人类是否有足够的生物学差异来进行种族分类或亚种分类?Do humans have enough biological differences to be grouped into races or subspecies?
2022-06-09 翻译熊 9839 0 0 收藏 纠错&举报
Do humans have enough biological differences to be grouped into races or subspecies?
- 达尔文论人类的兴衰(一) 2022/06/12 7721 10 0
- 最有趣的人类行为有哪些？(上) 2022/06/09 7419 2 0
- 人类应该更加优先去保护地球，还是去殖民火星？ 2022/05/19 10906 32 0
- 人类几乎毫无防御能力。为什么野生动物不再攻击我们?（三） 2022/05/16 18724 23 0
- 疫情让你认识到了人类的哪些特点？ 2022/05/10 13289 17 0
- 人类几乎毫无防御能力，为什么野生动物不再攻击我们?（二） 2022/05/07 15933 10 0
- 人类几乎毫无防御能力，为什么野生动物不再攻击我们?（一） 2022/05/07 18253 46 0
- 历史视角：罗马帝国的陨灭并不是文明的悲剧，反而是人类命运的转机 2022/04/15 8035 25 0
Races - what in other groups we call localities - just about, so long as we remember that what are *traditionally* thought of as races, especially in the US, are nonsense. Biologically speaking, a white Norwegian and an ethnic Pakistani are undoubtedly the same “race”, while a Khoisan and a Somali are undoubtedly different races.
Sub-species, no, with the possible exception of the various groups of pygmy, whose physical difference from the majority is striking enough that if we saw it in another species we probably would call it a sub-species.
No. To do so is to ignore the vast differences in the same species.
We create subspecies when there are significant differences in two populations that, nonetheless, are still capable of producing fertile young and/or otherwise have enough similarities to still be the same species.
Dogs and wolves are the same species, canis lupus, however the domestic dog is the subspecies canis lupus familiaris. This is because even though they are perfectly capable of successfully breading, they very rarely do so, and thus have almost perfectly separated (speciation), and while they are very similar, there are differences in their biology and psychology that are meaningful; dogs, for example, don't fully 'grow', remaining at a developmental stage wolves pass through, which is why they continue to wag their tails even though wolves cease this behaviour at around 3 years of age.
I would perhaps continue this to create the analogy that different 'races' therefore more accurately breeds, but even that would be overstating it. Breeds of dog can be several times larger than others, and have vastly different phenotypes. Races of human do not have anywhere near this amount of variation; it's safe to say two beagles could be as different as any two humans.
'Race' is an arbitrary system of differentiation, and beyond that not a reliable one. 90% of human variation is found in Africa, two people who would be called 'black' could be more distantly related to each other than a white person and a Native American.
Sure, but you won’t like the result if you are committed to older views on race.
Modern geneticists have tried to reconstruct our recent evolutionary history and development into races or ethnic groups. They typically get charts like this one, showing that most human variation is among Africans and all other peoples are a branch of Northeast Africans.
That pattern shouldn’t be surprising if you understand that humans originated in Africa and that, many thousands of years later, some of them left that continent. Scientists think that modern Europeans and Asians descend from peoples that left Africa 50,000–70,000 years ago. Given that our species originated roughly 250,000 ago, all of us have deep African ancestry.
如果你知道人类起源于非洲，而且几千年后，其中一些人离开了那片大陆，那么这种模式就不奇怪了。科学家们认为，现代欧洲人和亚洲人是5 - 7万年前离开非洲的人的后代。考虑到我们的物种起源于大约25万年前，我们所有人都有很深的非洲血统。
These charts are slightly misleading in that they don’t show that people from different human groups have always married each other. Some of that was due to people marrying neighbors and some was due to invaders marrying newly conquered peoples. (Or whatever people did back then instead of marriage.) As a result, there aren't many pure races or groups.
This chart depicts one people, the Yamnaya, invading Europe from the East, and mixing their genes with those of existing people or even largely replacing them. The small pie charts show the degree to which they replaced existing peoples. Invasions like that have happened over most of the world many times.
Based on modern genetics, the classic division of humanity into a handful of mostly non-African races makes no sense at all.
That guy in the lower left of this picture represents most of the world’s genetic variation. The other four guys are just recent descendants of Northeast Africans. They look different but looks are only skin deep.
Excellent answer! Just a minor correction: technically, considering the usually agreed upon border of Europe is in the Urals and the western Kazakh semi-desert, then the Yamnaya were an East European people/culture, for their initial range was between the Dniester and the Volga, and a bit later between the eastern Balkanic coast of the Black Sea (Dobruja and the Bulgarian coast) and the Middle-Upper Volga.
I have seen these people described as Central Asian but you are correct. I removed the word Asian but describe them as coming from the East.
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Yamnaya were Eurasian. During high Antiquity, The Greeks had the border of Europe set on the Don River, not the Ourals.
The Yamnaya had no conception of being European least geographically, let alone culturally.
Europe was an arbitrary definition. It didn't mean anything related to ancestry or culture or religion like it somewhat does now.
Proof is there were Greeks of Asia, and Greeks of Europe, on top of Greeks of Libya and Aegyptus.
This is all a modern invention to decide that there was “white civilisation” West of Eurasia, and something else elsewhere.
If the Yamnaya were Europeans then many people in Asia including Iranians Syrians Uighurs North Indians and Mountain Pakistani are Europeans.
That's pure nonsense.
The Yamnaya were part of Europe s history. And of Asia s history, in pure geographical terms. But they were not a European people or nation as such concept did not exist then.
The only thing this post shows is that the step white Proto Indo European civilisation that was Yamnaya spread across both Europe and Asia, in geographical terms.
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yes, of course, but since we live in the 21st century and our concept of Europe is a specific one that differs from that used by the ancient Greeks more than two millennia ago, then it’s useful to give their correct location for readers to understand where they really lived. If you say “Asia”, most people who never heard about the Yamnaya will never figure that by “Asia” what is meant is southern Ukraine and southwwestern Russia.
Labels like Slavic or European is what contemporaneous writers, academics, researchers and historians ascribe to the forebears, in need of a historical notional definition area.
We are aware they were nothing Slavic. It didn't exist at the time.
They were steppe pontic pastoralist/herders.
In fact the Yamnaya were ancestors to modern continental Europeans. Sardinians and Sicilians have relatively poor genetic contribution from the Yamnaya.
That's to say Europe as a geographical entity had genetically diverse streams. So Europe as a concept never reflected any idea of cultural uniformity of “race” or physical type.
They were also ancestral to Central Asians and near Easterners including Syrians and North Iranians, as well as Uyghurs.
The Tocharian the semi sedentary ancestors of the Uighurs are noted for their tartans and knowledge of wool manufacturing, which bears strong resemblance to that of the Celts.
Lastly Chess was found to be either invented in India or in Ireland, albeit separately. The Yamnaya are noted to have entered India across the HIndu Kush
Wow, the implicit racism of that last picture is astounding. The white guy being central and looking off heroically into the middle distance. The other four pushed to the side. The 19th Century at its worst.
Indeed. And the artist made all the others from average to ugly, while the Caucasoid guy is (by 19th c. beauty standards) very handsome and elegant. It's not even subtle. Lol
I particularly like the shifty look to the Chinese guy. They didn't even try did they.
I don't see why I wouldn't like the result. This is an interesting result.
I was thinking of people who are committed to classic race theories.
In support of the marrying people statement, we tend to imagine horse-riding hordes, but they actually were moving much more slowly - note 1000 years from the Ukraine to Portugal etc. While I’m sure it wasn’t all sweetness and light, this was women and children included and pretty slow.
The short answer is no. The only currently existing subspecies of humans is homo sapiens sapiens, full stop.
That’s why skin color and “race” are bs constructs, invented the last 300 to 400 years ago( at least in terms of culture.) Just take a look at your DNA. I have many races in my family tree but I look white so it’s just bs, judging a book by its color is wrong.
I’m no expert, but my impression is that the concept of “race” traditionally used is too broad to be useful. For example, Ashkenazi Jews tend to be more genetically susceptible to certain diseases than other Middle Eastern, North African and Southern European populations, even though they have genetic similarities and have a similar “Mediterranean look”.
Similarly, as I understand it, West Africans tend to have more “fast twitch” muscles than other populations, which can account for the predominance of people of West African descent in Olympic sprinting events. However East Africans don’t have more “fast twitch” muscles, and are not predominant in Olympic sprinting, even though they share a general “Sub-Saharan African look” with West Africans.
In other words, the traditional conceptions of race, which are largely based on looks, fail to take into account that “looks are only skin deep”.
One nitpick about your statement:
“Some of that was due to people marrying neighbors and some was due to invaders marrying newly conquered peoples.”
Inter-racial “marriage” was probably taboo back then as it still is by and large. “Guess who is coming to Dinner” is still true today.
So “marrying” in your statement is an euphemism for mostly rape of women from conquered or defeated tribes.
Your views of inter ethnic marriage may be affected by your own cultural background. Latin Americans have intermarried more freely than North Americans. Some cultures discourage intermarriage and some don't.
Conquest is different from casual intermarriage in that it tends to produce males taking over conquered women. That's why native American mitochondrial DNA is so common in my group, Puerto Ricans. Geneticists see evidence for that sort of thing in some places but not others.
I don’t understand. I thought there wasn’t any native population there when the Europeans arrived.
Yeah, sorry, it wasn’t about the native population of Iceland. But my understanding is that Iceland was settled by Vikings who stopped by the Shetland islands and “collected” a bunch of Scottish women. So when geneticists studied the current population of Iceland the Y chromosomes can all be traced back to Norway and the mitochondrial DNA to Scotland. I believe someone did a rival human genome project using Icelandic DNA because of this phenomenon. Your comment just reminded me of that.
Yes, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Another ugly story in the peopling of the Western World.
It's nice to blame the “Western World,” but this behavior is universal among humans - the Han among the southern Chinese cultures, the Mongols, the Seoul and Is ammo Turks, etc.
Interestingly enough, the European men are probably most likely to intermarry with other races, if we are permitted to call them that. The Asians, especially the Indians or East Asians, are not that keen to mix. Some of it is due to religion, some due to cultural dislike. Of course, we cannot call that racist. That is only for the White Privileged Supremacists as it were…
I don't know how widely that's true. Probability varies by country and circumstances.
You seem to have a difficulty in understanding the huge difference between Bias, conservative culture, repulsion/attraction on one hand and then racism on the other . It’s easy to conflate these because they are subsets of Racism , but one does not equal all. Racism has a supremacy and power dynamic attached to it.
Many people/ cultures are naturally biased to marrying their kind, many are conservative and marry for preservation of norms, others are simply not attracted to features outside of theirs . That is not Racist.
Do you agree that European men have the power dynamics to afford unrestricted foreign travel for many centuries of mans existence and as a result this would make them marry more across the “human spectrum “than any other set of males?
Not necessarily. Exogamy, particularly female exogamy, was very commonplace, with very ample evidence that tribes often exchanged wives that lived even hundreds of km away, without any expansion of one tribe over the territory of those other tribes living very far from them. Tribes did not only have foes. They usually depended heavily on a network of alliances, some of them very distant from their homeland. So, tribal people often did that and assured the endurance of their alliances and trade partnerships by marrying each other. It was much more usual than one thinks even recently. When the Portuguese arrived in Brazil instead of fighting them some tribes decided to instead adopt them into their tribes by marrying their daughters to the new settlers, making alliances and deals with them and even helping them defeat other European rivals vying for the conquest of the Brazilian shores, as well as other indigenous tribes. In their view (not so much in the view of the Europeans, though), by mixing with the settlers they were striking a much stronger alliance and promise of mutual assistance. That was known as “brother-in-lawism" (cunhadismo in Portuguese) and was hugely important for some tribes to get a better position in the new sociopolitical situation.