Not enough to justify or even categorize distinctive races.
There is significant genetic overlap between each of the socially constructed "races" to render them biologically meaningless.
I don't think that... our concepts of race/other are very complex aspects of our psychology and cognitive...
Where do you think these "observable and measureable differences in abilities and traits between human genetic groups" come from? ;)
Genetics... thus a discussion on the variation in genetics between us is the most relevant topic possible. :cool:
Not really... the beagle and the wolf are far...
Killiam's paper in no way says that H. erectus definately had human like speech capabilities. It is a summery paper that says that one of the referenced authors believes it's possible, but that other referenced authors disagree.
At best it says that if they were capable of speech it would lack...
No... it begs, where are his sources?
There are no scientific sources cited in that whole thing. The phrase "definitely had speech" is a bald faced lie. There is no way to determine anything about the speech capabilities of these people "definitely" and the author gives zero evidence to...
Not necessarily. You need the morphology to produce language before you can have a conversation.
We have found one (that I know of) probable hyoid bone from an H.erectus and it shows that they didn't have the ability to move their vocal cords like we do. Essentially their vocal control wasn't...
If you think that is passive then you know very little about Victorian English culture. Not to mention thinking that a man who traveled around the Globe and interacted with cultures on every continent lead a "sheltered life" compared to a man who never left England is laughable. :rolleyes...
Actually we have complete genomes for thousands of people to compare.
If you look at single nucleotide differences between humans you can push the number up to a whopping 0.4% difference between any two given humans. But this difference does not happen due to race.
When you look at copy...
There is some evidence in the form of polyploidy and endosymbiotic events... but these are extremely rare.
Endosymbiosis is a pretty rare occurrence that only happens in single celled organisms and hasn't happened in Eukaryotes for a billion years or so.
The closest thing to the "hopeful...
Essentially "social Darwinism" is anti-Darwinian due to the fact that:
1) Natural selection is removed
2) Alleleic variation is limited
3) Genetics in general is ignored in favor of pseudo-scientific ideas of "traits".
4) The vital role of altuistic and kin selection is ignored.
5) No one can...
Anytime. :D
Not really. I don't think their populations would be all that much lower than early on in our species history. Certainly no lower than the Neanderthals who never seemed to have a large population to being with.
Not really... a hand-ax is a hand-ax is a hand-ax. The tools that...
Sorry I should have been more specific.
I'm using culture in a more material culture sense (ie. tool use). Since we can't tell what sort of "soft" culture H.erectus may or may not have had.
The material culture of H.erectus never changed over their history. If they were capable of talking...
Anyone who thinks that "Social Darwinism" is valid doesn't understand evolution or Darwin.
I think that this is backed up by the bulk of this thread.
wa:do
Broca’s Area isn't the only part of the brain to think about here.
Yes, it's important to the ability to use speech (mostly for grammar), but it is more likely to have been enlarged for it's arguably more important role in object manipulation (and thus tool use).
There is another part of...
So you accept evolution happens.... you just don't accept evolution is real.
Or you believe evolution happens... you just don't believe in evolution
.... or something like that?
wa:do
Haldane's Dilemma is a non-issue quite frankly. Since the 1950's we've learned a lot about genetics and how it works.
Genes are not always acted upon singly for example. Nor, is there a limit to how many alleles a population can have and remain viable.
Plus, we also now know that not all...
I'm mixed heritage.
And those three "macro races" have been shown to be incorrect. There is no way to draw definitive lines between them or define them in any meaningful way.
As I said, according to genetic studies the closest you can get are haplogroups which are inherited from either...
I try.
Indeed.
But not due to race. :p
Perhaps... but I would say that they are more likely overwhelmingly mixed heritage.
Which is another reason that race is an invalid concept outside of it's existence as a social construct. :cool:
Actually, if you study the history of the slave trade...
Saltationism is only a factor if you consider polyploidy speciation and endosymbiotic events saltonian.
Not everyone considers those events truly saltonian however. Plus, you again have the resulting population falling under classical natural selection and other selective pressures regardless...