Psychlogical effects of racially diverse facial appearances

In some situations it is, yeah. Natural selection only cares about the current environment. Sharks are really well adapted for the Ocean, but would probably not do very well in a Rain Forest. For monkeys, it is just the opposite. Both are well adapted for their environments, but are helpless in other environments.

Designation in what way?

- - - Updated - - -

So if you lay in the sun all day every day you will be superior?

More likely you will die of exposure or get skin cancer.

 

No, because if the mixing occurred before then Africans would carry Neanderthal DNA, and if the mixing occurred after then OOA is false and multi-regional is correct.

OOA is extrapolated from very sparse data: higher genetic diversity in SSA and two East African and one North African fossils.

The higher diversity can be explained by back mixing with primitive lines such as SSA Rhodesiensis.

It seems clear that Sapiens evolved from Heidelbergensis which was a West Eurasian/North African hominid. The location is still unclear.

 

whoa ...now there's a hotly debated topic, origin/purpose of skin colour...

vitamin D generation? even in sun soaked climates where clothing is optional you will find vitamin D deficiencies...

I agree that dark skin is likely an adaptation to prevent UV damage

light skin in the North for Vitamin D, there's no purpose to light skin over the entire body if only the face and hands are exposed for Vitamin D, as well in the far northern winters there is no sunlight at all for several months but natives like the Inuit have darker complexions but do fine, why?...because our vitamin D comes primarily from nutrition...

IMO dark skin is the environmental adaptation not light, as sapiens moved north we did not require the protection needed in equatorial regions, technical advance in clothing made darker complexions redundant at that point sexual selection and geographic isolation each played became the dominant factors in colour selection...

 

monkeys are not even apes let alone sapiens, dogs are not cats...you can't compare monkey brain size with sapiens brain size and intelligence...within a single specie brain size is not a relevant indicator of intelligence...

and I'm still waiting for your list of "northern cold weather diseases" that neanderthal/sapiens interbreeding provided us immunity from,diseases that apparently strike down southern latitude dwellers...

 

of course europeans inherited neanderthal DNA which made them immune to those diseases all those who died were africans...

 

white skin has no 'inferiority' to it, they are the ones that rule all the nice countries today.

The science here is that recessive genes are responsible for evolution of all mankind, similar to when nature grants the luxury of natural immunity of disease to a minority of any given species.. We see this in some people who consume a lot of sugar and never get diabetes, or smoke cigarettes all their lives and never get lung cancer.

This observation on the micro genome level, is also seen on the macro human level... Whites are a strong minority in the world as compared with the darker races, yet their civilisations are clearly more advanced than darker civilisations because of evolution.

This all proves that they are the chosen ones by the Intelligent Designer, or "God".

 

So why are the whitest nations not the ones that are leading everyone else? Aren't they clearly more advanced?

 

Uh huh

The disagreement is only whether or not agriculture was a factor. Everyone agrees it was about Vitamin D deficiency

btw - This would explain why Inuits have darker skin. They are not an agrarian society. They are heavy meat eaters.

 

from your wiki quote(wiki is the definitive authority?) "A number of researchers disagree " ...it appears contrary to your opinion and everyone does not agree, far from it... Inuit and northern Siberians, N American aboriginals all have been living in the northern latitudes as long or longer than the date 6-12 KBP given for this change appeared in euros yet they have darker complexions than euros...origin of the gene timeline is not evidence of anything other than coincidence, blue eyes also originated about that time, so what? I've never met a blue-eyed inuit...there are modern sub-africans today that produce blond fair skinned offspring with no european DNA...


http://www.theunusualfacts.com/2013/02/a-black-nigerian-couple-gave-birth-to.html

this woman's ancestors the Sami arrived in Northern europe about 2-2.5K yrs ago
and they were not farmers they are heavy meat eaters...

the Inuit have been in the arctic as long if not longer than the Sami

there are inconsistencies everywhere...

 

...on the details of WHY people's skin color change because of Vitamin D. Observe.

The dissenters ALSO think Vitamin D was the cause of skin color changes.

...and on high meat diets. Which is what the researchers above just said.

...and the development of agriculture....which is what the researchers just said above. Here it is again:

The people you are citing still say the reason for skin color changes was because of vitamin D deficiencies. They only disagree on when it happened.

 

Some mixed populations exist. This doesn't invalidate categories anymore than vodka invalidates the existence of water.
Human variation is not a continuum and forms objective ancestral clusters in genetic PCA plots.
One of the biggest discontinuities is between Burma and Bangladesh.
There is also a significant discontinuity between Turks and Whites.

 

The team found that a change in just one amino acid in one gene plays a major role in determining why people of European descent have lighter skin than people of African descent. In people of European descent, the melanosomes are fewer, smaller, and lighter than those from people of West African ancestry, while the melanosomes of East Asians show intermediate properties. To verify the importance of the amino acid change, Shriver examined the SLC24A5 gene in populations of mixed European and West African ancestry. Individuals with the European form of SLC24A5 tended to have lighter skin than those with the ancestral form of the gene. Those findings suggested that this variation contributes between 25 percent and 38 percent of the range of skin color in this population. The team speculates that well-known variations in European eye and hair color may have been made possible by the alteration in SLC24A5. However, they say that the patterns of DNA variation indicate that the lighter skin color of East Asians is due to variation in genes that have yet to be identified.

http://news.psu.edu/story/206463/2005/12/16/fish-gene-sheds-light-human-skin-color-variation

 

Of course it does. It completely undermines the idea that "races" are completely separate and clearly demarcated groups. This is obviously not the case.

...which includes a lot of overlaps. The entire population is not uniform...many of them include traits from neighboring populations. Which is why mainstream scientists have rejected the idea of race...because no one can define it. Even racists can't.

 

Well, that was never part of the definition of race and you are arguing against a strawman. In fact, when Blumenbach developed the modern conception, he noted:

Races do not need to be "non-overlapping" to be valid, we see the same thing in subspecies of the Larus gull or the cougar.

Race is defined by shared ancestry and genetic similarity.

 

According to who? What definition are you using if not the dictionary?

Who the hell is Blumenbach and why does do you believe his definition should take precedence, whatever it is?

Then how can you define them as races? How do you know if a person is black or white or asian is they have traits from all three races?

How similar do they have to be? Are you still white if your father was black? What about a black grandfather? Great grandfather? If you cannot answer those questions, you cannot define "black" or "white" as a race.

The limits are completely arbitrary and subjective, which is what those scientists are saying in my link. The concept of race is pointless, because no one can agree on a definition of race.

 

Blumenbach developed the major race system and the term "Caucasoid" based on skull analysis. Race isn't defined by one or two traits but by overall genetic similarity, as a result of shared ancestry. Humans then cluster into major races with a few mixed populations in between. Some traits may overlap, but the groups based on overall genetics don't overlap, they blend into each other at the boundaries.

Here you can see individuals can be placed into major groups and a minority scatter between ( from Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia):



The groups don't overlap, they blend into each other. But you can see clear objective clusters which are informative for many things. Interestingly, Indians are more similar to Europeans (CEU) than geographically adjacent SE Asians, who form a tight cluster with NE Asians. Look at a map to drive that point home.

Of course you are not white if your father is black, you are mixed.

 

And who gets to decide the threshold for that similarity? Are you white as long as you have white traits, even if all your ancestors were not white? What if you fit all criteria except one? Are you still white?

Thats my point...it is completely arbitrary. You are simply choosing to defer to this one guy's opinion. But it is not scientific at all.

The genetics overlap in exactly the same way that physical traits overlap.

Which in this context is the same thing. That is exactly what the scientists in my link said...and it is why race cannot be defined. because there is no way to objectively define it.

...according to the arbitrary criteria that guy set.

If you go back far enough, everyone is mixed. So much for the idea of race eh?

 

How many of those studies also factored for economic status and how many parents were in the household.

 

What a load of nonesense. If someone has a problem with being around others that do not look exactly like them then they should do everything in their power to avoid them. I find those that cannot tolerate people of other races as being less developed either emotionally or genectically, kinda sad to still see in this day and age, but they are dieing off slowly which is a good thing for all MANKIND.

 

There is no "threshold". You are either more or less genetically similar.
In reality if you have white ancestors you will have white genes and traits. Maybe in some alternate reality where dogs produced chickens your objection to taxonomy would hold.
Overlap is not the same as blending and this is where you are confused. Alcohol can be mixed with water, the result is not alcohol or water. Overlap means individuals are in two clusters simultaneously. In fact they can only be between clusters.
Ancestry is also used to define species in phylogenetics. Is that also "arbitrary"? Humans and other species can be grouped based on genetic similarity and shared ancestry. I don't see what's arbitrary about that, and neither does the medical profession.
If you go back far enough we are all self replicating molecules. So what?

 

Of course there is. If you are defining a race, you are using definitions for those traits that define the race. Someone is deciding how dark you skin needs to be to be considered a "black" trait. Or what shape range your skull needs to be to be considered a white trait. Those are thresholds...and they are completely arbitrary.

Uh huh.

So much for genetic similarity.

So why do white and black people have *****y eyes? Why are there black people with blue eyes and blond hair?

Genetic mutations happen all the time, even within one generation. The blond mutation is recent even in Europe.

 

What's arbitrary are the one or two traits you are selecting for your strawman definition of race. Race is defined by ancestry and genetic similarity. Not skin color and head shape, which are two traits largely uncorrelated to race. Ancestry can be inferred from (a large number simultaneously) traits, those traits tend to be non-metric. Google non metric skull analysis. And ancestral groups or races inferred from non-metric traits match ancestral groups determined beyond question from genetic analysis.

Lewontin's fallacy? Lol.

So the distinction between humans and chimps is an arbitrary social construct?

Because these traits are found in those groups. So what? Race isn't defined by looking at one random trait at a time. Some cats have black hair. So what? And Melanesians are not Negroids anyway, they are a remnant population of the ancestors of Eurasians.

 

Chimps cannot breed with humans. That is why that is not arbitrary or a social construct.

How can you determine what race they belong to if you cannot define races anyway? Even the chart you posted shows many different "races" of people...not 4 or 5.

You are saying people who live close to each other are genetically similar...BFD. That does not make them a "race". Using that logic, there is no white race or black race...there are hundreds or thousands of different races.

btw - The link I posted specifically states that the blond gene they have is separate and independent of the European gene. They do not have blond hair because they are descended from Eurasians.

 

The point is that a measure of variation within groups doesn't invalidate a taxonomy.
I did define race: ancestry. Are you having memory trouble?
Of course races sub-divide. So what? Japanese and Koreans are sub-divisions of Mongoloid. Does the existence of socket wrenches invalidate wrenches? It sounds like you have a fundamental issue with nested taxonomy.
Indians are more similar to Europeans than SE Asians, despite distance. Try to read and remember things I write. Did you look at the chart and just see pretty colors and patterns? You can find these groups on a map?
I never said that's why they have blond hair. You said they were black, a colloquial synonym for Negroid.

 

If a population has equal traits of two neighboring race, are they a new race or a hybrid? At what point is a new race created?

Why are they not their own race?

According to who? Sounds like you are the one making assumptions.

I'd like to see your evidence that those people are descended from Eurasians. My link made no such claim. That sounds like another assumption you are attempting to project as fact.