Some folks think there are only three races: white, black, Oriental. some folks think Jews are a unique race. some folks think Arabs, Native Americans, are also a unique race. the following map shows that many European nationalities can be identified by their reletively unique genetic mixture. does this make them also, unique races?
According to 23andMe there are at least 31 unique genetic groups that can be reliably identified. are they all, races?
You post a map of just the genetic mixing in Europe. Baffling why you think showing further sub- populations/groups/local mixing precludes Larger Races. It's part of your ambiguation attempt or gross misunderstanding. IF you were logical, and/or sincere, you would post .. 1. The Map Source page. which might have... 2. Other Continents in the Same graphic, and EASILY see how much the Euro, tho locally mixed, differs from the other (for this purpose), 'two' Main Races. RIGHT? Make Sense? I would suggest this graphic, used here as part of the explanation of "Lewontin's Fallacy." IOW, look it up, go for understanding instead of looking for AMBIGUATION. 1. http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/11/human-genetic-variation-fst-and.html In an earlier post European genetic substructure, I displayed the following graphic, illustrating the genetic clustering of human populations. Figure: The three clusters shown above are European (top, green + red), Nigerian (light blue) and E. Asian (purple + blue). [.........] The fact that you can further subdivide local populations doesn't mean Race doesn't exist. The BASE populations/RACES that are used by Genetic testing companies like 23andMe, NatGeo-Genographic Project, usually use 9-11 (or more) Races and can tell us the PERCENT of Each we are.. or aren't, and will also make you a pie chart, but IT will include much more profoundly different Races not even on yours. Understand? The larger 'Races' would be profoundly different than your local INTRA-groups. And not have virtually any of categories. PS/EDIT: the Coyne Article I cited to you, and you liked, EXPLAINED this point of "How Many." ....How many human races are there? That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.+
Ech. I know 'race' is the common vernacular for genetic heritage variations, but until theres hard evidence that some of our lineages trace to neanderthals or aliens or subterean lizard-men or something, we are ALL the HUMAN race.
Traditionally it was broken down into Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Polynesian, Negroid, and Australoid, with further subdivisions of each. Although it gets further complicated because it is believed Nigritos inhabited the Southern part of Asia in very ancient times before they were displaced by peoples from the North. So for example there are still pockets of these ancient people living on the Andaman islands off the coast of India. These Nigritos were probably closest related to Australoid but nobody really knows for certain. The population of India would be an ancient mix of Caucasoid and Dravidian (probably in the Nigrito group). It is so old Indians practically represent their own race, but if you look at the population you can still see a lot of heterogeneity.
If you look within the plant and animal world, there are numerous examples where things do not easily fit into a neat classification of species. For example, bees from Africa can interbreed with bees from Europe, but they have obvious different behavioral traits. There are several different species of roses, with different growth habits and more favorable to different climates, but they can all interbreed with each other. There are examples of cross species hybridization, for example between Q. suber and Q. ilex, even though the two oaks are not categorized in the same section (Q. ilex is grouped with English oak). Interestingly the hybridization only seems to go one way, if Q. suber is the one that provided the pollen. Hybridization between Pear and it's relative species Quince (not even in the same genus though) is possible if the variety of pear being used has a weak immune system, but even then about 50% of the hybrid seeds won't grow and 90% of the remaining seedlings will have such stunted growth that they won't be able to survive. There is some interesting research involving the hybridization between Apple and Pear, but it's too complicated to get into here. It could be said that the different species of cherries actually represent different races of the same species, besides from the fact that all the different cherries can be divided along the lines of whether they have 16 or 32 chromosomes. Hybridization between cherries with a different chromosome count can still happen but in that case it's like breeding together a horse and a donkey and there can not be a third generation. However, the chromosome number group does not necessarily correlate to how closely two different species of cherry are to each other, and if two species are bred together which are not closely related the offspring is likely to display stunted growth and poorer overall health. In some cases it might be appropriate to use subspecies as a classification, when hybridization is freely possible between the two species but it confers some reproductive or evolutionary fitness disadvantage.
Does it matter what label we give to these subdivisions and categories? Should it matter? I think it’s already been pointed out that applying the biological concept of race to human beings has never been an exact science and has become ever more less so with increased travel and mixing. The political concept is applied all the time for all sorts of different reasons but I’d suggest that they’re rarely, if ever, positive and should probably be discouraged. Acknowledgment of actual genetic variations is perfectly valid, especially in a clinical context, but I don’t see any reason to use them as a basis for drawing broad divisions between groups of our fellow human beings.
Personally, I look at this as there is but one race, the Human Race. Under that there are shall I call them sub-races. How many depends on what criteria one is using. The Human Race came out of Africa as one race or developed in Africa as one race. Then spread across the globe, to the four corners of the earth. Due to the environment, evolution and other factors, out of one we became many. How scientist view or look at what I believe, I really don't know.
Yeah !!!!! One Race !!!!! Unity !!!! I like seeing a family, Black parents, White Children, and they have lots of Love. Race ? Better is one happy human race unified by love.
No, all humans are of the same species, with as you see in other species, color differences, variances in beaks or snouty snouts.. Humans are not seperated into sub species either.