Jon is studying linguistics and may chime in as well.
I'm not aware of any accepted reconstructed proto languages that go back further than several thousand years or so. The reconstructions that do reach back far enough are not generally accepted as valid.
Joe's talking about stuff that (according to him) happened 50k years ago or more.
You can add to this the fact that even with the original 3 classic divisions called "race" there is great variety of skin color as well as great variety of other features. As Jonathan Marks put it:
"By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic — that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal — that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left — the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal — was very small. A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it — as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools — did not exist."
[from Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history (1995)]
What I don't get about this whole discussion is why it isn't obvious that any group of living things, from plants to animals to human beings, develops its own limited gene pool when it becomes isolated from the rest of the population. This is what "races" are in any Species. Domestic breeding is an example of how it happens artificially by human choice: you get all the interesting breeds by isolating the genes/alleles that underlie their own peculiar characteristics, keeping them from interbreeding with other breeds of the same Species. Human beings become races simply by forming their own isolated groups and inbreeding among themselves for many generations. Sometimes a breed or race or variety of animals or plants becomes genetically incapable of interbreeding with others of their Species after being genetically reduced and isolated, but that has never happened with human races where interbreeding has always remained possible.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it — as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools — did not exist."
But that's what race IS, genetically speaking. You don't get particular characteristics without the specific genetic combinations that produce them, and where people have become geographically isolated in their migrations and spend generations inbreeding among themselves you're going to get exactly those "largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools" that underlie the identifiable traits of each isolated group.
How many characteristics does it take to constitute a race of people? Isn't the number of characteristics, and hence the number of fixed genetic combinations incredibly small? How many changes below neck level are required? And cannot more than one combination of genes produce a given result? Meanwhile the genes controlling non-race specific characteristics are free to have whatever variation and combination can be found. Even features like skin color are not homogeneous, nose shape, and hair coarseness vary within a race.
It is by examining the genetics of the races of humans on this earth that we can know that there is no limit to the diversity of the human race. In most cases there is much more variation within the race than there is distinction from another race.
How about providing us a mechanism for the death of people during the flood affecting the genomes of people or their descendants who did not die? How does someone else's death affect what Noah and sons pass on to their children and grand children? Wouldn't they instead just not pass on some combination rather than disabling something they already had?
Further, dumping out traits based on inbreeding does not explain very well the correlation of traits like skin color with geographies that we see. Those correlations suggest that selection played a role in what gene combinations survived at which did not.
Seriously, your answer seems to be that humans decided to make breeds out of themselves leaving no role for natural selection. The evidence does not support any of that.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses. Faith
I'm concerned that issues from the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread may be bleeding over into this thread. This thread is discussing the origin of the various human races and should only touch on genetics insofar as it provides evidence for specific scenarios. The other thread is discussing the premise that speciation isn't something that really happens, that all the species progenitors were created at creation, and that reductions in genetic diversity have produced all the various sub-species we see today.
A ‘RACE’ in human terms is a breed of man that evolves in ‘TOTAL ISOLATION’ for at least 50,000 years (interbreeding occurs because of isolation and time). The Nordic Race was an inbred and homogeneous racial type with blond hair, big blue eyes, white skin, towering height (6 — 7ft Giants) and large cranial capacity (1600cc). All uniform in appearance, all the same!
cannot be a reliable source of information. It started off with a Gish Gallop of false information.