i can assure you that PAs are quite parochial about their branch, and are strongly resistant to influence from the cultural side of the house.

from AAPA:  



http://physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/

Statist!

Libtard!

White Guilt!

Liberal Echo Chamber!

Leftist Academia!


Only liberals are obsessed with race! Oh, wait.

e-ville.

as in the froo-its of the dev-ill

For those bringing up Neandertal ancestry:

The differences between distinct populations of modern humans are actually pretty notable. Comparing the skeleton of a 6'2" Chinese man and a 4'8" Mexican woman under blind conditions (without chronological context or existing knowledge) would lead any honest analysis to conclude they were at least as dissimilar as, say, Neandertals and Denisovians, or Denisovians and Sapien-sapiens.

In light of this, the real question we must ask ourselves is: Were the Neandertals and Denisovians really even a different species from Sapien-sapiens, at any point?

Vast new evidence on this matter are slowly pushing that answer towards "no", despite the screams and physical hysteria of those who are invested in arguments to the contrary.

The genetics don't lie, and the genetics tell us two things: What the Neandertals/Denisovians were like genetically, and what their role in human lineage is.


Some of the more interesting things we have learned recently about the Neandertals themselves:

The difference between Neandertals and modern humans is, genetically, absolutely tiny. And I do mean tiny. With every new study, the remaining amount of possible meaningful genetic difference shrinks.

Neandertals share almost all of the "important" genetics for human evolution yet investigated. Likely capacity for speech being one of the most important hurdles that genetics strongly supports.


Then, on the issue of the human lineage, is the discovery of absolutely undeniable human genetic lineage from Neandertals and Denisovians. This has been established without a doubt, now here are the more important details:

20% of the unique Neandertal genome has been identified among the people yet tested for Neandertal genetics... That is from a very small sample size, mind you. 20% remaining is a HUGE percentage for a genetic lineage over 30,000 years old.

Some will claim that 20% is insignificant, but that is perhaps the dumbest thing someone can say about genetics. Further, a similar comparison of a sequenced ancient Sapien-sapien genome to humans today revealed that, due to further mutations in human genetics, the present humans do not carry 100% of the ancient sapien-sapien genome either, magnifying the importance of the 20% Neandertal genome remaining.

Modern Europeans show the highest percentage of Neandertal lineage. Northern Europeans show significantly more Neandertal lineage than southern Europeans, which makes logical sense considering the entry of Sapien-sapien populaces into Europe (home of the Neandertals) from the south.

Neandertal genetics can also be found in parts of central Asia, and some other stranger places we still don't quite understand.

Denisovian lineage appears in many Asian populaces. I haven't seen much by way of research into Denisovian influence among the indigenous people of the Americas, which I am very curious about.

There is another human ancestor that does not belong to any of these three genetic populaces, which we have no knowledge of, other than their genetics can be found in Asia, mostly parts of China. This mystery ancestor is the most exciting thing on the subject of human lineage currently. I hope an example of this ancestor is found soon.



So, what's my point with this flight of ideas?

The theories of human origin before the advent of genetic research were highly flawed, based upon small sample bias, bad philosophy, and sometimes pure idiocy.

Those theories are collapsing. They will die, painfully, as hard science displaces soft science.

The differences between Sapien-sapiens, Neandertals and Denisovians were absolutely tiny. A dead Neandertal brought to a medical examiner today would be identified as "homeless man", nothing more. The differences, while notable, would not be so far out of modern human expectation as to cause any stir.

The assumptions that Neandertals and Denisovians were really different at all was somewhat flawed. While they do have some different traits, they are unlikely to be meaningful, beyond a little cultural isolation and a handful of small genetic changes.

All three (four?) branches of humanity appear to have been one big common family, not separate species, for at least the last 400,000 years. The differences are, and have been for sometime, small and generally insignificant. However, make no mistake that the children of Neandertals and Denisovians walk around to this day. Heck, if you're reading this, there's probably a 50% chance you are one.

TL;DR Did anyone say "One" yet, and back it up by the simple pointing out that if everyone, despite a huge RANGE of looks can still breed with each other, it's still just one race?

LOL this is more entertaining then a Baptist, a Catholic, and a Mormon arguing over Salvation.

No my belief is correct,no mine is, your scholar is not a real scholar like mine, the history of your scholar is questionable, your interpretation of that is incorrect because of xyz.

honestly I got lost several pages back, but just keep reading the posts and laughing.  

Evolutionist can't even agree on the human path

The genetics don't lie. Distrust everything else.

if you look for similarities you will find them, and if you look for differences you will find those too. that's the quirkiness about genes, we are mostly alike, but sometimes the difference in a single gene can produce a profound difference. chimpanzees share 96% of our genes, but the 4% difference is monumental. mutations are mostly fatal, and sometimes irrelevant biologically, but in a particular environment rare mutations will be beneficial. and that is why there are subtle, yet marked differences between humans. when these differences become stacked, then the difference is even more apparent. think chihuahua and border collie. BTW, the genome is twice the size in a wheat plant than it is in humans, the difference is in the arrangement and sequencing and which genes are "turned on", most genes in wheat are dormant, and much of human DNA is as well.

At least we've only have one creationist bring up mythology so far talking about how all people descended from Noah and his family. How out of touch with reality do you need to be to buy that load of bs?
I'd say its a good we've avoided their non-scientific talking points so far.
the human path"....yeah, that's  a real meaningful term.
 

The original question was how many "genetic" races are there. I think people have shown ample evidence that using scientific criteria and genetics, that you can't easily and clearly define all people into races.

Educate me here.............wasn't there a time when the Huns were thought to have Mongolian in them?

They do argue considerably about subspecies though.

You totally gorget a steady input of Chinese merchants too.

Chinese are mentioned.

Yes, they argue about whether things are subspecies or full species for endangered stuff considerably IIRC, but that is in essence arguing about species #s as well.

Yes, I should have qualified I meant subsp. in animals (and not insects probably because they are crazy diverse).

In bacteria species concepts are almost fictional. They share DNA way across lineages all the time and they don't even do meiosis. In many cases they just call whatever end branches they can resolve in a phylogeny "species". On top of that, it is a HUGE group diversity wise.

The number of Neanderthal/Human interbreeding events seems to have been quite small. The Marine Lance Corporal principle--men will fuck anything female--and the small number of interbreeding events suggests that humans and Neanderthals were at the edge of being able to breed.

Somebody hands a DNA sample to a lab, and they're unable tell what group of humans it came from, because
clusters of genes are all indistinguishable across the world.

Seems to be an example of convergent evolution rather than shared genetic history. The similar external characteristics aren't caused by the same genes,
but rather different genes that have a similar external expression.

OP they're called "genetic ancestries"... aka sub species of homo sapien that people refuse to call sub species... cuz das da racis

I don't usually we this degree of wanton derp outside of Creationism threads.

one - we are all the same species, we just have small variations and traits that make us different.

That is false, "genetic ancestry" can be identified through DNA. I'll get a link for you later.... I'll dig it up from an antheopology class I took, where I pissed off everyone that had the whole "all humans are the same" lib mentality.

 

Look kiddies, he's still dancing.

LOL.

Because a blind examination of samples that reliably replicates the predicted behavior is unscientific.

When you piss off the whole class, it's either because you're so brilliant that you've exposed them all to some uncomfortable truth or because you're being an annoying twat who won't shut up about stuff you don't understand.  

The vast majority of the time, it's the latter.  Coincidentally, the vast majority of the time, the talker thinks its the former.

No, because stating something that in no way refutes what you are trying to refute, while making a claim that you refuse to articulate in a scientifically falsifiable way, is not the behavior of a person who has a leg to stand on, it's the behavior of am irrational zealot too full of himself to even understand the issues.

This.

Everybody in this thread so far is an asshole, except me.

You can quantify (or not quantify) all this human genetic/ancestral/racial/taxonomic shit anyway you like.  All these efforts at categorization are "constructs."  They all can be valid (or fail) depending on the suitability of the application.

Traditionally, if all else fails, hammer 'til it fits.  If that don't work switch to a pissy smug attitude.

However, since that seems to be a bridge too far, I will offer the following comprehensive solution.

There are three races:  The North European (aka "white" race), the East Asian (aka "Oriental" race) and the West African (aka "black" race.)

All the rest of you tan, beige, brown, red, orange, pink or swarthy motherfuckers do not get a race.  Sorry, you are hereby raceless.  I don't think most of you really wanted one anyway.

Have a nice day.  Thread closed.

I think he misread falsifiable as false.

My typo didn't help matters - but I think he simply didn't detect the smug sarcasm from mcgredo.

This thread needed a poll, for extra butthurt.

Genetically speaking "race" is not a real thing.  As a species we are surprisingly inbred, and haven't had a "sub-species" or truly separate genetic "race" since the neanderthals died out.

Race is a social and cultural construct for various purposes.   Early anthropology didn't help by classifying humans into 3 separate races based on phenotype.



In my opinion the entire concept of "race" was developed to limit competition in as crude a way as possible so even simpletons could understand.   As a fairly strict anti-communalist I find the idea that some piece of nazi trash can attach his self esteem to my achievements like some kind of leech because we happen share a physical characteristic insulting and offensive.

We agree more than we disagree; your defensive and self-important attitude notwithstanding.

If you're talking about government classifications of race, which vary from country to country and from from time to time, then yes of course I agree that race is a social construct, as these classifications necessarily take cultural and historical (not to mention political) factors into account.  However, I wouldn't agree that race is almost always used to classify appearance.  When it's used by the government, it's usually used as a way to denote national or regional origin (e.g., "hispanic").  When it's used by the police, then yes, it's used to classify appearance.  But when used by the general public to talk about ancestry?  In that context of ancestry when someone says "I'm 1/4 Asian" they're not referring to appearance necessarily, but to ancestry and relatedness.

Our main point of disagreement is when it comes to which socially constructed views of race fit best with the genetic reality.  I've posted a couple studies showing that human genes tend to "cluster" in 5 or 6 groups (which, oddly enough, is pretty similar to what the chart that Bohr_Adam posted here shows).  And these clusters do tend to correspond to historic definitions of race, though of course you will find exceptions along the peripheries.  You might quibble where to draw the line exactly (the argument seems to be:  "Tajikistan.  Thus, your argument is invalid."), but that's a problem of any classification system.

I agree with this, except the part about FightingHellfish.

As Sywagon has pointed out there are assorted problems with any taxonomy, including those that certain persons in this thread would pound the table and insist are "scientific". Including the concept of "species", which run into essentially the same issues as "race". Taxonomies are created by humans for their own purposes. As the saying goes about models: all are wrong, some are useful. Yet we're not going to pitch biological taxonomies into the bin because of hurt feelings on the part of a couple groups of beetles.

When publishing these days researchers are often careful to use a term like "clade" instead of "race". They're talking about the same concepts as those 19th century guys, but it gives some people warm fuzzies to avoid the term while substituting another with essentially the same meaning. The moderns just have more evidence in the form of genetic testing to support their theories. Doubtless this will be subject to the Great Wheel of Being, in the same way that negro became black became African American, and clade will fall out of use once the wrong sorts of people start using it.



Do a search-and-replace on some terms and you could drop it into a physical anthropology text today without too many serious problems.

Race fell out of use once modern genetics revealed its problematic nature and that it was based on false assumptions.

You see, those earlier scientists actually proposed and worked off of falsifiable theories, and they were since falsified.  You, you just work off of bullshit.

Heh, no.  RIF.

Either the use of "race" is "not useful" or it is useful, as Mayr suggests.  I'm taking issue with your statement that "race is not particularly useful for studying human variation."  If you'd like to clarify and state that "race, as used by the general public, is not useful for studying human variation," then I might agree with you, depending on context.

 

 

5

 

This new study has really moved forward since last I looked in on the story. They are implying partial incompatibility (infertility) purging much of the genome of  Neanderthal genes, with a "peppering" remaining suggesting they may have been adaptive ones that were preserved. Cold tolerance is mentioned. Most interestingly, the FOXP2 is purged, which controls brain organization, speech, and learning. We, along with echolocators that do complex auditory processing, have a few non-synonymous mutations there where as other primates and more distant animals have mostly none. That doesn't bode well for Neanderthals being smarter than us, although their brains were at least as large (slightly larger but not significantly different).

To me, that suggests it may have been more than a few knocking of the boots going on, but no way was it millions - these were not huge populations like modern times.


ETA: http://www.nature.com/news/modern-human-genomes-reveal-our-inner-neanderthal-1.14615

If none made it to the present day that probably indicates some mal-adaption that got chlorinated out of the gene pool.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/us-science-genome-idUSKBN0IQ2QK20141106


Interestingly it seems there may be another race (see what I did there) in the woodpile:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106143719.htm


In before the Nephilim fans.

Compare the Cavalli-Sforza genetic distance graphics posted earlier to that 19th century map and you'll see quite good agreement.

That is simply untrue, and you are spreading incorrect information.

Neandertal/Sapien-sapien interbreeding rarely occured before the entry of Sapien-sapiens into the relevant parts of Europe... Duh, you goddamned idiots, that's called geographic isolation.

When Sapien-sapiens entered Europe (as Europe became more hospitable), they entered in massive numbers, and absorbed the Neandertals quickly. The Neandertals were always a small population, the result of contact was inevitable.

The consistent and meaningful Neandertal lineage among modern Europeans, and the fact that over 20% of the unique Neandertal genome survives to this day, does NOT indicate limited interbreeding. It indicates complete absorbtion of a smaller populace by a larger populace in a short time span.

Further, your concept that Neandertals must have been ugly or unworthy of breeding with is both completely wrong and also a remnant of Nazi propaganda which claimed the Neandertals were the inferior ancestors of the Jews. It is a baseless, evil lie, and it should stop being propagated.

As the sample size of Neandertal remains has grown, we have learned that they would go fairly unnoticed among present day humanity. The differences in their appearance is not outside of the current extremes in human appearance. They were neither shockingly tall, nor ugly, and they certainly weren't primitive.

Right...  So what "race", in the context that you think you've been arguing for, are the Negritos of the Philippines?  How about your average Filipino, walking down the streets of Olongapo City?

lol

No.

A perfect example is in looking at the people of Australia and New Guinea, whose populations were lumped as "negroid," which we now now to be about as more closely related genetically with the Japanese or the English than any Black Africans. That poor German ethnographer didn't seem to know what to so in India and Sri Lanka - but we now know those populations were closer to Northern Europeans and North Africans.  The we have the case of the Lapplanders/Sami people, who got lumped in with most of the the other Asians as "Mongoloid" despite the fact that we now know that they, too, are closer to Europeans.

These mistakes were made due to racial assumption that made sense under the prevailing theories of the time. We know better now.  Some of us just like to pretend otherwise.

You have done an excellent job of providing the very petards by which to hoist yourself and your non-theories.  We can all see the reality of racial theory as it existed, and how modern genetic understanding was able to falsify genetic relationships those theories predicted.