Did the human race split?

[SKIRRID5]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7358868.stm

This story is interesting, but a little worrying. It's one of those bits of scientific research which one can see being quoted for the wrong reasons. If there was a fairly long lasting split in the human race, with two different populations living separately in Africa, the racists will seize on this and claim that the black races stem from the one stock and we from the other, and hence we really aren't both the same race. Needless to say our lot will be deemed superior!

[SKIRRID5]

After I wrote the above it struck me that I was saying "we" as if on the unwarranted assumption that everyone on this forum is white. Apologies. It's so damned easy to do something like that.

[ForAllOfThis]

There is no doubt that white and black people are the same species (race). In biology a species is defined by the ability to breed between two parents and produce fertile offspring. As this is clearly the case with black and white humans then there is no scientific evidence that can suggest otherwise.

[SKIRRID5]

Certainly, but that wouldn't stop some people from trying to make the claim.
A little matter like proper scientific evidence wouldn't give them pause.

[brodski]

There is no doubt that white and black people are the same species (race). In biology a species is defined by the ability to breed between two parents and produce fertile offspring. As this is clearly the case with black and white humans then there is no scientific evidence that can suggest otherwise.

The dividing line between species isn't as clear as we may like, with things like ring species (a can breed with b, b with c, c with d, but d can't breed with a).
Like the difference between living and non living things, or plants and animals, the lines are fuzzy- reality is under no obligation to fit into our neat categories, and so biologists draw some arbitrary lines.

That said, all humans have as good a claim to being a single species as any other breeding population, and better than some.

race, OTOH, is largely a political construct.

[VoodooJoe]

race, OTOH, is largely a political construct.

This is very true, someone who is black in stockholm might be considered white in contonou.

I also have issue with terms like "black" in a genetic context, the term black (or indeed white), can mean any number of ethnic groups.

Having said all that I am not going to go down the hippy liberal route of "we are all one blood/family", yes we may all deserve equal rights and freedoms, however ethnic groups of human beings are clearly not the same and anyone who tries to deny that is deluding themselves, i really dont see why different humans shouldnt carry large differences in their DNA, check out these two mugs:

http://static.twoday.net/webloft/images/elliot_hair.jpg

http://www.motherlandnigeria.com/pic...erian_girl.jpg

People have this wierd idea race is about skin colour, it isnt, its also about bone structure, differences in blood, neural networks, the lot,
which is great because it makes us all different and interesting, its just a shame scientist cant explore the diversity of the human race in an adult way without everyone getting hot under the collar.

[brodski]

Having said all that I am not going to go down the hippy liberal route of "we are all one blood/family", yes we may all deserve equal rights and freedoms, however ethnic groups of human beings are clearly not the same and anyone who tries to deny that is deluding themselves, i really dont see why different humans shouldnt carry large differences in their DNA, check out these two mugs:

http://static.twoday.net/webloft/images/elliot_hair.jpg

http://www.motherlandnigeria.com/pic...erian_girl.jpg

People have this wierd idea race is about skin colour, it isnt, its also about bone structure, differences in blood, neural networks, the lot,
which is great because it makes us all different and interesting, its just a shame scientist cant explore the diversity of the human race in an adult way without everyone getting hot under the collar.

You’ve fallen into your own trap, ethnicity has virtually nothing to do with genetics, ethnicity is even more of a political construct than “race”. The concept of “race” attempts to make biological distinctions between people, however ethnicity is also about cultural differences and self identification.

Yes there are fuzzy sets of individuals who share certain biological traits, BUT, and this is a very big but, those groups are ill-defined and bare little or no meaningful relationship to the social and political language of either race or ethnicity.

It is often said that there are greater differences within “races” than between them, this is true but misleading, it is in fact an artefact of how we have defined race culturally and politically- by necessity we define it in broad terms, grouping together geographically, and even (but not necessarily) culturally, close people into hand shorthand categories, however when analysed at that level most of the potentially meaningful differences are lost in the noise. You can analyse small relatively distinct genetic groups for differences, but at that point “race” become ineffective as shorthand.

[bobdezon]

I prefer to think of it as diversity, rather than race. I utterly loathe how some will judge a person based on skin colour as being less worthy, noble or able than a person of a lighter skin colour. Not only is it repugnant, but idiotic.

[SKIRRID5]

Insofar as racism is a political construct, I wonder to what extent, in Europe and America, this was fuelled by the need to find a justification for slavery?
And of course the justification was found, much of it in the good old Bible. Having said that, it must be said that the churches, in their vigorous attempts to convert various "savages" were at least treating them as beings with souls to be saved.

[ForAllOfThis]

I prefer to think of it as diversity, rather than race. I utterly loathe how some will judge a person based on skin colour as being less worthy, noble or able than a person of a lighter skin colour. Not only is it repugnant, but idiotic.

Agreed. My point was that there is only one race (biologically), and that is human =).

[VoodooJoe]

You’ve fallen into your own trap, ethnicity has virtually nothing to do with genetics, ethnicity is even more of a political construct than “race”. The concept of “race” attempts to make biological distinctions between people, however ethnicity is also about cultural differences and self identification..

Id say it was the other way around, ethnicity is about genetics and race is more a socio-political thing.

Yes there are fuzzy sets of individuals who share certain biological traits, ..

No, there are distinct groups of people who share sets of distinct features which are passed from generation to generation.

BUT, and this is a very big but, those groups are ill-defined and bare little or no meaningful relationship to the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. .

Says who?

It is often said that there are greater differences within “races” than between them, this is true but misleading, it is in fact an artefact of how we have defined race culturally and politically- by necessity we define it in broad terms, grouping together geographically, and even (but not necessarily) culturally, close people into hand shorthand categories, however when analysed at that level most of the potentially meaningful differences are lost in the noise. You can analyse small relatively distinct genetic groups for differences, but at that point “race” become ineffective as shorthand.

Just because something cant be caught in a test tube doesnt make it real, race is a very real thing, even if it cant be pinned down 100% to genetics.

[VoodooJoe]

Insofar as racism is a political construct, I wonder to what extent, in Europe and America, this was fuelled by the need to find a justification for slavery?
And of course the justification was found, much of it in the good old Bible. Having said that, it must be said that the churches, in their vigorous attempts to convert various "savages" were at least treating them as beings with souls to be saved.

at least the americans and europeans eventually bothered to get rid of slavery, which is more than can be said for the people who they bought the slaves from....

Also i dont really see what the history of slavery has to do with this discussion? like i said, its a shame scientists cant explore the diversity without people bringing politics into the equation.

[DrS]

BUT, and this is a very big but, those groups are ill-defined and bare little or no meaningful relationship to the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. .

Says who?

Surely logical. The quote you used says that biological similarities have little to do with the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. One is biological/genetic ... physical; the other is a construct ... ideological.

[VoodooJoe]

Surely logical. The quote you used says that biological similarities have little to do with the social and political language of either race or ethnicity. One is biological/genetic ... physical; the other is a construct ... ideological.

Yes, but who says the biological factors dont impact on the social ones.

Sickle cell aneamia mainly effects people of west african origin, this is because people of west african origin have a certain biological feature, the impact of this disease has social implications.

People of european extraction are more likely to suffer from skin cancer than what an australian aboriginal is, what implications does this hold for the australian healthcare service?

Though to give a really stark example of when genes and social implications collide, look what happened when alcohol was introduced to people of native american extraction.

[VoodooJoe]

My point is this, people are different, yes, we should strive for equal freedoms.
BUT we are deluded if we think arctic eskimos are the same as congo pygmies, they are not, in the same way people with big feet are different from people with little feet, the way women are not the same as men, the way gays are not the same as straights, the way some people can get coldsores and some cant, the way people who like anchovies are different from people who dont like anchovies etc, etc, etc we all have differences and these differences can indeed put us into groups, be they genetic, social, whatever.

It staggers me the knee jerk reaction people have to any discussion about ethnicity.

The original article had nothing to do about "whites" and "blacks", but within the space of a few posts there were screams of racism and mentions of the slave trade, how evil whites have been in the past and how some evil whites might use this to prove white superiorty.
(i also found it interesting that some of the forummers seem to think only white people are capable of racism , but thats by the by)

I dont find the article disturbing at all, in fact much of it makes sense, humans have been divided geographically for aeons and sure, why shouldnt difference have evolved in that time so those peoples could adapt to their surroundings.

That means we have diversity, but we knew that anyway (if we are honest with ourselves), it doesnt mean anyone is superior to anyone and doesnt even hint at that.

Is it possible those who view this study as being potentially racist have had their view tainted slighted by their own slight unconcious prejudices?
(especially when taking into account the racist comments in the original post , though granted that person has apologised for them .)