Quote:
|
Originally Posted by farmerjumperdon
Wouldn't it be more correct to say we are one species, that has several bundled characteristics that we define as race? There are genetic differences between the races; they are not just cultural. I could see us disgarding the term "race" because of the negative connotations that go with it, but then we'll just come up with a different term to label the differences. I guess what I'm saying is that the differences are there, and wil not go away just because we deny the term used to categorize them...
|
I knew someone would question this resolved via genetic research issue. And I tried last night to find the thread rather than rehash it, but failed. I shall look again.
There is only one race and while we differ from each other, there are no single group of genetic markers which identify a race. There are blonds and brunettes and dark and light skin and lip and eye shapes that differ. But so are there blood types and height and weight differences. Because a few of these differences are more obvious than others, or seem to identify a group we have arbitrarily assigned them as true categories of humans.
It isn't a matter of being PC, it's a matter of genetics. Cultural groups are the ones that do exist, biological groups do not.
Look at a different example and it may become more clear. You could just as easily define race by blood type. But what would you find? You'd find that all human blood types are found around the world, mixed in families, mixed in tribes, mixed in countries and mixed on continents. Why? Because no groups in the human race have undergone isolation and sufficient time to actually branch off from one another. Our genes have remained equally mixed among all peoples, literally.
A mutation that occurs is passed down one line of humans, but not to all offspring in a group. There are mutations belonging to genetic lines. That is what this national geographic research is going to look at. That is what they already looked at in the research done identifying migration routes out of Africa. But a single mutation does not define a race. All humans on the planet differ from each other by about 0.1% of our genetic makeup, or approximately 3 million base pairs out of 3 billion in the human genome. And each differs from every other human by the same amount whether you take two people from the same village, different villages, from different countries, or from different continents. Whether we have different skin color and facial features and body types or not, there is an equal distribution of genetic material in all of us.
The amount of genetic material that is responsible for what looks like race is not only extremely small, it is equally dispersed among people that do not have the same appearance, and, that material is not consistent among people who do have the same appearance. There are single genetic markers that are more prevalent in some groups. For example, sickle cell trait is more common in groups that live in areas or came from those areas after the genetic mutation occurred, but not every person from there has the mutation. So while you find sickle cell trait more often in people of more recent African descent, not everyone recently descended from Africa has sickle cell trait. Actually we are all from African descent, just some more recently than others.
What's true about sickle cell trait is true for every genetic marker with the exception of genetic markers that were present in all ancestors of any group that migrated out of Africa and subsequently established an isolated tribe. In addition, though, that genetic mutation would have had to have occurred in route or later and have been passed on to all offspring. Genetic markers that had existed before migrating would have been passed on by humans that did not migrate with the group. So to get a genetic "race" one would have to have some genetic material, that originated after migration and was passed on to all offspring. That's doesn't happen unless you have isolation and a very long time, for slow reproducers anyway. The faster you reproduce, the faster you can get a new race which is why there are many species of birds in the Galapagos that are not on other land masses, but Hawaiians are not a different human species (or race).
Even after 40,000 years of isolation, the Australian Aboriginals did not have sufficient time to become a distinct race. Though, that group may be closer to being a separate race than any other group, they still do not have genetics sufficiently different from the rest of the humans on the planet so as to be identifiable by any genetic sequences. Any genetic sequences Australian Aboriginals have in common with each other are not unique to them. Any sequences unique to them, (there are some as they would be mutations that occurred after the group migrated away from their African ancestors), are not present in every member and no group of such mutations exist that could be said to be an identification of race. The genetic changes responsible for outward appearance are just too few and inconsistent.
But we do have cultural and ethnic groups. We do have people that look alike. But just as being blond or having type A- blood is not a race, neither is being of a certain skin color or body type.