Do human races exist, or ever existed in the past?

When I run Classical Clustering of populations from my Basic World K10 Global25 calculator using PAST5 software:

https://www.exploreyourdna.com/calcu...apuscinski.htm

https://www.nhm.uio.no/english/research/resources/past/

I can't help but notice that all of the major clusters which emerged correspond quite well to old racial classifications:

https://i.imgur.com/kt5USfC.png

https://i.imgur.com/kt5USfC.png

At first, not surprisingly, the algorithm divided populations into Africans and all Non-Africans.

1. Secondly Africans were divided into South Africans and all other Africans.
2. Thirdly all other Africans were divided into Central Africans and others.
3. Then other Africans were divided into West Africans and North-East Africans.

In old racial classifications, these divisions correspond to Capoids (South Africans), Bambutids (Central Africans) and Negroids (West Africans and apparently also North-East Africans, but only these without much of West Eurasian admixture, such as the modern Dinka or ancient East African foragers from Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia).

=====

Non-Africans were divided by the clustering algorithm initially into two groups:

1. Sahulians (inhabitants of the old continent of Sahul) and all other Non-Africans.
2. Then other Non-Africans were divided into West Eurasians and all other Eurasians.
3. Then all other Eurasians were divided into East and South Eurasians and Native Americans.
4. Then the former group was divided into East Eurasians (or East Asians) and South Eurasians.

In old racial classifications, these divisions correspond to Australoids (Sahulians), Caucasoids (West Eurasians), Veddoids & Negritoids (South Eurasians), Mongoloids (East Eurasians) and Amerinds (Amerindians, who descended from Beringians). Veddoids refers to these South Asians who don't have much of West Eurasian admixture.

=====

Map of original distribution of each cluster:

https://i.imgur.com/ZnJcEI2.png

=====

What do you think about this? Are there any publications which seriously deal with this subject?

What you call West Eurasian has also Basal Eurasian admixture.

East Africans and Indians were considered Caucasoid but their West Eurasian admixture significantly lower than Europeans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opie

East Africans and Indians were considered Caucasoid

---

Not really.

Indians without much of Caucasoid admixture (such as various Dravidian tribes) were considered Veddoids.

East African foragers such as the Hadza or tribes such as the Dinka were also never considered Caucasoid.

Of course there are many groups in India and in the Horn of Africa with significant Caucasoid admixture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

Not really.

Indians without much of Caucasoid admixture (such as various Dravidian tribes) were considered Veddoids.

East African foragers such as the Hadza or tribes such as the Dinka were also never considered Caucasoid.

---

Yes, South Indians were considered Veddoid but North Indians’ West Eurasian admixture is still significantly lower than Europeans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opie

Yes, South Indians were considered Veddoid but North Indians’ West Eurasian admixture is still significantly lower than Europeans.

---

Yes North Indians are mixed-race people, just like Somalis or Sudanese Arabs:

https://www.razib.com/wordpress/2017...tin-americans/

Only some tribes in India today are close to 100% AASI in terms of ancestry.

=====

For example Nihali and Paniya are on average over 80% AASI. And some individuals are more.

What does race mean? Is there a widely accepted definition? The question seems philosophical.

As far as I know, race is not a frequently used term in biology. "Sub-species" is more often used eg.

Whether race exists or not, does not really matter. Even if it does not exist, the inherent differences between different human populations remain.

Genetic clusters exist
Phenotypical differences exist
The two correlate and overlap but not hundred percent the same

Human genetic clusters are not clinical but gradual though

Humans have probably all the same ultimate origin
Throughout the centuries there were migration movements invasions and genocides leading to human populations diversity we have now it was a gradual process not static and eternal

The social perception plays a role too like a mullato can be biracial or black but not white

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scandal

Whether race exists or not, does not really matter. Even if it does not exist, the inherent differences between different human populations remain.

---

This and a social factor plays a role

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

For example Nihali and Paniya are on average over 80% AASI. And some individuals are more.

---

Run roma on your cluster please and tell me where they are on the PCA please thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scandal

What does race mean?

---

I found such definition (page 38):

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...aneous_Utility

"Races are organismic groups which differentiated from one another as a result of historic patterns of filiation; they are groups, which due to histories of sufficient linebreeding, form intraspecific natural divisions, ones which can be identified based on the correlations between the organisms' inherited characters."

Maybe this book has a better one:

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont...Baker-Race.pdf

How did Anthropologists classify Madagascar natives?

They are a mix of SSA and East Eurasian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opie

How did Anthropologists classify Madagascar natives?

They are a mix of SSA and East Eurasian.

---

Good question, maybe user Lucas knows. This is his website:

https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Run roma on your cluster please and tell me where they are on the PCA please thanks

---

Balkan Roma average on Illustrative scores 17% AASI

Target: Roma_Balkans
Distance: 0.8023% / 0.00802278 | R3P
50.6 Greek_Izmir
32.2 Piramalai_Kallar_Tamil_Nadu
17.2 Turkish_Southern_Bulgaria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majevica

Balkan Roma average on Illustrative scores 17% AASI

Target: Roma_Balkans
Distance: 0.8023% / 0.00802278 | R3P
50.6 Greek_Izmir
32.2 Piramalai_Kallar_Tamil_Nadu
17.2 Turkish_Southern_Bulgaria

---

I know but im curious about the clustering genetic distances thats another type of DNA testing i think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mortimer

I know but im curious about the clustering genetic distances thats another type of DNA testing i think

---

Yes, lower AASI than any Indian means they will be clustered into Caucasoids/West Eurasians

0.000Roma (Balkans)
5.833Parsi (India)
5.837Parsi (Pakistan)
5.945Persian (Khorasan)
7.181Yaghnobi
7.513Turkish (Adana)
7.583Persian (Yazd)
7.612Azerbaijani (Tabriz)
7.632Turkish (Antalya)
7.656Turkish (Balikesir)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Human genetic clusters are not clinical but gradual though

---

Colours are also gradual but you don't say that red and yellow don't exist just because there is orange in-between.

In my opinion,
Race is mostly it in order of importance= Phenotype>Mentality>Genetics.
Average people, except experts on pedigree, will consider a dog that looks mostly like a Pit bull as a Pit bull, not a mongrel.
Same could happens with humans.
The concept of race in humans originated way before genetics.
Of course that could be considered as the "genetic fallacy"( no pun intended) but that is a strong argument because even now with our knowledge on genetics, many people still accept races and use phenotypes like here on this forum even though now phenotype is way less important than before.
Nazis are considered as epitome of racialists and they didn't used genetics like we use today.
They even had the concept of "honorary Arians".
It is also clear that some races have higher IQs and different personalities.
IMHO, someone who is only 50% white but have mostly northern European like features and have high IQ as well as a white mentality( usually introvert and calm), them he is more white than someone who is 100% white but looks middle eastern, has low IQ and is extrovert and aggressive.

Europeans are more visual and introverted due to high Neanderthal genetics and some specific neanderthal variants and phenotypical features.
research shows a connection between certain inherited Neanderthal DNA and traits associated with autism. Specifically, some modern humans have Neanderthal gene variants that are more common in autistic individuals, which may be linked to traits like heightened visual processing and altered social brain networks. This suggests that some genes that may have offered a survival advantage in ancient Neanderthal communities, such as detailed visual analysis, could contribute to modern neurodiversity.
Shared genetic variations: While most modern humans have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA, research indicates that a specific subset of Neanderthal-derived gene variations is more frequent in people with autism.
Neurological and sensory traits: These genetic variations are associated with a brain structure that shows stronger activity in visual processing and cooler activity in social cognition networks. This aligns with some characteristics of autism, such as strong pattern recognition and attention to detail.
Potential evolutionary advantage: The traits influenced by these genes may have been beneficial for Neanderthals, potentially aiding in tasks requiring intense observation and precise motor planning, such as tool-making or tracking.
Not an overall higher percentage: The study does not suggest that autistic people have a higher overall percentage of Neanderthal DNA, but rather that a specific set of Neanderthal-derived genetic variants is more prevalent in the autistic population.
Broader implications: This research frames autism as part of the complex history of human evolution and neurodiversity, rather than a solely modern disorder.
Source https://news.clemson.edu/study-impli...,Alex%20Feltus

Raking of Introverted Countries( the most introverted countries are either white or have considerably white admixture)
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...rted-countries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

Colours are also gradual but you don't say that red and yellow don't exist just because there is orange in-between.

---

I dont say it does not exist though
Read again what i wrote
I did said human populations diversity exists i just said its more nuanced then for racialists just like a black guy can be smarter then a white guy and a white guy a better Basketball player

I calculated more or less how numerous each group from my clustering graph (in the first post of this thread) is today.

1. East Eurasians:

About 1719 millions NE Asians + ca. 680 millions SE Asians (who are somewhat mixed with the Hoabinhian component).

2. West Eurasians:

About 1756 millions people (including North Africans), this includes ca. 1118 millions Europeans and their descendants.

3. West & NEast Africans:

About 1109.5 millions + around 200 millions mixed with Eurasian component Horn of Africa populations and Mulattos.

4. South Eurasians:

Around 123 millions Adivasi in India (who are still overwhelmingly AASI) and an estimated 2 million Negritos in SE Asia.

To this we can add ca. 1739 millions other (Non-Adivasi) South Asians, who however are mixed with West Eurasian DNA.

5. Amerindians:

Around 81.5 millions + ca. 417 millions mixed-race Mestizos, Pardos and Zambos (Zambos number only over 600,000).

6. Sahulians:

Around 17 millions pure Melanesians + ca. 5.5 millions mixed-race Oceanians with some Melanesian ancestry component.

7. Central Africans:

There are only around 1 million Central African Pygmies left - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4711706/

Of course various Bantu groups have some degree of Central African admixture, but are overwhelmingly West African.

8. South Africans:

Around 0.5 million of pure Khoisan peoples remain, and there are ca. 5.5 million mixed-race Coloureds in South Africa.

And also some of the Southern African Bantu groups such as the Xhosa have various degrees of Khoisan admixture.

9. Other mixed groups:

Mixed Central Asians - ca. 179 millions
Blasians (Madagascar etc.) - ca. 32 millions
Multiracials and others - ca. 16 millions

Total population of the world at the time of this calculation: 8083.5 millions

By the way the notion of race never was based on the premise of a purity without any mixing.

For example John R. Baker in his 1974 book "Race", in chapter "The meaning of race", wrote:

"(...) The reader is aware that in following a widely distributed animal over its range, one often notices alterations in its appearance. The changes are particularly evident wherever a partial geographical barrier intervenes, such as a range of mountains, a desert, or a wide river. The populations on the two sides of the barrier are not, however, entirely distinct. Intermediates are found, and there is often direct evidence of interbreeding, though not on a sufficient scale to make the two populations indistinguishable. If the two populations are so distinct that one can generally tell from which region a specimen was obtained, it is usual to give separate names to the two races. If every specimen could be identified with certainty as belonging to one population or the other, it would be evident that no gene-flow occurred between the two, and they would therefore be regarded as different species in the genetical sense of the word, however small the differences might be. It is the fact that intermediates do occur that defines the race. (...)"

Then he added:

"(...) For practical purposes it may be found convenient to make an arbitrary decision as to the proportion of intermediates that are allowable, if different races are to be recognized. One may argue that a population ‘A’ is distinguishable from a population 'B’ if x% of the individuals constituting population ‘A’ can be recognized as not belonging to population ‘B'. It will be understood that the correct value to be assigned to x cannot be discovered by objective means; nevertheless, if a high figure (perhaps 75%) is agreed upon by taxonomists, one can scarcely doubt that there is a distinction worthy of recognition as subspecific or ‘racial’. Very commonly, however, the differences observed are so evident, and x is clearly so high, that no statistical investigation is necessary to convince other taxonomists that races should be distinguished. (...)"