'Black'. Actually we're all just human beings. And as such we're all just part of the 'human race' who happen to have different shades of skin color i.e. people of color. That's the true gist of the findings. http://www.adversity.net/FRAMES/Editorials/54_Paler_Shade_of_Black.htm
The pigmentation variation in Europeans and East Asians is attributed to specific SNPs in the region of OCA2 and HERC2 (Donnelly et al. 2012). It's unclear if Vitamin D deficiency has something to do with light skin alleles observed in Europeans and East Asians. The light skin allele of rs1800414 (C) is found almost exclusively in East and Southeast Asia (up to 76%). The three-SNP haplotype system (rs4778138, rs4778241, and rs7495174) is associated with blue eyes and there is no known biological advantage to having blue eyes. Mutations in OCA2 are known to cause oculocutaneous albinism type 2. However, the gene is also known to play a role in variation in normal pigmentation. In European populations, it is primarily associated with blue irises. Several sites in and around OCA2 have been reported to be the functional variant or to be tightly linked to the functional variant leading to blue eyes. These sites include a three-SNP haplotype (rs4778138, rs4778241, rs7495174) and four individual SNPs, rs1129038, rs12913832, rs916977, and rs1667394 (Duffy et al. 2007; Sturm et al. 2008; Kayser et al. 2008; Sulem et al. 2007; Mengel-From et al. 2010; Walsh et al. 2010). Four of the SNPs (rs1129038, rs12913832, rs916977, rs1667394) are actually located in introns of the Hect Domain and RCC1-like Domain 2 (HERC2 [MIM 605837]), which are located 10 Kb upstream of OCA2. These are thought either to be located in or near an upstream regulatory region of OCA2 or to be in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with functional elements in HERC2 and affect a possible HERC2 regulation of OCA2. The actual function of HERC2 is unknown but it shows homology to known E3 ubiquitin-protein ligases. One of the HERC2 SNPs (rs1667394) has been associated with blond hair in Europeans (Sulem et al. 2007). Specific polymorphisms and the haplotypes are illustrated in Fig. 1; all 21 SNPs studied are listed in Table 2. The derived allele of another SNP at OCA2, rs1800407, has been associated with green/hazel eyes in Europeans (Branicki et al. 2009). Rs1800407 is an arginine to glutamine missense mutation (Arg419Gln) found in exon 13 of the OCA2 gene. Sturm et al. (2008 ) concluded that the derived allele of rs1800407 increased the penetrance of the blue eye phenotype associated with the derived allele of rs12913832. The derived allele at a missense SNP (rs1800414, His615Arg) in exon 19 of OCA2 has been reported to be specific to East Asia (Yuasa et al. 2007; Anno et al. 2008 ). Edwards et al. (2010) showed an association between the derived allele of rs1800414 (C, 615Arg) and lighter skin pigmentation in a sample of individuals of East Asian ancestry from Canada and confirmed their results using an independent sample of Han Chinese. Here we present our results on the global distributions of haplotypes and specific SNPs in the region of OCA2 and HERC2, genes that have been implicated in pigmentation variation in Europeans and East Asians. We also examine the LD between the SNPs and haplotypes of interest. Finally, we use long-range haplotype tests to show that OCA2 is or has been under selection in Europe and the derived allele of rs1800414 is, or has been, under selection in East Asia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3325407/
So forensic anthropology isn't a real science? I think you're mistaken and your source is distorting the meaning of the findings. Go ahead and look up http://ancestry.com/dna or http://dna.myheritage.com The fact is that race does in fact exist. If you prefer to pretty it up with more politically correct terms like 'ethnicity' I don't mind, but calling a pig a cow doesn't change the nature of the beast. Denying a problem exists does not make it go away, it just prevents you from solving it.
Post like this crack me up. Michael Jackson spent millions to make himself look white. I'll just leave it there for now.
LOL...it didn't take much to make the OP message look ridiculous. So I guess the findings that show the brain size of and I.Q. of blacks compared to any other race is considerably smaller doesn't make a difference at all?
Honestly to combat Scientific Racism you have to go deeper than claiming 'we're all from Africa' and "we're all the same race' because those arguments are meaningless. They are not strong enough to counter the pseudoscientific nature of Scientific Racism. The racists simply ridicule these arguments as absurd and try to counter it by attempting to sound more scientific than you. While it is true that the concept of race is not useful for humans there is geographically based genetic variation which means there are some differences in certain traits. To combat racism you have to explain that we have more commonalities than differences and we are not different in the way that racists claim. That is more effective than simply saying that there are no races. The fundamental question that most people in this conversation care about is do human races or populations differ in mental characteristics such as intelligence and personality which supposedly determine culture? That is what people care about. Explaining how human skin colors evolved doesn't address this question. The "race is only skin deep" argument isn't good either because there are more differences than what we can see with our eyes. But do we differ in mental characteristics. That's the most important question. Personally I don't care about how skin color evolved but that's not important to me. I don't care about hair texture, or height, or running ability either. If those things are different that doesn't bother me. If that which makes us human is different i.e. mental characteristics then that is bothersome especially if it means that racist stereotypes like Blacks are stupid or more violent are true. This is very effective propaganda which is why I feel it is important to address it. Even if racists were right however I would still be an Egalitarian. I would still be against racism. Society finds it morally wrong to discriminate against the mentally challenged and disabled so how is racism justified if races are different in mental characteristics? I would argue that the racist position is not only scientifically wrong but morally absurd. The absence of human races doesn't mean the absence of racism. You can still discriminate against people based on superficial differences and have a society that gives privilege based on skin color even if scientifically there are no races. The link in the OP is having fun with the American One-Drop Rule by saying that since we all descend from Africans we are all Black. I feel this is drawing attention to the wrong thing. We are all human but that doesn't dispute the claim that we are different in important characteristics. Egalitarians need to understand this. The best way to combat Scientific Racism is to refute the scientific argument. This is the scientific argument that needs to be addressed. Racists like Libhater and Rayznack are completely obsessed with brain size and IQ. It is their best argument that we are different in mental characteristics. On the surface it appears to make sense. After all the brain is the organ that determines our mental characteristics and IQ appears to be a scientific means to measure intelligence. So if we are different in the brain or different in IQ then it can be reasonably assumed that we are different in mental characteristics. Well scientifically speaking these assumptions are based on fallacies. As it turns out brain size does not determine intelligence within a species normal range of variation. There is a moderate correlation between brain volume and IQ because brain mass is related to cognitive function but normal variation in brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. Brain size varies by latitude due to skull shape because skulls in Northern climates become more spherical in order to conserve body temperature. So there are regional differences in brain size but these differences are very small and have no impact on intelligence. Men and women have larger differences in brain size due to sexual dimorphism. Because men are taller and have larger bodies they also have larger heads yet the IQs of the sexes are relatively the same. The more likely explanation for large differences in average IQ score between demographic groups and nations is that there are differences in the environment between populations that causes differences in the nurturing of intelligence. Studies show that when you control for environmental variables such as Socioeconomic Status, family and neighborhood quality the Black-White IQ gap is virtually eliminated. The gap also narrowed in America by 4-7 IQ points between 1972 and 2002. There is no scientific basis for assuming that human evolution led to differences in mental characteristics. As a species we have more in common than we have differences and mental traits are one of those commonalities. Here are some sources that back up my statements: [video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]
Well ignoring the fact that Asians have higher neanderthal DNA ...yeah spread your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) propoganda In 2010, scientists made a startling discovery about our past: About 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of living Europeans and Asians. Researchers also have found a peculiar pattern in non-Africans: People in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans.
Modern humans descend from one evolutionary lineage with some slight interbreeding with archaic humans. We became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa. Interbreeding with Neanderthal was minimal and certainly had no impact on mental characteristics.
Thank you for your opinion, but there is a lot of evidence contrary to your opinion , interbreeding with neandrathals had a big effect on Europeans and Asians...
http://www.albanydailystar.com/heal...rthal-dna-hartford-technology-time-16330.html Neanderthal DNA does influence when and where nearby genes are turned on or off Neanderthal sequences cluster around genes that affect skin, hair, fat metabolism, and the risk of type 2 diabetes, cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, and—bizarrely—smoking addiction (more on that later). Today, Europeans and Asians carry, on average, between 1.5 percent and 4 percent Neandertal DNA
I tend to reject the notion that modern humans evolved into a higher race. Light skin mutations such as OCA2 and HERC2 may have occurred randomly to some of our ancestors by accident as a form of albinism and those with lighter skin tones may have migrated northwards to avoid skin damage from sun exposure, from sunburn to skin cancer. This is how the ancestors of Scandinavians and Russians reached where they live today. Otherwise, there is no rationale to migrate to Scandinavia. February is usually Sweden's coldest month, with temperatures from - 22 to -3°C.
I see, but these are important differential characteristics that point to differences in what we talk about as race.
If you could wave your magic wand, and end Racists, there would still be bigots. Sure some of the racists are bigots, but not all. In JR high, wearing too short pants got you discriminated against. Racism, is the friction installed, to elevate a group, only in our instance is it white, although it could be elsewhere.
The Neanderthal insertions happened a long time before the human gene pool bottleneck. therefore, the NEanderthal stuff is homogenous. Mostly.
"New Flash" for YOU. Race/subspecies is hardly just pigmentation! Skin Color is just one of the SETS of features that distinguish Races. So that: even if a Pygmy was an albino, he would be easily distinguishable from a Scandinavian or NE Asian. So that: Forensic anthropolgists can and do tell races are apart from Skeletal remains alone. So that: if you send your BLOOD and $150 into National Geo's GENOgraphic project, they'll tell you what Percent of each 'indigenous people'/RACE you are. (11) Indeed "DNA doesn't Lie!" So that: in fact, the two genetically furthest apart Races are sub-Saharan 'Blacks' and Australian Aboriginals, both people of color. Color is just one feature distinguising (or shared by) different Races/subspecies. Most people use race colloquially for just appearance, but American 'Blacks' are a recent admixture of sub-Saharan 'Black' and Euro/'white'/Caucasoid Races: perhaps 15-20% of the latter. +
