Evolution of races

[wellwisher]

"Dark skin" isn't a race. Skin tone is more.or less only related to ones ancestry as being either nearer or further the equator.

Race is a honestly a really arbitrary distinction that we (humanity) created for our own purposes.

If this was a discussion of species of birds, and a new coloration or song appears, it would be cataloged as a new sub-species. Political correctness has infiltrated science. Science now has to use a different catalog for humans as though humans did not evolve on the earth. By definition we need to ignore that. Science is beholden for funds and can be bribed or strong armed into dual standards.

If you look a humans in terms of natural selection, each race that settles in different parts of the world, will develop selective advantages for that location. If they cannot they would have migrated further to a better place. If we had a unique behavior evolving among a species; beetle and the dung beetle, it gets a special place in the catalog which shows it is unique. This is taboo for humans cataloging, since according to liberals humans did not evolve but just appeared all the same.

Interestingly, if one is born with male and female DNA, infinite gender variety is possible, according to political science. However, if you are born with human DNA, we are all the same and differences are not possible; dual standards of political science.

Humans started in Africa. Some of the originals stayed and further evolved in that continent. Others migrated to places all over the earth. These latter locations were not viable, as a base location to start human evolution. If they had been viable, humans would have also evolved there from scratch. What migration did was add new environmental conditions, that were not initially optimized, to the instincts of earliest humans who evolved in Africa.

This change of environment, adds a wild card in terms of natural behavior, connected to those who had evolved in Africa. New behavioral changes would needed for survival, in new places that was not initially optimized for human species to evolve. These less than naturally optimized places, will alter the operating systems of the local human brain; different selective advantages, via it own unique natural selective pressures. We get new human subspecies; new song and dance. If we moved Koala Bears to where there are no eucalyptus leave, they would need to adapt to a new food source, which may also impact their biochemistry.

If we look at what are called first world countries, these are not at the equator or in Africa. They tend to be in cooler and colder places; temperate and subtropic climates, where humans did not originally evolve. These less optimized environments, compared to their start in Africa, with all types of new flora and fauna, added new environmental pressures. This led to a gradual changes in the brain's operating system; birds with new top hit songs.

I do not see the big deal in terms of defining humans with evolution in the same way we catalog birds or any migratory animal in a new environment. This is the best way to optimize everyone to their natural strengths, so that team human can become more than the sum of its optimize parts. Pretending all are the same is not rational, nor would it be applied to an animal species. It is not scientific, but political science. We do not apply this to human DNA that defines sex, even though sex is connected to all types of species and even more fundamental that just one species. Political science reached to far and now the con is known. We need to correct it so science is not seen as nothing but a tool of political science.

 

[Kenny]

Correct me if I am wrong,, don't you believe in creation?

You say " I believe that the DNA of humankind had all the varieties colors"

Did Adam and Eve start out as zebra's

I do believe in creation. No, Adam and Eve are not products of a primordial soup.

 

[sayak83]

Yeah... So did dark skin humans exist first, before others.

Likely dark brown skin tones came first. But that is speculative

 

[sayak83]

If this was a discussion of species of birds, and a new coloration or song appears, it would be cataloged as a new sub-species. Political correctness has infiltrated science. Science now has to use a different catalog for humans as though humans did not evolve on the earth. By definition we need to ignore that. Science is beholden for funds and can be bribed or strong armed into dual standards.

If you look a humans in terms of natural selection, each race that settles in different parts of the world, will develop selective advantages for that location. If they cannot they would have migrated further to a better place. If we had a unique behavior evolving among a species; beetle and the dung beetle, it gets a special place in the catalog which shows it is unique. This is taboo for humans cataloging, since according to liberals humans did not evolve but just appeared all the same.

Interestingly, if one is born with male and female DNA, infinite gender variety is possible, according to political science. However, if you are born with human DNA, we are all the same and differences are not possible; dual standards of political science.

Humans started in Africa. Some of the originals stayed and further evolved in that continent. Others migrated to places all over the earth. These latter locations were not viable, as a base location to start human evolution. If they had been viable, humans would have also evolved there from scratch. What migration did was add new environmental conditions, that were not initially optimized, to the instincts of earliest humans who evolved in Africa.

This change of environment, adds a wild card in terms of natural behavior, connected to those who had evolved in Africa. New behavioral changes would needed for survival, in new places that was not initially optimized for human species to evolve. These less than naturally optimized places, will alter the operating systems of the local human brain; different selective advantages, via it own unique natural selective pressures. We get new human subspecies; new song and dance. If we moved Koala Bears to where there are no eucalyptus leave, they would need to adapt to a new food source, which may also impact their biochemistry.

If we look at what are called first world countries, these are not at the equator or in Africa. They tend to be in cooler and colder places; temperate and subtropic climates, where humans did not originally evolve. These less optimized environments, compared to their start in Africa, with all types of new flora and fauna, added new environmental pressures. This led to a gradual changes in the brain's operating system; birds with new top hit songs.

I do not see the big deal in terms of defining humans with evolution in the same way we catalog birds or any migratory animal in a new environment. This is the best way to optimize everyone to their natural strengths, so that team human can become more than the sum of its optimize parts. Pretending all are the same is not rational, nor would it be applied to an animal species. It is not scientific, but political science. We do not apply this to human DNA that defines sex, even though sex is connected to all types of species and even more fundamental that just one species. Political science reached to far and now the con is known. We need to correct it so science is not seen as nothing but a tool of political science.

Wow.
Human beings are highly uniform genetically. In fact we are perhaps the most genetically homogeneous mammal in the entire world. In fact the problem is the other way. Biologists have a tough time explaining how the heck we are so homogeneous as a species.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Put away political correctness and safe spaces. Sometimes its good to discuss controversial issues.

This thread isn't about who's better, or who's anything. its simply about different races, how they evolved and curiosity of what others think.

Whether you accept evolution or believe in creation.. IMO all race didn't arise simultaneously.

If its offensive to you skip on by. I don't expect much but .....

We evolved from apes. But did all races evolve simultaneously? Did one race evolve before the others?

On the other hand...

If you believe humans were created by a god, what race were they created as? Where did other races come from?

PS: IMO whites did not evolve first. So lets put that racism, white supremacy, or whatever BS to rest.
Oh and I'm not white, I'm Native American.

All men are of one race. Race is something we basically invented.
The Bible has plenty to say about ethnicity, but not race.
Race exists today as a social construct. It exists because racial ideology permeated government, academia, science, and religion for hundreds of years. Wars were waged, laws were passed, lines were drawn, families were formed and separated, communities were built, and institutions were created around this ideology. Racial groups exist today not because of the Bible or biology, but because of history and society.
Race isn't a biological concept.
The differences is physical characteristics are simple adaptations using already existing DNA, not evolutionary differences.

 

[GardenLady]

Neanderthals and Denisovans. Did we mate with them? Probably.

Speaking as someone whose DNA shows 2.4 percent Neanderthal and 2.5 percent Denisovan, I'd say it's not probably, but definitely. (This is per the National Geographic Society's Genographic Study.)

 

[Orbit]

Put away political correctness and safe spaces. Sometimes its good to discuss controversial issues.

This thread isn't about who's better, or who's anything. its simply about different races, how they evolved and curiosity of what others think.

Whether you accept evolution or believe in creation.. IMO all race didn't arise simultaneously.

If its offensive to you skip on by. I don't expect much but .....

We evolved from apes. But did all races evolve simultaneously? Did one race evolve before the others?

On the other hand...

If you believe humans were created by a god, what race were they created as? Where did other races come from?

PS: IMO whites did not evolve first. So lets put that racism, white supremacy, or whatever BS to rest.
Oh and I'm not white, I'm Native American.

We did not evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Skin color seems to have evolved in tandem with the climate (amount of sun exposure). You are talking about huge amounts of time, here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok. Thats what I am asking. All races, black, yellow, white, brown all existed in Africa and then spread across the globe?

I'd expect that races diversified after leaving
Africa because conditions became different,
eg, less sunlight, colder weather.

 

[George-ananda]

Put away political correctness and safe spaces. Sometimes its good to discuss controversial issues.

This thread isn't about who's better, or who's anything. its simply about different races, how they evolved and curiosity of what others think.

Whether you accept evolution or believe in creation.. IMO all race didn't arise simultaneously.

If its offensive to you skip on by. I don't expect much but .....

We evolved from apes. But did all races evolve simultaneously? Did one race evolve before the others?

On the other hand...

If you believe humans were created by a god, what race were they created as? Where did other races come from?

American.

I'm very interested in this subject and think it can be addressed rationally and intellectually but on an open forum this gets ugly fast.

Anyway I think races are even hard to define exactly but I am unpopular in the belief that differences can develop over thousands of years resulting in different bell curves of trait and abilities.

PS: IMO whites did not evolve first. So lets put that racism, white supremacy, or whatever BS to rest.

I'm not sure where the order of forming distinctness is important. Older does not mean higher developed.

Controversially, although I don't accept the literal Abrahamic view of man's creation, I do believe our development was fostered by intelligence (including alien DNA manipulation for advancement). But I also believe all of earth's life was fostered by intelligence and not the product of unthinking forces.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Each group is the same species: The spider (don't know the specifics), the chimpanzee and the red fox.
Oh, and here are the birds you mentioned, where a "different species" is cataloged for "minor variations":

Budgie colors and their diversity | The Perruches

So, that makes THIS statement:

If this was a discussion of species of birds, and a new coloration or song appears, it would be cataloged as a new sub-species. Political correctness has infiltrated science. Science now has to use a different catalog for humans as though humans did not evolve on the earth. By definition we need to ignore that. Science is beholden for funds and can be bribed or strong armed into dual standards.

patently false.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Interestingly, if one is born with male and female DNA, infinite gender variety is possible, according to political science. However, if you are born with human DNA, we are all the same and differences are not possible; dual standards of political science.

A "gender" is not a "species".

 

[CharmingOwl]

Putting aside the science of it being evolutionary adaptations to geography, we can say that human skin tones come from variations of clay colors used to turn people into humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that dogs and cats have dark gray/blue skin under their dark fur, and pink skin under their light fur. I figured it was the same for other animals, but maybe not.

I know nothing about cats and dogs needs in regards to Vitamin D. I am aware of our need for it. There are probably other evolutionary factors that determine their skin color.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We evolved from an ape like creatures.
I believe the first humans evolved in south central Africa, what is now Botswana. They spread out, there are maps of the routes taken earlier in the thread.

We all had dark skin, lighter skin colours did not began to appear intil around 100,000 years ago probably as a result of a genetic mutation without a selective pressure (though i believe a weaker sunlight was the cause of the mutation).

It seems we are all the defendants of one mother, genetic Eve or MDNA eve.

One of the few things the OP got right is that our common ancestor wit other apes was also an ape. A generation ago scientists knew this, but the effects of a Christian society and upbringing can be hard to shake, so they said "ape-like" rather than ape.

 

[We Never Know]

I'd expect that races diversified after leaving
Africa because conditions became different,
eg, less sunlight, colder weather.

Agreed

 

[We Never Know]

People with dark skin probably existed before people migrated out of Africa and developed lighter skin in response to the reduced sun levels at higher latitudes.

Same thing happens with hair color. You seldom see blonde hair at low latitudes.

But, for example, it is likely that Neanderthals were light skinned since they had moved to Europe.

The question is strange because it emphasizes the amount of melanin in the skin, a pretty minor characteristic. We can also ask when blue eyes people developed and find it was at a different time than green eyed people (most likely), but both were after dark eyed.

Race is a *social* construct, not a biological one. Skin color is a minor adaptation to an environment.

"Race is a *social* construct, not a biological one. Skin color is a minor adaptation to an environment."

It isn't only skin. Eyes, nose, hair, mouth, bones(see craniofacial anthropometry)

 

[Polymath257]

Wow.
Human beings are highly uniform genetically. In fact we are perhaps the most genetically homogeneous mammal in the entire world. In fact the problem is the other way. Biologists have a tough time explaining how the heck we are so homogeneous as a species.

Cheetahs are *far* more homogeneous. But they have gone through a population bottleneck to the place that they are almost identical genetically.

 

[Polymath257]

"Race is a *social* construct, not a biological one. Skin color is a minor adaptation to an environment."

It isn't only skin. Eyes, nose, hair, mouth, bones(see craniofacial anthropometry)

All with major overlap between supposedly distinct races. Percentages, not distinct populations.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Also don't mind me if I'm incoherently rambling, it's Friday and I am only partially sober.

Partially sober is far too sober for a Friday night.

 

[Heyo]

We are fighting over words without meaning, again. Without exact definitions, all of the following can have the same meaning: race, subspecies, tribe, breed, ethnicity, variation. They have in common that they describe variances in appearance in a species that didn't (yet) lead to speciation. The difference is in which fields the words are acceptable. We don't speak of human "breeds" but it is the technical term for dogs. Afaik, for horses it is race.
The acceptable term for humans at the time seems to be "ethnicity" but it has been "race" and "tribe" in the past. Another acceptable method is to speak of "descent".
I think the best way to avoid "political correctness" disputes is to heed Voltaire's imperative: "If you want to converse with me, first define your terms."