Humans have not stopped evolving, and races biologically exist

[ApostateAbe]

Human evolution accelerated when agriculture began a little over ten thousand years ago in the Mid East. This acceleration happened because of two factors. First, agriculture exerts different population pressures than hunting and gathering. Farmers need to plan ahead to the next growing season. They need to defer gratification. They need to clean up after butchering an animal.

Second, because of agriculture the human population grew. When other factors are equal a large population evolves faster than a small population. This is because there is more room for beneficial mutations to spread.

Civilization began five thousand years ago in the Mid East. Civilization rewards superior intelligence. Intelligent men usually become more prosperous than unintelligent men. Consequently, they have more descendents. In addition, criminal justice systems of civilized countries make it difficult for those with criminal inclinations to reproduce.

This is relevant to racial differences, because agriculture and civilization did not begin everywhere at the same time. They began in different places independently, and spread from there.

During the last century human evolution has reversed somewhat, because there has been somewhat of an inverse relationship between intelligence and prolificacy. Nevertheless, with the advance of computer technology, and the phaseout of programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children I expect this to end.

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

 

[Jokodo]

Human evolution accelerated when agriculture began a little over ten thousand years ago in the Mid East. This acceleration happened because of two factors. First, agriculture exerts different population pressures than hunting and gathering. Farmers need to plan ahead to the next growing season. They need to defer gratification. They need to clean up after butchering an animal.

Second, because of agriculture the human population grew. When other factors are equal a large population evolves faster than a small population. This is because there is more room for beneficial mutations to spread.

Civilization began five thousand years ago in the Mid East. Civilization rewards superior intelligence. Intelligent men usually become more prosperous than unintelligent men. Consequently, they have more descendents. In addition, criminal justice systems of civilized countries make it difficult for those with criminal inclinations to reproduce.

This is relevant to racial differences, because agriculture and civilization did not begin everywhere at the same time. They began in different places independently, and spread from there.

During the last century human evolution has reversed somewhat, because there has been somewhat of an inverse relationship between intelligence and prolificacy. Nevertheless, with the advance of computer technology, and the phaseout of programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children I expect this to end.

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Latitude as such is not a relevant selective factor, any more than whether your time difference to GMT is prime-numbered. We're not plants who are directly affected by sunlight hours. How rich an environment is (i.e. what sorts of population density it supports) or how variable it is, both seasonally and year to year, might be, but neither of those is paramatrised by continent.

 

[Jokodo]

Human evolution accelerated when agriculture began a little over ten thousand years ago in the Mid East. This acceleration happened because of two factors. First, agriculture exerts different population pressures than hunting and gathering. Farmers need to plan ahead to the next growing season. They need to defer gratification. They need to clean up after butchering an animal.

Second, because of agriculture the human population grew. When other factors are equal a large population evolves faster than a small population. This is because there is more room for beneficial mutations to spread.

Civilization began five thousand years ago in the Mid East. Civilization rewards superior intelligence. Intelligent men usually become more prosperous than unintelligent men. Consequently, they have more descendents. In addition, criminal justice systems of civilized countries make it difficult for those with criminal inclinations to reproduce.

This is relevant to racial differences, because agriculture and civilization did not begin everywhere at the same time. They began in different places independently, and spread from there.

During the last century human evolution has reversed somewhat, because there has been somewhat of an inverse relationship between intelligence and prolificacy. Nevertheless, with the advance of computer technology, and the phaseout of programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children I expect this to end.

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Latitude as such is not a relevant selective factor, any more than whether your time difference to GMT is prime-numbered. We're not plants who are directly affected by sunlight hours. How rich an environment is (i.e. what sorts of population density it supports) or how variable it is, both seasonally and year to year, might be, but neither of those is paramatrised by continent.

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

I didn't mean to claim that 12,000 years of agriculture is COMPLETELY irrelevant for evolutionary divergence. It is plainly relevant. I claim that a sharp change in environment that lasted five times as long has a GREATER evolutionary relevance. Modern climates were not the same as climates of the out-of-Africa migration period. The last ice age lasted from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. The Middle East had glaciers. The change in latitude was relevant because it meant a vast change in climate.

 

[Jokodo]

Latitude as such is not a relevant selective factor, any more than whether your time difference to GMT is prime-numbered. We're not plants who are directly affected by sunlight hours. How rich an environment is (i.e. what sorts of population density it supports) or how variable it is, both seasonally and year to year, might be, but neither of those is paramatrised by continent.

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

I didn't mean to claim that 12,000 years of agriculture is COMPLETELY irrelevant for evolutionary divergence. It is plainly relevant. I claim that a sharp change in environment that lasted five times as long has a GREATER evolutionary relevance. Modern climates were not the same as climates of the out-of-Africa migration period. The last ice age lasted from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. The Middle East had glaciers. The change in latitude was relevant because it meant a vast change in climate.

According to this map, the vegetation in the middle East at the last glacial maximum wasn't all that different from East Africa. Whether the dry season is in the summer or in the winter doesn't really change the selection pressures, and seasonal differences in temperature are much less relevant than seasonal differences in food abundance and foraging styles.

I repeat my earlier claim: The more of a role you admit for selection in shaping variation among modern humans, the less relevant the "great races" such as Caucasians, Asians etc. are going to be - because selective pressures vary on much smaller scales, and always did.

 

[ApostateAbe]

To follow-up, some of the physiological changes that resulted from the differing selection pressures of this racial evolutionary divergence are now broadly accepted, such as low melanin content of skin adapting to greater Vitamin A among high-latitude populations as opposed to a high melanin content of low-latitude populations to adapt to high UV that otherwise causes skin cancer. Curly hair in southern populations again to adapt to UV and straighter hair in northern populations as a sexual selection advantage. Adult epicanthal folds among Asians for the advantage of sight in stormy weather. There are more controversial hypotheses of racial adaptations, but they are likewise plausible. Greater reproductive rates among southern populations to adapt to chaotic unpredictable equatorial environments, and lower reproductive rates among northern populations with greater parental investment per child to adapt to stabler more-predictable cold climates. It gets even more controversial than this, but the moral objections should not affect our judgments of probability that follow best from established data and theory.

 

[Jokodo]

To follow-up, some of the physiological changes that resulted from the differing selection pressures of this racial evolutionary divergence are now broadly accepted, such as low melanin content of skin adapting to greater Vitamin A among high-latitude populations as opposed to a high melanin content of low-latitude populations to adapt to high UV that otherwise causes skin cancer. Curly hair in southern populations again to adapt to UV and straighter hair in northern populations as a sexual selection advantage. Adult epicanthal folds among Asians for the advantage of sight in stormy weather. There are more controversial hypotheses of racial adaptations, but they are likewise plausible. Greater reproductive rates among southern populations to adapt to chaotic unpredictable equatorial environments, and lower reproductive rates among northern populations with greater parental investment per child to adapt to stabler more-predictable cold climates. It gets even more controversial than this, but the moral objections should not affect our judgments of probability that follow best from established data and theory.

Seriously, you couldn't make this up.

If anything, tropical climates tend to be more stable, not less.

Talking about wind speeds:

With this kind of post-hoc reasoning that allows you to "explain" anything and it's opposite, you should consider applying to the Festival of Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses

 

[ApostateAbe]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

I didn't mean to claim that 12,000 years of agriculture is COMPLETELY irrelevant for evolutionary divergence. It is plainly relevant. I claim that a sharp change in environment that lasted five times as long has a GREATER evolutionary relevance. Modern climates were not the same as climates of the out-of-Africa migration period. The last ice age lasted from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. The Middle East had glaciers. The change in latitude was relevant because it meant a vast change in climate.

According to this map, the vegetation in the middle East at the last glacial maximum wasn't all that different from East Africa. Whether the dry season is in the summer or in the winter doesn't really change the selection pressures, and seasonal differences in temperature are much less relevant than seasonal differences in food abundance and foraging styles.

Yes, but Caucasian ancestors are thought to have existed in the Caucasus mountains 40,000 years ago (between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea), not everywhere in the Middle East, and Asians ancestors lived in China 41,000 years ago. Both were very cold climates at the time.

To follow-up, some of the physiological changes that resulted from the differing selection pressures of this racial evolutionary divergence are now broadly accepted, such as low melanin content of skin adapting to greater Vitamin A among high-latitude populations as opposed to a high melanin content of low-latitude populations to adapt to high UV that otherwise causes skin cancer. Curly hair in southern populations again to adapt to UV and straighter hair in northern populations as a sexual selection advantage. Adult epicanthal folds among Asians for the advantage of sight in stormy weather. There are more controversial hypotheses of racial adaptations, but they are likewise plausible. Greater reproductive rates among southern populations to adapt to chaotic unpredictable equatorial environments, and lower reproductive rates among northern populations with greater parental investment per child to adapt to stabler more-predictable cold climates. It gets even more controversial than this, but the moral objections should not affect our judgments of probability that follow best from established data and theory.

Seriously, you couldn't make this up.

If anything, tropical climates tend to be more stable, not less.

Talking about wind speeds:

With this kind of post-hoc reasoning that allows you to "explain" anything and it's opposite, you should consider applying to the Festival of Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses

I don't know how wind speeds would be relevant. Equatorial climates have much greater rates of typhoons/hurricanes, floods, and epidemics than cold northern climates. You don't think such differences would significantly affect selection pressures?

 

[Jokodo]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

I didn't mean to claim that 12,000 years of agriculture is COMPLETELY irrelevant for evolutionary divergence. It is plainly relevant. I claim that a sharp change in environment that lasted five times as long has a GREATER evolutionary relevance. Modern climates were not the same as climates of the out-of-Africa migration period. The last ice age lasted from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. The Middle East had glaciers. The change in latitude was relevant because it meant a vast change in climate.

According to this map, the vegetation in the middle East at the last glacial maximum wasn't all that different from East Africa. Whether the dry season is in the summer or in the winter doesn't really change the selection pressures, and seasonal differences in temperature are much less relevant than seasonal differences in food abundance and foraging styles.

Yes, but Caucasian ancestors are thought to have existed in the Caucasus mountains 40,000 years ago (between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea), not everywhere in the Middle East, and Asians ancestors lived in China 41,000 years ago. Both were very cold climates at the time.

The last time anybody seriously believed Caucasian ancestors to have spread out from the Caucasus mountains was in the early 1930s.

To follow-up, some of the physiological changes that resulted from the differing selection pressures of this racial evolutionary divergence are now broadly accepted, such as low melanin content of skin adapting to greater Vitamin A among high-latitude populations as opposed to a high melanin content of low-latitude populations to adapt to high UV that otherwise causes skin cancer. Curly hair in southern populations again to adapt to UV and straighter hair in northern populations as a sexual selection advantage. Adult epicanthal folds among Asians for the advantage of sight in stormy weather. There are more controversial hypotheses of racial adaptations, but they are likewise plausible. Greater reproductive rates among southern populations to adapt to chaotic unpredictable equatorial environments, and lower reproductive rates among northern populations with greater parental investment per child to adapt to stabler more-predictable cold climates. It gets even more controversial than this, but the moral objections should not affect our judgments of probability that follow best from established data and theory.

Seriously, you couldn't make this up.

If anything, tropical climates tend to be more stable, not less.

Talking about wind speeds:

With this kind of post-hoc reasoning that allows you to "explain" anything and it's opposite, you should consider applying to the Festival of Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses

I don't know how wind speeds would be irrelevant. Equatorial climates have much greater rates of typhoons/hurricanes, floods, and epidemics than cold northern climates. You don't think such differences would significantly affect selection pressures?

You brought up "stormy weather" as a selection pressure Asians were specifically subjected to, to the exclusion of other groups. Are you giving up even pretending that your claims have a basis in reality?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

I didn't mean to claim that 12,000 years of agriculture is COMPLETELY irrelevant for evolutionary divergence. It is plainly relevant. I claim that a sharp change in environment that lasted five times as long has a GREATER evolutionary relevance. Modern climates were not the same as climates of the out-of-Africa migration period. The last ice age lasted from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. The Middle East had glaciers. The change in latitude was relevant because it meant a vast change in climate.

According to this map, the vegetation in the middle East at the last glacial maximum wasn't all that different from East Africa. Whether the dry season is in the summer or in the winter doesn't really change the selection pressures, and seasonal differences in temperature are much less relevant than seasonal differences in food abundance and foraging styles.

Yes, but Caucasian ancestors are thought to have existed in the Caucasus mountains 40,000 years ago (between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea), not everywhere in the Middle East, and Asians ancestors lived in China 41,000 years ago. Both were very cold climates at the time.

The last time anybody seriously believed Caucasian ancestors to have spread out from the Caucasus mountains was in the early 1930s.

Not so, though partially correct. I did some reading on Wikipedia. There is a lot of ambiguity about the origins of races, following from the spectral nature of races (with plenty of admixture throughout history). But, modern genetics clears the air, though spectra remain. The haplogroups most closely corresponding to the Caucasian race (existing in India, Middle East, North Africa and Europe) would be Haplogroups H, I, J, K and R1. The origins of J are identified with the Caucasus mountains or Saudi Arabia 45,000 years ago. Haplogroup R1 is most closely identified with the Aryan race of Europe. It seems to have originated in the Caucasus mountains or somewhere close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(mtDNA)#Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M207
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436.full

To follow-up, some of the physiological changes that resulted from the differing selection pressures of this racial evolutionary divergence are now broadly accepted, such as low melanin content of skin adapting to greater Vitamin A among high-latitude populations as opposed to a high melanin content of low-latitude populations to adapt to high UV that otherwise causes skin cancer. Curly hair in southern populations again to adapt to UV and straighter hair in northern populations as a sexual selection advantage. Adult epicanthal folds among Asians for the advantage of sight in stormy weather. There are more controversial hypotheses of racial adaptations, but they are likewise plausible. Greater reproductive rates among southern populations to adapt to chaotic unpredictable equatorial environments, and lower reproductive rates among northern populations with greater parental investment per child to adapt to stabler more-predictable cold climates. It gets even more controversial than this, but the moral objections should not affect our judgments of probability that follow best from established data and theory.

Seriously, you couldn't make this up.

If anything, tropical climates tend to be more stable, not less.

Talking about wind speeds:

With this kind of post-hoc reasoning that allows you to "explain" anything and it's opposite, you should consider applying to the Festival of Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses

I don't know how wind speeds would be irrelevant. Equatorial climates have much greater rates of typhoons/hurricanes, floods, and epidemics than cold northern climates. You don't think such differences would significantly affect selection pressures?

You brought up "stormy weather" as a selection pressure Asians were specifically subjected to, to the exclusion of other groups. Are you giving up even pretending that your claims have a basis in reality?

Sorry I didn't get your point the first time. Epicanthal folds would be an advantage in stormy weather in COLD CLIMATES, as snow flurries would be blinding.

 

[Jokodo]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

I didn't mean to claim that 12,000 years of agriculture is COMPLETELY irrelevant for evolutionary divergence. It is plainly relevant. I claim that a sharp change in environment that lasted five times as long has a GREATER evolutionary relevance. Modern climates were not the same as climates of the out-of-Africa migration period. The last ice age lasted from 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. The Middle East had glaciers. The change in latitude was relevant because it meant a vast change in climate.

According to this map, the vegetation in the middle East at the last glacial maximum wasn't all that different from East Africa. Whether the dry season is in the summer or in the winter doesn't really change the selection pressures, and seasonal differences in temperature are much less relevant than seasonal differences in food abundance and foraging styles.

Yes, but Caucasian ancestors are thought to have existed in the Caucasus mountains 40,000 years ago (between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea), not everywhere in the Middle East, and Asians ancestors lived in China 41,000 years ago. Both were very cold climates at the time.

The last time anybody seriously believed Caucasian ancestors to have spread out from the Caucasus mountains was in the early 1930s.

Not so, though partially correct. I did some reading on Wikipedia. There is a lot of ambiguity about the origins of races, following from the spectral nature of races (with plenty of admixture throughout history). But, modern genetics clears the air, though spectra remain. The haplogroups most closely corresponding to the Caucasian race (existing in India, Middle East, North Africa and Europe) would be Haplogroups H, I, J, K and R1. The origins of J are identified with the Caucasus mountains or Saudi Arabia 45,000 years ago. Haplogroup R1 is most closely identified with the Aryan race of Europe. It seems to have originated in the Caucasus mountains or somewhere close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(mtDNA)#Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M207
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436.full

Did you even read your links? None of that suggests that "Caucasian ancestors are thought to have existed in the Caucasus mountains 40,000 years ago (between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea), not everywhere in the Middle East", which is the claim you should be defending.

I don't know how wind speeds would be irrelevant. Equatorial climates have much greater rates of typhoons/hurricanes, floods, and epidemics than cold northern climates. You don't think such differences would significantly affect selection pressures?

You brought up "stormy weather" as a selection pressure Asians were specifically subjected to, to the exclusion of other groups. Are you giving up even pretending that your claims have a basis in reality?

Sorry I didn't get your point the first time. Epicanthal folds would be an advantage in stormy weather in COLD CLIMATES, as snow flurries would be blinding.

If that is so, we'd expect them in Western Europe more than anywhere else. China, which you claimed in another post just today as the Urheimat of the Asian "race", is pretty low on wind speeds. The Caucasus Mountains certainly beat China in wind speeds, not to speak of the British Isles.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Not so, though partially correct. I did some reading on Wikipedia. There is a lot of ambiguity about the origins of races, following from the spectral nature of races (with plenty of admixture throughout history). But, modern genetics clears the air, though spectra remain. The haplogroups most closely corresponding to the Caucasian race (existing in India, Middle East, North Africa and Europe) would be Haplogroups H, I, J, K and R1. The origins of J are identified with the Caucasus mountains or Saudi Arabia 45,000 years ago. Haplogroup R1 is most closely identified with the Aryan race of Europe. It seems to have originated in the Caucasus mountains or somewhere close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(mtDNA)#Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M207
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436.full

Did you even read your links? None of that suggests that "Caucasian ancestors are thought to have existed in the Caucasus mountains 40,000 years ago (between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea), not everywhere in the Middle East", which is the claim you should be defending.

From the first link:
"Around 45,000 years before present, a mutation took place in the DNA of a woman who lived in the Near East or Caucasus." (though this seems to lack a source)

Second link contains the following map, though the text is more ambiguous ("South or Central Asia"):

From the third link:
"As in Europe, most of the present-day Near Eastern–Caucasus area variants of [haplogroup] H started to expand after the last glacial maximum (LGM) and presumably before the Holocene."

Not that the origin from the Caucasus region of the caucasian race is certain, but it seems to be a strong possibility that a large part of the Caucasian ancestry was either the Caucasus mountains or environments of similar climate close to it, and it is a hypothesis not to be dismissed as merely antiquated.

Sorry I didn't get your point the first time. Epicanthal folds would be an advantage in stormy weather in COLD CLIMATES, as snow flurries would be blinding.

If that is so, we'd expect them in Western Europe more than anywhere else. China, which you claimed in another post just today as the Urheimat of the Asian "race", is pretty low on wind speeds. The Caucasus Mountains certainly beat China in wind speeds.

OK, I had in mind that the coldness of the climate and frequency of snowfall would be the selective force, not wind speeds, though of course wind speeds would have some effect. The adaptation of epicanthal folds among East Asians to adapt to a cold climate is not a scientifically disputed point. If you dispute it, then maybe provide a more probable explanation for the epicanthal folds. Do you deny ALL natural selection adaptations by race? I discovered recently that Richard Lewontin does, even when it comes to skin color, and I found it to be a bizarre perspective, but maybe you share it?

 

[Jokodo]

Did you even read your links? None of that suggests that "Caucasian ancestors are thought to have existed in the Caucasus mountains 40,000 years ago (between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea), not everywhere in the Middle East", which is the claim you should be defending.

From the first link:
"Around 45,000 years before present, a mutation took place in the DNA of a woman who lived in the Near East or Caucasus." (though this seems to lack a source)

Your words: "the Caucasus, [...] not everywhere in the Middle East".
The article: "the Near East or Caucasus"

If you are unsure what the difference between the two claims is, ask your nearest English native speakers. They all should be able to tell you.

 

[ApostateAbe]

From the first link:
"Around 45,000 years before present, a mutation took place in the DNA of a woman who lived in the Near East or Caucasus." (though this seems to lack a source)

Your words: "the Caucasus, [...] not everywhere in the Middle East".
The article: "the Near East or Caucasus"

If you are unsure what the difference between the two claims is, ask your nearest English native speakers. They all should be able to tell you.

OK, let me know if you have further questions or objections.

 

[Jokodo]

Your words: "the Caucasus, [...] not everywhere in the Middle East".
The article: "the Near East or Caucasus"

If you are unsure what the difference between the two claims is, ask your nearest English native speakers. They all should be able to tell you.

OK, let me know if you have further questions or objections.

No questions or objections, just a suggestion, for your own benefit: You've been shown to be wrong. Admit it. You'll look the wiser for it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

OK, let me know if you have further questions or objections.

No questions or objections, just a suggestion, for your own benefit: You've been shown to be wrong. Admit it. You'll look the wiser for it.

And I return the suggestion, thank you.

 

[Jokodo]

No questions or objections, just a suggestion, for your own benefit: You've been shown to be wrong. Admit it. You'll look the wiser for it.

And I return the suggestion, thank you.

So you maintain that "the Near East or Caucasus" means just the same as "the Caucasus, but not anywhere else in the Near East".

Interesting language you speak there. As a linguist, I might almost be interested in studying it.

It's not English, though.

(I'm not sure you understand the significance of haplogroups either, but that's another matter.)

 

[ApostateAbe]

Jokodo, that's fine, we can put that objection behind us. I am learning some of these things as I go, I am not trying to prove I am smarter than you or whatever. The claim that the Caucasian race originated from the Caucasus mountains is a claim made by one science author in my personal reading, but the evidence I have seen makes it a plausible possibility and not a certainty. You can accept victory on that basis if you like. In return I am curious about whether or not you share Lewontin's perspective that there is genetic divergence between human populations but probably nothing significant that can be attributed to natural selection to adapt to environment, including skin color.

 

[Jokodo]

Jokodo, that's fine, we can put that objection behind us. I am learning some of these things as I go, I am not trying to prove I am smarter than you or whatever. The claim that the Caucasian race originated from the Caucasus mountains is a claim made by one science author in my personal reading, but the evidence I have seen makes it a plausible possibility and not a certainty. You can accept victory on that basis if you like.

This isn't about victory. This is about the fact that the science of the sources you're leaning on isn't as sound as you think it is. Now that you've learned that the claim about an origin in the Caucasus mountains is, far from being scientific consensus, at best one of several possibilities, maybe you should start to scrutinise their other claims.

In return I am curious about whether or not you share Lewontin's perspective that there is genetic divergence between human populations but probably nothing significant that can be attributed to natural selection to adapt to environment, including skin color.

I think skin colour can partially be attributed to natural selection, although I'm sure sexual selection also plays a major role, as do founder effects. Incidentally, it doesn't particularly well coincide with the classical "races" - some "Caucasian" (Southern) Indians or "Mongoloid"/"Amerindian" natives of the tropics in the Western hemisphere have darker skin than many sub-Saharan Africans.

There are other clear cases of adaptations (lactase persistence or heterozygosity for the sickle cell trait, for example). None of those that have been identified pattern with "races". I don't see why we should expect them to do so either: Environments vary at scales much smaller than continents. Evolution happens, oftentimes much faster than we realise. That is not an argument why "Blacks" (or "Africans"), "Caucasians", or "Asians" should be meaningful biological categories that can inform us about traits other than the superficial ones we used to identify them in the first place.

 

[ApostateAbe]

This isn't about victory. This is about the fact that the science of the sources you're leaning on isn't as sound as you think it is. Now that you've learned that the claim about an origin in the Caucasus mountains is, far from being scientific consensus, at best one of several possibilities, maybe you should start to scrutinise their other claims.

Yes, you are perfectly right.

In return I am curious about whether or not you share Lewontin's perspective that there is genetic divergence between human populations but probably nothing significant that can be attributed to natural selection to adapt to environment, including skin color.

I think skin colour can partially be attributed to natural selection, although I'm sure sexual selection also plays a major role, as do founder effects. Incidentally, it doesn't particularly well coincide with the classical "races" - some "Caucasian" (Southern) Indians or "Mongoloid"/"Amerindian" natives of the tropics in the Western hemisphere have darker skin than many sub-Saharan Africans.

There are other clear cases of adaptations (lactase persistence or heterozygosity for the sickle cell trait, for example). None of those that have been identified pattern with "races". I don't see why we should expect them to do so either: Environments vary at scales much smaller than continents. Evolution happens, oftentimes much faster than we realise. That is not an argument why "Blacks" (or "Africans"), "Caucasians", or "Asians" should be meaningful biological categories that can inform us about traits other than the superficial ones we used to identify them in the first place.

Yes. The way I see it, there is a many-to-many relationship between skin color and race, as one race can have many colors and one skin color can match many races (where race is defined as any population of common ancestral tendency, large or small). I hope nobody would claim that Australian aborigines are the same race as the Hutus, despite similar skin color, for example. Sexual selection is Lewontin's preferred guess, but even sexual selection does not exist independent of external physical selection pressures. His argument against natural selection pressures driven by skin cancer and Vitamin D was that skin cancer is typical after the reproductive age. My objection to his objection would be that any differential skin cancer rates before the end of the human reproductive period would provide differential selection pressure, as Lewontin should know, and skin cancer caused by excessive UV most certainly exists among children and young adults. Differences in skin color based on that theory are something we would very much expect from the data. Even in the most plainly obvious case, Lewontin advises the public, "don't believe the stories," and it is good to see that you at least make an allowance of a possibility.