Re: Morphological and Genetic Races in Humans

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

Nah, really, people, forget the biology books you had in school, and forget
those that are in use now. (Speaking in prejudice from those books I know.)

>   And should I say that I draw no lines? I do not recognize genetic
exclusivity, period,
> full-stop.

Ah, sorry for the temporary misunderstanding.

> There is an essentially african morphotype (does not cross
> the Bushman type), there is an essentially mongloid or asian/amerind
morphotype, and there is an
> essentially caucasian morphotype.
> [...]
>   There are broad morphological features that indicate an essential type
that we have had to deal
> with for thousands of years.

No. See below.

> As with dogs and cat breeds, the intermixing of types has led to
> a good deal of confusion regarding what we recognize as a "race," by
fuzzing the boundaries. This
> is what happens at a finer level than dog or cat breeds, but dogs are not
as prevalent in their
> mixing as humans are [same for cats].

I don't talk of what has happened in the last few hundred years. Maybe less
so than in genetics but in morphology you can't draw lines either!

> One can argue that Avars are not even a race,

nobody has ever argued that they are, AFAIK

> nor are the Turks, as
> they are essentially middle-eastern in type.

Here in Vienna there are plenty of Turks to look at :-> -- there's far too
much variation to make "essentially middle-eastern in type" anything like a
useful statement.

> I see that in the effort to destabilize the exclusive-race theory (which
is a good thing)

I really don't talk about politics/ethics/..., but I really try to talk
about science... :-)

> that the nature of the distinct racial morphotype
> has been lost. It means nothing, except as a measure of diversification in
human history.

Not even that, because it has never been distinct.

> The more
> plesiomoprhies, the more ancient a lineage. It's as simple as that.

Then why are the Australian aboriginals so often regarded as so
plesiomorphic, when they must be younger than several fuzzy lineages that
are hidden in the "negrid morphotype"? (Ignoring the idea that a few *Homo
erectus* entered the gene pool.)

> Caucasions as a whole
> typically lack the head brows, broad cheeks, and have saddle-shaped
nasals,

Not sure what you mean by "head brows"; I have seen several people with
apparently bony eyebrows nearly as large as those of Neandertals (maybe
within their range, I don't know).
"broad cheeks" -- I haven't measured but I see much variation around me.
"saddle-shaped nasals" -- I've seen many "mongolids", their nasals are all
saddle-shaped, just very little so, so they're still rather flat. Those of
native Americans, however, are not flat at all. Also look at the tremendous
variation of "europid" nasals around you. The "classical Greek profile"
involves _straight_ nasals that lie at an angle of 0° to the frontals... no
saddle-shape here.

I repeat myself: It's all _individual variation_. Some variations are
loosely clustered in geographical regions, some are not. Glad to see you
didn't use skin colour because this trait isn't far from a 1 : 1 correlation
with geographical latitude :-)

> To argue the abscence of these types is to take the "no race" concept too
far.

They aren't necessarily absent but _so_ fuzzy and grade _so_ slowly into
each other (remember those "transitional races"...) that they are useless
concepts for by far most purposes.

> In the past 5000 years I am very certain the distinctions were much more
prevalent
> than they are now, as intermixing had not occured as much.

It must have occurred a lot already because the peoples weren't isolated
from their neighbors any more than now and because there were people
migrations just like 1000 years ago. Additionally diversification
(acquisition of apomorphies) maybe had also not got as far as today.