Ξύλο σε Ρατσιστή μαθητή!

[Γάταρος]

Από τα ο "Δαρβίνος δεν πίστευε στις φυλές" κατέληξαν στα "αναγνώριζε ότι υπάρχουν φυλές αλλά έκανε λάθος γιατί είχε επηρεαστεί από το περιβάλλον του". Για ούγκανα κάνατε σημαντική βελτίωση.

[blackpaint]

Γι'αυτό αποκαλούνται μεταξύ τους έτσι;

το ερωτημα γιατι οι λευκοι δεν μπορουν να χρησιμοποιησουν την λεξη ειναι η επιτομη του λευκου προνομιου.

[Otto Weininger]

Γι'αυτό αποκαλούνται μεταξύ τους έτσι;

το ερωτημα γιατι οι λευκοι δεν μπορουν να χρησιμοποιησουν την λεξη ειναι η επιτομη του λευκου προνομιου.

Συγγνώμη λίγο πριν δεν κατηγορούσες τον άλλο που σου έβαζε βίντεο;
Και τώρα μας βάζεις βίντεο μιας μαύρης γιουτιουμπερ ως αντίλογο;

[blackpaint]

Ρασισμός λόγω χρώματος ή θρησκειας δεν υπάρχει. Ακόμη και αυτοί που το παίζουν υπερ καθαρότητας φυλής κλπ, θα κάθονταν σούζα μπροστά σε έναν αλλόφυλο, αλόθρησκο αλλά με λεφτά και εξουσία.
Το αυτό ισχύει για όλους και για μαυρους και για λευκούς και για κίτρινους και για μπλέ.

αλλος ενας που δεν εχει ιδεα απο αμερικη

Η αμερική που περιγράφεις είναι στις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα. Πλέον τέτοιοι τύποι είναι μειοψηφία ακόμη και στο Νότο.Σούζα κάθεται ένας λευκος ρατσιστής μπροστά στον μαύρο με τα λεφτα και την εξουσία, σούζα κάθεται ένας νοσταλγος των μαυρων πανθηρων μπροστα στον λευκό με τα λεφτά και την εξουσία. Τα όποια φυλετικά τα βγάζει ο καθένας εκεί που τον παίρνει και μόνο.

στην αμερικη, το ταξικο και το φυλετικο ζητημα ταυτιζονται. Ετσι λοιπον, παιχτες του ΝΒΑ εχουν βρεθει με την αστυνομια να τους συλλαμβανει οταν πανε ν αγορασουν απο κοσμηματοπωλειο, καθηγητης πανεπιστημιου εχει συλληφθει ως διαρρηκτης στο ιδιο του το σπιτι, σε μια ceo του fortune 500 εχει ζητηθει να φερει καφε, και σε ορισμενα καταστηματα πολυτελειας, σε πολυ ευκαταστατους και καλοβαλμενους μαυρους, εχει ειπωθει πως δεν εχουν κατι για το δικο τους μπατζετ, οταν δεν στελνουν τους σεκιουριταδες να τους ακολουθουν κατα ποδας.

[blackpaint]

Γι'αυτό αποκαλούνται μεταξύ τους έτσι;

το ερωτημα γιατι οι λευκοι δεν μπορουν να χρησιμοποιησουν την λεξη ειναι η επιτομη του λευκου προνομιου.

Συγγνώμη λίγο πριν δεν κατηγορούσες τον άλλο που σου έβαζε βίντεο;
Και τώρα μας βάζεις βίντεο μιας μαύρης γιουτιουμπερ ως αντίλογο;

δεστο ρε, κανα νεφρο θα σου πεσει; καλα τα λεει η κοπελα, καλυτερα απο οσο θα τα λεγα εγω. Στον αλλο ζητησα επιστημονικο αρθρο κ μου φερε μγτοω βιδεο. Δεν ειναι το ιδιο. Μαρτυριες ανθρωπων ζηταμε.

[blackpaint]

Από τα ο "Δαρβίνος δεν πίστευε στις φυλές" κατέληξαν στα "αναγνώριζε ότι υπάρχουν φυλές αλλά έκανε λάθος γιατί είχε επηρεαστεί από το περιβάλλον του". Για ούγκανα κάνατε σημαντική βελτίωση.

κοβεσαι και ξαναρχεσαι σεπτεμβρη. ξαναδιαβασε το κειμενο.

[blackpaint]

Το μεγαλύτερο έγκλημα κατά της ανθρωπότητας ...

[Πάνας]

Τελικά καταδικάζετε αυτό που έκανε ο δάσκαλος ή όχι;

Αλλού για αλλού έχετε πάει το θέμα λέμε. Αν είναι να αλλάξει ο τίτλος.

[shrike]

Κι εσύ γιατί χειροκροτάς είπαμε;

[Πάνας]

Για τον ίδιο λόγο που λέει όλα αυτά που λέει.

[ΓΑΛΗ]

Γρονθοκοπούν τους ρατσιστές βρε παιδιά. Ουγκαγκακμπουγκ, ουγκαγκαγκαμπουγκ, μάτωσαν και οι ίδιοι από την προσπάθεια.

[Juno]

Εγώ γεννήθηκα μετά το 1945 στο ορκίζομαι. Τώρα ακούμε για μία φυλή.

το παραδοξο ομως ειναι πως επιμενεις να σκεφτεσαι με ορους και εννοιες του 1845.

Η εξεταση των γενετικων δεδομενων χρησιμοποιηθηκε για να αποσαφηνιστει εαν υπάρχουν βιολογικες φυλες στον ανθρωπο και στον πλησιεστερο εξελικτικο συγγενη μας, τον χιμπατζη. Βασιζομενοι στις δυο πιο συχνα χρησιμοποιουμενες βιολογικες εννοιες της φυλης, οι χιμπαντζηδες πραγματι υποδιαιρουνται σε φυλες, αλλα οι ανθρωποι οχι γιατί έτσι γουστάρουμε και όλοι οι άλλοι είστε φασίστες. Βασικά όλα τα είδη χωρίζονται σε φυλές εκτός από τον άνθρωπο και είστε ναζιστές και ψοφήστεΤα προσαρμοστικα χαρακτηριστικα, και οπως το χρωμα του δερματος, ενω εχουν συχνα χρησιμοποιηθει για τον ορισμο των φυλων στον ανθρωπο, στην πραγματικοτητα αντικατοπτριζουν τον περιβαλλοντικο παραγοντα στον οποίο προσαρμοστηκαν και οχι καποια συνολικη γενετικη διαφοροποιηση. Δεν υπαρχουν αντικειμενικα κριτηρια και όποιος ρωτήσει ποια είναι αυτά στους χιμπαντζήδες και τους χωρίζουν σε φυλές, είναι φασίστας και θα του πετάξουμε μολότοφ για την επιλογη ενος προσαρμοστικου χαρακτηριστικου εναντι αλλου για τον ορισμο της φυλης, αρα τα προσαρμοστικα χαρακτηριστικα δεν οριζουν τις φυλες στους ανθρωπους. Η εννοια της φυλης λοιπον ειναι επιστημονικα αδικαιολογητη. Οι ανθρωποι εχουν μεγαλη γενετικη ποικιλομορφια,μεγαλύτερη από τους χιμπαντζήδες, αλλά όποιος το πει δημοσίως είναι φασίστας αλλα η μεγαλη πλειοψηφια αυτης της διαφορετικοτητας αντανακλα την ατομικη μοναδικοτητα και οχι τη "φυλη".

fixed

Βασιζομενοι στις δυο πιο συχνα χρησιμοποιουμενες βιολογικες εννοιες της φυλης, οι χιμπαντζηδες πραγματι υποδιαιρουνται σε φυλες, αλλα οι ανθρωποι οχι

Ας δούμε λοιπόν τις φυλές των χιμπαντζήδων για να καταλάβουμε πόσο διαφορετικά πρέπει να είναι δύο μέλη του ίδιου είδους για να ανήκουν σε διαφορετικές φυλές.


Χιμπαντζής ο κοινός (Pan troglodytes)



Μπονόμπο (Pan paniscus)

I rest my case your honor!

(Εντωμεταξύ, είναι σχεδόν ολόιδιοι ενώ όσον αφορά τους ανθρώπους, ακόμα και Ασιάτες ή Αφρικανοί που βλέπουν λευκό πρώτη φορά στη ζωή τους και λένε πώς όλοι τους μοιάζουμε ίδιοι, αυτό το ρημάδι το χρώμα του δέρματος, των μαλλιών και των ματιών, θα το ξεχωρίσουν. Αλλά όχι, οι χιμπαντζήδες).

[blackpaint]

γιατί έτσι γουστάρουμε και όλοι οι άλλοι είστε φασίστες. Βασικά όλα τα είδη χωρίζονται σε φυλές εκτός από τον άνθρωπο και είστε ναζιστές και ψοφήστε...και όποιος ρωτήσει ποια είναι αυτά στους χιμπαντζήδες και τους χωρίζουν σε φυλές, είναι φασίστας και θα του πετάξουμε μολότοφ[/b] μεγαλύτερη από τους χιμπαντζήδες, αλλά όποιος το πει δημοσίως είναι φασίστας[/b]

Ναι, Juno, εισαι ρατσιστρια, λυπαμαι. Η μεθοδολογια σου δεν ειναι σωστη, η συγκριση που κανεις ειναι επιφανειακη. Κοιτα πως γινεται, αν και δεν εχω ψευδαισθησεις οτι θα το διαβασεις. Το βαζω για κοινη θεα.

3. Do Races Exist in Chimpanzees?
3.1. Do Races Exist in Chimpanzees Using fst Thresholds?
To avoid the emotional issues associated with race in humans, the threshold and lineage definitions of race will first be applied to our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) has been traditionally subdivided into five races or subspecies on the basis of morphological differences: P .t. verus in the Upper Guinea region of western Africa, P. t. ellioti in the Gulf of Guinea region (southern Nigeria and western Cameroon), P. t. troglodytes in central Africa, P. t. schweinfurthii in the western part of equatorial Africa (mostly southern Cameroon), and P. t. marungensis in central and eastern equatorial Africa. Gonder et al. (2011) surveyed chimpanzees throughout their range and found that sharp genetic differences separate the Upper Guinea and Gulf of Guinea populations from each other and from all other populations, but with less sharp genetic boundaries between the equatorial African populations. Table 1 shows the pairwise AMOVA results for these population contrasts. The Upper Guinea and Gulf of Guinea populations are above the 25% threshold for contrasts with each other and with all other chimpanzee populations. However, the three regions sampled in equatorial Africa are all well below the 25% threshold used for the recognition of subspecies. Hence, there are three races or subspecies of common chimpanzees using the threshold criterion: P .t. verus in the Upper Guinea region, P. t. ellioti in the Gulf of Guinea region, and the chimpanzee populations from equatorial Africa, which includes three of the traditional morphological subspecies.

Table 1
Genetic differentiation among populations of chimpanzees as measured by Rst, a measure related to fst but that incorporates a mutational model for microsatellites (modified from Gonder et al. 2011).

Upper Guinea|Gulf of Guinea|Southern Cameroon|Central Africa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf of Guinea 0.41
South.Cameroon 0.43 | 0.25
Central Africa 0.46 | 0.27 | 0.07
Eastern Africa 0.44 | 0.28 | 0.05 | 0.03

3.2. Do Races Exist in Chimpanzees As Evolutionary Lineages?
Gonder et al (2011) also used the chimpanzee genetic data to estimate an evolutionary tree of populations. The resulting tree has the Upper Guinea population splitting off first, followed by the Gulf of Guinea population, and then splits among the equatorial Africa populations. This tree predicts that the Upper Guinea population should be equally distant from all the other populations, and Table 1 shows that this prediction is supported when the error in estimating the distances is taken into account. This tree also predicts that the Gulf of Guinea population should be equally distance from all the equatorial African populations, but that this distance should be smaller (less time since the split) than the distances involving the Upper Guinea population. Table 1 shows that this prediction is also supported. However, Gonder et al (2011) also showed that the genetic distances among the three equatorial African populations follow an isolation-by-distance pattern on an east-west axis and do not define a tree-like structure. These three populations are therefore collapsed into a single lineage. Hence, chimpanzees do show a partial tree-like structure of genetic differentiation with three lineages: Upper Guinea, Gulf of Guinea, and the combined equatorial African populations. Hence, races do exist in chimpanzees under the lineage definition, and they correspond exactly to the same three races defined by the quantitative threshold definition of race.

4. Do Biological Races Exist in Humans?
4.1. Genetic Differentiation Among Human Populations
Do human races exist using the same criteria applied to chimpanzees? Rosenberg et al. (2002) performed a genetic survey of 52 human populations. They used a computer program to sort individuals or portions of their genomes into five groups, and discovered that the genetic ancestry of most individuals was inferred to come from just one group. Moreover, the five groups corresponded to 1) sub-Saharan Africans; 2) Europeans, Near & Middle Easterners, and Central Asians; 3) East Asians; 4) Pacific populations; and 5) Amerindians. This paper was the most widely cited article from the journal Science in 2002, and many of these citations claimed that this paper supported the idea that races were biologically meaningful in humans (e.g., Burchard et al., 2003). However, Rosenberg et al. (2002) were more cautious. When they increased the number of groups beyond five, they also obtained an excellent classification into smaller, more regional groups. Hence, they were showing that with enough genetic markers, it is possible to discriminate most local human populations from one another. Recall that genetic differentiation alone does not necessarily mean that any of these groups are races.

4.2. Do Races Exist in Humans Using fst Thresholds?
Assuming for now that the five major geographical groups are the meaningful populations, do these groups satisfy the quantitative threshold definition of race? Table 2 shows the AMOVA results for these five human groups, along with a comparable analysis of the three races of chimpanzees that satisfy both the threshold and lineage definitions of race. Table 2 shows how the genetic variation is partitioned into differences among individuals within the same local population, differences between local populations within the same “race”, and between “races”. Table 2 confirms the reality of race in chimpanzees using the threshold definition, as 30.1% of the genetic variation is found in the among-race component, a result expected from the pairwise analysis shown in Table 1. In contrast to chimpanzees, the five major “races” of humans account for only 4.3% of human genetic variation – well below the 25% threshold. The genetic variation in our species is overwhelmingly variation among individuals (93.2%).

Table 2
AMOVA of genetic variation in chimpanzees (data from Gonder et al. 2011) and from humans (data from Rosenberg et al. 2002).

Genetic Variance Components
Species Number of
“Races” Number of
Populations Among Individuals
Within Populations Among Populations
Within Races Among
Races
Chimpanzees 3 5 64.2% 5.7% 30.1%
Humans 5 52 93.2% 2.5% 4.3%

The threshold definition also requires sharp genetic boundaries between the “races.” Figure 2 shows a plot of the pairwise fst values of humans as a function of geographical distance (Ramachandran et al., 2005). As can be seen, the pairwise fst values increase smoothly with increasing geographical distance (in this case based on waypoints to minimize travel across oceans and seas). There are no indications of the discontinuities expected when sharp geographical boundaries of genetic differentiation exist. A more detailed analysis reveals that the spatial patterns of human genetic variation are explained well by a series of long-range migrations and population founder events coupled with gene flow with isolation-by-distance (Hunley, Healy, & Long, 2009). The gene flow arising from long-range migrations and isolation-by-distance has obscured any sharp boundaries that may have temporarily existed after the founder events (Figure 2) as well as has reduced the quantitative amount of genetic differentiation. Consequently, neither aspect of the threshold definition is satisfied; there are no sharp boundaries separating human populations, and the degree of genetic differentiation among human groups, even at the continental level, is extremely low. Using the threshold definition, there are no races in humans.

Figure 2
Isolation-by-distance in human populations. The x-axis is the geographical distance between two populations, as measured through waypoints that minimize travel over oceans. The y-axis is the pairwise fst between two populations. Modified from Ramachandran et al. (2005). Copyright (2005) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.

4.3. Do Races Exist in Humans As Evolutionary Lineages?
Turning to the lineage definition, Figure 2 is consistent with an isolation-by-distance pattern and not a tree-like structure. Hence, using the same criteria for rejecting the racial status of the traditionally named subspecies of chimpanzees from equatorial Africa, the existence of human races as evolutionary lineages is similarly rejected. This rejection is quantified with the cophenetic correlation. The cophenetic correlations for various data sets that have been used to portray human population trees vary from 0.45 to 0.79 (Templeton, 1998a). A tree-like structure of genetic differentiation requires a cophentic correlation greater than 0.9, and any value less than 0.8 is regarded as a poor fit (Rohlf, 1993), so all of these datasets reject the hypothesis of an evolutionary tree of human populations. Similarly, the log-likelihood ratio test for treeness results in a strong rejection of the null hypothesis of treeness for human populations (Long & Kittles, 2003).

Increased geographical sampling further undermines the idea of separate lineages. The geographical sampling of Rosenberg et al. (2002) was coarse. It is now known that the computer program STRUCTURE used in these studies generates well-differentiated populations as an artifact of coarse sampling from any species characterized by isolation-by-distance (Frantz, Cellina, Krier, Schley, & Burke, 2009; Safner, Miller, McRae, Fortin, & Manel, 2011). As pointed out earlier, Figure 2 reveals that human genetic distances fit an isolation-by-distance model. Consequently, it is not surprising that when Behar et al. (2010) sampled Old World populations more finely and used the computer program STRUCTURE, most individuals showed significant genetic inputs from two or more populations, indicating that most human individuals have mixed ancestries and do not belong to a “pure” group. The “races” so apparent to many who cited Rosenberg et al. (2002) simply disappeared with better sampling. These results and Figure 2 further falsify the hypothesis that humans are subdivided into evolutionary lineages.

Multi-locus nested clade phylogeographic analysis (ML-NCPA) also undermines the hypothesis of human races as lineages. Figure 3 shows the inferences from ML-NCPA about human evolution based on 25 regions of the human genome (Templeton, 2005, 2007) with some modifications due to a new test for testing the null hypothesis of no gene flow between two regions over a specified time interval in the past (Templeton, 2009a). The oldest inferred event is an out-of-Africa range expansion into Eurasia that is genetically dated to about 1.9 million years ago – the same time that the fossil evidence indicates that Homo erectus spread out of Africa into Eurasia during a major wet period in the Sahara. There were seven inferences of gene flow constrained by isolation-by-distance involving both African and Eurasian populations that were dated between the first out-of-Africa expansion at 1.9 Ma and 650,000 years ago, but applying the likelihood ratio test of the null hypothesis of isolation (no gene flow) between Africa and Eurasia given in Templeton (2009a) yields a log-likelihood ratio statistic of 11.86 with 7 degrees of freedom, which is not significant at the 5% level. Recurrent gene flow with isolation by distance between Africa and Eurasia is therefore suggested but not cross-validated for this early part of the Pleistocene, so no cross lines indicating gene flow are depicted in Figure 3 between the major geographical lineages of humans established by the first out-of-Africa expansion during the early Pleistocene.

Figure 3
Significant inferences about human evolution from multi-locus, nested-clade phylogeographic analysis. Geographical location is indicated on the x-axis, and time on the y-axis, with the bottom of the figure corresponding to two million years ago. Vertical lines indicate genetic descent over time, and diagonal lines indicate gene flow across space and time. Thick arrows indicate statistically significant population range expansions, with the base of the arrow indicating the geographical origin of the expanding population. Lines of descent are not broken because the population range expansion events were accompanied by statistically significant admixture when they involved expansion into previously inhabited areas. Modified from Templeton (2005).

The next major event shown in Figure 3 is a second population expansion out of Africa into Eurasia around 650,000 years ago, corresponding to the spread of the Acheulean tool culture out of Africa into Eurasia during the second major Saharan wet period of the Pleistocene. The null hypothesis of no admixture between the expanding population and the Eurasian populations is rejected with a probability level of 0.035. Hence, the Acheulean expansion was marked by genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations, further weakening the hypothesis of isolated Pleistocene lineages of humans. Statistically significant (p ≤ 0.13) recurrent gene flow with isolation by distance is inferred between African and Eurasian populations until a third major expansion of humans out-of-Africa into Eurasia occurred around 130,000 years ago, the time of the last major Saharan wet period. Accordingly, a trellis structure indicating gene flow rather than isolated lineages is depicted after the Acheulean expansion in Figure 3. The fossil record indicates that modern humans began expanding out of sub-Saharan Africa at 130,000 years ago (Vanhaeren et al., 2006) and reached China no later than 110,000 to 100,000 years ago (Jin et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2010). The null hypothesis of no admixture is overwhelmingly rejected for this expansion event with a probability level less than 10−17. As noted earlier, the inference of admixture has since been directly supported by studies on fossil DNA of archaic Eurasian populations (Green, et al., 2010; Reich, et al., 2010).

Following the expansion with admixture of modern humans from Africa, there have been additional expansions, mostly into areas not formerly occupied by humans (Figure 3). Wherever humans lived, gene flow was soon established, mostly limited by isolation-by-distance but with some long-distance dispersal in more recent times. These inferences of long distance range expansions followed by gene flow mostly constrained by isolation by distance have been subsequently supported by extensive computer simulations (Hunley, et al., 2009). On a time scale of tens of thousands of years (the temporal resolution of the ML-NCPA studies), there is not one statistically significant inference of splitting during the last 1.9 million years. Hence, the null hypothesis of a single human lineage is not rejected, so there is no evidence for lineage races in humans. Furthermore, ML-NCPA strongly rejects the null hypotheses of no gene flow and no admixture under the null hypothesis that isolated lineages did exist, so there is strong evidence against lineage races in humans. Hence, there are no races in humans under the lineage definition.


5. Are Human Races Defined By Adaptive Traits?
Races, when they exist, occupy a subset of the geographical range of their species. Sometimes environmental factors vary over the geographical range of the species, and some of these environmental factors induce natural selection that results in local adaptation. Hence, when races exist, they sometimes display local adaptations to the environment associated with their geographical sub-range that are not adaptive in the remainder of the species’ geographical range. In such cases, these geographic subpopulations also represent an ecotype. As stated earlier, the ecotype concept can be and has been applied to many different types of populations and even individuals within a local area, but at least in some circumstances in some species an ecotype and subspecies or race can refer to the same populations. This reasoning leads to the idea that local adaptations can sometimes be biological markers of racial status in humans; that is, human races are ecotypes (Pigliucci & Kaplan, 2003). However, human ecotypes do not correspond to races under either subspecies definition. Even the advocates of the ecotype race concept acknowledge that the same adaptation can arise independently in different parts of the species’ range (Pigliucci & Kaplan, 2003). Hence, ecotypes do not in general correspond to evolutionary lineages, and specifically human ecotypes cannot correspond to evolutionary lineages in humans since the hypothesis of multiple evolutionary lineages within the human species is rejected, as noted earlier. Moreover, variation in environmental factors can induce natural selection that results in local adaptations even in species that are not genetically subdivided at all (Templeton, 2006); that is, the ecotypes are only genetically differentiated at the gene loci under selection and show little to no genetic differentiation over the remainder of the genome. In these cases, the geographic distributions of the local adaptations reflect the geography of environmental factors and not boundaries of overall genetic differentiation. Hence, the ecotype concept in general does not correspond to populations demarcated by sharp boundaries of genetic differentiation that exceed some threshold. This is also certainly the case in humans because there are no human populations with sharp genetic boundaries that exceed the thresholds used in the non-human literature.

One solution to these problems of using ecotypes as races in humans is to simply abandon the subspecies concept of race entirely and define human races solely through ecotype status (Pigliucci & Kaplan, 2003). This solution does not solve the main problem that the subspecies concept of race addressed: avoiding cultural biases in a definition of human race. All species, humans included, adapt to many environmental factors, not just one. Frequently, different adaptive traits display discordant geographical distributions because the underlying environmental factors have discordant geographical distributions. As a result, one will get different ecotypes for different adaptations. This is not a problem for how the ecotype concept is used in the general evolutionary literature, but it raises a critical problem for implementing the ecotype concept as a definition of race in humans. Depending upon which adaptive trait is chosen, one will get very different “races”. So which adaptive traits should be used and which should be ignored? Evolutionary biology provides no objective way of addressing the question of choice of adaptive traits, so the ecotype concept of race in humans is yet another subjective, culturally sensitive concept of “race.”

Skin color is historically the locally adaptive trait most commonly considered by European cultures as a “racial trait” in humans. Skin color is an adaptation to the amount of ultraviolet (uv) radiation in the environment: dark skins are adaptive in high uv environments in order to protect from radiation damage that can kill and burn cells and damage DNA if not protected by melanin, and light skins are adaptive in low uv environments in order to make sufficient vitamin D, which requires uv (Hochberg & Templeton, 2010; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2010). The geographical distribution of skin color follows the environmental factor of uv intensity. Skin color differences do not reflect overall genetic divergence. For example, the native peoples with the darkest skins live in tropical Africa and Melanesia. The dark skins of Africans and Melanesians are adaptive to the high uv found in these areas. Because Africans and Melanesians live on opposite sides of the world, they are more highly genetically differentiated than many other human populations (Figure 2) despite their similar skin colors. Europeans, who are geographically intermediate between Africa and Melanesia, are likewise intermediate at the molecular genetic level between Africans and Melanesians, even though Europeans have light skins that are adapted to the low uv environment of Europe. Skin color differences in humans are not a reliable indicator of overall genetic differentiation or evolutionary history. Moreover, skin color varies continuously among humans in a clinal fashion rather than categorical ecotypes (Relethford, 2009). Hence, there is a compelling biological reason to exclude skin color as the racially-defining adaptive trait under the ecotype concept of race.

Another adaptive trait in humans is resistance to malaria, which is widespread in African populations. However, malaria is also common in some areas outside of Africa, and malarial resistance is found in many European and Asian populations as well. Indeed, one of the alleles underlying malarial resistance, the sickle-cell allele, has its highest frequency in certain populations on the Arabian Peninsula and in India despite frequently being regarded as a disease of “blacks”. Each adaptive trait in humans has its own geographical distribution that reflects the distribution of the underlying environmental factor for which it is adaptive. The discordance in the distributions of adaptive traits in humans means that different adaptive traits will define different ecotypes/”races”. No guidance, other than cultural preference, is given for choosing which adaptive trait should define the ecotypes that are regarded as races, and which ecotypes should not be regarded as races. Hence, equating ecotypes to races, even if limited just to humans, does not yield an objective, culture-free definition of race.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

tl/dr Οι χιμπατζηδες εχουν 5 φορες παραπανω γενετικες διαφορες απο τους ανθρωπους και μπορουν να κατηγοριοποιηθουν σε φυλες/υποειδη με βαση διαφορετικα συστηματα κριτηριων. Οι ανθρωποι, εχουν μεγαλυτερες κατα ατομο και ελαχιστες κατα συστημα κριτηριων, εαν δε αλλαξουμε εστω και λιγο τα κριτηρια προκυπτουν εντελως διαφορετικες φυλες.

[Juno]

γιατί έτσι γουστάρουμε και όλοι οι άλλοι είστε φασίστες. Βασικά όλα τα είδη χωρίζονται σε φυλές εκτός από τον άνθρωπο και είστε ναζιστές και ψοφήστε...και όποιος ρωτήσει ποια είναι αυτά στους χιμπαντζήδες και τους χωρίζουν σε φυλές, είναι φασίστας και θα του πετάξουμε μολότοφ[/b] μεγαλύτερη από τους χιμπαντζήδες, αλλά όποιος το πει δημοσίως είναι φασίστας[/b]

Ναι, Juno, εισαι ρατσιστρια, λυπαμαι.

Άρα καλά σου διόρθωσα το post, αυτά ήθελες να πεις. Γιατί βρε δεν τα είπες, ντράπηκες να βρίσεις άδικα; Μα γιατί, αφού το έχεις ξανακάνει.

Η μεθοδολογια σου δεν ειναι σωστη, η συγκριση που κανεις ειναι επιφανειακη. Κοιτα πως γινεται, αν και δεν εχω ψευδαισθησεις οτι θα το διαβασεις. Το βαζω για κοινη θεα.

Ε-Ν-Ν-Ο-Ε-Ι-Τ-Α-Ι πως δεν θα το διαβάσω όλο! Αν διάβαζα ό,τι σεντόνι γράφει εδώ μέσα ο κάθε blackpaint και ο κάθε Leporello, δεν θα είχα χρόνο για τίποτα άλλο, όλη η ζωή μου θα ήταν το phorum.
Και μην νομίζεις πως θα το διαβάσει κανένας άλλος όλο αυτό. Άντε ο διπλανός σου εκεί που τυχόν κάθεστε δίπλα-δίπλα με τα laptops σας και γράφετε, να γράψει ότι δήθεν το διάβασε μέχρι εκεί.

Αλλά θα κάνω παράθεση κάτι που γράφει στην αρχή:

3. Do Races Exist in Chimpanzees?
3.1. Do Races Exist in Chimpanzees Using fst Thresholds?
To avoid the emotional issues associated with race in humans, the threshold and lineage definitions of race will first be applied to our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) has been traditionally subdivided into five races or subspecies on the basis of morphological differences: P .t. verus in the Upper Guinea region of western Africa, P. t. ellioti in the Gulf of Guinea region (southern Nigeria and western Cameroon), P. t. troglodytes in central Africa, P. t. schweinfurthii in the western part of equatorial Africa (mostly southern Cameroon), and P. t. marungensis in central and eastern equatorial Africa. Gonder et al. (2011) surveyed chimpanzees throughout their range and found that sharp genetic differences separate the Upper Guinea and Gulf of Guinea populations from each other and from all other populations, but with less sharp genetic boundaries between the equatorial African populations. Table 1 shows the pairwise AMOVA results for these population contrasts. The Upper Guinea and Gulf of Guinea populations are above the 25% threshold for contrasts with each other and with all other chimpanzee populations. However, the three regions sampled in equatorial Africa are all well below the 25% threshold used for the recognition of subspecies. Hence, there are three races or subspecies of common chimpanzees using the threshold criterion: P .t. verus in the Upper Guinea region, P. t. ellioti in the Gulf of Guinea region, and the chimpanzee populations from equatorial Africa, which includes three of the traditional morphological subspecies.

Λοιπόν δέχεται ότι ο κοινός χιμπαντζής χωρίζεται σε πέντε φυλές με βάση μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά, αλλά όταν λέμε για τον άνθρωπο, δεν αρκούν οι διαφορές στα μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά και πρέπει να εξετάσουμε και άλλο πχ την αντοχή στην ελονοσία που λέει πιο κάτω που την έχουν οι πληθυσμοί που ζουν κοντά σε έλη, άρα διαφορετικές φυλές, άρα υπάρχει μία μόνον φυλή.

Οι χιμπαντζήδες πάλι, είναι άλλο πράγμα. Τα μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά, αρκούν. Στους ανθρώπους δεν αρκούν γιατί έτσι. Το υποστηρίζει και ο μπλάκι αφού.

Ας δούμε και τον περιβόητο κοινό χιμπαντζή της Γουινέας που μας υπογραμμίζεις πως είναι 25% διαφορετικός από τους υπόλοιπους:


Ας δούμε και τις άλλες φυλές να συγκρίνουμε:

Χιμπαντζής ο κοινός (Pan troglodytes) Αυτός ο κοινός ανήκει σε άλλη φυλή από τον κοινό της Γουινέας.

Μπονόμπο (Pan paniscus) Αυτός δεν είναι καν κοινός, ΕΝΝΟΕΙΤΑΙ πως είναι άλλη φυλή!

Οι τρεις παραπάνω φωτογραφίες δείχνουν τρεις διαφορετικές φυλές με βάση τα μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά, αλλά η παρακάτω φωτογραφία, μας δείχνει μόνον μία φυλή γιατί εδώ είναι ειδική περίπτωση (που βολεύει για να ανακατέψουμε τους πληθυσμούς και να δώσουμε δικαίωμα στους λαθρομετανάστες να εγκατασταθούν όπου θέλουν) και δεν αρκούν τα μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά, πρέπει να εξετάσουμε και το γονίδιο που προστατεύει από την ελονοσία.

[Χαοτικός]