Homo sapiens sapiens

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I am not sure that matters in a sense growstuff in terms of impact that it may have on particular communities. I suppose my reservation is linked to my experience with regard to HIV/Aids in the nineties, where acknowledging that this was impacting specific communities in the UK was ignored in messaging for quite a while. It led to some quite nonsensical campaigns/training etc and also lack of acknowledgement of what had happened to a particular community. I dont think this is a direct comparison but it makes me wary.

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.

For example ...

Ahed Tamimi, a prominent Palestinian activist. She was born in Palestine to Palestinian parents.

Incidentally, it's not uncommon for Palestinians to have fair hair and blue or green eyes.

Galaxy

African American women are three times as likely to get lupus than white women, their symptoms tend to be more severe. That's what I mean.

But that's not a result of their "race". It's because African populations tend to breed with other Africans and the faulty gene is passed on to their offspring. A single person developed the gene mutation hundreds (thousands?) of years ago and has passed it on.

If an African with the mutation bred with a European, the chances are that the gene would be passed on, regardless of "race".

But MOnica I have a genetic mutation means that I was at risk of developing the breast cancer I did. It means that some generations ago (no idea how many) an ancestor developed the mutation and I inherited it. My great-grandmother probably had it. If she'd have had five daughters, who had had five daughters and they'd all lived in an isolated area, they would all have been at high risk, but it wouldn't have changed the "race" they belonged to. That's why the Amish and other isolated groups have a high incidence of some mutations. It doesn't mean they're a different "race".

People pass gene mutations on to any of their offspring. It doesn't matter about interbreeding. It just so happens that some world populations tend to move around more than others, so sometimes the mutations tend to be associated with certain populations and at other times, they become more widespread. That has absolutely no influence on any other characteristics such as skin and eye colour or other physical or mental characteristics.

African American women are three times as likely to get lupus than white women, their symptoms tend to be more severe. That's what I mean.

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.

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

One cause of lupus is a mutation in the TLR7 gene. There are clumps of people with the mutation in all continents.

Galaxy

Well I am at a lower risk of lupus surely than my friend for example. So there are those medical differences.

I don't really understand what you mean. There are certainly genetic causes for medical risks, but they're a tiny part of our DNA and there aren't clear cut dividing lines.

Curtaintwitcher

Stop kidding yourselves, ladies. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, and that species has variations which we define as race. There are distinct differences between the races, both mental and physical.

Is your name Donald? You sound like someone I used to know.

Well I am at a lower risk of lupus surely than my friend for example. So there are those medical differences.

Curtaintwitcher

Stop kidding yourselves, ladies. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, and that species has variations which we define as race. There are distinct differences between the races, both mental and physical.

Oh dear!

I'm not kidding anyone. I suggest you do some homework.

MaizieD

'White isn't a 'race', it's a colour.

I'm 'white' but I have slave ancestry not so far back and goodness knows what else.

I'd agree with Vence L. Bonham Jr., J.D. Race is a social construct.

Before about the 17th century, nobody really talked about race. If anything, people were defined by their religion.

The heyday of racial theory was in the nineteenth century, when it coincided with nationalism and social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism).

I agree with you OldFrill. It was an attempt by Europeans to prove they were superior. Eventually, of course, it wasn't just people with white skin who were seen as superior, but those with "Aryan" appearance.

Stop kidding yourselves, ladies. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, and that species has variations which we define as race. There are distinct differences between the races, both mental and physical.

Yes, there was another human species - that's why the "sapiens" is doubled. Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies. There were some others too, but they've completely died out.

Today, there is only one living human species. We all came out of Africa. There weren't any Neanderthals in Africa, so anybody with purely African ancestry has no Neanderthal DNA. Once humans left Africa, humans encountered Neanderthals and some of them interbred. Neanderthals died out, but left some of their DNA in non-African humans.