Is race real or is it just a human invention?

Post Reply New Topic

Not at all, Kraichgauer. Funny enough, he and his people were actually the very first Japanese americans. The Ainu are descended from the Jomon, the first people to inhabit the island of Japan. While the Ainu are genetically and linguistically distinct from the Yayoi people(the modern japanese), the are still very much a Mongoloid people.

Besides the khoisan people, the Basques of europe are another example of a people who are so genetically and linguistically isolated that it's very unclear where they fit in according to the 3 race theory. They look caucasoid, but they have genes which are absent from all other indo-european and semitic people.

I often wonder if there may very well have been other races of modern humans which are now extinct, or cease to exist as identifiable groups but may have left genetic fingerprints of their existence in isolated groups, like the basques, hazda, and hunzukuts.

But with regard to the melanesians and the "negroid" peoples, there is a political benefit to this as black skinned people in Asia, Australia, and the pacific face considerable discrimination; especially in Southern India. Also, not only do Papuans the Andamenese look like black africans, they have astoundingly similar cultures.

Sorry, what?
they have 'astoundingly similar culture to black African culture'?
Are you really that uneducated?

You remind me of the people who claim that 'native Americans' worship a Great Spirit, or 'native Americans' ride horses and wear eagle feathers in their hair.

The Navajo people are the ones who worship the 'Great Spirit'. And horses were introduced by Europeans as no species of wild horse can be found in the Americas.So knock it off with the condescension.

WTF do you know about the Papuans anyway? Ever heard of Vudu? The papuans have something extremely similar to voodoo which they call "puri puri". Not to mention the fact that their tribal art looks very much west african art.

Some of those Wodaabe guys look pretty damn great, I gotta say.

I know squat about the Papuans, but I do know that there isn't a single 'black African' culture any more than there is a single 'native American' culture. There are thousands of ethnic groups in Africa. Do you mean that the Papuans are like the Masai, who tend to dress in red fabric and beads, heard cattle, and hunt lions? Do you mean that Papuans are like the Tuareg, who are nomads and whose men dress in blue and wear dark veils throughout their adult lives? Do you mean that Papuans are like the Wodaabe, where the men spend hours painting themselves with makeup and have male beauty contests every year?

There are tribes in Papua, notably the Korowai and Asmat, who have strikingly similar customs to west african tribes in Benin and the Congo. None of the african tribes you mentioned live in climes that are anything like Papua(which has a climate almost identical to tropical west africa but with different wildlife). The Tuareg and Wodaabe are both desert tribes and the Maasai live out on the plains of Kenya.

(1)What benefits do you see to racially distinguishing native americans from east asians? You do realize that the genetic relationship between these 2 groups has been firmly established, do you not? I remember when odinists in my home state of WA tried to claim Kennewick man as a nordic aryan, when in fact he had no relationship to white europeans whatsoever.


(2)But with regard to the melanesians and the "negroid" peoples, there is a political benefit to this as black skinned people in Asia, Australia, and the pacific face considerable discrimination; especially in Southern India. Also, not only do Papuans the Andamenese look like black africans, they have astoundingly similar cultures.

(1) What benefit do you get making sh!t up and pretending I said it?
Where did I say that amerinds are not descended from closely related to Asians?
I hope you don't take this as an ad hom but boy you are stupid.

(2) Being black has is only a political benefit in the minds of conspiracy theorists and racists.

Correct and the question is, if so called negroids are all so physically similar, why are they so genetically dissimilar? That doesn't make sense since physical traits are largely coded by genes.

The reason is they are probably NOT genetically dissimilar. They are only dissimilar in junk DNA, because junk DNA by definition is uninfluenced by natural selection, and as a result junk DNA mutates at a predictable rate allowing scientists to measure how old populations are and how long ago they diverged.




So although the genetic distance trees you guys read correctly document the fact that Melanesians have left Africa say 60,000 years ago, it's probably incorrect to say they are genetically distant from Africans. They are genetically distant only in the subset of DNA scientists use to clock divergence times but this DNA by definition does not code for anything that matters because if it did, it would be influenced by natural selection(instead of just time) and thus serve as unreliable molecular clock.




If we ignored the junk DNA and created a genetic distance tree based on functional DNA, the simple 3 race model would probably be supported. However such a tree would tell us little about when races split apart and the history of human migrations. For that we need junk DNA

Wow thanks, for all the cites and insights.
So what you are saying is that in your mind experiment if people look blackish then they are Probably are African? Lets not read papers or do science lets just assume what Probably happened and because it takes to much thinking. Lets just say the Races we got work real good?

You have totally convinced me of your view.
If we ignore bone structure actually shapes of features the fact that all DNA is functional etc.
ignore that capoids and Australoids have anatomical differences that can been seen with eyeballs, Forget India the pacific islands and southeast asia then your lazy theory is exactly right.

There are only 3 races my eyes have been opened.
Thanks for sharing it.

There is no "Australoid" race, you dumb white b1tch. They australian aborigines are melanesians. The supraorbital ridges among melanesians, along with their apparent genetic proximity to non-black SE asians, are the result of interbreeding with Denisova Hominids(a subspecies closely related to Neanderthals). I've already addressed the Khoisan people anyway.

Correct and the question is, if so called negroids are all so physically similar, why are they so genetically dissimilar? That doesn't make sense since physical traits are largely coded by genes.

The reason is they are probably NOT genetically dissimilar. They are only dissimilar in junk DNA, because junk DNA by definition is uninfluenced by natural selection, and as a result junk DNA mutates at a predictable rate allowing scientists to measure how old populations are and how long ago they diverged.




So although the genetic distance trees you guys read correctly document the fact that Melanesians have left Africa say 60,000 years ago, it's probably incorrect to say they are genetically distant from Africans. They are genetically distant only in the subset of DNA scientists use to clock divergence times but this DNA by definition does not code for anything that matters because if it did, it would be influenced by natural selection(instead of just time) and thus serve as unreliable molecular clock.




If we ignored the junk DNA and created a genetic distance tree based on functional DNA, the simple 3 race model would probably be supported. However such a tree would tell us little about when races split apart and the history of human migrations. For that we need junk DNA

No "Australoid" race what a macaroon.
Are you a sock puppet for the other guy?
Or are you arguments so weak in the conversation you where having with me you needed a change of venue?

Melanesians are from Melanesia right? Do you think that Australian aboriginals are from Melanesia?
Does Google not work from your house? look up Australoid and get back to us.