Morphological and Genetic Races in Humans

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<Just for the record (I apologize for any possible political implications), 
while dog breeds are
relatively distinct populations (by both morphology and genetics), human 
"""races""" are nothing
of the sort. The """racial""" characteristics appear to be nothing more than 
_individual
variation_. The most isolated human population _ever_ (IIRC) were the 
inhabitants of Easter Island
for just a few hundred years, and nobody has ever invented a separate 
"""race""" for them. The
rest of humanity is little more than _one_ population, despite the rather weak 
connections between
some demes.>

  Actually, there are several distinct races of human kind. I'd hate this to 
come off as a
possible racist comment (I am not in any way racist), but morphologically 
speaking, there can be
identified several phisologies and morphologies separable into races: the 
negroid or "african"
type, the caucasian or "europoean/white" type, the oriental or "asian/amerind" 
type, the
aboriginal or "australian" type, and the distinctive San or "Bushman" type, 
which are not negroid
in any way. Osteological markers include proportions of the limbs, the form of 
the nasals and
brow, prominence of cheeks, etc. These all form natural populations, but I do 
not consider them
species, or subspecies, etc.. I myself am both Danish/German on one side of my 
family, and
Amerind/Irish on the other, making me a Gaulish Celtic Viking Indian, if you 
can imagine that!

  There are dog breeds (less than races) that cannot, in any way, cross breed 
and are, by
morphology, genetically isolated. You cannot breed a Chihuahua to a St. 
Bernard, for one thing,
and I beleive this is true even of artificial insemination. One can look at the 
terrier, toy,
hunter, sport, or non-sport (including the "wolf-like breeds) groups of breeds, 
and see that there
are distinct morphotypes that correspond to genetically distinct populations. 
We are even working
at perfecting this. That mongrels still persist indicates that cross-breeding 
is prevalent. The
multiple evolution of "domestic" dogs indicates for one thing that dogs are not 
even their own
species, but merely interbreedable sets of the wolf, and are *Canis lupus* 
_variabilis_ familiaris
ad caput; they have no real genetic identity except at the artificial breed.

  So the case is not like David describes above, but the reverse: humans _do_ 
have distinct
morphological yet-interbreedable populations, which can be called "races", and 
dogs have only
distinct breeds, but are not even a distinct species. One should actually 
identify, as is being
done in cats, scientific designations for each breed which can be genetically 
isolated, even by
artificial means.

  Anagenesis? Hah ... a Vulcan's dream....



=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com