<p>
Isn’t a ‘liger’ Napoleon Dynamite’s favorite animal? :)</p>
<p>“the others are classified as native/aboriginal populations.”</p>
<p>Strange. That’s a lot of people who don’t fall under any particular category. Seems rather arbitrary, too. I wouldn’t think their populations are any more ancient and aboriginal than the Chinese, Japanese, or for that matter, many European populations. And, if indeed all of humankind descends from Africa, undiluted African Tribes should be considered the most native, most aboriginal of all peoples.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“Polygenism was used as a justification for the enslavement of black people…”</p>
<p>Show me where. The justification for Black slavery was that they were heathens not that they were Black.</p>
<p>“Dogs are considered a subspecies of wolf”</p>
<p>Yes but Canis latrans is a coyote and not a wolf and coyotes and wolves are separate species. fmiliaris, the domesticated dog is a sunspecies of Canis lupus the wolf and whether all wolves and dogs could successfully interbreed is questionable.</p>
<p>“I don’t understand why a race would evolve into a different subspecies when humans have 99% of their genes in common regardless of race. Race is nothing more than a color, so why would that cause a new subspecies to come about?”</p>
<p>I am using race in its scientific sense not the colloquial sense. In that sense it involves a whole host of physical and behavioural characteristics that may adapt a a species to a particular environment. The behavioural adaptations alone can be sufficient for scientists to distinguish physically all but identical groups of animals into seperate races. For instance there is a recently discovered group of chimps that commonly nest on the ground. If this behaviour is coupled with a complex of other behavioural differences then the chimps will likely be classified as a seperate race or perhaps even subspecies. They are in the process of adapting themselves to a different niche in the ecosystem and if that adaptation proceeds far enough they would eventually evolve into a new species.</p>
<p>“Humans of any skin tone can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That is a fact. And that fact is all that is required to say that humans all belong to the same species.”</p>
<p>I don’t think anybody is arguing that humans are not all the same species. Are you arguing that speciation has ground to a halt in the hominid line and the laws of evolution repealed?</p>
<p>“By the way, can the single origin crowd explain why tigers are native to Bengal, and Lions are in Africa ?”</p>
<p>Actually lions ranged across a wide swath of the Asia and are still native to the Indian subcontinent. Tigers probably evolved well north of Bengal and show adaptations to colder climates though surviving populations are found mostly in tropical or sub-tropical areas. Lions and tigers can also be cross bred.</p>
<p>
There are numerous texts written by some of the greatest enlightenment thinkers that say that blacks must be inherently inferior than whites because of their skin color. That is, they are heathens because they are black, and therefore slavery is acceptable.
</p>
<p>I could continue if you want me to.</p>
<p>Sources: <a href=“http://www.engl.virginia.edu/enec981/dictionary/03humeK1.html[/url]”>http://www.engl.virginia.edu/enec981/dictionary/03humeK1.html</a>
<a href=“http://www.realhistories.org.uk/index.php/archive/philosophy.html[/url]”>http://www.realhistories.org.uk/index.php/archive/philosophy.html</a>
<a href=“http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefVirg.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=14&division=div1[/url]”>http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefVirg.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=14&division=div1</a></p>
<p>
But race doesn’t necessarily involve behavioral characteristics.</p>
<p>
This would be the logical implication of a multi-origin theory, though – since it would be very unlikely for three groups of an ancestral species to independently evolve to become exactly the same new species, the logical conclusion is that, given a multi-origin model, human races would in fact be different species.</p>
<p>A single-origin theory is far more parsimonious, not to mention better supported by the available data.</p>
<p>“There are numerous texts written by some of the greatest enlightenment thinkers that say that blacks must be inherently inferior than whites because of their skin color.”</p>
<p>The European enslavement of Black Africans began in the 15th century well before the discovery of the New World and long before Carolus Linnaes started modern systematics or Darwin thought about evolution or Margaret Sanger popularized eugenics.</p>
<p>
Margaret Sanger and Charles Darwin came long after David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Jefferson. But just because they didn’t word it as polygenism, the underlying idea is the same.</p>
<p>
You said that polygenism was never used to justify modern slavery (which I took to mean the enslavement of blacks in the Americas). I contradicted this statement, and you said prove it. In my last post, I provided you with the proof. If you want some more, then I’d be happy to cite more thinkers during the time period of the American slave trade who prove my point. But, the conclusion is the same, polygenism was used to justify slavery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jerry Falwell had a corrollary to this. During what he called the “Civil Wrongs Era”, he used to argue that their skin color was the result, a mark from God that they were descended from Ham and ordained from on high to be servants of servants.</p>
<p>As an aside, there is no scientifically valid definition of race. There’s more variation within so-called racial groups than between them.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm[/url]”>http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm</a></p>
<p>It depends on what you mean by “originate,” doesn’t it? In fact, I think it’s generally accepted in the scientific community that virtually all life on Earth evolved from the oceans, starting about 2.5 billion years ago. So if you’re talking about the origin of man as primate, Africa is probably a good bet. But if you’re talking about where life on Earth actually began and then evolved into myriad species, including man, then the answer is the Earth’s oceans.</p>
<p>“But race doesn’t necessarily involve behavioral characteristics.”</p>
<p>It is more apt to involve behavioural difference in mamals than fur or skin color. Hard to tell a Bengal tiger from a Sumatran or Siberian based on color though there are size, habitat, and behavioral differences.</p>
<p>A subspecies or race can be adapted to exploit or not exploit eco niches for which there are or are not competitors in a given area. You are hung up on the colloguial use of race as a description of humans and not the scientific usage of the term.</p>
<p>
Then what is the scientific usage of the term race in regards to humans? Sorry if you’ve already explained it, but I just don’t understand. So could you possibly clarify?</p>
<p>“I don’t think anybody is arguing that humans are not all the same species. Are you arguing that speciation has ground to a halt in the hominid line and the laws of evolution repealed?”</p>
<p>higherlead, I may be wrong, but from reading your past posts, you appear to be the one who finds the current definition of ‘species’ inadequate. You also claim that you cannot have a proper discussion on this, since there is only one politically correct answer. From this, I assumed that a) you had an alternate definition of race, and b) your alternate definition provided a non-PC answer. If you don’t, then I fail to see what the point of your last few posts has been, since you appear to now agree with everything I’ve said.</p>
<p>And no, I don’t believe evolution has ground to a halt. I do however believe that with advances in medicine, it will slow down evolution in homo sapiens sapiens.</p>
<p>“This would be the logical implication of a multi-origin theory, though – since it would be very unlikely for three groups of an ancestral species to independently evolve to become exactly the same new species, the logical conclusion is that, given a multi-origin model, human races would in fact be different species.”</p>
<p>I don’t see why. We see more isolated populations die out for lack of genetic variability than we do from a surfeit of it. The same ancestral species evolving independently in different environments and later interbreeding would produce hybrid vigor and in a species capable of communication and memory would the benefits would be even greater.</p>
<p>Whether “A single-origin theory is far more parsimonious, not to mention better supported by the available data.” is debatable. Parsimony is a little over-rated anyway. Whenever anyone mentions Occam’s Razor to me I am always remined of what the ignorant man I ever met used as an explanation whenever he encountered something he didn’t understand. He used to say, “It is a magical thing!” You cannot get any more parsim onious than that.</p>
<p>My arguement all along is that the very idea of species is artificial. If I feel that way about the concept of species it is safe to assume I feel doubly so about race or subspecies. But just because the distinctions we make are artificial does not mean they are useless. We arbitrarily divide a stick into ten or twelve equal parts and the next thing you know we are predicting the solstice and sending men to distant planets.</p>
<p>This threrad was supposed to be about where modern man evolved. That question cannot be discussed rationally on this board because it inevitably brings up all the social baggage America has been toting since the first African slave was deposited at Jamestown. Polygenisis is to be condemned not just because the mitcondrial DNA evidence doesn’t seem to support it but because it is pernicious in its own right - as if the universe is constructed with its own moral value system.</p>
<p>The fact is I don’t know where modern man evolved. The evidence seems to lean towards someplace in Africa but it is not that hard to construct an alternative hypothesis or to poke holes in the current theory, but doing so is guaranteed to bring the rath of the politically correct down on your head.</p>
<p>As for futher speciation in Homo sapiens I believe it is bound to occur and sooner rather than later and that modern science and medicine will be the midwives. We are already crossing humans with other species in the lab.</p>
<p>I understand that you think the designation of species, sub-species, race etc is artificial. But what about the higher levels on the classification system, such as genus? Or even higher ones such as domain or kingdom? The designations may be crude, but they have helped our understanding of how organisms evolve and are related to each other. </p>
<p>As for my condemnation of polygenism - yes, there are two aspects to it: the scientific aspect and the ethical aspect. In <em>all</em> of my posts I have mentioned the scientific aspect first. But I don’t deny that I believe a theory which uses crackpot science to defend human rights abuses is ridiculous. </p>
<p>As for alternative theories - the problem is, you haven’t given a viable one. I’ve already commented on the possibility that modern man originally developed in South Asia. That has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with the fact that science does not support it. </p>
<p>As for further speciation - could you explain your ideas on this a little more? I would be interested in your thoughts. :)</p>
<p>“As for further speciation - could you explain your ideas on this a little more? I would be interested in your thoughts.”</p>
<p>In vitro fertilization. There are already scientist messing around with human animal hybrids. Also with all the possibilities of genetic engineering, embryo selection etc etc. If people want to pick the sex of their children they also want to pick other characteristics. Why use steroids when you can tweak a few genes?</p>
<p>Plus on top of all that if we don’t wipe ourselves out speciation will probably occur in Homo anyway. Natural selection doesn’t grind to a halt just because of modern medicine or science. Wall Street or the courts or professional sports for that matter are as much of an eco-niche as a rain forest or savannah. It takes special skills to survive there so it is safe to assume that groups of humans could evolve to occupy the niche and exploit it.</p>
<p>I realize you like the single origin hypothesis and it is currently in vogue, particularly with the Mitochondrial DNA evidence but the timeline just isn’t long enough to account for the human variability we see not if modern man only busted out of East Africa 150,000 years ago. There is also the problem of all those other hominid lines outside of Africa. Did Homo erectus not continue to evolve when he left Africa? Did Homo sapiens wipe all the other hominids out? What about the continuity we see at archaeological sites? And what about Mungo Man? 40,000 years old and his Mitochondrial DNA does not fit the out of Africa hypothesis? Where did he come from and where did he go? To my mind some sort of multiregional evolutionary development for modern man still seems the most likely.</p>
<p>In 1970 I took two advanced genetics courses from a top international geneticist. One of his most emphatic lectures stated that race is not a scientific concept or a biological category but rather a social construct. That was 37 years ago. That makes me old, but it also suggests that we get on board with science that is hardly new.</p>