What is a human race? How many human races are there?

[NPK]

Many people think that the terms human race and human species are interchangeable. I don't agree with that - aren't races subsets of species?

 

Are races the same as strains?

 

Saying that, how many human races are there and what are they called?

 

Is caucasian a race? asian? african-american?

[insane_alien]

starins don't really apply to humans because we don't reproduce by osmosis(the cell spliting thingy, yes you spotted i'm not a biologist). to define a race we must look at the accepted definitions:(source dicionary.com)

race1 n.

 

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

4. Humans considered as a group.

5. Biology.

1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

 

Basically to round them all in a race can be defined as a group of people. You could use any trait or feature to classify a new race. eg. people with long necks could be said to belong to the race longus neckus (i made that up but you see where i'm coming from).

[Yggdrasil]

Human races are not well defined in a biological sense. Many racial classifications are arbitrary and have more of a basis in social factors than biological ones. For example, many consider "Hispanic" to be a racial classification, but in terms of biology the Hispanics are very diverse, with ancestries tracing back to Europe (Spain), Africa (from the Moor's occupation of Southern Spain and from Hispanics of mulatto descent), and the Americas (from native Mexicans, Cubans, etc. and Hispanics of mestizo descent). In fact, researchers who examined the distribution of genetic markers among different racial groups wrote:

 

The outward signs on which most definitions of race are based -- such as skin color and hair texture -- are dictated by a handful of genes. But the other genes of two people of the same 'race' can be very different. Conversely, two people of different 'races' can share more genetic similarity than two individuals of the same race" (Bamshad, MJ. and Olson, SE. "Does Race Exist?" Scientific American. December 2003, Vol. 289 Issue 6, p78-85).

 

Furthermore, evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewtonin noted that 85 percent of the genetic variability was among individuals within populations, and only an additional 15 percent was added when individuals in different populations were compared (although it is worth noting that many of Lewtonin's claims are highly contested among evolutionary biologists).

[Dak]

Saying that' date=' how many human races are there and what are they called?

 

Is caucasian a race? asian? african-american?[/quote']

 

three main races of humans: caucasians, negroids, mongaloids.

 

Lower than that, and it all gets a bit meaningless. even for the main three divisions, the distinction is relevant with reguards to certain genes/alleles, but not others.

[vrus]

Many people think that the terms human race and human species are interchangeable. I don't agree with that - aren't races subsets of species?

 

Every living organism is classified by a system.

You classify the organism in the following order :-

Kingdom

Phylum

Class

Order

Genus

Species

 

An organism's scientififc name is obtained from the last two; Genus & Species.

The classification for humans (Homo Sapiens) would be :-

Animal

Cordates

Mammals

Primate

Homo

Sapiens

 

Species is the final classification. So in terms of biology, I don't think they count race in classification!

But we had company in our Genus. The Neanderthal Man and another dwarfish type whose bones they found recently. I think 10 million yrs. old.

Both became extinct. I'm not sure how though. I can only guess.

[rakuenso]

the term strains usually only apply to bacteria and other unicellular organisms and viruses. Different strains are usually unique in that they are able to evade the hosts cellular mechanisms, whether it be exploitation of the glycoproteins or other methods.

[kmq]

Species is the final classification

 

Actaully, its not. Try subspecies. For example, we are Homo sapiens sapiens. (yep, two "sapiens", not a typo). Homo sapiens died out thousands of years ago. (I know what I'm talking about, we just did this in global history)

[Martin]

Actually, its not. Try subspecies.

 

I think kmq is right here. I see biologists use the term "subspecies" quite a bit

and the term "race" has been used for other animals besides humans to mean more or less the same thing as subspecies

 

I dont know if they currently say "race" very much

 

but "subspecies" is certainly part of the system of classification, it doesnt stop at "species"

 

Mokele or Skye would be able to confirm this. I think the Alien had the biologists' definition about right

 

5. Biology.

1. An interbreeding' date=' usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.[/quote']

 

==================

here is something that might amuse you, about dogs, obviously a breed of dog is not quite the same thing as a subspecies, but a similar method of gene cluster analysis can be used to identify dogbreeds as might be used to give an objective DNA meaning to subspecies.

 

21 MAY 2004 VOL 304 SCIENCE page 1160

 

--------quote----------

 

Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog

 

Heidi G. Parker, 1,2,3 Lisa V. Kim,1,2,4 Nathan B. Sutter,1,2 Scott Carlson, 1 Travis D. Lorentzen,1,2 Tiffany B. Malek,1,3 Gary S. Johnson, 5 Hawkins B. DeFrance,1,2 Elaine A. Ostrander, 1,2,3,4* Leonid Kruglyak1,3,4,6

 

We used molecular markers to study genetic relationships in a diverse collection of 85 domestic dog breeds. Differences among breeds accounted for about 30% of genetic variation. Microsatellite genotypes were used to correctly assign 99% of individual dogs to breeds. Phylogenetic analysis separated several breeds with ancient origins from the remaining breeds with modern European origins. We identified four genetic clusters, which predominantly contained breeds with similar geographic origin, morphology, or role in human activities. These results provide a genetic classification of dog breeds and will aid studies of the genetics of phenotypic breed differences.

 

The domestic dog is a genetic enterprise unique in human history. No other mammal has enjoyed such a close association with humans over so many centuries, nor been so substantially shaped as a result. A variety of dog morphologies have existed for millennia, and reproductive isolation between them was formalized with the advent of breed clubs and breed standards in the mid–19th century. Since that time, the promulgation of the “breed barrier” rule--no dog may become a registered member of a breed unless both its dam and sire are registered members—has ensured a relatively closed genetic pool among dogs of each breed. At present, there are more than 400 described breeds, 152 of which are recognized by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in the United States (1). Over 350 inherited disorders have been described in the purebred dog population (2). Many of these mimic common human disorders and are restricted to particular breeds or groups of breeds as a result of aggressive in...

-------end quote-------

 

21 MAY 2004 VOL 304 SCIENCE http://www.sciencemag.org

[Dak]

Actaully, its not. Try subspecies. For example, we are Homo sapiens sapiens. (yep, two "sapiens", not a typo). Homo sapiens died out thousands of years ago. (I know what I'm talking about, we just did this in global history)

if homo sapiens died out thousands of thousands of years ago, we would be dead (what with us belonging to homo sapiens).

 

Homo sapiens neandertalensis died out thousands of years ago, leaving the only other sub-species of humans (namely us -- homo sapiens sapiens, as you said) the only survivors of the homo genera.

 

below sub-species, a distinktion is pretty meaningless overall. the eukaryote equivelant of a strain is, iirc, a population. the allele distribution is slightly different in any group, be it a larger population (ie, mongaloids, caucasions, negroids etc) or a very small group (people from london, people from sot'on etc).

 

it doesnt make a difference in generall, but -- with respect to a few genes -- there are significant differenses between populations; eg, its pretty obviouse that the 'black skin alleles' are more common within the negroid population than within the caucasian.

 

the type-b blood allele is less comon amongst native americans.

 

etc.

 

so, in answre to the OP -- it depends on how you define 'race'. there are between a few and absolutely loads of different populations of humans, depending on how big-a-group you are talking about at the time, and 'race' seems to be (scientifically speaking) a quasi-arbitrary distinction placed on populations that happen to share the same nationality or ethnic appearance.

 

for example, the london population doesnt count as a race, but anglo-saxon does.

[Martin]

Hi Dak, maybe someday someone will do a cluster analysis like this

http://www.ohsu.edu/pmcb/current_students/documents/OstranderDomesticDog.pdf

 

and find human subpecies that can be defined by marker frequencies

 

but I dont think AngloSaxons will qualify

they might though

 

shucks I dont seem to make the URL work

 

EDIT: thanks Skye and Dak! I fixed it now.

[Skye]

You forgot the slashes in the url:

http://www.ohsu.edu/pmcb/current_students/documents/OstranderDomesticDog.pdf

[Dak]

Hi Dak' date=' maybe someday someone will do a cluster analysis like this

http://http: www.ohsu.edu/pmcb/current_students/documents/OstranderDomesticDog.pdf

 

and find human subpecies that can be defined by marker frequencies

 

but I dont think AngloSaxons will qualify

they might though

 

shucks I dont seem to make the URL work[/quote']

 

http://www.ohsu.edu/pmcb/current_students/documents/OstranderDomesticDog.pdf

 

there you go

 

thats why i prefer to think of every distinction as a clade -- it means i dont have to bother thinking about wether stuff counts as a sub-species, strains, populations, races, breeds etc

 

re anglo-saxons: im not sure, but aryan counts as a race, and anglo-saxon is roughly analogouse to aryan.

 

aryan is a sub-race of the teutonic race (meaning germanic), and both teutonic and possibly anglo-saxon (if it counts as a race) are members of the caucasian race.

 

simmilaly, native-americans and inuits are both (i think) counted as sub-races of the mongaloid race.

 

the races seems to be a kind of taxinomical rank specific to humans, which starts at the level of species and goes down to the level of nationality.

 

tangently related: iv always wondered wether aboriginies count as a race or a sub-species; something like homo sapiens aboriginus. i wonder because, of all the diverent clades of humans (see -- the word 'clade' rules), the aboriginies have been the most isolated, and thus have much less gene-flow with the rest of humanity than do the other clades.

[Mokele]

Personally, I consider all 'races' of humans to be invalid, biologically, for two reasons.

 

First, as noted, the individual variation is so far beyond the variation between people from different localities that the latter effectively makes no difference.

 

Second, and most important, is gene flow. Subspecies/races are isolated or mostly so from other subspecies of the same race. In contrast, human populations, due to our great mobility, have a huge amount of gene flow, enough that there isn't any reasonable way to delineate 'races'.

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm

 

The maps on the above link show allele frequencies. You'll note that they do not correspond well to either skin color (which is mapped on a prior page from that link) or any other variable. If there is a local area of strong variation for one gene, it might not be distinguished from the surrounding area at all in other genes. If there were true races, we would expect local variation in repeating patterns due to isolation. Instead, we see patterns that vary from locus to locus, the product of local selection pressures, with no clear distinctions. Ergo, I would interpret this as strong support for my theory.

 

IMHO, the closest you could get to a race would be Native Americans, but there was probably continual gene flow across the bering land bridge until that closed off, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some even afterwards by the more seagoing cultures. Plus there's all the mixing since colonization by Europeans.

 

Mokele

[lucaspa]

"Race" is a term that has fallen out of use in evolutionary biology. In Darwin's time, "race" referred to a nationality or tribal group. Thus, you have the Irish "race", the Tahitian "race" etc. Today, the definitions as used in biology are given in Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, 1998:

"Subspecies: A taxonomic term for populations of a species that are distinguishable by one or more characteristics, and are given a subspecific name (e.g. the spuspecies of the rat snake Elaphe obsoleta; se Figure 21 in Chapter 9). In zoology, subpecies have different (allopatric or parapatric) geographical distributions, so are equivalent to "geographic races;" in botany, they may be sympatric forms. No criteria specify how different populations should be to warrent designation as subspecies, so some systematists have argued that the practice of naming subspecies should be abandoned." pg 450

 

"Semispecies: Usually, one of two or more parapatric, genetically differentiated groups of populations that are thought to be partially, but not fully, reproductively isolated; nearly, but not quite, different species."

 

"Race: A vague, meaningless term, sometimes equivalent to subspecies and sometimes to polymorphic genetic forms within a population."

 

"Variety: Vague term for a distinguishable phenotype of a species"

 

Biological species are defined as "different species represent different gene pools, which are goups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups." D Futuyma Evolutionary Biology pg 27

 

"Genetic polymorphism is the presence of two or more genetically determined, more or less discrete phenotypes within a single population of interbreeding individuals." pg 239

 

"A population is a group of organisms of the same species living together in a given region and capable of interbreeding." Biology the Study of Life 6th edition. 1993, pg 605

 

So, there are no "races" of humans, but there are populations. The subject is more confusing because the medical literature has not caught up to the evolutionary biologists yet, and many papers refer to "race" or "ethnic group" when they mean "population". Thus, you can have the population of "Northern European" or "Americans of African descent" or "West Africans" or "San" or "Eskimos". But to say "caucasian", "negroid", "mongoloid" or "aryan" is useless.

 

BTW, the recent genetic data shows that neandertals were a separate species, not a subspecies. We have Homo neandertals and Homo sapiens, both descended from Homo erectus. Sibling species.

[Pleiades]

EDIT: IGNORE THIS POST, I made it without thinking, it doesn't belong here, I shouldn’t be bringing my personal beliefs into a scientific discussion, I’m sorry. I’m only leaving it here because I feel it’s wrong to delete a post that has already been commented on.

***

 

*dons flameproof suit*

 

My beliefs on the concept of race within the human species are result of my religion, and while they may be correct (or incorrect); the book I take the following from presents no evidence to back up the claims. Just in case anyone cares, I believe there were 6 races of humans, but that there are no humans currently alive who can be classified as belonging purely to one race or another, 2 of these races no longer exist. Since these are religious beliefs, and this is a science forum, I doubt anyone cares, but you can take a look at the paper from the religious book here: EDIT: <link removed>

 

There is it, take it or leave it, but don’t bitch about it to me because it’s not scientific; I’m already aware of the fact.

[Mokele]

There is it, take it or leave it, but don’t bitch about it to me because it’s not scientific; I’m already aware of the fact.

 

Then why did you post this view on a *science* forum?

[Pleiades]

I didn't think it thorugh before i hit "Reply"

[Y-Soulja]

well, humans are like animals you know.......i mean, not that "animals" but for example, chameleon......and they have different colors or maybe bodies, and they are 'chameleons' right? All into 1 word...so...lol same thing with humans, it's just nature

[ku]

I was taught in high school bio that a species is defined in terms of whether two organisms can mate and produce viable offspring. No simple rule exists for the definition of a race so I'm not too sure.