[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Morphological and Genetic Races in Humans
David Marjanovic (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<Just for the record (I apologize for any possible political implications),
while dog breeds are
relatively distinct populations (by both morphology and genetics), human
"""races""" are nothing
of the sort. The """racial""" characteristics appear to be nothing more than
variation_. The most isolated human population _ever_ (IIRC) were the
inhabitants of Easter Island
for just a few hundred years, and nobody has ever invented a separate
"""race""" for them. The
rest of humanity is little more than _one_ population, despite the rather weak
Actually, there are several distinct races of human kind. I'd hate this to
come off as a
possible racist comment (I am not in any way racist), but morphologically
speaking, there can be
identified several phisologies and morphologies separable into races: the
negroid or "african"
type, the caucasian or "europoean/white" type, the oriental or "asian/amerind"
aboriginal or "australian" type, and the distinctive San or "Bushman" type,
which are not negroid
in any way. Osteological markers include proportions of the limbs, the form of
the nasals and
brow, prominence of cheeks, etc. These all form natural populations, but I do
not consider them
species, or subspecies, etc.. I myself am both Danish/German on one side of my
Amerind/Irish on the other, making me a Gaulish Celtic Viking Indian, if you
can imagine that!
There are dog breeds (less than races) that cannot, in any way, cross breed
and are, by
morphology, genetically isolated. You cannot breed a Chihuahua to a St.
Bernard, for one thing,
and I beleive this is true even of artificial insemination. One can look at the
hunter, sport, or non-sport (including the "wolf-like breeds) groups of breeds,
and see that there
are distinct morphotypes that correspond to genetically distinct populations.
We are even working
at perfecting this. That mongrels still persist indicates that cross-breeding
is prevalent. The
multiple evolution of "domestic" dogs indicates for one thing that dogs are not
even their own
species, but merely interbreedable sets of the wolf, and are *Canis lupus*
ad caput; they have no real genetic identity except at the artificial breed.
So the case is not like David describes above, but the reverse: humans _do_
morphological yet-interbreedable populations, which can be called "races", and
dogs have only
distinct breeds, but are not even a distinct species. One should actually
identify, as is being
done in cats, scientific designations for each breed which can be genetically
isolated, even by
Anagenesis? Hah ... a Vulcan's dream....
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.