We're all DNA, but is Race more DNA, or more Environmental when talking about Racial Evolution?

it is very possible that in the future brown will be the majority and black and white will be the minority

 

Maybe.

 

It already is...Indian, Latino, Middle Eastern...etc....Lot's of brown.

 

at least in countries who's populations do not self segregate

 

that's true...I imagine it's just more common to regions that have a malaria problem as sickle cell as I understand it protects the person from malaria long enough to reproduce and raise offspring, so about 30-35yrs...

 

yeah my border collie is black and white, the skin under his white fur is much lighter than under his black fur...

 

but there are people with darker skin than africans who live no where near africa and they made the trip through eurasia 60-70K years ago maybe sooner...

Andaman Islanders, these people are not african

 

there are no sub-specie(races) of sapiens there is just the single specie.

 

it's not, I read the article that's incorrect...the article agrees with what I posted, reasons skin colour is still very ambiguous..

 

lol, I did the same experimental breeding with guppies, they breed fast and young so results are quick...

 

The real problem is separating the sexes before they mate.

 

I separated them by size early, females were bigger...the difficult fish to sex were Black Mollies, damn things could change their gender

 

Everything. Clearly dark skin is not always an evolutionary disadvantage. Nor did the material you posted support this notion.

 

yeah I read it and it doesn't support what he's claiming at all...

 

"racism" is a relatively new phenomena that appeared with european colonialism/christianity...earlier cultures didn't make those distinctions, slavery wasn't defined by skin colour, europeans would just as quickly enslave other europeans or even members of their own ethnic group(as did cultures all over the world)

 

I posted hypotheses. Hypotheses don't support anything. They simply seek to explain.

You did not get very good grades in science class, huh?

 

So you must have been sleeping in class when the professor explained what a sub-species is. No doubt you also missed it on the test.

 

Where do all these trolls come from who do not even have avatars ?!

 

False. You made an unqualified, authoritative declaration:

"Being black skinned is actually a major disadvantage"

I responded directly to this. Spare me your whiny characterizations of me.

 

the misunderstanding is all yours just as was your inability to understand your own link..."Being black skinned is actually a major disadvantage" ...

Homo erectus. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens denisova, Homo sapiens sapiens are subspecies ...Homo sapiens sapiens are a single specie the others are all extinct...claiming there are subspecies of homo sapiens is the same as claiming Golden Labs, Golden Retrievers and Poodles are subspecies but they're all the same single species, canis lupus familiaris/dog...maybe you should give us link to biological site that claims that homo sapiens are divided by subspecies?...yeah we'll be waiting a loooong time for that....

back to school for you!...

 

Of course "race" is entirely genetic. If I understand your use of "environment" then the question should be how adaptive is the homo sapiens gene set. Since we are 250,000 years old as a species one might expect adaptive variations.

jus' sayin;.

 

environmental adaptation X sexual selection X inbreeding = the way we appear

 

based on what?

 

Based on areas of Africa containing essentially the same climate as in Europe in particular places as well as Asia in places.

There are Neanderthals that to date are not claimed to be from Africa as well as the Denisovans from Asia.

 

I don't see anywhere in there where they are claiming they aren't from Africa.