Homo sapiens sapiens

oldfrill I think it was reasonably clear that this wasn't the problem, more a cry of despair from a doctor running out reasons for his anaemia. I am sure if he had thought this was a real possibility, a DNA test would have taken place.

I was really using this of an example where a disease had an ethnic connection. There are others, but I am not specifically aware of them.

OldFrill

M0nica

For once I share something with Curtaintwitcher. I agree that there are genetic differences between races.

My grandson suffers from anaemia and the doctors can not find a cause. One possibility they considered was sickle cell anaemia, which is limited in the ethnic groups who suffer from it and . Sickle cell disease is most commonly seen in people of African and Caribbean backgrounds. (quote from NHS site) and his parents were asked if they were absolutely sure that there was no one of Afro-Carribean origin in their family trees.

Other ethnic groups share certain genes that are less common in other groups.

Europeans (white people) are not the only or first ones to define people's position in society by colour. In the Indian caste system, among Middle Eastern people there is a hierarchy based on colour, also in other areas of Asia.

The attractions of women in almost any culture or race have always been defined by colour, the women who are 'fair' are considered of greater beauty than women who are dark. Dark haired, darker skinned women, usually meaning those with a rosier complexion or tanned are connected with all that that is evil.

The wicked stepmother is always shown as dark haired, and dark coloured, likewise Morgan-le-fey. The Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, is always seen as fair, except in a few more mdern interpretations, even though, as a native of Palestine she would, in fact, have been Middle Eastern in colouring with dark hair, dark eyes and a darker complexion than most European people.

Did you grandson have a DNA test? Surely that's the obvious and only way to confirm his ethnicity. No-one could be absolutely sure of their ancestry.

'Hierarchy' is key to race having been defined by colour, and it's not the lower castes instigating the method.

No, a DNA test doesn't confirm ethnicity or even distant ancestry. I've had my whole genome mapped for medical research. The researchers will map any identifiable mutations against any medical conditions I develop.

However, the test don't tell me what my ethnicity is. Population geneticists know that certain haplotypes are more common in certain regions, but they're not exclusive. It only takes one person with a particular mutation to produce children, who produce more children etc etc for a "colony" of people to form. If they're lucky and they're left to live their lives, the population will become quite substantial.

A DNA test can tell you the "likelihood" of being descended from people in a certain area of the world, but it's not definitive.

By the way, the inspiration for this thread was a thread about Tasmanian Aborigines. Currently, a few thousand people identify as Tasmanian Aborigines and they were offended because the UN said they were extinct. Scientifically, Tasmanian Aborigines no longer exist - at least there is nobody alive today with 100% Tasmanian Aboriginal DNA. What apparently happened was that some women were taken into slavery and interbred with Europeans and their ancestors now identify as Tasmanian Aborigines and are keen to keep their culture alive. It's an example of science not entirely matching politics and culture.

This is quite an interesting read:

www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/14/australia.features11

I started thinking about the match between genetics and culture.

Boris Johnson (the stereotype of an Eton/Oxford English man) inherited his blonde hair from his Turkish ancestor (along with the rest of the Johnsons). Turks are usually considered to be Central Asians or Middle Eastern. If people could be slotted into convenient "races", what is he?

M0nica

oldfrill I think it was reasonably clear that this wasn't the problem, more a cry of despair from a doctor running out reasons for his anaemia. I am sure if he had thought this was a real possibility, a DNA test would have taken place.

I was really using this of an example where a disease had an ethnic connection. There are others, but I am not specifically aware of them.

No, it probably has a genetic cause, not an ethnic one.

Believing something to be true doesn't make it true. There are so many untruths being bandied about at the moment, and too many people happy to go along with them.
Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are all apes but are distinctly different from each other. The same applies to humans.

The arguments here are getting dafter and dafter.

We are agreed that we are all homo sapiens sapiens, yet I am getting the feeling that people are confusing race with being a separate species.

Within the species, homo sapiens sapiens, millions of years of moving round the world has led to the coalescing of groups in certain geographic areas and changes in them genetically and other to adjust to the conditions of this habitat..

Has no one read their Darwin and his work on the finches of the Galapagos. How the same birds colonised the different islands, but remained on the island they were born on once there and over centuries and generations adapted genetically to the specific demands of the habitat of their specific island to, become recogniseably and gentically different species of birds?

It is the same with horses. The difference between Shetland ponies adapted to the environement in which they lived and race courses, and dogs, huskie - chihuahuas. We are mammals like birds, horses and dogs, why on earth shouldn't different groups of people living in specific environments, adjust to them genetically over many generations?

Human beings are still evolving. Research has shown that as we have taken to eating softer food, no more chewing properly baked bread crusts, tough meat etc means that we are gradually evolving to have smaller jaws. ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/wisdom-teeth-failing-appear-human-jaw-evolves.

The science is straight forward. The way some humans get their knickers in a twist trying to prove that humans do not evolve and adapt like other animals is bemusing and groups evolve to be well adjusted to their natural habitats, And of course these groups are not contained within rigid bounds and are a bit fuzzy round the edges makes sense bcause except in a very few exceptional cases there has always been marriages between people of different races around the edges.

It is amusing to watch people so set in their ways they ignore ny evidence that might, on examination, challenge their views.

Curtaintwitcher

Believing something to be true doesn't make it true. There are so many untruths being bandied about at the moment, and too many people happy to go along with them.
Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are all apes but are distinctly different from each other. The same applies to humans.

Eh?

Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans aren't even the same species.

No, whatever it is you're trying to suggest doesn't apply to humans. All humans share over 99% of their DNA.

Yes, I've read "On the Origin of Species". Of course, Darwin didn't even know about DNA and he knew nothing about how variation is generated or how traits could be inherited. Although Mendel and Darwin were contemporaries, Darwin knew almost nothing about Mendelian genetics.

M0nica

The arguments here are getting dafter and dafter.

We are agreed that we are all homo sapiens sapiens, yet I am getting the feeling that people are confusing race with being a separate species.

Within the species, homo sapiens sapiens, millions of years of moving round the world has led to the coalescing of groups in certain geographic areas and changes in them genetically and other to adjust to the conditions of this habitat..

Has no one read their Darwin and his work on the finches of the Galapagos. How the same birds colonised the different islands, but remained on the island they were born on once there and over centuries and generations adapted genetically to the specific demands of the habitat of their specific island to, become recogniseably and gentically different species of birds?

It is the same with horses. The difference between Shetland ponies adapted to the environement in which they lived and race courses, and dogs, huskie - chihuahuas. We are mammals like birds, horses and dogs, why on earth shouldn't different groups of people living in specific environments, adjust to them genetically over many generations?

Human beings are still evolving. Research has shown that as we have taken to eating softer food, no more chewing properly baked bread crusts, tough meat etc means that we are gradually evolving to have smaller jaws. ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/wisdom-teeth-failing-appear-human-jaw-evolves.

The science is straight forward. The way some humans get their knickers in a twist trying to prove that humans do not evolve and adapt like other animals is bemusing and groups evolve to be well adjusted to their natural habitats, And of course these groups are not contained within rigid bounds and are a bit fuzzy round the edges makes sense bcause except in a very few exceptional cases there has always been marriages between people of different races around the edges.

It is amusing to watch people so set in their ways they ignore ny evidence that might, on examination, challenge their views.

Common sense and knowing a thing or two isn’t always appreciated on forums Monica but I applaud your post.

The difference between Shetland ponies adapted to the environement in which they lived and race courses

No, Shetland ponies did not evolve to the environment in which they lived. That's Lamarckism, which Darwin disproved. Shetland ponies thrive in their environment because the ones most suited to their environment survived and produced offspring. That's what Darwinian evolution is about.

Incidentally, who on this thread has tried to claim that humans don't evolve?

You seem to be arguing with yourself here growstuff. What is it that you're wanting people to say? Anything that posters have said so far has been met with your dismissal as being wrong or unproven and I'm really not sure what it is that you're looking for anymore. Is it just 100% agreement you're needing?

Characteristics of certain groups are more than a bit fuzzy round the edges.

All humans share over 99% of their DNA with each other. The differences between people are minute. Not only that, but there is more genetic variation within a single population subgroup than between two different population subgroups. In other word, from a scientific perspective, distinct races don't exist.

We are all members of one human race. Any secondary interpretation of race as subgroups is much more complicated and is a human construct based on shared language, history, culture, beliefs, etc.

Scat

You seem to be arguing with yourself here growstuff. What is it that you're wanting people to say? Anything that posters have said so far has been met with your dismissal as being wrong or unproven and I'm really not sure what it is that you're looking for anymore. Is it just 100% agreement you're needing?

I don't want anybody to say anything. I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Scat

You seem to be arguing with yourself here growstuff. What is it that you're wanting people to say? Anything that posters have said so far has been met with your dismissal as being wrong or unproven and I'm really not sure what it is that you're looking for anymore. Is it just 100% agreement you're needing?

Nope! I don't need anything.

I believe that people are people. But I believe the concept of 'us' and 'them' is hard-wired into a species whose survival has probably been the result of more aggressive family groups overcoming less aggressive ones, generation upon generation. You don't get dogs treating one another this way. One 'breed' doesn't assert itself on the basis of its pedigree; they pick their friends on the basis of compatibility.
But we cannot even imagine an 'us' without identifying others as 'them. And now we even choose to 'other' people who do or don't agree that people should have equal rights.
Unless we can educate ourselves away from these primitive knee-jerk attitudes we deserve to become another failed species.

Many people forget that slavery was common all over the world until recently. The tribes almost all almost all took captives from battle into servitude and the slave traders were the suppliers of slaves to transport last century.

I heard that there are still slave markets in Mali. Dors anyone have up to date knowledge?

I agree with the original post...race is political and fluid. A good example is how we have associated slavery with black people. This was never the case slavery was common using white people until they were used in the Caribbean and died off too quickly from malaria, it was discovered that some black slaves from Africa didn't die (that sickle cell gene that protects against malari) and so black slaves from Africa became more valuable as slaves. Nothing to do with racism. pure economics. cruel economics I might add. The whole idea of races wasn't born until the early 19th century when racial groups were studied by Blumenbach in Gorttingen, at the time the most advanced medical university in Europe. The races were given names. Semitic, Mongol, Negro...terms I thought we had rejected long ago. (The term Semitic incidentally had nothing to do with jews it described the Arabic race. All these races were described intricately with facial characteristics and of course with a line of superiority favouring the white European. That's what you studied. Its only now that such physical characteristics are being seen as just that adopted primarily to suit climactic and food resource conditions, ever changing. There is no such thing as a 'race' gene. It is like a certain worrying trend on Ancestry where you can have your DNA analysed and they will give you a analysis of your geographical lineage. This can be understood wrongly too. For instance there is no gene that says you are Spanish or Norwegian..all there can be is a comparison of data from around the world and your DNA having more similarities with those in certain geographical areas. And the more data they get the more it changes. It's really interesting in that respect. And let's not forget that the earliest Anglo-Saxon man discovered recently was dark skinned with blue eyes.

Göttingen

There is only one human race, in variety.

I am part of human race. Happy to be alive, healthy and sort of wealthy. Content with my lot that's me!

I have studies evolution to first degree level. Admittedly that was decades ago way back in the last century. Darwin and Mendal may mot have met but Darwin knew there was something he was missing. There is no difference that matters between any 2 humans.

One political/social side is that I, like another poster on this thread, have white slave ancestry. However I have discussed this often with black people and they say it doesnt count as racism unless the slave is black. In fact that is a racist thing to say but try telling that to a black person.

What 'race' means to me is a slightly naughty word that offends many people. I am aware that geneticists don't believe in race although they do believe in biologically -acquired physical traits and their occasional relevance to specific geographical areas.

One political/social side is that I, like another poster on this thread, have white slave ancestry. However I have discussed this often with black people and they say it doesnt count as racism unless the slave is black. In fact that is a racist thing to say but try telling that to a black person.

That was me, I think, Stillstanding, but my slave ancestry is black.

I don't quite understand the rest of your paragraph, though.

Why should black, or white, slavery 'count as racism'?

Grany

What about the "royal family" they have blue blood what sort of race are they? One is our HoS though, they don't do much as been found, cut ribbons, wave, Some people curtsey and bow to them. But polling shows they are not so popular. Could they become extinct

Sarcasm , lowest form of wit!!. Think you'll find they're more popular than Starmer. Or Biden for that matter. Continuity is the name of the game. Wanting the extinction of people , especially Royal people, very popular under fascist communism.

During the French Revolition, I expect *Grany's ancester was one of the tricoteuse,What the women who sat and knitted while attending public executions during the French Revolution were called
"as gleeful as the most ragged and revolutionary tricoteuse"