Should the so-called races of <span title="man,caucsians,negroids,orientals,ect">man,caucsians,negroids,or...</span> be considered sub-species?

Question

Well after being relatively isolated from eath other for so long until more recent centuries, in the time Homo Sapiens has evolved,spreading out thoughout the world and staying in it's local envionments.Wouldn't be actually be honest to be open to the idea that the varios races of man should be re-classifed as sub-species,just like we do with species as well. I mean just a casual look between say an afican bushman to an eskimo living in the arctic suggests at least a few minor genetic changes as happened over the milleniua.What do U make of that,try calling me a racist if U like.

Answer 1

No, a physical study of human variation will show that, by and large, humans are quite similar to each other. Genetically, we are much more closely related to each other than members of other primate species are to each other. Two random chimps, for instance, are much more different than two random humans. Furthermore, modern humans weren&#039;t separate for more than 200,000 years, at the maximum, which really doesn&#039;t leave enough time for really big differences to appear. And like I said, a morphological study reveals minor differences between different populations.

Furthermore, The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does NOT classify organisms by subspecies.

EDIT: Science, all that gobbledygook you are assigning as my words, are not my words. Please do not presume to post my opinions or expertise on a particular matter. If behavior and opinions really do have a genetic base, this guy was either predetermined to agree with you or not. Nothing you can do about it by trying to make me sound bad.

Answer 2

A &quot;sub species&quot; is broadly defined as populations within a species that have a distinct phenetic appearance. A phenetic appearance being a distinct genetic differance between groups of the same species. The problem with humans, however, is that in a genetic sense, there is more genetic contrast within each &quot;sub species&quot; then there is between them and, as of such, this term is not appropriate for differentiating humans. Any first year biology, or cultural anthropology class will clearly expel the mistaken concepts of &quot;race&quot; and &quot;sub species&quot; as they are commonly applied to the human species, and instead will use the more precise term, ethnographic group, to classify any group of people that fit a morphological or cultural sub-classification within the human species. That said, the term &quot;racist&quot; is actually a term bred of ignorance. A person that shows preference towards one ethnic group over another should actually be called an ethnocentric, but the culture of the American mass media is far more influential then academia so the confussion between all of these terms is unfortunately quite common and I do not believe that a proper classification is going to be adopted anytime soon.

Answer 3

No.

Regardless of your personal opinion  Caucasians, Negroes, Mongoloids are all of the same specie: Homo Sapien.

Under Homo Sapien man is further identified under the three main RACIAL groups (in Latin): 1. Mongoloid; 2. *******; 3. Caucazoid.

Under each Race are the ethnic groups.

You really should take a formal course on this subject: go to a university and take: Physical Anthropology, Genetics, and Biology, all with lab.  This will take all the guess work out of your opinions on the human pedigree.

Answer 4

It is obvious to any sane person that the human species is divisible

into subspecies. There is no question about that. There is some

question of where exactly to make the divisions, beause there were

some hybridization events that caused regional mixing of particular

traits between populations that have differences that are more ancient.

For example, the paleomongols have more ancient traits in common

with the khoisan, but more recent traits in common with the sinids.

Because humans evolved quickly (due to positive-feedback selection)

from relatively few individuals, humans have a high ratio of phenotypic

differences to random genotypic differences. In contrast, chimpanzees

have evolved slowly (due to negative-feedback selection), and therefore

have a low ratio of phenotypic differences to random genotypic

differences. The human subspecies deniers use the pseudoscientific

claim that random non-phenotypic genetic mutation is the main

determinant of subspecies, as if actual phenotypic differences were

unimportant. People have been classifying taxons based on phenotypic

differences since taxonomy began, and now the human subspecies

deniers are trying to ignore all of that.

The most important thing for you to know is WHY people blind

themselves to these obvious truths, such as the first and second

answerers. That behavior is caused by the desire to disrupt a

fundamental logical truth in one&#039;s mind, the truth that different entities

are not necessarily equivalent. The sensation of disrupting that

fundamental logical truth is a sensation of crude blind seeping oneness.

That same desire causes subjectivism and political ultra-leftism, or it

can be combined with egotism to produce theocratic fanaticism.

That desire is the result of the evolutionary psychological effects of

particular environments. Indeed, there are certain human subspecies

that are much more likely to deny the existence of subspecies.

Such subspecies include the western sub-saharan africans (e.g.

Martin Luther King, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) and the indigenous

northwest europeans (e.g. Michael Moore, senator Harry Reid).

The subspecies-deniers inadvertantly prove the existence of human

subspecies by their own demographics!

Answer 5

No it would not be befitting out genetic similiarity