “species” they should apply that same criteria in deciding whether another population of living things is or is not a “species.” This is clearly not the case now, 9 as there are many “species” of birds that can interbreed but differ so slightly in coloration that only an expert can tell them apart, while the differences between the races are so great that even a 3 month old baby can tell the difference, 10 and adults can correctly determine the race of a person 85% of the time just from his silhouette. (Davidenko, 2007). Taxonomists should not apply one criterion of speciation to animals other than man, and a different criterion to man himself. 11
    Ample evidence is provided in this book and its citations to support the conclusion that race is real, not a delusion concocted by evil racists. But that same evidence raises another question: Is the evidence adequate to classify Africans not just as a different race, but as a different species, Homo africanus? 12
    Another way to think about the re-classification of Africans (and primitive Asian aborigines 13) is to imagine that they were extinct and the only evidence we had of them was their bones and their DNA. Then, comparing the differences between them and modern living Eurasians, would their classification as a separate species be justified?
    To the egalitarians this question itself will be outrageously offensive and they will self-righteously condemn anyone even posing the question. But, long before egalitarianism came to dominate anthropology, the question had already been considered by anthropologists. Although the consensus was that Africans were not a separate species, a few believed they were. 14
    Until recently, species were classified based on their morphology, i.e., their form and appearance. This was not always accurate since populations that are not closely related can undergo parallel evolution, that is, they can be unrelated on even the phylum level, yet still look very similar as, for example, a bird, a bat, and an insect, or a shark and a dolphin. In classifying humans using morphology, were the taxonomists objective and unbiased and did they apply the same standards to humans that they applied when classifying other species? Well, not exactly.   

"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.”15
    We no longer need to rely on morphology, however, to distinguish between different species. DNA analyses can be used to determine the genetic difference between populations, a better way to classify species. 16 While this has not yet been done, a less subjective classification system might say that a genetic distance of less than “x” is a sub-species (race, variety, or breed), of less than “y” but more than “x” is a species, of less than “z” but more than “y” is a genus, and so on.
    Applying a bit of egalitarianism, let us begin with the proposition that the same standard of classification should be applied to the classification of all living things. That is, a population of birds, for example, should not be divided into a great many species because of small genetic differences, while populations within Homo, the genus of humans, are classified as a single species, even though the genetic differences between them are greater than the genetic differences between the species of birds.
    Applying that bit of inter-species egalitarianism to humans and gorillas, and using genetic distance as the standard to classify populations, 17 since the genetic distance between the two species of gorilla, Gorilla gorilla and G. beringei, 0.04%, 18 is nearly six times less than the genetic distance between (sub-Saharan) Africans (Bantu) and Eurasians (English), 0.23% (Table 7-1), either Africans and Eurasians should be classified as two different species or gorillas should be classified as a single species. The genetic distance between the common chimp and the bonobo is 0.103% (Curnoe, 2003, Table 2), less than half the English-Bantu genetic distance of 0.23%, and therefore either (at least some) sub-Saharan blacks and Eurasians should be classified as different species or the common chimp and the bonobo (and the two species of orangutan) should be classified as the same species. 19 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..." (Coppinger, 1995). It seems that taxonomists have been bending their objectivity a bit.
    Now let’s see how taxonomists have classified Neanderthals. Until the 1960s, Neanderthals were classified as Homo neanderthalensis, a different species from us, Homo sapiens. But the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis (<0.08%) 20 is less than the genetic distance between the two chimpanzee species (0.103). 21 Today, Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 22 a sub-species of our species, while we are another sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens. The genetic distance between (sub-Saharan) Africans and Eurasians (0.2%) is more than twice the genetic distance between living humans and Neanderthals (0.08%) 23 so, at the very least, Africans should be classified as a sub-species, Homo sapiens africanus and Eurasians as another sub-species, Homo sapiens eurasianensis.
    Finally, the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus is estimated as 0.170 24 (mean given as 0.19), 25 about the same as the genetic distance between the Bantu Africans and the Eskimos, but the genetic distance between living Africans and Eurasians is 0.23 (Table 7-1, p. 45). Thus, Homo sapiens is more closely related to Homo erectus than Eurasians are to sub-Saharan Africans. Either erectus should be reclassified as Homo sapiens erectus or sub-Saharan Africans should be reclassified as Homo africanus. 26
   
Chapter 29


Table of Contents


FOOTNOTES

1. Some recent reshuffling has limited “Hominids” to gorillas, chimps, and humans, added a sub-family, “Homininae” or hominins, for humans plus any (extinct) creature closer to us than a chimp, and a super-family, “Hominoidea,” or hominoids, the hominids plus gibbons and orangutans. The old classification may prove more accurate, however. Back

2. Birds are also warm-blooded and so are some fishes. The bluefin tuna “is one of the few warm-blooded fishes.” (Ellis, R., “The Bluefin in Peril,” Scientific American, Mar., 2008, p. 72); birds also have four-chambered hearts. Back

3. Ernst Mayr, in 1942, defined “species” as a reproductively isolated groups of organisms, where the isolation can be purely geographical, i.e., populations that do not interbreed are different species, even if they can interbreed. Back

4. (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). Back

5. The gibbon and the siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid, although they differ more in chromosome numbers than do humans and chimps. (Myers, 1979). Also, (Chandley, 1975). And some species that are not even in the same genus can still interbreed. (McConchie, 1994). On the other hand, some populations that include individuals with different chromosome numbers, but can still interbreed to produce fertile offspring, have been classified as the same species, e.g., Lemur fulvus. (Tattersall, 1993). Back

6. Email from Professor William H. Calvin. The common chimp and the bonobo were separated by the Congo River 2.5 mya. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 8). Back

7. An enlightening definition of “species” is: Two competing populations are different species if a genetic improvement in one of the populations would threaten the survival of the other. Suggested by Schwartz (1999, p. 254). Back

8. Darwin himself dismissed “species” as a term that is "arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience." Back

9. Humans are at the top of the list in genetic diversity, which supports the conclusion that the same classification standards are not applied to humans that are applied to other species. "Racial morphological distances within our species are, on the average, about equal to the distances among species within other genera of mammals. [Except for races created by human selection, e.g., breeds of dogs], I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours." (Sarich, 2004, p. 170). Back

10. (Bar-Heim, 2006; Kelly, 2005). And people become more racially conscious as they grow older. (MacDonald, 2006). Back

11. The egalitarians demand that all living humans must be classified as the same species, but paleoanthropologists who discover a new fossil hominoid want it classified as a different species to enhance the importance of their discovery. (Curnoe, 2003). Back

12. The author presents this idea with some trepidation because it was not previously well-received by the Church; Bruno (1591) was burned at the stake and Vanini (1619) had his tongue cut out and was strangled. Back

13. And possibly also the Bushmen. (Baker, 1974, pp. 323-324). Back

14. E.g., American physician and natural scientist Samuel George Morton, Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright, German medical geneticist Fritz Lenz, British geneticist R. Ruggles Gates, and Louis Agassiz, the founder of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Also, “The typical negroes of adult age, when tried by this rule, are proved to belong to a different species from the man of Europe or Asia, because the head and face are anatomically constructed more after the fashion of the simiadiae [apes] and the brute creation than the Caucasian and Mongolian species of mankind, their mouth and jaws projecting beyond the forehead containing the anterior lobes of the brain.” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). “[T]here is as good reason for classifying the Negro as a distinct species from Europeans as there is for making an ass a distinct species from the zebra; … there is a far greater difference between the Negro and the European than between the gorilla and chimpanzee.” (Hunt, 1865, p. 23). Back

15. (Sarich, 2004, p. 9). Humans are much more genetically diverse than dogs; the observed heterozygosity for humans is 0.7, but it is only 0.4 for dogs. (John Goodwin, “The Race FAQ”). Back

16. (Curnoe, 2003). That is, individuals in the same lineage, or branches of the same lineage (“phylogeny”) would be divided into species, genus, etc. according to a uniform standard of genetic distance. “ … a percentage threshold of common DNA can be stipulated for speciation.” (Ross, K.L.,"Human Evolution," 2006). Back

17. As discussed in the introduction to Section IV, interbreeding between lineages can reduce genetic distance so, if genetic distance is used to define species, genus, etc., it will not show actual descent unless genetic similarities due to interbreeding can be subtracted from genetic distance. Back

18. (Guillen, 2005; Jensen-Seaman, 2000). Back

19. (Curnoe, 2003). These numbers will be different when insertions/deletions are considered. (Anzai, 2003). Back

20. (Caramelli, 2003, Fig. 2; Gutiérrez, 2002, Table 3; Curnoe, 2003). Moreover, this genetic distance may actually be less because ancient Neanderthal DNA may be damaged. (Id.). “… the Neanderthal and human genomes are at least 99.5% identical …” (Noonan, 2006). Back

21. The mtDNA sequence differences between modern humans and the Neanderthal is about half of that between modern humans and modern chimpanzees. (Cooper, 1997). Back

22. Though some favor the older classification. (Harvati, 2004). Back

23. “Thus, the largest difference observed between any two human sequences was two substitutions larger than the smallest difference between a human and the Neandertal.” (Krings, 1997). Back

24. (Curnoe, 2003, Table 3). Back

25. (id, p. 214). Back

26. Although DNA from Australopithecus is not available, the differences between at least some of the many species of Australopithecus may also be less than the differences between the Africans and Eurasians. Back

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap28.html

.................................................. .................................................. .......
Europoid


Baltid

Uralid

Alpinid

Dinarid

Mediterranid

-Nordid
Hallstatt Nordid
Keltic Nordid
East Nordid
Tronder
- ETC ETC.


Cromagnid
Dalofaelids, Brünns, Borrebys, Westbaltids, Northern Alpinoids, Palaeatlantids, Berberids, Berids and other Upper Palaeolithic survivors

.................................................. ................

Congoid (Negro)

Capoid
Hottentots and Bushmen
Khoid, "Hottentot ( Taller and more robust than Sanid)
Sanid, "Bushman (Infantile)

Australoid Subraces:
Negrito (Australoid pygmies)
Veddoid (ancient Australoid race of India)
Australian (aborigines)
Papuan (Papuans, Melanesians, etc)

Mongoloid

Infantile East Asians.

Micronesian

Mixed-
Semitic (Arabs and Jews)
Turk, (I think they are called Turanide) = Europoid + Mongoloid
Many Capoid are now mixed with the Congoid.
Polynesians= Micronesians + Melanesians.
Modern Maori= Polynesian + Micronesian + Melanesian + European (Because of their low population, they lived mainly in North Island and all modern Maori have European ancestors.)
Modern American Indian= Americanoid(Mongoloid) + Europoid
Modern African American= Congoid + Europoid
Modern Mexican= Americanoid (Mongoloid) + Euro
Modern Filipino= Melanesian + Micronesian +European (Spanish heritage in some or dirty old European men)
Hawaiian people are Filipino or Japanese.
Amazon/South American people= Mongoloid and sometimes Melanesian.

Gypsy could be from India or Egypt.

Insuperable
04-16-2012, 03:19 PM
Well, this example implies their race being a product of caucassoid, mongoloid and negroid intermixture which took place on the Indian sub-continent. Yet to my knowledge, there were no negroids, to begin with, in these parts of the World, or most of Asia.
That's why I don't understand their categorization as a mixture, while mongoloids are supposed to be... pure?

Don't get me wrong, I haven't read much into this subject myself. I'm simply questioning for no other reason but to better understand.
Who knows, there might be something about Dravidians and Africans. Some might say there is an undisputable connection (http://arutkural.tripod.com/tolcampus/drav-african.htm) after all.

Whether todays notion of race has social construct and whether races are constructed by environmental factors or any other factors is irrelevant because TODAY certain people do tend to cluster with each other because of genetic variations, allele frequencies...

2Cool
04-16-2012, 03:23 PM
Whether todays notion of race has social construct and whether races are constructed by environmental factors or any other factors is irrelevant because TODAY certain people do tend to cluster with each other because of genetic variations, allele frequencies...

That has less to do with race and more with populations. It's basically the result of reproducing with your own population for a large number of generations. Are Ashkenazi Jew a race because they share certain genetic variations? What about the Amish? Tasmanians?

Insuperable
04-16-2012, 03:23 PM
ok, but why you classified indians as a mixture of 3 races? do you think only europeans are the real caucasoids? i dont get your point

I think I have already described to you what is a caucasoid in your other thread
Not all Indians are Caucasoids.

Supreme American
04-16-2012, 03:26 PM
That has less to do with race and more with populations. It's basically the result of reproducing with your own population for a large number of generations. Are Ashkenazi Jew a race because they share certain genetic variations? What about the Amish? Tasmanians?

If you have any questions about that, you can refer to the system of anthropological classifications we've been using. Rather, you seem to be trying to use your ignorance of what differentiates a race from a sub-race or ethnicity as implicit evidence that race doesn't exist to begin with.

2Cool
04-16-2012, 03:28 PM
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap28.html

.................................................. .................................................. .......
Europoid


Baltid

Uralid

Alpinid

Dinarid

Mediterranid

-Nordid
Hallstatt Nordid
Keltic Nordid
East Nordid
Tronder
- ETC ETC.


Cromagnid
Dalofaelids, Brünns, Borrebys, Westbaltids, Northern Alpinoids, Palaeatlantids, Berberids, Berids and other Upper Palaeolithic survivors

.................................................. ................

Congoid (Negro)

Capoid
Hottentots and Bushmen
Khoid, "Hottentot ( Taller and more robust than Sanid)
Sanid, "Bushman (Infantile)

Australoid Subraces:
Negrito (Australoid pygmies)
Veddoid (ancient Australoid race of India)
Australian (aborigines)
Papuan (Papuans, Melanesians, etc)

Mongoloid

Infantile East Asians.

Micronesian

Mixed-
Semitic (Arabs and Jews)
Turk, (I think they are called Turanide) = Europoid + Mongoloid
Many Capoid are now mixed with the Congoid.
Polynesians= Micronesians + Melanesians.
Modern Maori= Polynesian + Micronesian + Melanesian + European (Because of their low population, they lived mainly in North Island and all modern Maori have European ancestors.)
Modern American Indian= Americanoid(Mongoloid) + Europoid
Modern African American= Congoid + Europoid
Modern Mexican= Americanoid (Mongoloid) + Euro
Modern Filipino= Melanesian + Micronesian +European (Spanish heritage in some or dirty old European men)
Hawaiian people are Filipino or Japanese.
Amazon/South American people= Mongoloid and sometimes Melanesian.

Gypsy could be from India or Egypt.



You're going to use Erectus Walks amonsgt us as a source? lol... No reputable you give that book any value. It's in the same realm as Gavin Menzies's books. ie Pseudo-science.

2Cool
04-16-2012, 03:30 PM
If you have any questions about that, you can refer to the system of anthropological classifications we've been using. Rather, you seem to be trying to use your ignorance of what differentiates a race from a sub-race or ethnicity as implicit evidence that race doesn't exist to begin with.

Your system is based on 19th century anthropologically which was full of bias and often times used to prove white and European superiority.

Insuperable
04-16-2012, 03:33 PM
That has less to do with race and more with populations. It's basically the result of reproducing with your own population for a large number of generations. Are Ashkenazi Jew a race because they share certain genetic variations? What about the Amish? Tasmanians?

Nobody can still say anything for sure, but there are some directions towards the answer

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#section_2

SilverKnight
04-16-2012, 03:43 PM
Is not rocket science.



Def. race
Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. It's more a social contract rather then a genetic one.



So in this case, in a social term, they are, mongoloid (asians), whites (Caucasians) and negroids (Sub Saharan Africans).

I don't believe in "race", but I do believe in genetic and physical human diversity.

Science indicates that there are more genetic differences within so-called human "races" than between them.

CelticViking
04-16-2012, 03:56 PM
Caucasoids= Europeans,Turks, Ancient Persia, Iraqi,Irani,Pakistani and some Indians.

Middle East
Arabids( Semitic)= Southern Orientalid/Mongoloid
Pamirid
Nordindids
Iranids
Armenoid

India and Sri Lanka and Bengal

Nordindid
Veddoid(Australoid)
Armenoid

Sikeliot
04-16-2012, 03:57 PM
Caucasoid, Mongoloid (including Amerindians), Negroids, and Australoids.

Then you have the hybrids.. many Hispanics, Ethiopians, North Africans, South Indians etc.

Foxy
04-16-2012, 04:05 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Human_races_World_Book_Encyclopedia_2011_European_ African_Indian_Asian_Polynesian_Melanesian_Microne sian_Australian_American_Indian.png

PINK: caucasoid
YELLOW: negroid
GREEN: mongoloid
LIGHT BLUE: indid
ORANGE: australoid
GREEN-LIGHT ORANGE- VIOLET: Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian
BLUE: native American/American mongoloid

I state an error in the map btw: some South East Asians like pure Malays and Indonesians are not just mongoloid but a mix Melanesian/mongoloid, and people from Madagascar (Malgasci) are actually a mix of negroid, mongoloid and melanesian. Some Northern Africans and Ethyopians are a mix of caucasoid+negroid.

This map is more accurate and expresses also the genetic relations of the peoples:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/The_history_and_geography_of_human_genes_Luigi_Luc a_Cavalli-Sforza_map_genetic.png

StonyArabia
04-16-2012, 04:13 PM
Races don't exist in reality, but three main geographic populations were named as the following Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. The Australoid is often not included due to it being well a very small population. The races are nothing more than phenotypical variation to their geographic areas. If they were different or race exist they would and could not interbreed.

CelticViking
04-16-2012, 04:16 PM
Madagascar (Malgasci) are actually a mix of negroid, mongoloid and melanesian

The Negroid/Congoid never got to Madagascar

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.

In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”

— Charles Darwin

Sikeliot
04-16-2012, 04:17 PM
People of Madagascar are a Bantu/Malay combination. Like a Filipino mixed with a Mozambican.

finþaų
04-16-2012, 04:28 PM
Races don't exist in reality, but three main geographic populations were named as the following Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. The Australoid is often not included due to it being well a very small population. The races are nothing more than phenotypical variation to their geographic areas. If they were different or race exist they would and could not interbreed.

It is included in the very definition of race interbreeding be possible. Different species can generally not produce offspring, but there are exceptions to that.

CelticViking
04-16-2012, 04:29 PM
LpsKbyyI7iE


With new findings giving more credence to multiregional theory of human evolution--i.e. a gradualism theory that says evolution takes place over wide areas under natural selection and whenever there is a new feature that's an advantage it spreads among the species, an alternative to the homo erectus coming out of Africa with evolutionary advantages that helped it replace other species--above, science blogger Razib Khan talks to an early skeptic of the humans came "out of Africa" hypothesis, University of Michigan paleoanthropologist Milford Wolpoff. Below is a clip from Nova's "Last Human Standing" documentary, based on the "Out of Africa" theory and provides some more backstory and illustration of the homo erectus migration out of Africa to other parts of the world:
http://www.bombasticelement.org/2011/02/africa-debunking-humanity-came-out-of.html


Modern man's ancestor Homo erectus became extinct '108,000 years earlier than previously thought'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009746/Modern-mans-ancestor-Homo-erectus-extinct-108-000-years-earlier-previously-thought.html


Skull points to a more complex human evolution in Africa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363


Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution
http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html

Chimpanzee and human ancestors may have interbred
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/news060515-10.html



Africans aren’t pure humans either


Last year when discussing the possible admixture of Neandertals with the ancestors of modern non-Africans I joked that Sub-Saharan Africans were “pure humans.” This was tongue-in-cheek in part because the results from the Neandertal genome shifted my assessment of the probability of archaic admixture within Africa as well. In other words, there may never have been a pure “human” type which expanded and assimilated archaic ancestry on the margins of its range. Species Platonism may be very misleading for our particular lineage. Rather, what it means to be human has always been in flux, a compromise between extremely different ancestral components.


For years some groups of researchers have been arguing that there is population structure within Africa itself which hints at admixture events before (or after?) the “Out of Africa” event. Genome blogger Dienekes Pontikos has been discussing this possibility for several years as well. With the possibility of archaic admixture outside of Africa it was inevitable that people would revisit their earlier exploration of ancient African admixture and the modern patterns of variation which that might explain. Finally one of the groups working on this has come out with something in PNAS, Genetic Evidence for Archaic Admixture in Africa. Unfortunately it’s not on the website, and I’m not privy to the embargoed copy, so I can’t say much. ScienceDaily and Nature have lengthy write-ups. The details are pretty straightforward. The authors infer using computational methods that there is a 1-2% admixture in Africans of a population which diverged from the mainline of the human ancestral tree ~700,000 years ago. The hybridization occurred on the order of ~40,000 years before the present. The proportions are highest in Central Africans. I assume that this means Pygmies. And I would further bet that the admixture is highest in the Eastern Pygmy populations, such as the Mbuti. The lead author also cautions that this may not be the last word on admixture. No doubt. There are other groups breathing down his neck.

If this is true then a assimilation model of the expansion of H. sapiens sapiens looks more and more plausible. The time period of admixture is pretty much what other scholars are estimating for Neandertals, and presumably Denisovans. I’m not smart enough to figure out how this could be a statistical artifact, but perhaps that explains the congruence? Otherwise, if this is true then you had several repeated events of expansion of one particular lineage (what I term “Neo-Africans”) which demographically swamped the indigenous populations, but still retained a faint, but discernible stamp of their distinctive genetic content. But this may not be exceptional. It may have happened before the emergence of Neo-Africans, and I believe it happened after them (e.g., the rise of agriculturalists). It’s possibly one instance of a rather banal dynamic in the evolution of Homo.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/09/africans-arent-pure-humans-either/


Expansion of modern humans out of Africa and within Africa. Mellars (2006).

When we discuss the origins of modern humans, the term ‘Out of Africa’ is a bit misleading. Our common ancestors came not from Africa as a whole but from a relatively small area somewhere in East Africa. Beginning around 80,000 years ago, this area was the scene of several population expansions that culminated in a ‘big bang’ c. 60,000 BP (Watson et al., 1997). This was a sustained expansion that pushed out of Africa and into Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas.

These modern humans spread at the expense of more archaic ‘hominins’: Neanderthals in Europe and West Asia, and other poorly known groups elsewhere. But the latter were not totally replaced, as seen in the 1 to 4% Neanderthal admixture of present-day Europeans, East Asians, and Papuans. This has led some people to quip that only Africans are pure Homo sapiens:


Better yet, and a blow to Caucasian and Asian racists, the comparison of the human and Neanderthal genome makes it clear that it is only Africans who are 100 percent Homo sapiens, while in European (including American and Australian settlers) and Asian populations one can find up to 4 percent DNA stemming from the archaic and often maligned Neanderthal species - a hominid that went extinct more than 20,000 years ago. (Camphausen, 2010)


Well, no. Sub-Saharan Africans actually have more archaic admixture. The difference is that it came not from Neanderthals but from archaic groups within Africa. About 13% of the sub-Saharan gene pool comes from an earlier expansion of pre-modern hominins that occurred c. 111,000 years ago and seems to correspond to the entry of Skhul-Qafzeh hominins into the Middle East (Watson et al., 1997). This higher level of admixture may have come about because archaic Africans were behaviorally and physically closer to modern humans than the Neanderthals were.

Nonetheless, these ‘Paleoafricans’ were clearly archaic. They lacked something that modern humans had. What was this disadvantage that ultimately removed them from the struggle for existence? The answer is much debated, but most authors posit a limited capacity for symbolic thinking and social organization:


[…] the African exodus was predated by a cultural revolution involving new stone blade technologies, skin working tools, ornaments and imported red ochre […] More advanced symbolic systems in language and religious beliefs could have provided a competitive advantage to a group by promoting coordination and cohesion. (Atkinson et al., 2009)


Thus, when we discuss human origins, the real split was not between Africans and non-Africans but rather between two groups of Africans: archaics and moderns. Dienekes (2005) uses the terms ‘Paleoafricans’ and ‘Afrasians’:



It is common to distinguish between Africans and non-Africans, with the former being much more genetically diverse than the latter. But, the real "gap" in human origins seems to be between the really old Africans ("Paleoafricans") and the rest ("Afrasians").


The Paleoafrican element is entirely confined to Africa, while the Afrasian one is found in both Africa and Eurasia. Indeed, modern humans can be entirely split into two groups: (i) a group of "pure" Afrasians which includes all non-Africans, and (ii) a group of Afrasian-Paleoafricans which includes all non-Caucasoid Africans. Human groups of entirely Paleoafrican origin, unhybridized with the younger Afrasians are no longer in existence.


All of this leads to an intriguing conclusion. Since present-day sub-Saharan Africans were used as a benchmark to estimate Neanderthal admixture in present-day Eurasians, and since Paleoafrican gene sequences should be less ‘derived’ and more similar to Neanderthal gene sequences, Neanderthal admixture in present-day Eurasians is probably a bit higher than the estimated 1 to 4%.

References

Atkinson, Q.D., R.D. Gray, and A.J. Drummond. (2009). Bayesian coalescent inference of major human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup expansions in Africa, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 367–373

Camphausen, R.C. (2010). Evidence for interbreeding with Neanderthals, only Africans pure, Digital Journal, May 10, 2010,
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291798

Dienekes. (2005). The mitochondrial time depth of humanity, Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog, May 14, 2005.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/05/mitochondrial-time-depth-of-humanity.html

Mellars, P. (2006). Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 103, 9381-9386.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/25/9381.abstract

Watson, E., P. Forster, M. Richards, and H-J. Bandelt. (1997). Mitochondrial footprints of human expansions in Africa, American Journal of Human Genetics, 61, 691-704.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.nz/2010/05/archaic-admixture-in-africans.html



Sub-Saharan Africans have an unusual complex of dental features:


[…] compared to other world populations, Africans south of the Sahara Desert are distinct dentally — especially in their expression of nine high- and two low-frequency morphological features. This suite of traits was termed the “Sub-Saharan African Dental Complex” (SSADC); it includes the world’s highest occurrences of Bushman canine, two-rooted UP1, UM1 Carabelli’s trait, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y-groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tom’s root, two-rooted LM2, and UM3 presence, and among the lowest occurrences of UI1 double shoveling and UM1 enamel extension. (Irish, 2011)


The two low-frequency traits appear to be “derived.” They seem to have developed in sub-Saharan Africa after modern humans began to spread to other continents. The other traits, however, are ancestral:




[…] the same nine high-frequency traits are also ubiquitous in the dentitions of extinct hominids and many extinct and extant non-human primates


[…] The presence and, indeed, prevalence (see next section), of high-frequency Sub-Saharan dental traits in fossil and recent hominoids—some of which are probably direct ancestors of modern humans, suggests they have been around for a long time. (Irish, 1998, pp. 87-88)

In addition to these traits, Irish (1998) mentions a low-frequency trait that seems likewise ancestral and specific to sub-Saharan Africans:


A final ancestral feature found with some regularity in Sub-Saharan Africans, relative to other modern groups, is polydontia. Numerous cases of extra incisors, third premolars, and fourth molars have been noted […] In one study (Watters, 1962) the incidence reached 2.5-3% in several hundred west Africans; many of the extra teeth were fully formed and erupted. “Typical” mammals exhibit three incisors and four premolars (Jordan et al., 1992). Polydontia is also found in living non-human primates […] (Irish, 1998, p. 88)

Why are these ancestral traits much more common in sub-Saharan Africans than in other humans? There are several possible reasons. One is that non-Africans began as a small founder group and thus lost much of the dental variability that still characterizes Africans. Another reason might be that natural selection favored new forms of dentition outside Africa, perhaps as a response to new food sources or new ways of preparing food.

But there’s a third possible reason: archaic admixture. Just as modern humans mixed to some extent with Neanderthals in Europe and Denisovans in Asia, perhaps there was also mixture with archaic hominins in Africa, and perhaps this admixture introduced archaic dental features into present-day Africans.

But how could present-day Africans have archaic admixture? If modern humans originated in Africa, wouldn’t they have encountered archaic humans only in Europe and Asia?

Well, at first, modern humans did not occupy all of Africa. They were initially a small population somewhere in East Africa. Then, around 80,000 years ago, this population began to expand northward and eventually into Eurasia (Watson et al., 1997). Meanwhile, the same expansion was taking modern humans westward and southward into other parts of Africa.

Just whom exactly did these modern humans encounter during their expansion within Africa? Initially, they probably met hominins who looked the same but still lacked some of the mental rewiring that gave modern humans a competitive edge. These “almost-moderns” account for about 13% of the current sub-Saharan gene pool and may have been related to the Skhul-Qafzeh hominins who occupied the Middle East 120,000 to 80,000 years ago (Watson et al., 1997).

As modern humans spread further west and south within Africa, they encountered much more archaic hominins, and perhaps even lingering Homo erectus groups. About 2% of the modern African genome comes from an archaic population that split from ancestral modern humans some 700,000 years ago. This admixture is dated to about 35,000 years ago and may have occurred in Central Africa, since the level of admixture is highest in pygmy groups from that region (Hammer et al., 2011).

A more tangible sign of admixture is visible in a skull retrieved from the Iwo Eleru rock shelter, in southwestern Nigeria, and dated to approximately 16,300 BP:


Our analysis indicates that Iwo Eleru possesses neurocranial morphology intermediate in shape between archaic hominins (Neanderthals and Homo erectus) and modern humans. This morphology is outside the range of modern human variability in the PCA and CVA analyses, and is most similar to that shown by LPA individuals from Africa and the early anatomically modern specimens from Skhul and Qafzeh.

[… ] the transition to anatomical modernity in Africa was more complicated than previously thought, with late survival of “archaic” features and possibly deep population substructure in Africa during this time. (Harvati et al., 2011)


Then there is the Broken Hill skull, found near Kabwe, Zambia and dated to 110,000 BP (Bada et al., 1974). It looks for all the world like a Homo erectus. Textbooks generally try to raise it to Homo sapiens status or argue for an earlier dating. Recently, a late dating has been confirmed by Stringer (2011).

Interestingly, when Irish (2011) compared dentitions from west, central, east, and south Africa, ranging in age from the late Pleistocene to the mid-1950s, the early Holocene Kenyans and Tanzanians were the sample that had the fewest ancestral traits of the Sub-Saharan African Dental Complex (SSADC). In other words, the SSADC seems to have been least present in the “homeland” of modern humans (East Africa) and more present farther west and south.

Given the high level of archaic admixture in sub-Saharan Africans, we may have to revise downwards the estimate of 1 to 4% Neanderthal admixture in Eurasians. Yes, Eurasians are closer than sub-Saharan Africans to the Neanderthal genome. But is this discrepancy solely due to Neanderthal admixture in Eurasians? Could it also be due to Sub-Saharan Africans becoming further removed from the Neanderthal genome through admixture with other archaic groups?

The past may be a stranger country than previously thought. When farming villages began to form in the Middle East, there may still have been archaic hominins roaming over parts of western and southern Africa.

References

Bada, J.L., R.A. Schroeder, R. Protsch, & R. Berger. (1974). Concordance of Collagen-Based Radiocarbon and Aspartic-Acid Racemization Ages, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 71, 914-917.

Hammer, M.F., A.E. Woerner, F.L. Mendez, J.C. Watkins, and J.D. Wall. (2011). Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA), 108, 15123-15128, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1109300108

Irish, J.D. (2011). Afridonty: the “Sub-Saharan African Dental Complex” revisited, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 144(supp. 52), 174

Irish, J.D. (1998). Ancestral dental traits in recent Sub-Saharan Africans and the origins of modern humans, Journal of Human Evolution, 34, 81-98.

Harvati, K., C. Stringer, R. Grün, M. Aubert, P. Allsworth-Jones, C.A. Folorunso. (2011). The Later Stone Age Calvaria from Iwo Eleru, Nigeria: Morphology and Chronology. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24024. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024024
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024024

Stringer, C. (2011). The chronological and evolutionary position of the Broken Hill cranium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 144(supp. 52), 287

Watson, E., P. Forster, M. Richards, and H-J. Bandelt. (1997). Mitochondrial footprints of human expansions in Africa, American Journal of Human Genetics, 61, 691-704.

http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/sub-saharan-african-dental-complex.html

CelticViking
04-16-2012, 04:39 PM
People of Madagascar are a Bantu/Malay combination. .

The Bantu are Capoid.


Like a Filipino mixed with a Mozambican

There were Melanesians there too

Modern Filipino= Melanesian + Micronesian +European (Spanish heritage in some or dirty old European men)

Filipino:

The people today form many ethnicities, but are all descended from and belong to the Micronesian culture. The Micronesian culture was one of the last native cultures of the region to develop. It developed from a mixture of Melanesians, Polynesians, and Filipinos. Because of this mixture of descent, many of the ethnicities of Micronesia feel closer to some groups in Melanesia, Polynesia or the Philippines. A good example of this are the Yapese who are related to Austronesian tribes in the Northern Philippines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronesia


At about 2000 BC speakers of Austronesian languages began spreading from Taiwan into Island Southeast Asia.[8][9][10] Their speech of the time was not clearly related to Chinese speech of the time and Chinese speakers were all further north on the mainland at the turn of the second and third millennia BC. Taiwan was only later Sinicized via large-scale immigration accompanied by much assimilation of the Austronesian speaking indigenous people during the 17th century AD.

There are three theories regarding the spread of humans across the Pacific to Polynesia. These are outlined well by Kayser et al. (2000)[11] and are as follows:
Express Train model: A recent (c. 2,000 BC) expansion out of Taiwan, via the Philippines and eastern Indonesia and from the northwest ("Bird's Head") of New Guinea, on to Island Melanesia by roughly 1,400 BC years ago, reaching western Polynesian islands right about 900 BC. This theory is supported by the majority of current human genetic data, linguistic data, and archaeological data.[citation needed]
Entangled Bank model: Emphasizes the long history of Austronesian speakers' cultural and genetic interactions with indigenous Island Southeast Asians and Melanesians along the way to becoming the first Polynesians.[citation needed]
Slow Boat model: Similar to the express-train model but with a longer hiatus in Melanesia along with admixture, both genetically, culturally and linguistically with the local population. This is supported by the Y-chromosome data of Kayser et al. (2000), which shows that all three haplotypes of Polynesian Y chromosomes can be traced back to Melanesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia


The Negritos and Melanesians were in the Philippines too.

Albion
04-16-2012, 09:37 PM
To my knowledge, one.

Don't be ridiculous. There's one species, races are sub-species in effect.


Subspecies (commonly abbreviated subsp. or ssp.) in biological classification is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank (plural: subspecies). A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one. (However, all but one subspecies may be extinct, as in Homo sapiens sapiens.)
Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species, but more distinct than the differences between breeds or races (races can be assigned to different subspecies if taxonomically different). The characteristics attributed to subspecies generally have evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation.

I'd say human races are an example of various sub-species. They may be different species capable of interbreeding if the multi-regional hypothesis can be proved right. If they diverged from a common ancestor though, then they are sub-species.

Comte Arnau
04-16-2012, 09:49 PM
whats that? can you explain it in short. thanks

In short? That I agree with those charts on genetic distance in which the boundary seems to consistently determine five human macroclusters or 'races':


Subsaharans
Sahulians*
Austronesians
Asians&Americans
Caucasians


*I prefer this term to Australasians or Australo-Papuans.

Iroczor
04-16-2012, 09:54 PM
Only 4 IMO, Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid

CelticViking
04-17-2012, 04:51 AM
Only 4 IMO, Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid

Capoids are not Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid or Australoid.

Capricornus
04-17-2012, 05:12 AM
I would say that capoids are Negroid-Mongoloid mixed, as well as uraloid are Europioid-Mongoloid mixed. I don't think that they will be separate races.I think it is necessary to allocate 4 biggest races: the Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, Europoid

Stefan
04-17-2012, 05:19 AM
I have already described why the human species is polytypic and not monotypic in countless posts. I won't do it again. For those who deny the existance of race, please take in regard that the question applies to biological subsets of the human population, for that matter it isn't a social construct and certainly in accordance with our understanding of evolution and genetics. I will argue that humanity is far less polytypic the more specialized you get. So the sub-races are certainly far more mixed than the the standard races. This only makes sense logically, to those who understand how populations work. I don't believe Modern Europe is polytipic due to extensive mixtures, but it was in its past, for example.

As for the number of races. That is a matter only revealed by analyzing the sum of the distinctions through a taxonomical method. This could be due to analogous traits or more concrete molecular biological data, such as genetic deviations. We can't even consistently classify the number of kingdoms of life, how are we to categorize humanity, a far more specialized group? In the end it is a fluid procedure with constant improvement as we learn more and more.

Yaroslav
04-17-2012, 05:24 AM
Caucasian
-Germanic
-Slavic
-Latin
-Semitic
-Kushitic
-Iranian
-Indian
-Kavkaz
Congoid
-West Africans
Capoid
-East Africans
Mongoloid
-East Asians
-Amerindians
-Turanians
Australoid
-Aborigenes
-Dravidians

CelticViking
04-17-2012, 05:33 AM
I would say that capoids are Negroid-Mongoloid mixed, as well as uraloid are Europioid-Mongoloid mixed. I don't think that they will be separate races.I think it is necessary to allocate 4 biggest races: the Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, Europoid

Capoids and Mongoloid are different.
If a modern day Congoid and Mongoloid mix, they don't look like Capoids.

Guapo
04-17-2012, 05:41 AM
One race, the white race. Rest are sub-humans.

Siberyak
04-17-2012, 05:44 AM
One race, the white race. Rest are sub-humans.

if your not white then you are mud race.

Capricornus
04-17-2012, 05:46 AM
old nice racism ;)

Siberyak
04-17-2012, 05:47 AM
old nice racism ;)

Slava rossiya !

Stars Down To Earth
04-17-2012, 06:01 AM
To my knowledge, one.
There's a certain difference between a species and a race, Anders. Species are further divided into distinct biological units, with obvious differences in their genetic make-up. They can be called "races" or "subspecies" or whatever.

No wonder your mental diarrhea was thanked by CircassianWine and that crew. When you're already hopelessly race-mixed, I suppose that "There be only 1 race, da yooman race!!!" is the most comfortable ideology. ;)


Caucasian
-Germanic
-Slavic
-Latin
-Semitic
-Kushitic
-Iranian
-Indian
Learn the difference between races and language groups.

Foxy
04-17-2012, 08:33 AM
People of Madagascar are a Bantu/Malay combination. Like a Filipino mixed with a Mozambican.

Yes indeed, Malgasci are exactly a mix of Malays (Austronesians) + Bantu (negroids). So a mix of this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Langues-autronesiennes.png/200px-Langues-autronesiennes.png

+ this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Bantu_expansion.png/200px-Bantu_expansion.png

http://www.voglioviverecosi.com/public/vvc/UserFiles/Image/MADA%20ANTA%20GGG.jpg


Only 4 IMO, Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid

I don't agree. Indids are nor negroid nor caucasoid, and Austronesians are nor mongoloid nor australoid.

http://www.solomontimes.com/news/images/Fiji%20Wins%20Miss%20South%20Pacific%202011_1_250s .jpg

I still think there are:
-caucasoid
-negroid
-mongoloid (if we want to reduce the number of races we can put native Americans under this).
-austronesians
-australoid
-indid

But the races are 6 at least.

Comte Arnau
04-17-2012, 11:08 AM
I still think there are:
-caucasoid
-negroid
-mongoloid (if we want to reduce the number of races we can put native Americans under this).
-austronesians
-australoid
-indid

But the races are 6 at least.

I agree with that division, except for the Indid category. If we separate Indids from the Caucasoids, then we should separate too:

· within the Negroid group: the San, Pygmies and Ethiopes should be seen as different races from the Negroids
· within the Mongoloid group: Amerinds from Asian Mongoloids but also, within the Asian Mongoloid group, Arctic Mongoloids from East Asian Mongoloids
· within the Austronesian group: SE Asians from the Pacific Islanders ("Nesians")
· within the Australoid group: Papuans from Australians

So that would imply 13 races in total.

The classifying problem in India is that it is one of the most mixed places in the world in terms of both racial groups and time.

Foxy
04-17-2012, 11:34 AM
I agree with that division, except for the Indid category. If we separate Indids from the Caucasoids, then we should separate too:

· within the Negroid group: the San, Pygmies and Ethiopes should be seen as different races from the Negroids
· within the Mongoloid group: Amerinds from Asian Mongoloids but also, within the Asian Mongoloid group, Arctic Mongoloids from East Asian Mongoloids
· within the Austronesian group: SE Asians from the Pacific Islanders ("Nesians")
· within the Australoid group: Papuans from Australians

So that would imply 13 races in total.

The classifying problem in India is that it is one of the most mixed places in the world in terms of both racial groups and time.

Indians are not caucasian, Dravidians are an own race. Also if we want to reduce the races to just 4 (caucasian, negroid, mongoloid and australoid) Dravidians stand out or are grouped with australoids, but in my opinion it would be more correct to consider them an own race.


Nevertheless, Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid and Mongoloid (concentrated in the north), Australoid (concentrated in the south), and Negrito (located in the Andaman Islands).[18][19] Dravidians are generally classified as members of the Proto-Australoid or Australoid race.

Comte Arnau
04-17-2012, 11:47 AM
Indians are not caucasian, Dravidians are an own race. Also if we want to reduce the races to just 4 (caucasian, negroid, mongoloid and australoid) Dravidians stand out or are grouped with australoids, but in my opinion it would be more correct to consider them an own race.

Fine. But as I said, if we consider Dravidians a race of their own, then we can't limit them to only six, as there are several other races of their own too.

iNird
04-17-2012, 12:05 PM
See Signature

/thread

Foxy
04-17-2012, 12:05 PM
I made a search. What I found out is this division with their own subdivisions:

1. MONGOLOID RACE
-south Chinese (central and southern China)
-classic mongoloid (Mongolia, Korea, Siberia)
-Japanese
-South-East Asians (South-East China, Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar, Viet Nam)
-Indonesian (Indonesia, Malaysia)
-Tibetan (Tibet, Bhuman)
-Ainu (aborigins of Japan)
-Turkic (Western China, Tatars, Khazakistan, Kyrgygistan, Turkmenistan)
-Pacific Amerind (West Canada, Eastern Alaska, North-West USA)
-Silvid Amerind
-Margid Amerind
-Central Amerind
-Amazonians
-Andid
-Inuit

Here (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Guide-to-Human-Types-part-1-32046017) each physical characterists.

2. CAUCASOID RACE:
-Saami (Arctic Scandinavia, Finland)
-Nordic
-British Islander
-Baltic
-Slavic
-Alpine
-Euro-mediterranean
-Greek
-Armenian
-Levantine
-Arab
-Mesopotamian
-Berber
-Egyptian
-Tuareg
-Irano-Afghan
-Rom
-North Indian
-South Indian (I disagree btw)
-Vedda (like before)

Here (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Guide-to-Human-Types-part-2-33220929) each characterist.

3. Negroid
-Ethyopid
-Nilotid
-Sudanid
-Central African
-Khoisan
-Pigmy
-Bantu

(VI. Pacific types)
-Australian
-Melanesian
-Polynesian
-Negrito

Here (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Guide-to-Human-Types-part-3-34877428) their characterists.

Catalogue (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Catalogue-of-Human-Features-33097648) of human characterists.

Foxy
04-17-2012, 12:13 PM
I also want to state that according to that classification site almond eyes are quite common in the Euro-mediterranean group (and consequently in Southern American Latinos) and in Lebaneses, and give a very feminine look to the face, but they are not common in Greeks, Armenians and Arabs.

Comte Arnau
04-17-2012, 01:05 PM
I said 13 races... It should be 16, if we separate Dravidians.

I mark with a red line the 0,05 distance in order to separate Dravidians.

http://oi44.tinypic.com/302zar6.jpg

That means, 16 races:

- Australian race
- Papuan race
- Western Nesian race
- Polynesian race
- SE Asian race
- Nadenian race
- Amerind race
- Arctic race
- Siberian race
- E Asian race
- Caucasian race
- Dravidian race
- Ethiopian race
- East Subsaharian race
- West Subsaharian race
- Pygmy race

Aramis
04-17-2012, 01:44 PM
That means, 16 races:

- Australian race
- Papuan race
- Western Nesian race
- Polynesian race
- SE Asian race
- Nadenian race
- Amerind race
- Arctic race
- Siberian race
- E Asian race
- Caucasian race
- Dravidian race
- Ethiopian race
- East Subsaharian race
- West Subsaharian race
- Pygmy race

You forgot about the American race.

http://i.imgur.com/8a332.jpg


And a novelty, the Postmodern race:

http://www.tribal-celtic-tattoo.com/images/labels/freek2.jpg

http://talkingmakeup.com/pics/news/ru1n.jpg

Übermensch
04-17-2012, 05:46 PM
Id' say:

Caucasoid (including special types such as lappid)

Mongoloid (including indianid)

australoid (including veddidid and negritid)

congoidi (including pigmoid)

Capoid

Negritid can be considered a race for their own but i prefer to take them in the australoid macro-family.

2Cool
04-17-2012, 06:02 PM
I made a search. What I found out is this division with their own subdivisions:

1. MONGOLOID RACE
-south Chinese (central and southern China)
-classic mongoloid (Mongolia, Korea, Siberia)
-Japanese
-South-East Asians (South-East China, Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar, Viet Nam)
-Indonesian (Indonesia, Malaysia)
-Tibetan (Tibet, Bhuman)
-Ainu (aborigins of Japan)
-Turkic (Western China, Tatars, Khazakistan, Kyrgygistan, Turkmenistan)
-Pacific Amerind (West Canada, Eastern Alaska, North-West USA)
-Silvid Amerind
-Margid Amerind
-Central Amerind
-Amazonians
-Andid
-Inuit

Here (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Guide-to-Human-Types-part-1-32046017) each physical characterists.

2. CAUCASOID RACE:
-Saami (Arctic Scandinavia, Finland)
-Nordic
-British Islander
-Baltic
-Slavic
-Alpine
-Euro-mediterranean
-Greek
-Armenian
-Levantine
-Arab
-Mesopotamian
-Berber
-Egyptian
-Tuareg
-Irano-Afghan
-Rom
-North Indian
-South Indian (I disagree btw)
-Vedda (like before)

Here (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Guide-to-Human-Types-part-2-33220929) each characterist.

3. Negroid
-Ethyopid
-Nilotid
-Sudanid
-Central African
-Khoisan
-Pigmy
-Bantu

(VI. Pacific types)
-Australian
-Melanesian
-Polynesian
-Negrito

Here (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Guide-to-Human-Types-part-3-34877428) their characterists.

Catalogue (http://cedarseed.deviantart.com/art/Catalogue-of-Human-Features-33097648) of human characterists.

You are lumping a lot of "sub-races" that have nothing to do with each other. Like Bantu with Pigmy and Khoisan. Polynesian with Negrito. Turkic with Inuit, Saami with Arab or North Indian Nordic etc. Some also don't make sense, like Egyptian and Greek.

Peter Nirsch
04-17-2012, 06:13 PM
White, yellow, red, coloured, mulattoes and niggers.

Comte Arnau
04-17-2012, 06:21 PM
You are lumping a lot of "sub-races" that have nothing to do with each other. Like Bantu with Pigmy and Khoisan. Polynesian with Negrito. Turkic with Inuit, Saami with Arab or North Indian Nordic etc. Some also don't make sense, like Egyptian and Greek.

Apparently the Khoisan and the Bantu aren't that far, genetically speaking. That also came as a surprise to me. I wonder if it's a sort of geographical convergence.

Mortimer
04-17-2012, 06:29 PM
I said 13 races... It should be 16, if we separate Dravidians.

I mark with a red line the 0,05 distance in order to separate Dravidians.

http://oi44.tinypic.com/302zar6.jpg

That means, 16 races:

- Australian race
- Papuan race
- Western Nesian race
- Polynesian race
- SE Asian race
- Nadenian race
- Amerind race
- Arctic race
- Siberian race
- E Asian race
- Caucasian race
- Dravidian race
- Ethiopian race
- East Subsaharian race
- West Subsaharian race
- Pygmy race

Are the Southeast Indians the Dravidians? And the Indians among the Caucasians?

Aviane
04-17-2012, 07:17 PM
European
Middle Eastern
Sub-Saharan African
East Asian
Indian
Australoid
Polynesian
Native American

Sikeliot
04-18-2012, 05:10 PM
Are the Southeast Indians the Dravidians? And the Indians among the Caucasians?

Pure Dravidians would be Australoid in race.

Thunor
04-18-2012, 05:13 PM
This thread is so obviously a cry for attention from the parasite Inquiring Mind, and his latest attempt to be classed as the same "race" as white people.

Unsubscribed.

Sikeliot
04-18-2012, 05:15 PM
He is the same race as white people. But is he white? Of course not. Not all Caucasoids are white.

Vasconcelos
04-18-2012, 05:17 PM
Not the "white" label again..

Sikeliot
04-18-2012, 11:41 PM
I wish people realized and understood that all whites are Caucasoid, but not all Caucasoids are white. It's an easy concept to grasp.

Aviane
04-19-2012, 11:42 AM
Caucasoids/Caucasian can range from looking European, North African(Maghrebi, Algerian, Tunisian and Egyptian), Middle Eastern and Indian.

Mortimer
04-19-2012, 02:18 PM
He is the same race as white people. But is he white? Of course not. Not all Caucasoids are white.

Why do you only exclude southasians as white but include middle easterners, in the thread where we voted who is white you voted iranians to be white. Either all caucasoids or white or only Europeans?

Sikeliot
04-19-2012, 03:42 PM
Why do you only exclude southasians as white but include middle easterners, in the thread where we voted who is white you voted iranians to be white. Either all caucasoids or white or only Europeans?

South Asians look nothing like Europeans. West Asians often do.

Mortimer
04-19-2012, 03:42 PM
South Asians look nothing like Europeans. West Asians often do.

Thats a generalisation and not true, there are southasians who resemble europeans more than some west asians.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 03:50 PM
Thats a generalisation and not true, there are southasians who resemble europeans more than some west asians.

May I ask you why you are doing a Nazi salute in your avatar? You are aware that the Nazis put gypsies in the concentration camps too right?

Mortimer
04-19-2012, 03:51 PM
May I ask you why you are doing a Nazi salute in your avatar? You are aware that the Nazis put gypsies in the concentration camps too right?

yes im aware of it and dont approve of it. im just posing.

Comte Arnau
04-19-2012, 06:48 PM
Are the Southeast Indians the Dravidians? And the Indians among the Caucasians?

I guess so.


I wish people realized and understood that all whites are Caucasoid, but not all Caucasoids are white. It's an easy concept to grasp.

White is a social construct, while Caucasoid could be regarded as a valid genetic cluster. Definite boundaries are going to be always arbitrary.