If the different Human races were to have stayed Isolated would they have eventually become sub-species?

Question

Now let me make myself perfectly clear, I am not prejudice, a bigot, nor do I pose characteristics of such, but I am human (and curious). lol Back to the question, is this possible would it have happened. I have been reading up alot lately on Race and different categories to know that all "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" are the same species, but due to genetic variation and regional mutations and what not, they have evolved several different Physical characteristics specialized to their region. What we modern humans call "Race". Putting Ethics aside, and working on scientific basis alone would this have been possible? I'm not too fond of the terms Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongaloid. but you have to admit there are major differences between the three and all else are just sub-catagories of these main three races. A second question I pose is:

Do you agree more of the "Out of Africa" model for the migration of early Humans or the "The multiregional model"?

By the way I'm mixed lol

Answer 1

That would depend on many conditions... time, environment, & plain old chance mutations that were subject to positive selection being some of them.  From all I've seen, it takes millions of years for 2 species (or sub species) to to reach the point where interbreeding is impossible. Therefore I consider it a far reach by the Afrocentric group to maintain that sapien, neandertal & even erectus could not produce fertile hybrids.  I suspect some gene introgression from & to sapien by both the erectus & neandertal.  As a Chinese friend of mine said, "look, Homo erectus teeth."  Some evidence of gene introgression from Neandertal does exist (MCPH1 on chromosome 8 appeared in the mid east ~37,000 yrs ago & is rare in sub Saharan Africa.) 70% of the world's population now have this ~1.1 million old gene that suddenly appeared in a species only ~200,000 yrs old.  Recent DNA sequencing on the neandertal indicates they were fair skined & had red hair.

X or Y chromosome testing will only give us the direct male or female line but any indication of hybridization can be lost in 2 generations (if a female produces only males or a male produces only females, that line disappears.)  That of course makes both chromosomes valuable migration trackers, but useless at determining gene introgression.

I suspect the regional hypothesis is correct based upon evidence, but both sides have some valid points of contention. As an engineer/scientist I never "believe" anything, as it can cloud my ability to make decisions based on evidence.

Edit: Cro Magnon, were Homo sapiens sapiens that were found in a cave in the Cro Magnon region of France.  That specific group still exists... I'll get back with some links for you.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/09/asp...

I don't like that guy's link... it assumes too much on MCPH1 & we still have no idea why it was positively selected. Will get better stuff.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showt...

Answer 2

There is now some proof that blue eyed persons occurred from mixing with neanderthals. We already know that illnesses can be passed via our genes so its not ridiculous to think if we were confined to "our own" that we would not have been plagued with physical and mental illnesses. Every single society have their own cultural beliefs and traditions but most people in today's world regardless of race have an undeniably similar set of morals, whether they are simply learnt or a part of what being human is about i am not sure. In saying that we have come to this point today that our minds can determine what is right and what is not, so that states that this surely must be a part of our destiny, not just what one single race are made of. What a boring world we would live in if we were not to court with other races, not to explore other cultures or countries. If it weren't for the few that do wrong in society i wonder if questions like this would be asked. Even if all of us have some type of "mutant gene" that's okay with me it just adds flavor to what could otherwise be a very very different and scary world. In my eyes there is only the human race.

Answer 3

To answer your questions...

1) Most likely, but different populations just weren't isolated for long enough. All humans are still much more alike than they are different, even if the superficial differences tend to stand out.

2) I doubt all the humans on Earth will become one uniform "race", at least not in the foreseeable future. A world population with increased genetic diversity, on the average, seems much more likely.

3) I think they probably did, but the evidence for it isn't good enough for a really good yes or not answer. Also, it's possible that cross-breeding did occur, with those individuals either dying out or being restricted to a small geographic area. Maybe only some people have a Neanderthal lineage. Maybe no one does.

Answer 4

Well, I don't think we're as different as you think we are.  It's mostly cosmetic.  But, yes, if the races were sufficiently isolated for a long enough time, they'd probably eventually become different species.  There was interbreeding between all the continents except North and South America, who were probably exchanging genes themselves, so you would have to isolate them even more, probably.  And it would take a long time- measured in the millions of years, possibly.  But, yeah, totally.

I think the evidence suggests the "Out of Africa" theory more than any other.  I like it.  We do have a tendency to, ah, explode on new territory, and the kinds of racial differences we see could certainly happen pretty quickly (only took the Native Americans about 10-12,000 years to look different from not only Asians, but each other).

I think, if we continue the way we are, we'll probably see more multiracial people in the future.  We'll probably still see tremendous variety in features still, because we'd just be that genetically diverse, but I think we'll be a lot more muddled, which is good.

Answer 5

Yes there are different types of humans that exist today, what we call races. I would not call them races, because we are all one species, we do not refer to any other animal with different type as races, so why humans? But yes there are different types of humans and none of them more or less evolved than the other, but equally and naturally molded to deal with their different geographies.

I like to think of humans as one modular entity, which has all spokes on a genetic wheel and over time, these spokes can become active or in active to help cope with their selective evironments, such as the camoflaughing nature of some repitles.

Our ability to become immune to certain things, after being exposed to them, our bodies develop a defense. The defense was never there before, and was not injected into our bodies, so why does our body over time, develop this defense by itself?

In humans it is exactly the same, if you are lashed long enough, your skin will become harder to sustain the lashing and your tolerance for pain will become higher. But what does your tolerance for pain and harder skin do for you in an environment that does not ever attribute lashes? It is pointless, so eventually you will shed it. This is what I mean when I say no human is more evolved than the other, because what may be evolutionarily ideal in one location is not in another.

In humans I believe all of our attributes are defenses, which were naturally developed over time due to our areas. For a place like America and most melting pots, many of those defenses are unecessary. Especially with technology, sunscreen and the like, helping us to no longer need these natural adaptions.

In moving out of our area of origin, eventually some of the spokes we had were turned off as such defenses from our origins are no longer needed, and in moving back to those areas over a million years without the use of any man made items to help in our defense, our spokes will most likely be turned back on and we will "revert" to the form that would of been our best defense in the natural environment we return to.

Answer 6

Well its not so much as a yes or no answer... becuz you have to consider several scenarios of the isolation theory and if it even is or was possible to consider. the simple answer is yes, eventually we might have become so specialized that interbreeding would have been impossible, or the offspring that was produced from those coupling would likely be steril.

the question posed on the cusp of evolution is without that limited communication over the last six thousand years would human beings have truly evolved to be the dominant species they are today? would we have survived without the exchange of knowledge as much as genes among ourselves? at some point further back than the dawn of recorded history our ancestors took the step to consciously remember, and learn from our environment and learned that sharing such information would help us. maybe not on a conscious level thought that specifically, but almost on an instinctive level maybe.

i dunno for sure.

then you have to consider too, the nomadic quality that you find in all people. the similiar traits you among all the races that goes more than skin deep: the inclination to music, to build, the family structure, etc. yet lets stay on nomadic trait for the second, its a throw back to a common ancestor we all shared. this is what allowed us, and made us continue to document our surroundings, trade, interact, etc. seems that among all the people there has been the restless individuals that itch to see the world. so it seems to me that interaction seemed pretty imminent even for the isolation. and if you believe in creation, seems almost like a design.

what makes humans so unique on this planet, is not their intelligence (for we have a large range of i.q. among the masses) but the collective repitour of the given traits that is mixed and shared among us. this, to my way of thinking is what has given us such success as a species. the specializing would make it harder to adapt to a changing environment, a cataclysm, adjust to changing circumstances in our own society. the rule of the strong surviving in nature is not entirely accurate, as what is considered strong is condusisve to an unstable and evolving environment. if we were to fall pray to isolation, then we would loose a huge advantage we have. this is also reason why a super human race is a silly idea.

then too you would have to consider if we did manage to maintain three suedo human races what that would mean for the future of the sub species. eventually w/o the ablity to interbreed, socialize, and share would we likely coexist? not likely, as we would be rivals. the world would be ratically different if this were to have occured. to the point, i think, that one species might have died out on its own (the indo euro... simply becuz of the plague, but then think where did it come from?) and the other two remaining would have likely killed each other. dont know who would have won that round.