Re: When did human races split from one another?
- From: "chazwin" <chazwyman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Nov 2006 08:13:39 -0800
prd wrote:
In sci.archaeology message
news:1164741667.950050.99220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by "chazwin"
<chazwyman@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
Clearly the problem of species is that all taxonomy of life is based on
morphology and certain assumtions have been made about the divisions
between populations of similar animals.
As the most common defintion for species, and the ONLY reliable one, is
based on the notion of speciation (separated by the inability to
produce viable offpsring), we have a problem in that all living things
have been categorised by phenotypical morphology
Including the misclassified neanderthals, which is extinct and offers
no probability of contributing the the modern population.
Neanderthal may well have been the same species as HSS, as there is no
genetic evidence it is not possible to confirm or deny such a
possibility. There are individuals in our modern population which show
certain morphological similarities to Neaderthals which were not
present in the gracile human form which seemed to replace Neanderthals
c-30,000BP.
Clearly HSN did show clear adaptations to colder environments and
inhabited more northerly regions, but humans on the post 30kBP seemed
to survive without many of these adaptations through the period of the
last glacial maximum 18kBP. People are still arguing the toss.
, in which underlying
divisions are the result of assumed genetic differences.
Taxonomy is a science, science evolves.
The vast majority of living taxonomy was completed long before genetics
was introduced into biological science.
The vast majority of assignments are being revised, bit by bit.
But few actually use genetic evidence as the complexity of the genome
makes many of the genotype/phenotype assignments speculative.
The stupidity of saying HEY wait a minute - look at wolves and dogs,
dolphins and whales
they can breed this means that species CAN mate is quite frankly
totally asinine.
One revision is as follows:
Canis lupus domesticus
Canis lupus lupus
Canis lupus dingo
Canis lupus latrans
Fine - nature gets on well without these divisions. The only division
nature seems to care about is the species division. Where do you buy
your anoraks?? (British joke)
What this actually means is that the taxonomy was
wrong in the first place because Lamark or Diderot decided on the
taxonomy a long time ago purely on morphological grounds.
What it means is that science evolves, the same as humans evolve.
So your saying today's science is wrong tomorrow.
If race is not real then neither is Darwin's theory of evolution,
because the theory was built out of his recognition of races that
evolve and diverge over time.
This does not follow. Darwin does not rise or fall upon such tissue
like grounds! THe theory of evolution did not fall because he
understood nothing wahtso ever about genetics! He can be wrong in part
but right overall. For Darwin "race" was used very loosely to make very
general distinctions.
Darwin was not talking about subspecies or species but a more abstract
entity that transitioned from variants to formal 'races' species.
Indeed
The concept of color should be replaced. Mongloids are not identified
by color, if they represented the intermediate between Whites and
Negroid, then italians, greeks, iberians, middle easterners would be
consider mongoloid, and indochinese, south asians, and austronesias
would be considered negroid.
If one has to suggest that there is an intermediate between white and
black , one could just as easily set the boundaries to say that the
intermediate is the origianl progenitor and the white and black are
subspecies that have darkened or lightened: all racial categories are
arbitary.
This may be true, color changes over time.
Traits, species and taxonomy are not immutable.
It is no surprise that White is usually seen as a bench mark
and degrees of whiteness measurable: this is ethnocentricity.
White is a benchmark because the latest and most global spread of
individuals is seated in a region were people are coincidentally the
fairest skin. Might makes right.
What you conveniently call "coincidence" many recognise as cultural
imperialism and ethnocentricity. Science is not without its prejudice.
I should also add that in Asian culture fairer skinned women are
preferred in the upper classes as it represents a woman who does
not need to work in the feild, the skin color is also a measure in
parts of India the discriminates the untouchable from others.
Indeed yes. This is very likely how white skin evolved: through
"domestic selection". This phenomenon was well know to ancient Greeks.
Its not
just a european thing. There is probably some discrimination here
between people who wore clothes and worked in non-labor intensive jobs
and people who were dark skinned and work in agrarian or pastoral
practices. With heirarchy also came structural changes in perspectives.
I can't prove it but I like to think that impractically huge breast
probably evolved through "domestic selection" also.
Chazwin
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Latest on Newport Tower dig
- Next by Date: dating methods
- Previous by thread: ALSF Seabed Prehistory
- Next by thread: Re: When did human races split from one another?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
