NationStates Jolt Archive

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?

One and only one. The human race is unique.

I think in Sociology, there are eight different ethnic/race groups.

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?

1.

Actually isn't it better to say how man sub-species H. sapiens exist?

And one ring, to rule them all....

I think in Sociology, there are eight different ethnic/race groups.

Who can (and do) all interbreed. How does one call someone who is 1/4th of this, 1/8th of that, 1/8th of so and 1/2 of yet another "race" ?
I propose: "human".

AS MANY AS YOU WANT; THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST DEFINITION THERE IS ONLY GENETIC VARIATION OF IN VARIOUS, CONTINUOUS DEGREES.

*sucks in breath*


Look, there's a shit-load more variation INSIDE "races" than there are between them. These differences may or may not be important to us, depending on their location and magnitude. You MUST study genetics to actually understand this topic.

I think in Sociology, there are eight different ethnic/race groups.

Kindly term these.

Who can (and do) all interbreed. How does one call someone who is 1/4th of this, 1/8th of that, 1/8th of so and 1/2 of yet another "race" ?
I propose: "human".

They fall into a 'multibreed' category, or fall into the race that is their majority.

Kindly term these.

I'm not sure of their actual names unfortunately. I have a friend who is a sociology major, let me ask her. I'll tell you when I know...

Actually isn't it better to say how man sub-species H. sapiens exist?
That would certainly be more correct, yes. And the answer to that question would be: countless, pretty much.

They fall into a 'multibreed' category, or fall into the race that is their majority.

A single multibreed category for all possible combinations would be quite meaningless... And in a few generations the "interbreeding" will have gone so far that there might not be a clear "major race" inside them...

AS MANY AS YOU WANT; THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST DEFINITION THERE IS ONLY GENETIC VARIATION OF IN VARIOUS, CONTINUOUS DEGREES.

*sucks in breath*


Look, there's a shit-load more variation INSIDE "races" than there are between them. These differences may or may not be important to us, depending on their location and magnitude. You MUST study genetics to actually understand this topic.

Exactically!

Sociology defines 7 (not 8, sorry) ethnic/race groups:

caucasoid
negroid
ocianian
mongoloid
native american
islander
aborigines

Sociology defines 7 (not 8, sorry) ethnic/race groups:

caucasoid
negroid
ocianian
mongoloid
native american
islander
aborigines

Sociology is wrong.

Sociology is wrong.

How so? It is the study of social interaction... or well, the study of the obvious.

All of these ethnic groups are broken down by genetic type, geographic location of origination (I know we all started in Africa, but where the difference became different), and even the different social structures and cultures.

How so? It is the study of social interaction... or well, the study of the obvious.

All of these ethnic groups are broken down by genetic type, geographic location of origination (I know we all started in Africa, but where the difference became different), and even the different social structures and cultures.
I can't help but get ticked whenever I see, read or hear the word "negroid". That somehow reeks of biased views, sociology or not.

On the other hand, lots of so-called "sociological" studies are just plain out-of-date.

Sociology defines 7 (not 8, sorry) ethnic/race groups:

caucasoid
negroid
ocianian
mongoloid
native american
islander
aborigines

Out of curiosity, what might an 'islander' be? At what juncture is a distinction set between 'mongoloids' and 'native Americans'? Between 'ocianians' and 'aborigines'?

Sociology defines 7 (not 8, sorry) ethnic/race groups:

caucasoid
negroid
ocianian
mongoloid
native american
islander
aborigines

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

.....

One and only one. The human race is unique.

Yep. The Human Race. Singular.

Yep. The Human Race. Singular.
*tips imaginary hat*

Glad we agree.

How so? It is the study of social interaction... or well, the study of the obvious.

All of these ethnic groups are broken down by genetic type, geographic location of origination (I know we all started in Africa, but where the difference became different), and even the different social structures and cultures.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.
Care to expand your views?

Monosyllabism can scarcely convey messages well...

Exactically!
thanks.

I think it will be a long while before people understand the meaninglessness of the types of classifications here in this thread. these "sociological"/"anthropological" taxonomies are useless in physical, medical, genetic terms. They are also useless in regard to cultural and anthropological studies, where talking about a particular nation, tribe,or specific culture using their native names, would be much more useful. All they refer to is ouward physical resemblence (something we can all agree is both intelectually and genetically uniportant, essentially) -only a tiny portion of a person's total phenotype. Basically, an obsolete Sociology 101 list to memorize.

Care to expand your views?

Monosyllabism can scarcely convey messages well...

Bullshit is two syllables.

In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.


Not true. The Aborigines, just like the Native Americans, were completely out of touch with the Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid subgroups for centuries if not millenia. Such as in the Native American case. 10,000 years since the last ice age. That means the last Ice Age, and the bridge spanning Alaska and Russia, collapsed in 8,000 BC. That means, until the eventual landing of the Scandanavians in 1000 AD, the Native American population had been out of contact with the rest of the population of humanity for 9 millenia, which may not seem like a long time, but is more than enough for genetic variation to occur.

Not only that, but racial tribes had already moved away to form their own tribes during the time when we were still cro-magon, etc. Only within the last 3,000 years of human existance, 1,000 BC to 2,000 AD, has there been an exponential rise in travel that resulted in major genetic transference.

As of right now, I'm playing devil's advocate.

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species



No race....
Race is a defective theory.
I believe in ethnicities, but those can change, they are dynamic.
There is no genuine science for Race Classification in a biological sense or under Species in the Classification system we would see 'Race'.
I believe in Racism, a mental defect typically found in people who argue for the scientific validity of Racial classification.

To extrapolate on my calling "bullshit," here is just the tip of the iceberg of scientific articles I have regarding the nonexistence of so-called "race" except as a socio-political construct.

Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1454.html)
Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html)
Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
GENOMICS AND SOCIETY: The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/6/844)

Not true. The Aborigines, just like the Native Americans, were completely out of touch with the Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid subgroups for centuries if not millenia. Such as in the Native American case. 10,000 years since the last ice age. That means the last Ice Age, and the bridge spanning Alaska and Russia, collapsed in 8,000 BC. That means, until the eventual landing of the Scandanavians in 1000 AD, the Native American population had been out of contact with the rest of the population of humanity for 9 millenia, which may not seem like a long time, but is more than enough for genetic variation to occur.

Not only that, but racial tribes had already moved away to form their own tribes during the time when we were still cro-magon, etc. Only within the last 3,000 years of human existance, 1,000 BC to 2,000 AD, has there been an exponential rise in travel that resulted in major genetic transference.

As of right now, I'm playing devil's advocate.

I'm sorry, but did you read the whole statement of the American Anthropological Society before you started saying they were wrong about anthropology?

Not true. The Aborigines, just like the Native Americans, were completely out of touch with the Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid subgroups for centuries if not millenia. Such as in the Native American case. 10,000 years since the last ice age. That means the last Ice Age, and the bridge spanning Alaska and Russia, collapsed in 8,000 BC. That means, until the eventual landing of the Scandanavians in 1000 AD, the Native American population had been out of contact with the rest of the population of humanity for 9 millenia, which may not seem like a long time, but is more than enough for genetic variation to occur.

Not only that, but racial tribes had already moved away to form their own tribes during the time when we were still cro-magon, etc. Only within the last 3,000 years of human existance, 1,000 BC to 2,000 AD, has there been an exponential rise in travel that resulted in major genetic transference.

As of right now, I'm playing devil's advocate.All this is true - but the thing is, Human are still closer to each other genetically that almost any other species. We certainly have poplulation differences because of the isolation you describe. Howeverm the exreme youth of the sepecies, and the genertic bottleneck of reduced population during the ice-age has ensured that we are all very close genetically compared to diversity in other species. Some gentic trends are important and meaningful though, and they distinguish different populations, or 'races', if you like.

I feel like a fucking brocken record today. All these threads are the same, and all of them so fearfully mis-guided.

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species



No race....
Race is a defective theory.
I believe in ethnicities, but those can change, they are dynamic.
There is no genuine science for Race Classification in a biological sense or under Species in the Classification system we would see 'Race'.
I believe in Racism, a mental defect typically found in people who argue for the scientific validity of Racial classification.

In the plant kingdom, after species comes cultivated variety, or 'cultivar'. So a hibiscus can come in all kinds of colors, yet they are all still Hibiscus. Nature provided a certain number of varieties, and the rest are hybrids and crossbreds and grafts, resulting in a myriad of colors, sizes, and shapes.

Some cultivars are more valued than others, but of course, that is only in the eye of the beholder.

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?
As far as I can recall there's the 100m, 200m, 400m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m and marathon.

Oh, and 110m hurdles and steeplechase.

So that makes 9.

I don't think I left any out.

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

You forgot Domain (eukaryotes/prokaryotes). A handy nemonic is "Dirty King Phillip Cries Out For Good Sex" :)

One.

As far as I can recall there's the 100m, 200m, 400m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m and marathon.

Oh, and 110m hurdles and steeplechase.

So that makes 9.

I don't think I left any out.Don't forget the relays...;)

As far as I can recall there's the 100m, 200m, 400m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m and marathon.

Oh, and 110m hurdles and steeplechase.

So that makes 9.

I don't think I left any out.

Ewww! A brownie for being creative! :D

The general view, in terms of culture, linguistics, physical characteristics and genetics are that there are 5 races, although there are of course many ethnicities and cultures that represent various degrees of admixture or variation between and within these groups. The races are:

Capoid - the people of the Kalahari Desert and surrounding areas; known for their slightly yellower skin and click languages; they are sometimes identified as being "the first human race".
Negroid - The natives of sub-Saharan Africa; with the exception of the Kalahari Desert.
Australoid - The aboriginal natives of Melanasia, New Guinea, and Australia; with admixture present in South East Asia and South India.
Caucasoid - The natives of Europe, the Middle East, parts of Central Asia (where they represent the pre-Mongol and pre-Turkic peoples of the region), and South Asia.
Mongoloid - The natives of East Asia, South East Asia, Polynesia, The Americas, and parts of Central Asia (Mongolia, and those areas colonized by Mongol or Turkic tribes, such as Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan etc).

race is a largely western construct, as far as I have been told by friends from other regions.

However, if you were to destroy all but one single population, you would retain a full 86% of the genetic diversity. Within chimps and gorillas, you would retain only 28% and 10%, respectivly. Interestingly, when you look at each sub species of chimp (I'm talking about the standard chimp...I'm not sure about bonobos) you get a figure much closer to that of the entire human population...say...85-90% of genes would be retained.

What does all this mean? It means that a) the human species is very new and b) we have much MUCH more in common than differences. There have been studies that showed the Scandinavians have more in common with a certain population in Africa than their neighboring tribe (at the genetic level).

There are no races. Even more importantly, there are absolutly NO sub species. Nearly all of our physical differences can be accounted for in about 2% of genes. That is not enough for speciation or even subspeciation.

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?

1

As far as I can recall there's the 100m, 200m, 400m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m and marathon.

Oh, and 110m hurdles and steeplechase.

So that makes 9.

I don't think I left any out.


Isn't there also a 400m hurdles?

Being 1/4th Gnome, I am offended by all of you who said "1".

:p

Depending on how you define "race", there is either one, or something in excess of six billion.

:p

I like to make original answers...But there is only one for this question: 1!

All other concepts of race are social constructs without any merit.

3 **definitive nod**

AS MANY AS YOU WANT; THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST DEFINITION THERE IS ONLY GENETIC VARIATION OF IN VARIOUS, CONTINUOUS DEGREES.

*sucks in breath*


Look, there's a shit-load more variation INSIDE "races" than there are between them. These differences may or may not be important to us, depending on their location and magnitude. You MUST study genetics to actually understand this topic.

This is absolutely correct.

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?

One...

Home Sapien Sapien....

Two:

I. Homo sapiens neanderthaliensis (who is extinct)
II. Homo sapiens sapiens (who is yet to extinct itself)

There's only one human race:
This can be proven by genetic comparison of the mtDNA (DNA of the mitochondria) which is only carried on via the ovum.
Therefore, science can pretty much narrow it down to a common ancestor-mother who lived approximately 172,000 years ago in Africa.
This has been shown by comparing 53 different ethnic groups (not races!) from all around the world.
In addition, there are 3 sampled Neanderthal mtDNA strands which clearly show a distinction between "us" and "them"; but not between "them" and not between "us".

I rest my case.

Two:

I. Homo sapiens neanderthaliensis (who is extinct)
II. Homo sapiens sapiens (who is yet to extinct itself)

There's only one human race:
This can be proven by genetic comparison of the mtDNA (DNA of the mitochondria) which is only carried on via the ovum.
Therefore, science can pretty much narrow it down to a common ancestor-mother who lived approximately 172,000 years ago in Africa.
This has been shown by comparing 53 different ethnic groups (not races!) from all around the world.
In addition, there are 3 sampled Neanderthal mtDNA strands which clearly show a distinction between "us" and "them"; but not between "them" and not between "us".

I rest my case.

Wouldn't that technically be three then?

1. Homo sapien
2. Homo sapien neaderthalis
3. Homo sapien sapien

Then this begs the question, would Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis also be inclusive to "human"? Or is it merely limited to the Homo sapien line?

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?
One. So far as I am aware, any human can breed with any other human ( given average health and a heterosexual orientation ). That's the definition of "species."

Wouldn't that technically be three then?

1. Homo sapien
2. Homo sapien neaderthalis
3. Homo sapien sapien

Then this begs the question, would Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis also be inclusive to "human"? Or is it merely limited to the Homo sapien line?


If you would like to be technical about it, the question was how many human races exist. Since the previously mentioned species (except us) are now extinct, that makes the answer one, as previous posters have so eloquently stated.

The question you are begging would be more suited to a different thread, something along the lines of how many human races (if you would like to use that term) have existed.

Biologically race doesn't exist. Socially it's a nice construct when you need to play the "us vs. them" game. Just ask the KKK or Jesse Jackson. There can be as many or as few as you need. I usually identify about 7 or 8 in my everyday speech. Mainly out of habit.

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?

Only one currently exists - H. sapiens sapiens. One other existed, but H. sapiens idaltu are extinct.

H. sapiens neanderthalensis are now generally classified as a separate species - H. neanderthalensis - on the basis of recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA. However, there appears to be some fossil evidence of interbreeding that makes that subject to debate.


Wouldn't that technically be three then?

1. Homo sapien
2. Homo sapien neaderthalis
3. Homo sapien sapien

Then this begs the question, would Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis also be inclusive to "human"? Or is it merely limited to the Homo sapien line?

Nope. Race/subspecies is a taxon below species. Homo is the genus, the first sapiens is the species, and the second sapiens and idaltu are the race/subspecies.

Neanderthalensis is, as I said above, currently widely classified as a separate species, but may possibly be a race/subspecies.

Habilis and erectus would be earlier species of the genus Homo.

One. So far as I am aware, any human can breed with any other human ( given average health and a heterosexual orientation ). That's the definition of "species."

But not quite the definition of race/subspecies. Races/subspecies exhibit discontinuous phenotypic variation (there is a distinct marked differernce in apperance that does not gradiate). They are capable of interbreeding, but only do so on isolated occassions (usually due to geographic isolation). Thgis is why the only existant race is H. sapiens sapiens - H. sapiens sapiens clinal variation (differences gradiate) and freely interbreed.

In your view, precisely how many races of H. sapiens exist?

One

Biologically race doesn't exist. Socially it's a nice construct when you need to play the "us vs. them" game. Just ask the KKK or Jesse Jackson. There can be as many or as few as you need. I usually identify about 7 or 8 in my everyday speech. Mainly out of habit.

Exactly!

I can't help but get ticked whenever I see, read or hear the word "negroid". That somehow reeks of biased views, sociology or not.

On the other hand, lots of so-called "sociological" studies are just plain out-of-date.
Um yeah. I'm taking a degree in arts (mainly in sociology/politics) and we've been told that races do not exist, as has been proven by genetic study, but that race as an arbitrary definition can be a useful analytical tool. For example, studying Indigenous history in Australia. This doesn't make races real. Also the fact that the definitions and borders are acknowledges as arbitrary makes Empyria's list well, antiquated crap really. :p

So hurrah for all being humans!

One. So far as I am aware, any human can breed with any other human ( given average health and a heterosexual orientation ). That's the definition of "species."

This definition assumes sexual reproduction, leaving the term undefined for those species characterized by partial or exclusive asexuality. Furthermore, what of viable hybrids? Largely superficial phenotypical or behavioral disparity is, in some cases, all that stands between intermixture of two otherwise genetically- and physically-compatible species.

In the plant kingdom, after species comes cultivated variety, or 'cultivar'. So a hibiscus can come in all kinds of colors, yet they are all still Hibiscus. Nature provided a certain number of varieties, and the rest are hybrids and crossbreds and grafts, resulting in a myriad of colors, sizes, and shapes.

Some cultivars are more valued than others, but of course, that is only in the eye of the beholder.
Which is why I used the classification system for Animals--not plants.

And dealing with a few more bits of misinformation I didn't see last night:


kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species



No race....
Race is a defective theory.
I believe in ethnicities, but those can change, they are dynamic.
There is no genuine science for Race Classification in a biological sense or under Species in the Classification system we would see 'Race'.

This is not correct. Taxonomy has recognised subspecies (aka race) for over 100 years. See these links for more information:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Sp/Sub-semi.pdf
http://www.goodrumj.com/Smith.html

I believe in Racism, a mental defect typically found in people who argue for the scientific validity of Racial classification.

Many of those who are arguing for the standard racial classifications are using outdated taxon definitions. IMHO, a mupsimustic refusal could be considered a defect. But then again, many people would seem to have that defect, at least to some degree or another. ;)

Which is why I used the classification system for Animals--not plants.

Taxonomy is the classification of organisms, not plants or animals. The poster you were repling to had their taxons confused (see below). There are not separate taxons for the different kingdoms (at least not until below the subspecies level).

In the plant kingdom, after species comes cultivated variety, or 'cultivar'. So a hibiscus can come in all kinds of colors, yet they are all still Hibiscus. Nature provided a certain number of varieties, and the rest are hybrids and crossbreds and grafts, resulting in a myriad of colors, sizes, and shapes.

Some cultivars are more valued than others, but of course, that is only in the eye of the beholder.

This is almost correct. Plants have species. Cultivar is a taxon, but it is below the level of species.

CLASSIFICATION BELOW SPECIES LEVEL
Variations within the species which occur in nature are classified into infra-specific taxa - mostly subspecies, varietas (= botanical variety), and forma (form).
Variations which are selected in cultivation and deliberately propagated are called cultivated varieties (cultivar for short), or simply varieties.
REMEMBER! Variety or cultivar is not the same as varietas or botanical variety.

HOW TO WRITE PLANT NAMES (PROPERLY!)
The Latin name of a plant is the name of the Genus (always with an initial capital) followed by the name of the species (always with a small initial letter), usually written in italics.
E.g. creeping buttercup:
Ranunculus repens correct
ranunculus repens wrong!
Ranunculus Repens wrong!

If the species has infraspecific categories e.g. in asparagus, which has two subspecies, they are written as:
Asparagus officinalis subsp. prostratus correct
Asparagus officinalis subsp. officinalis correct
but:
Asparagus officinalis prostratus wrong!
Asparagus Officinalis Prostratus wrong!
Asparagus Officinalis subsp. Prostratus wrong!
Asparagus officinalis officinalis wrong!

The rank of the infraspecific category must always be stated ie is it subspecies, varietas, or form etc? [Abbreviated as subsp. (or ssp.), var. and f. The plurals are subspp. (or sspp.), vars., and ff.]

Hence in creeping willow there are a number of botanical varieties which are written as so:

Salix repens var. repens

Salix repens var. fusca

Salix repens var. argentea

BUT NOT: Salix repens repens, Salix repens fusca or Salix repens argentea.


HOW TO WRITE CULTIVAR NAMES (PROPERLY!)

Selected forms of plants which are grown in gardens and which do not occur in the wild are called cultivars or cultivated varieties or simply varieties.

Until recently their names were written in two ways, both of which were correct, and will be found in older literature:

Geranium endressii cv. A.T. Johnson

or Geranium endressii ‘A. T. Johnson’

Ipheion uniflora cv. Wisley Blue

or Ipheion uniflora ‘Wisley Blue’

However, a recent change in the Rules means that you must from now on only quote cultivar names within single inverted commas i.e. Geranium endressii ‘A. T. Johnson’ and Ipheion uniflora ‘Wisley Blue’, etc. Do not use the abbreviation cv.

Note that cultivar names must begin with capital letters.

Note also that modern cultivar names are now always in a modern language, not Latin, and are not written in italics like the Latin names.

(But old cultivar names invented before these rules may be in Latin form; they are still valid. Old common Latin cultivar names are ‘alba’ for white-flowered varieties and ‘flore pleno’ for double forms.)

If the species is uncertain, it may be omitted, hence this is still correct:

Rosa ‘Lord Penzance’

Rhododendron ‘Pink Pebble’

Note that if you are referring to a long list of species or varieties from the same genus, you can abbreviate the genus name to an initial letter, e.g. Sorbus japonica, S. ‘Joseph Rock’, S. intermedia, S. insignis ‘Bellona’.
TOP


http://www.habitas.org.uk/gardenflora/taxa.htm#cbs