How can differences in skin color be evidence of evolution if there is no such thing as race?

Question

I asked yesterday on this forum if there is any evidence of human beings *beginning* the very *initial* stages of *starting* to evolve into different species (I didn't ask if humans had already evolved into different species). Many people said that different "races" were evidence of evolutionary change.

How can this be if there is no such thing as race?

Answer 1

Nature strives for diversity within select groups! If we all had the identical genetic makeup we would all be susceptible to the same diseases. A specific disease could destroy the entire human race! I believe we have differences which insure that at least one or two groups will continue to survive! There is both uniformity on one level and diversity at another level! If we continue to blend together we will have caused a new level of uniformity to occur and it may be disastrous for the human race! Viva la difference!

Answer 2

Drop the political correctness, everyone. Race is real and it is useful in categorizing people into related groups and to describe physical traits. Skin color is only one of a complex of traits used to do so. Now scientists use genetic markers to divide people into groups, but the phenotypic classification can be more useful.

Answer 3

There is no biological concept of race, it is strictly a social construction used to discriminate. The reason for it has to do with development of pigment in the skin. There are a huge variety of ways that humans acclimate to their environment. Skin pigmentation is simply the easiest to visually see. People born in extremely high altitudes typically have a barrel shaped torso to help with oxygen intake, for example. Evolution has taken place, but we are all one species. In fact there is more genetic variation between "whites" than there is between the so-called races.

Answer 4

There is currently existing only one species of man and that is HOMO SAPIEN.

Homo Sapien is divided into three main RACES: 1. Caucazoid, 2. *******, 3. Mongoloid.  And these three main races of man are subdivided into ETHNIC GROUPS.

The three main races are not just identified through skin color but by skull structure and skeletal structure.  For example the Race of an albino Caucazoid, *******, or Mogoloid is easily recognized even though the skin is pure white because that albino has retained the Physical characteristics of each particular race.

How do you think they can identify the race of all the skeletons they pull out of a nasty Hotel fire?  So skin color is not the most important indicator of RACE.

The closer to the equator the darker the skin tone and the further away from the equator the lighter the skin tone, this phenomenon is called 'Continuous Variation'.

Answer 5

Race is a cultural construct. But as far as skin tones go i believe the archaeological record can tell us something about migration patterns of people and a sign of origination of a people/person. Besides, dark skin is simply a difference in pigmentation and the closer to the equator you originated from the more of it you need. Go further North and South and the less pigment people have thus the "whiter" they get.

Answer 6

If we acept the race  differences in the animals,how can we not acept the in humans? The opinion that races is biological the same is dumb and everybody knows it, but there is a politically correct fashism so we had to fool our selfs and most of us never tell what we really believe

Answer 7

Who told you that races don't exist?

Races do exist and you have asked the most germane question.  We were told that blue-eyed, blond people became that way because they lived in the north.  What of the same who live in Spain?  Why are they still blond and BEed?  Why are eskimos so dark skinned after thousands of years living in polar regions?

The idea of skin color darkening near the equator is nonsense.

For whatever reasons, our designers made us different from one another, perhaps to see if we could ever get along.

Answer 8

There are differences between populations, but they are very small.  But non of these differences can be used as a way to group people accurately.  In other words, no single difference can accurately group people into their heritage (thus there is no such thing as race).  For example, an albino from Africa would be grouped in with Europeans if skin color was used to group people.  But, the general differences can be used to generally group populations.

Answer 9

I think that differences in skin color being seen as a sign of evolution only goes so far. People living in different parts of the world needed different skin tones to survive so, naturally, over time their skin changed to match their climate.  

Race is a word that humans have created, note that it was created by humans implying that people of all races are humans which is the species.  Race does not exist because we are all humans.

Skin color and race are two different things.  Think about it.  Dogs and cats are still dogs and cats even if some are black and white and others pure black or others mulitcolored.  They are still dogs and cats.  We do not label them as "blacks" and "whites" they are just what they are.  Same goes for humans.

Answer 10

Skin color differs among populations based on amount of exposure and need for protection from the sun.  That is evidence of selection between the competing factors of UV protection on the one hand and need to allow some UV in for the production of Vitamin D.

To take it very simply, skin color tends to decrease as you go away from the equator.  Note that this is complicated by factors like migration--for example the expansion of the Bantu speaking peoples in Africa.

If looked at carefully and honestly all the factors cited as diagnostic of "race" show different patterns of variance, related to the selective forces acting on hair shape, limb length, body form, blood factors, etc.--all of these going along their own gradients,  Therefore one can see the acting of section (and other evolutionary forces, but this answer is long enough as it is) and yet not the creation of "races".

Answer 11

There is such a thing as race, it's just that it is not a very useful concept when trying to describe groups of people

Answer 12

all humans are 1 species but are further divided into race based on how they adapted to thier individual climate

Answer 13

"Race" as it is defined, is not the same thing as a regional adaptation. Skin color is one adaptation. Just one. Race has a deeper meaning than that. Evolution isn't on some predetermined path, so it's hard to say what differences today might become significant enough to divide us evolutionarily later on down the line.

But I can answer your question directly. If humans had remained separated into geographically isloated groups for a much longer period of time, it's certainly possible that they would have diverged more and more, perhaps enough to become different species. But gene flow has become global, so those differences we spent all that time adapting to are no longer indicative of future evolution. The differences that were beginning aren't going to continue like they were unless all the people somehow separate themselves back into their original groups, get rid of all the children (and grandchildren, and great grandchildren, etc. at this point) that resulted from interbreeding, and remain isolated for another 2 million years. Only then could you actually say that skin color adaptation is a potential first step to further differentiation into separate species.

Answer 14

Race is a human term, and racial by its own nature.  At some point, somebody decided it was necessary to divide people into different categories, and skin color seem the easiest way.

Evolution is evident in that there are differences in our appearance, even if our skin were the same color.  Asians have no double eyelid; African *****'s the typical broad nose and kinky hair (and yes I know this isn't true of all of them, it just an example.)

How these physical differences evolved, and why, are questions still argued over.

Answer 15

Race implies significant differences.  Some people like me don't think that minor changes in a few genes really amount to much.  Clearly there is evolution and people seem to be nearly color coded for the latitude at which their ancestors lived.  I understand what people mean by race but it is arbitrary.  I can almost always tell the difference between a German and an Irishman but they aren't different races.  Skin color only requires a few changes in a few genes and should not be used as the only criteria because there are far more than a couple of genes separating Germans and the Irish.

It seems to be mostly in politics where melanin = race.  It is when only color is used as the criteria that I think the term race should not apply.  Many scientist have other categories to define races.