PDA

View Full Version : The Race FAQ



Frans_Jozef
Monday, May 16th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Introductory note: this Usenet classic, penned ca. 1997 by a US academic, has come to be regarded as the non-PC (of course) 'Race FAQ'.

"Question: How is it that in some human populations homozygous recessive genes have replaced the homozygous dominant genes of their ancestors for outward physical appearance?

As far back as 1950 geneticist William Boyd listed about 20 gene loci for outward appearance traits that are homozygous recessive for typical Asians and/or Europeans but are homozygous dominant for Africans. These recessive genes include the 6 to 8 gene loci for light skin color, the genes for blue eyes, gray eyes, blond hair, red hair, thin lips, straight hair, sacral spot, lack of facial hair (beards), narrow nose shape, and some others.

Famed academicians J.B.S. Haldane (who published in 1924), R.A. Fisher, and S. Wright all helped to develop the mathematical approaches to population genetics in regard to selection and proved (among many other things) that it would require 1,001,741 generations (i.e. about 25,000,000 years for humans) for a dominant autosomal gene pair to be entirely replaced naturally by a new recessive gene pair in an ideal population (going from a gene frequency of 0.01% to 99.99%) if the improved selective advantage were 1 percent greater per generation (which is a fairly large advantage) for the new recessive genetic trait over the old dominant genetic trait, but the Euro/Asian line of humans split from the African line approximately a mere 100,000 years ago, and we must account for about 20 different recessive gene loci for appearance, not just one.

The mechanisms of genetic drift (including founder effect), migration, and gene flow have all been invoked to explain the rapid genetic change observed in small populations of early humans, but as an explanation for the observed changes in outward human racial appearance such reasoning is strained. The outward appearances of Euro/Asians seem to have very small, if any, actual advantages in regard to natural selection over that specified by the replaced African genes, but clearly some extraordinarily strong selective mechanism has been at work.

A partial solution to the problem of how the various races of man came to appear outwardly as they do now was proposed in 1931 by scientist and writer Sir Arthur Keith who pointed out that tribal isolation and the human predisposition for conflict, competition, and warfare against those who appear to be different from our own tribe (i.e. "instinctive prejudice") was most likely the cause, in that driving away or killing people with certain genes very quickly reduces the frequency of those genes in a population, but by the post-war 1950's such thinking had become politically unacceptable, as shown by Boyd's firm rejection of the idea -although he at least took the time to discuss the hypothesis at length in his famous 1950 book "Genetics and the Races of Man", which in many ways the model for L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza's "History and Geography of Human Genes" (1994). We may dislike Robert Ardrey's famous assertion that we are all "killer apes" at heart (African Genesis, 1961), and the solid support for that thesis supplied by Konrad Lorenz and Raymond Dart, but everything in our horrifying history of continual warfare from the Great Wall of China to the Holocaust attests to our inherently xenophobic nature.

The racial appearance puzzle is avoided in most evolution classes today by invoking Loomis' 1967 hypothesis that light skin color among Europeans and Asians exists because these populations could not get enough sunlight to stimulate sufficient vitamin D production in their skin in those terribly dark Northern continents of Europe and Asia. Although this theory has never been well supported by factual inquiry, it has been repeated so often and it is so politically comfortable that it has become enshrined as an indisputable fact in the minds of many casual students of evolution.

In reality numerous valid objections have been raised to the vitamin D theory of light skin color:

1) It cannot satisfactorily explain the evolution of the many other appearance genes that are also autosomal recessives (such as for blue eyes, and blond hair, and several others) that seemingly have no significant natural selective advantage,

2) A small patch of the darkest African skin can produce more than the required amount of vitamin D from only a few minutes of
exposure to faint sunlight each day (indeed, the Lapps live in arctic latitudes and are rather dark skinned), and in any event most of the vast land mass of Europe and Asia has been found to be quite sunny,

3) Of the 6 to 8 gene pairs for skin color all of the genes for light skin color are recessive to those for dark skin color; for all the dominant genes for dark skin color to be replaced by recessive genes for light skin color would require an intensely strong selection advantage operating for many millions of years, but man left Africa only 100,000 years ago and the natural selective pressure for light skin over dark would be small at best and therefore too slowly acting to fit the time frame,

4) Light skin color is a probably actually natural selective disadvantage at any latitude because sunlight causes skin cancer and may result in severe debilitating sunburn for those with white skin,

5) White skin color has a strong peak only in Northern Europe and not in other parts of the world' (this is a quote by Cavalli-Sforza in his book "History and Geography of Human Genes" mentioned above as he discusses the problem with the vitamin D explanation for skin
color invoking world pigmentation intensity maps drawn by Carleton Coon in 1954). Cavalli-Sforza also suggests the very light skin
color of Northern Europeans may have appeared as recently as 5,000 years ago, a time so recent that no natural selection process could possibly account for it.


What about "sexual selection"? Often it has been proposed as the reason that racial differences exist, not to mention blue eyed blond women, but such white skinned women are regarded as hideous and repulsive by New Guinea tribesmen. Beauty is a relative concept and it is indeed a racist attitude to assume one type of human is inherently more beautiful than another, rather our individual concepts of human sexual attractiveness appear to be synonymous with people that appear to be similar to our set of internalized norms as imprinted in our childhood years- i.e. we generally find those not of our "tribe" less attractive than those people who more closely resemble us (there are always exceptions of course- some degree outbreeding is surely advantageous at times for a tribe of humans).

Darwin, in his 1871 book "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" asserted that racial appearance differentiation in humans was due to what he called "sexual selection", but a close reading of that book shows that for humans he regarded conflict and warfare (including genocide) as part of "sexual selection", a term he actually used for anything other than "natural selection", the other of his two selection mechanisms. Hence Sir Keith's 1931 idea on how the different races came to appear the way they do today really originated with Darwin, and Darwin's intuitive genius has been proven to be correct from what we now know about the genetics controlling human appearance.

Three other interesting factors affecting human appearance must be considered: 1) climate, 2) neoteny, and 3) intelligence. All of these factors must be considered in conjunction with tribal conflict in order to fully understand how we came to appear the way we do, and it must be understood that these factors are overlayed on a tapestry of genetic drift, founder effect, migration, gene flow, and geographic isolation.

1. Climate surely has played a factor in the initial development of several appearance traits, although it cannot account for strong selective pressure required for such rapid gene frequency change. For example, a narrow nose, epicanthal eye fold, straight hair, and thin lips are surely advantageous in a cold climate to warm the air we breathe, protect eyes form freezing winds, keep heads warm, and to prevent frozen lips, but blue eyes are a disadvantage in a dazzlingly sunny snow covered terrain, the long ears of Europeans are more prone to frostbite than are the short compact ears of most Africans, and lack of facial hair in the people of frigid Northeast Asia is certainly impractical, hence climate fails to explain neither the origin nor the rapid spread of some human appearance features.

2. Neoteny has been written about by Kollman (inventor of the term), Bolk, Portmann, and Gould. Louis Bolk best stated the case in 1926 with this famous line: "man is a primate fetus that has become sexually mature". The human fetal growth rate period actually lasts about 22 months - at birth we are simply an extrauterine fetus at the 9 month stage with our brain still growing at the rapid fetal rate, thus did nature solve the birth canal bottleneck problem for producing big brained humans. A series of increasingly neotenic mutations probably account for mechanism of the amazing 4 fold increase in hominid brain size over the past 3 million years, and our outward appearance owes much to this phenomenon (i.e. all adult humans look like a huge primate fetus that can walk). It was once acceptable to point out in textbooks that neoteny related traits in the races of man seem to differ, with Negroids (Africans) being the least neotenic, Mongoloids (Asians) being the most neotenic, and Caucasoids (Europeans) being not quite as neotenic as Asians for several traits, including the important brain to body size ratio and in having less body hair, but more neotenic in regard to pigmentation of hair, skin, and eyes. The empirical support for this distinction is quite compelling, but it has become a somewhat sensitive subject.

3. Intelligence is surely the most controversial factor that has influenced the different appearance of the human races, but any discussion of the reasons why it has had such an influence is a another very sensitive undertaking. As isolated tribes of humans over the past 200,000 years naturally attempted to expand they inevitably came into conflict with neighboring tribes. For humans and other hominids the most valuable genetic selective trait in such conflicts was probably a higher level of intelligence, for that is what generally determined the winner, although many other factors (such as disease resistance) played a role as well. An advantage in intelligence often allowed an ancient tribe to achieve a higher level of population density, better strategy and tactics for warfare and hunting, and greater levels of altruism and social adhesion within their group. Although, as mentioned above, neoteny related mutations were the genetic mechanism for the amazing 4 fold increase in hominid brain size over the past 3 million years, the value of intelligence for survival and tribal success was the driving evolutionary selection force and continued to be so until the recent advent of civilization.

Preserving the intellectual advantage of a successfully expanding tribe is a difficult problem however, because interbreeding with a tribe a lesser intelligence dilutes and decreases the genetic advantage of the advantged expanding tribe, thus eventually ending the expansion. The solutions for this problem have always ranged from genocide to ethnic cleansing, but being able to visually identify the genetic heritage of offspring to exclude offspring resulting from intertribal matings was always of great value to a genetically advantaged expanding tribe, allowing for continued expansion until the tribe were to encounter a more genetically advantaged tribe (i.e., generally meaning more intelligent) or some substantial geographical barrier. That is why autosomal recessive genes for outward physical appearance have an advantage over dominant genes in a genetically advantaged tribe: the introduction of a non-tribal dominant gene can be easily visually detected in offspring thus enabling exclusion methods to operate and therefore keeping the tribes' genetic lineage from being diluted.

Example: for a child to have blue eyes, the recessive genes for blue eyes must be inherited from both parents. A child with darker eyes would immediately be recognized as non-tribal in a blue eyed tribe. The child could possibly be exiled (and in some cases could be killed) by an ancient blue eyed expanding tribe, thus preserving the genetic integrity of the tribe. This example may seem totally absurd in today's civilized world, but human racial evolution goes back at least 200,000 years, long before civilized human behavior developed. If eye color discrimination seem too far fetched however, consider skin color. As recently as 100 years ago the birth of a dark skinned child to a white woman typically resulted in ostracism by her displeased family, and sometimes infanticide was committed. The other recessive appearance traits of present day Europeans and Asians were most likely at one time also used in a similar manner for tribal identification in order to account for their modern day geographic gene frequency distributions.

Eventually multiple traits (i.e. white skin blue eyed blondes for one example, although there are many others) were used for tribal identification in ever increasing rounds of conflict among tribes. Perhaps the most efficient trait for tribal identification is skin color, in that a polygenic system (6 to 8 gene pairs are involved) of recessive genes for light skin enables the visual identification of mixed tribe offspring having only a small amount of dark skinned dominant genetic racial ancestry - octoroons are thus revealed by the skin color system whereas they would not be detected very often in a single gene system such as eye color. The uniform of skin color was no doubt used by the warriors of conflicting tribes in much the same way as modern day military uniforms are used to distinguish opposing armies - then as now individuals wearing the uniform of the defeated group could be identified and dealt with accordingly by the victors.

As an overall consequence, tribes or races that have successfully expanded and displaced other tribes or races are likely to be characterized both by

1) genes for appearance that are homozygous recessive to the corresponding genes of the displaced tribe or race and

2) by the trait that gave the successful tribe the winning advantage over the displaced tribe. In the past 200,000 years of tribal conflict among humans (the past 3,000,000 years for all hominids) the trait conferring the winning advantage has most often been a higher level of intelligence, but at times it has also been disease resistance, aggressiveness, numerical advantage, technological superiority, and a variety of other differences. Nevertheless the role of intelligence in this matter should not be underestimated; the fossil record of dramatic hominid cranial capacity increase supports the point quite convincingly, as do differences in the average IQs of present day racial groups.

Geographical limits eventually stopped the expansions of the Europeans and the Asians (along with overall stalemate at their points of mutual contact), and the Sahara Desert protected the remaining Africans from further encroachment by the Euro/Asians, thus resulting in the distribution of the three major races as found in modern times.

Lastly, the coming of civilization and the reduction of the significance of geographical barriers have made the world a vast breeding pool into which the entire genetic variance of humanity is supposedly slowly blending - for all 100,000 gene loci, not just those coding for our appearance. All of us are genetic blends to some extent, and our varied appearances demonstrate the point well. And that, very briefly and admittedly incompletely, is why the human races look the way they do today."


Source: http://users.bluecarrots.com/rbisto/BBC/race.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.bl uecarrots.com%2Frbisto%2FBBC%2Frace.html )

Sigel
Monday, May 16th, 2005, 02:51 PM
A first class post. I have had similar thoughts, re: intelligence. A tribe living in a Garden of Eden style environment, ie: wonderful climate, bountiful food etc, has little need to develop beyond a certain point. Tribes who wandered into Northern Europe had to adapt to fresh challenges. Warmth was central to survival. Shelter, warm clothing & fire have to be secured. Food has to be provided, even in winter. Greater diversity of hunting/fishing skills, agricultural overproduction (for storage) and the means to preserve it all. New tools and technologies are needed (metalwork) and with these come diversification and job specialisation - the inescapable conclusion of which is a developed social structure. Our forefathers were close to nature and any advantage, however seemingly insignificant to us, would have been welcome in the fight for survival. In our times of instant meals, MTV and Multi-Kulti capitalism it's easy to forget to whom and what we owe our existence, to ignore the forces that shaped us and the legacy of the very blood in our veins.

jcs
Friday, January 20th, 2006, 07:08 AM
Race
by hate edge
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race.html
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race.pdf
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race.doc


Race and Culture
by Fieldmouse and Christopher
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Ra...%20Culture.html (http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race%20and%20Culture.html)
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Ra...d%20Culture.pdf (http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race%20and%20Culture.pdf)
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Ra...d%20Culture.doc (http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race%20and%20Culture.doc)


Race FAQ
(by hate edge)
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race%20FAQ.html
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race%20FAQ.pdf
http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race%20FAQ.doc

ANUS (http://www.anus.com)

Rassenpapst
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 03:09 PM
If you are looking for information about the modern scientific view of race or you need to convince somebody of the existence of race John Goodrum's Race FAQ is a very useful resource.


Do biological races exist within the human species? If scientific terms are to be used consistently, this question can only be answered in the broader context of non-human taxonomy. The intent of this paper is to investigate what constitutes a race (or subspecies) in other species, and to answer some questions concerning whether the traditional human races might qualify.


Q: What is the definition of ‘race’ or ‘subspecies?’

The terms ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ are most often used synonymously [1,2] although the former is normally used when talking about human populations. When a distinction is made, ‘race’ generally implies a lower level of differentiation, but because this term is not commonly used in the recent non-human literature, ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ are used interchangeably throughout this paper.

Much of the debate over the existence of human races stems from how one chooses to define ‘race’ (or ‘subspecies’). No realistic definition can avoid using qualitative terms, yet these invariably invite disagreement in their application: “a group of individuals in a species showing closer genetic relationships within the group than to members of other such groups”[3]; “essentially discontinuous sets of individuals”[4]; “conspecific populations that differ from each other morphologically”[5]; “genetically non-discrete (confluent) populational entities”[6]; “geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated populations”[7]; or groups identified “by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.”[8] Compounding the confusion, still others employ the term ‘race’ in a way more akin to ‘species’ than to ‘subspecies.’[9]

In response to questionable interpretations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and to help ensure the evolutionary significance of populations deemed ‘subspecies,’ a set of criteria was outlined in the early 1990s by John C. Avise, R. Martin Ball, Jr.[10], Stephen J. O’Brien and Ernst Mayr [11] which is as follows: “members of a subspecies would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.” Furthermore, “evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits.”[12] This is known as the phylogeographic subspecies definition, and a review of recent conservation literature will show that these principles have gained wide acceptance.

A number of studies have employed this subspecies definition, and these can be helpful in inferring how the definition is applied in practice. A good example is a paper entitled “Phylogeographic subspecies recognition in leopards (Panthera pardus): Molecular Genetic Variation,”[13] co-authored by Stephen J. O’Brien (one of the definition’s co-authors). From the ranges of the revised leopard subspecies (Fig. 1) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FLeopards.html) we can infer that a ‘unique geographic locale’ does not require that a range be an island, or share no environmental characteristics with another. Rather, it merely requires a subspecies to have a geographical association as opposed to a subset of individuals sharing a trait but drawn from different geographical populations. Conversely, two subspecies will not remain distinct if they occupy the same locale over evolutionary time. Hypothetical human races have been proposed in which members would share a single trait (e.g., lactose tolerance or fingerprint pattern)[14] but not a common geographic locale. These ‘races,’ therefore, would not be valid under the phylogeographic definition.

Whether a population has had a unique natural history can be inferred from its degree of differentiation with respect to other such populations. The arbitrary division of an interbreeding, genetically unstructured group will result in subgroups that are genetically indistinguishable, whereas populations that evolve more or less independently for some length of time will accumulate genetic differences (divergent gene frequencies, private alleles, etc.) such that they “exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.”

A set of “phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters” is taken to mean several morphological, behavioral or other expressed traits that tend to co-vary within, but differ among, putative subspecies. This indicates that members of the group have evolved together relative to other groups, and may reflect shared demography, local adaptation, sexual selection or other evolutionary effects.
The need for “concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits” requires us to recognize that too much inference from a single trait or single genetic locus is unwarranted. For instance, rather than indicating recent co-ancestry, a trait shared by two populations might have evolved independently in response to some environmental variable, while the potential idiosyncrasies of any single gene can limit its reliability to paint an accurate phylogenetic picture. Most population genetics theory relies on loci that have evolved neutrally (i.e., in the absence of natural selection) so a non-neutral locus may give misleading results. The best way to avoid this potential source of error is to examine a large number of independently-evolving loci.


Q: How genetically diverse are humans?

It’s become a popular view that the human species is extraordinarily homogeneous genetically when compared to most other species.[15] This notion argues against the existence of human races, because very little genetic variation within the entire species means there cannot be much variation between major human populations. Before examining this further, we should first inquire about what is meant by ‘genetic diversity.’

Because little can be learned from a locus that is the same in every individual, the study of phylogenetics depends on polymorphic loci. Over the past few decades, methods have been developed that allow different kinds of these polymorphic ‘markers’ to be assayed in individuals. Prior to the 1990s, genetic diversity was usually inferred from classical (non-DNA) polymorphisms, such as blood groups, serum proteins, allozymes and immunoglobins. Later, restriction enzymes were employed to produce a useful class of marker at the DNA level, restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs). Other loci such as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Alu insertions, minisatellites, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and microsatellites (STRPs - short tandem repeat polymorphisms) have also been utilized for population genetic studies. Due to their high polymorphism, rapid mutation rate and random distribution throughout the genome, microsatellites are probably the most important class of marker in use today.[16] Highly variable loci are an advantage in phylogenetics because they can provide the finer resolution necessary for distinguishing closely related populations (such as subspecies).

The majority of population genetic studies over the past decade have investigated the various regions of mitochondrial DNA, a molecule that resides in the cytoplasm outside a cell’s nucleus. mtDNA contains 37 genes and is comprised of 16,569 base pairs in humans. Because it is haploid and maternally inherited, mtDNA has an effective population size (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fuwadmnwe b.uwyo.edu%2Fzoology%2Fmcdonald%2Fmolmar k%2Flectures%2FPopGen%2FPopGen5%2FPopGen 5.html) about one-quarter that of the autosomes (the non-sex chromosomes). It’s easy to collect, has a relatively high mutation rate, and in particular, its lack of recombination allows for a straightforward assessment of the relationship between haplotypes. Lack of recombination also means that all parts of the molecule are completely linked, which prevents independent evolution of mtDNA’s 37 genes and non-coding control region. For this reason, mtDNA is considered a single genetic locus for phylogenetic purposes. Humans have relatively low mitochondrial diversity compared to the other great apes, and reports of this are mostly responsible for the belief that humans have low genetic diversity. However, mtDNA makes up just a few millionths of the human genome,[17] and as a single locus, carries little statistical weight.

When allele frequency data are used to estimate genetic diversity within a population, a frequently reported statistic is the average number of alleles per locus (A), but because rare alleles do not contribute much to overall diversity, the most informative statistic is average heterozygosity (H). This is estimated from both the number of alleles and the frequencies at which they occur, and is generally defined as the percentage of individuals in a population that are heterozygous (have two different alleles) at a random locus. In general, genetic diversity is synonymous with mean heterozygosity.


Table 1. Comparative figures for the genetic diversity of humans and a variety of other large mammals (sampled across much or all of their range except as noted), based on autosomal microsatellites (He and Ho = expected and observed heterozygosity, respectively):

Species He Ho
Humans [18] -- 0.776
Humans [19] -- 0.70-0.76
Humans [20] -- 0.588-0.807
Chimpanzees [21] 0.78 0.73
Chimpanzees [22] -- 0.630
African buffalo [23] 0.759 0.729
Leopards [24] 0.36-0.80 --
Jaguars [25] 0.739 --
Polar bears [26] 0.68 --
Brown bears (N. America) [27] 0.26-0.76 0.30-0.79
Brown bears (Scandinavia) [28] 0.709 0.665
Canada lynx [29] -- 0.66
Bighorn sheep [30] 0.681 0.566
Coyote [31] 0.675 0.583
Gray wolf (N. America) [32] 0.620 0.528
Pumas [33] -- 0.52
Bonobos [34] 0.59 0.48
Dogs (42 breeds) [35] 0.616 0.401
African wild dogs [36] 0.643 --
Australian dingo [37] 0.47 0.42
Wolverines (N. America) [38] 0.42-0.68 --
Wolverines (Scandinavia) [39] -- 0.27-0.38
Elk (North America) [40] 0.26-0.53 --


In addition to microsatellites, a 2001 study [41] reviewed the literature on protein variation for 321 mammal species and reported mean expected heterozygosity of 5.1%. In comparison, Takahata (1995) reports an unbiased estimate of protein heterozygosity in humans of 10-14%.[42] Also, Nei’s 1987 text Molecular Evolutionary Genetics gives an estimate of mean heterozygosity for classical protein polymorphisms of 0.148 in humans, and has this to say about the general level of genetic diversity in other organisms:

“In the last two decades, the extent of protein polymorphism has been studied for numerous organisms ranging from microorganisms to mammals by using electrophoresis. In most of these studies, the extent was measured by average gene diversity or heterozygosity. In early days, the estimate of heterozygosity was based on a small number of loci, so that its reliability was low. In recent years, however, most authors are examining a fairly large number of loci (20 loci or more).

Average heterozygosity or gene diversity varies from organism to organism. In general, vertebrates tend to show a lower heterozygosity than invertebrates. If we consider only those species in which 20 more loci are studied, H is generally lower than 0.1 in vertebrates and rarely exceeds 0.15. In invertebrates, a large fraction of species again show an average heterozygosity lower than 0.1, but there are many species showing a value between 0.1 and 0.4. In plants, the number of loci studied is generally very small, so that the estimates are not very reliable. However, if we consider only those species in which 20 or more loci are studied, the average heterozygosity is generally lower than 0.15 except in Oenothera, where permanent heterozygosity is enforced by chromosomal translocations (Levin 1975; Nevo 1978; Hamrick et al. 1979; Nevo et al. 1984). The highest level of gene diversity so far observed is that of bacteria (H=0.48 based on 20 loci in Escherichia coli, Selander and Levin 1980; H = 0.49 based on 29 loci in Klebsiella oxytoca, Howard et al. 1985).” [43]

Obviously, humans are not at the low end of the genetic diversity spectrum, particularly in relation to other mammals. We might wonder how humans could have accumulated so much genetic diversity when we are such an evolutionarily ‘young’ species, but this assumes that the human species arose by an extreme founding event - a time at which the entire species’ diversity resided in just a few individuals - and that all humans today are descended from those few founders. This supposed event is often conflated with the concept of “mitochondrial Eve,” a woman who lived roughly 200,000 years ago and is the most recent common ancestor of all human mtDNA. This conflation is incorrect, however, because the coalescence of mtDNA to a single ancestor back in time does not imply a demographic bottleneck, but is expected even in a population of constant size.[44] Avise (2001) has noted that in a hypothetical population with 15,000 breeding females (about three times the long-term human estimate), reasonable variances in reproductive success would likely see mtDNA coalesce to a single founding lineage in 300,000 years (~15,000 human generations), without any change in population size.[45] Thus, the coalescence time of human mtDNA doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a population bottleneck or speciation event, but rather is more or less a function of long-term effective population size, with a large standard error.[46] Variants of nuclear autosomal genes, having a four-fold greater effective population size than mtDNA, generally coalesce in the neighborhood of 800,000 years ago.[47] This indicates that a substantial amount of our existing genetic variation originated in the population ancestral to modern humans.

In sharp contrast to the shallow genealogy of human mtDNA, some alleles of the major histocompatibility complex appear to coalesce over 30 million years ago, long before the emergence of the hominid lineage.[48,49] Some MHC genes are known to have over two hundred alleles,[50] maintained by balancing selection at loci where heterozygosity confers some fitness advantage. Several researchers have demonstrated that humans retain too much ancestral MHC diversity for a severe bottleneck to have ever occurred during human evolution.[51-53] There’s fairly wide agreement that the long-term effective population size of humans has been roughly 10,000,[54] making it unlikely that the sum total of our genetic diversity has ever resided in fewer than several thousand individuals.
Additionally, the genetic profile of humans is much different from that of other large mammals that are believed to have experienced a recent demographic bottleneck. The cheetah, for example, is thought to have had a severe population contraction sometime during the late Pleistocene. While cheetahs apparently have had time to accumulate a moderate amount of variation at some rapidly evolving loci, current populations display very little allozyme or MHC variability.[55] Another example is the moose. Old World and New World subspecies are estimated to have diverged at least 120,000 years ago, but sometime before divergence a bottleneck must have occurred that reduced both allozyme and MHC diversity to a fraction of that found in humans.[56]


Q: Haven’t human populations been separated for too short a time for distinct races to have evolved?

Although there is some evidence of non-African archaic contributions to the modern gene pool,[57] it appears likely that current human populations derive largely from a single African population, and diverged something less than 150,000 years ago. While time of separation is important in evolutionary divergence, effective population size can be an equally important factor.[58] While the overall size of the human species has probably never been reduced to a handful of individuals, populations that migrated out of Africa may well have remained relatively small for thousands of years before beginning to expand toward their current numbers.[59,60] If so, divergence due to random genetic drift (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbioweb.w ku.edu%2Fcourses%2FBiol430%2F430lects9.h tm) would have occurred rapidly in the absence of high gene flow.[61]

An example of this has been observed in a North American elk herd re-established from a small number of founders. Between 1915 and 1924, 34 animals from two large herds in the western U.S. were released in north-central Pennsylvania. The herd remained at about this size for 50 years and now numbers about 550. Very low microsatellite heterozygosity (0.222) and very large genetic distance from the source populations (pairwise FST = ~0.45) now characterize this herd.[62]

It has also been proposed (originally by Darwin) that sexual selection (mate choice) may promote the retention of physical features in populations long after neutral genetic variation has been replaced by gene flow, and that this might help explain the prominent morphological variation among human groups.[63]

At any rate, divergence times for major subdivisions within the human species, while relatively shallow, are certainly not unique when compared to subdivisions within many other mammal species. An appendix to Avise et al. (1998)[64] lists eleven mammal species with major phylogroups that diverged between 100,000 and 500,000 years ago, based on mtDNA sequence divergence. Being a single genetic locus, mtDNA is subject to selection effects and a large amount of random variation, so these times are probably not terribly reliable. For example, mtDNA has indicated 2-3 million years of isolation between western and eastern gorilla subspecies in Africa, but a recent study of multiple nuclear loci provided little support for that time depth.[65] A related situation exists in chimpanzee taxonomy, particularly with regard to the distinctiveness of the eastern (P.t. schweinfurthii) and western equatorial (P.t. troglodytes) subspecies. Studies utilizing nuclear loci,[66,67] as well as more thorough sampling of mtDNA, are calling into question earlier mtDNA results that indicated long separation. As some of these chimp researchers point out, “The current volatile state of chimpanzee molecular taxonomy is largely due to the fact that studies to date have relied heavily on only a handful of genetic loci.”[68]


Q: Isn’t there actually more genetic distance between populations within the traditional human races than between the major races themselves?

In 1972, Richard Lewontin studied global variation at seventeen protein polymorphisms,[69] and found that about 85% of genetic variation existed between individuals within a given population. The next largest portion, about 8%, was found between populations within continents, with the remaining 6% of variance attributable to differences between the major human races (Fig. 2) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FAMOVA.html). The ~85% within-population figure has been affirmed numerous times, while the relative size of the other components of variance probably depends on the specific populations chosen for analysis, and is often the reverse of Lewontin's findings. In any event, many data sets have been assembled since 1972 for classical polymorphisms and all other genetic markers, and as a general rule, populations within continents are more closely related to one another than they are to the populations of other continents. This pattern can be seen in any matrix of global genetic distances, such as those assembled by Cavalli-Sforza et al. in The History and Geography of Human Genes.

Population genetic studies often report AMOVA statistics (Analysis of MOlecular VAriance), which show the hierarchical proportions of variance between aggregates of the individuals sampled. The following is a discussion of worldwide data on autosomal microsatellites and RFLPs, Alu insertions, mtDNA and Y chromosome STRPs:
“The hierarchical AMOVA analysis shows that, with the exception of Y STRPs, all systems show much less differentiation between populations within continents than between continents. This result is expected when there is greater gene flow between populations that are in close geographic proximity to one another. The autosomal values…are especially small, ranging from 1.3% for the RSPs to 1.8% for the Alu polymorphisms. This is in agreement with the small continental GST values shown in table 4…they are highly consistent both with one another and with previous analyses of worldwide variation in autosomal microsatellites and RFLPs, which also show considerably greater differentiation between continents than between populations within continents... The fact that there is little differentiation between populations within continents has important implications in the forensic setting, in that it supports the current practice of grouping reference populations into broad ethnic categories when autosomal STRP data are used...” [73] (Fig. 3) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FAMOVA.html)
Q: How genetically differentiated are human continental populations (the major races) from one another compared to populations of other species?

Before the advent of conservation biology and modern phylogenetics, subspecies were normally delineated by morphological characteristics. The “seventy-five percent rule” goes back to 1949, stating that subspecies classification is merited if at least 75% of individuals can be correctly assigned to their group by inspection.[74] This rule isn’t in common use today, but the importance of genetically-based morphological differences is still apparent in many recent phylogenetic studies. Some biologists argue that a 70 or 75 percent rule should still be a standard criterion in taxonomy, as applied to individuals outside of hybrid zones where the ranges of subspecies overlap.[75]

On the basis of morphology, we can compare the traditional human races (as well as some minor races) to chimpanzee subspecies. Individuals of the former can be correctly assigned at much greater than 75% accuracy,[76] while the latter are morphologically indistinct, and difficult or impossible to classify when raised in captivity.[77,78]

Of course, the domestic dog demonstrates that morphological difference doesn’t necessarily correlate with underlying genetic difference, so let’s look at population differentiation from a genetic perspective. Many measures of divergence or ‘genetic distance’ are in use today, the most common being FST, originally developed by the late population geneticist Sewall Wright. FST is a statistic that describes the proportion of variance within a species that is due to population subdivision. It can be estimated in a variety of ways (e.g., by AMOVA [79] or theta [80]), but the general expression is FST = (Ht-Hs)/Ht where Ht is the genetic diversity within the total population, and Hs the average diversity within subpopulations. Its value can be considered inversely proportional to gene flow, or indicative of the length of time two populations have been evolving separately, and may vary according to which locus or family of loci are under study. As mentioned earlier, haploid loci like mtDNA and the NRY have effective population sizes one quarter that of autosomal loci, making them much more sensitive to drift and thus to the effect of population subdivision. Other types of loci have their own unique evolutionary characteristics, so we need to remember that an FST value based on one class of loci may or may not be representative of the overall evolutionary distinctiveness of the populations in question. For these reasons, values based on several types of loci should be considered before drawing any firm conclusions.

Keeping the preceding caveats in mind, these are qualitative guidelines suggested by Sewall Wright for interpreting FST:
“The range 0 to 0.05 may be considered as indicating little genetic differentiation.
The range 0.05 to 0.15 indicates moderate genetic differentiation.
The range 0.15 to 0.25 indicates great genetic differentiation.
Values of FST above 0.25 indicate very great genetic differentiation.” [81]
Table 2.

Here are some comparative figures for humans and other species (again, sampled across most or all of their ranges except as noted), based on autosomal microsatellites:

Species FST
Gray wolves (North America) [82] 0.168
Pumas [83] 0.167 (mean pairwise)
Humans (14 populations) [84] 0.155 (AMOVA)
Asian dogs (11 breeds) [85] 0.154
European wildcats (Italy) [86] 0.13
Humans (44 populations) [87] 0.121 (AMOVA)
Coyotes (North America) [88] 0.107
Wolverines (North America) [89] 0.067 (mean pairwise)
Jaguars [90] 0.065
African buffalo [91] 0.059
Polar bears [92] 0.041 (mean pairwise)
Canada lynx [93] 0.033
Humpback whales [94] 0.026 (mean pairwise)


Additionally, Uphyrkina et al. (2001) employed mtDNA and microsatellites to identify nine leopard subspecies by our phylogeographic criteria. Unfortunately for the sake of comparison, the authors reported microsatellite RST rather than FST values. RST is an FST analogue, but their values can be quite different numerically. However, if the RST/FST ratio for leopards is similar to those of other felids [95,96] the maximum reported RST value of 0.363 would correspond roughly to an FST of 0.14-0.15, very similar to the human value at microsatellite loci. The mean proportion of private (population-specific) microsatellite alleles for the nine revised leopard subspecies was found to be 6.3%, compared to a mean value of 7.1% for three major human continental populations [97] while the mean Nei’s genetic distance DS for allozymes between the leopard subspecies identified by Miththapala et al. (1996) is 0.019 (range 0.002-0.047) [98] and can be compared to the protein distances between three major human races (mean 0.037; range 0.028-0.048). [99]

Wolverines, polar bears, Canada lynx and humpback whales have not traditionally been divided into subspecies, while two or more subspecies (or ‘breeds’ in the case of the Asian dogs) have been named in all of the remaining non-human species listed above. The overall FST value for African buffalo is not particularly large, but the mean value of 0.095 between the central African population and other populations was considered large enough to support their traditional subspecies status. Based on cranial morphology and geography, 24 subspecies of the gray wolf in North America were reduced to five in 1995, while North American coyotes are considered to have eastern and western subspecies.

For our purposes, the studies of population structure in the big cats are especially informative, since these used phylogeographic criteria to suggest possible taxonomic revision. Jaguars have traditionally been divided into eight subspecies, but Eizirik et al. (2001) considered the population structure too weak (FST = 0.065) to warrant naming any. In contrast, distinct phylogroups were readily apparent within both pumas and leopards, although somewhat fewer than classically described (6 vs. 32 in pumas, and 8 or 9 vs. 27 in leopards).

It should be noted that high phenotypic diversity in some domestic animals (such as the Asian dogs) is mostly the result of selective breeding for quantitative traits, rather than the long-term allopatry or local adaptation that leads to morphological distinctiveness in “natural” populations. As expected, the average microsatellite distance between these dog breeds as measured by Nei’s genetic distance DA (0.194) [100] is correspondingly smaller than the average distance between fourteen human populations (0.322). [101]
Human FST values of 12-15% are typical not just for microsatellites, but also for classical protein polymorphisms,[102] autosomal RFLPs[103] and Alu insertions.[104] Values for mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome are substantially higher. It would seem, then, that the level of genetic differentiation among human populations is not especially small, and in fact is entirely adequate for race designation, particularly when coupled with consistent morphological differences.


Q: Which human populations qualify as major races?

The construction of reliable evolutionary trees involves a number of technical issues, such as sampling design, mutation mechanisms, genetic distance measures and particularly, tree-building algorithms. Nonetheless, the topology of human trees (Figs. 4, 5) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FTrees.html) is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering (Fig. 6) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FPrinComp.html). Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations.
By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings.

In terms of our phylogeographic definition, each of the major human clades has a geographical association (slightly less clear today than 500 years ago, but only slightly); each has a distinguishing set of phenotypic traits; phylogenetic partitioning is apparent and consistent at multiple genetic loci; and substantial intergroup genetic distances (i.e., FST) indicate unique natural histories on an evolutionary timescale.

The criticism can be made that the placement of some populations located between the “cores zone” of these major races (e.g., Europe or East Asia) is ambiguous. However, in non-human taxonomy this would not normally invalidate the subspecies status of well-differentiated core populations.[109,110] In fact, zones of intergradation have traditionally been taken as evidence that core groups are indeed subspecies rather than different species.[111] While some clinal variation in the genetic traits of subspecies is generally the rule, human variation tends to show extensive zones where clinal gradients are relatively flat, separated by short zones of steeper gradient. This pattern can be seen on the dust jacket illustration of The History and Geography of Human Genes.


In conclusion…

Some will find provocative the idea that humans display a subspecies-like population structure, but given that the major human subdivisions revealed by modern genetics had already been recognized as early as 1775,[112] it shouldn’t be as provocative as the alternative notion, i.e., that human races don’t exist.

So if we do belong to different biological races, what, if anything, does this mean? Subspecies are closely related by definition, and human races appear to be less genetically distant than the major phylogroups of many other species.[113] While FST values for neutral variation are by no means negligible from a population genetics point of view, it’s significant that the overwhelming majority of genetic variation is found within populations, reaffirming the importance of treating people as individuals. It’s also significant that the FST value for the most prominent racial trait - skin color - has been estimated to be about 0.60,[114] which means that the visible variation between races greatly exaggerates overall genetic differences. Admixture in some populations further clouds the picture. The average European contribution to the gene pool of American blacks has been found to be about 20%,[115] and admixture between the major races in some other regions is substantially higher.

Nevertheless, when the taxonomic term is used consistently across species, it’s difficult to see any justification for the common assertion that human races are merely ‘social constructs.’ The motivation behind the assertion is a positive one, but denying biological realities at the outset is unlikely to lead to productive social dialogue on coping with human differences.


Source: http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FRFaqHTML.html)

Papa Koos
Sunday, August 3rd, 2008, 06:12 AM
That thing that doesn't exist or doesn't matter (unless one is non-White)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MFprSkcpYI&feature=related

lei.talk
Sunday, August 3rd, 2008, 09:41 AM
wow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aWX4XrHy9k)!

that you.tube poster (http://www.youtube.com/user/skylinernationalist)
offers very daring material.

Ahnenerbe
Sunday, August 9th, 2009, 11:21 PM
What is a biological race or subspecies and how is it determined?

A biological race or subspecies of a species is a population that is distinguished from other biological races/subspecies of this species by the following criteria:
Each race has developed in a unique geographic location. Uniqueness does not imply non-shared environmental variables with the geographic location of other races.
Each race has a unique natural history.
Members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. Phylogeny refers to evolutionary relationships; the more recent the last common ancestral population, the closer two populations are phylogenetically. The phenotype refers to physical appearance, behaviors and other manifestations of gene expression.
There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the races.
Evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically-based traits.The above criteria are the standard phylogeographic criteria for race or subspecies assignment.1) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__1), 2) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__2) “Subspecies” implies a greater level of differentiation than “race,” but these words are often used interchangeably, which will be the case in this FAQ except as otherwise noted.


How many races or subspecies exist among humans?

At least five subspecies exist among humans: European or white, sub-Saharan African or Negro, Mainland East Asian, Australo-Melanesian and Native American. Evidence supporting this notion:
All five groupings have historically differentiated in unique geographic locations.
All five groupings have unique natural histories.
The vast majority of individuals within any of these groupings can be easily distinguished from the vast majority of individuals in other groupings by a) a visual examination of overall physical appearance; b) multiple, say 21-24, craniofacial inter-landmark distances;3) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__3) c) 20 discrete cranial traits,4) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__4) etc. This is because members of a race share a set of phenotypic characters consistent with their evolutionary history.
There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the five groupings in the form of overall physical appearance and also neutral genetic markers.5) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__5)
Concordant evidence for the classification of these five groupings as separate subspecies/races comes from genetic studies involving a) 993 microsatellite markers,6) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__6) b) 79 autosomal RFLPs,7) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__7) c) 8 Alu insertions,8) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__8) d) 40 biallelic slow-evolving insertion-deletions,9) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__9) etc.

At least 5 races?

One may wonder why a more definitive answer has not been provided. One could also ask how one can be confident that the final word on this topic will not be fewer than five races or no races. A more definitive number requires more research. Consider the following issues that need to be clarified:
24 largely selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances unambiguously result in eight geographic clusters: European or white, sub-Saharan African or Negro, Mainland East Asian, Australo-Melanesian, Native American, South Asian Indian, Eskimo-Siberian and Jomon-Pacific.10) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__10) Five of these groupings have already been seen to comprise of races, but what of the three additional groupings? The Eskimo-Siberians are closely related to and derived from the mainland East Asian group, and it not clear whether they should be designated a separate race. The South Asian Indians cluster together before joining the other groupings, clearly forming a separate cluster based on 199 ancestry-informative markers,11) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__11) a combination of 471 insertion/deletion polymorphisms and 729 microsatellites,12) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__12) and largely selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances.13) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__13) However, south Asian Indians are known to result from the mixing of several geographically distinct populations. For instance, see this example (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmajority rights.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fsouth_as ian_dna.jpg) of populations affinities based on ancestry-informative markers (DNAPrint genomics). Whereas South Asians from different parts of India craniofacially cluster together based on largely neutral inter-landmark distances, it is an easy matter to come across individual south Asians leaning more toward Southern Europeans or East Asians or aborigines in looks. Therefore, should South Asians be classified as a separate race or a people to whom the concept of race does not apply as per the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment? People in the Pacific Islands are a mixture of Asiatic and Australo-Melanesian stock. Are the Pacific Islanders classifiable as a separate race?
Multiple, largely selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances show that southern Europeans cluster with Middle Eastern populations prior to joining the cluster comprising of the indigenous inhabitants north of Southern Europe.14) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__14) An analysis of 5,700-plus SNPs also reveals a north-south distinction in Europe, the north group comprising of the indigenous inhabitants north of Southern Europe.15) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__15) Therefore, is it meaningful to talk about a Euro-Mediterranean subspecies comprising of a northern and a southern race, each blending at its boundaries with other groups, or a single Euro-Mediterranean race?
American Indians form North American and South American clusters based on 993 microsatellite markers.16) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__16) Is it meaningful to talk about two races among American Indians?On the other hand, the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment make it clear that the number of races will not go below five.



What is the race of racially-mixed people?

What is the race of someone who is half Nigerian, one-fourth Chinese and one-fourth Dutch? Answer: none. Offspring born to two parents of different races are not assigned a race as per the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment. For instance, the mestizos (white-American Indian mixes) of South America do not have a race. The inability to fit racially-mixed individuals or populations within a racial classification scheme does not undermine the concept of race. For instance, mixing a Great Dane with a German Shepard (dog breeds) does not produce a dog that belongs to either parental breed and does not undermine the fact that the parental breeds exist. On the other hand, a racially-mixed population could, with sufficient time, evolve into a separate race.



How well do self-identified ethnicity or "socially constructed racial categories" correspond to genetic reality?

Very well. For instance, Tang et al. assessed 326 microsatellite markers in 3,636 individuals from 15 different regions within the U.S. and Taiwan. Cluster analysis assigned all but 5 individuals to their self-identified ethnic group.17) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__17) We know that American Hispanics are usually mixes of some combination of Europeans, American Indians and black Africans, but still, dividing the data into 4 clusters produced a cluster, 99.8% of whose membership comprised of Hispanics.


Genetic Cluster Analysis versus SIRE (self-identified race/ethnicity)

http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/risch.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Frisch .gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)

CAU= white, AFR = black, HIS = Hispanic, CHI = Chinese, JAP = Japanese, OTH = other. In Cluster D, 8 of 9 individuals classified as “other” had self-identified as Hispanic.

One may still object that different types of mulattos (black-white mixes) such as quadroons (one-fourth black), octoroons (one-eight black) and quintloons (one-sixteenth black) may all be classified as black even though their genetic affinities to whites and blacks are substantially different. However, no one would have any difficulty telling which is which with respect to a group of quadroons and a group of octoroons, and neither would genetic tests have any difficulty in distinguishing these groups. For instance, consider the following correspondence between self-identified ethnic group and the assignment of ethnicity based on 199 ancestry-informative markers (AIMs); the probability of concordance was > 99% for most samples:18) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__18)


http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/yang.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fyang. gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
Abbreviations: EUA = European American, AFR = West African, AMI = American Indian, EAS = East Asian, SAS = South Asian, AFA = African-American, PRN = Puerto Rican, MXA = Mexican American.


For mixed-ancestry samples such as African-Americans, most were readily distinguished from West Africans, and the minority of African-Americans most likely assigned to the West African group by the AIMs simply reflects the fact that some African-Americans have little European ancestry.

Therefore, since the mixing is not uniform in mixed-ancestry groups, some individuals will not be assigned by AIMs to the mixed-group but nevertheless they will be assigned to the related group contributing the majority of the genetic material. Of course, if, after familiarizing oneself with West Africans and African-Americans, one were to assign African-Americans and West Africans to their respective groups based on looks alone, a similar result will be obtained. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there is lack of correspondence between perceived racial composition/affinities and genetic reality. Black African and white European mixes usually produce a brown person with Negroid facial features rather than a brown individual with European facial features. This is a major reason why mulattos have often been classified as black along with Negroes with no significant other-population admixture. Of course, presently, black leaders encourage all people with any amount of black ancestry to self-classify as black so that the number of blacks remains high enough for political purposes. Just because terms like quadroon, octoroon or equivalent nuanced terms are not used presently in the U.S., it does not mean that people perceive no differences between black West/Central Africans, East Africans, African-Americans and different types of mulattos when all these groups are called black.



How appropriate are terms such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, etc.?

These terms are rarely used in current anthropology. “Australoid,” when used, is unambiguous. “Negroid,” when used, is typically unambiguous since people take it to mean sub-Saharan African, but some people may classify numerous populations in East Africa as Negroid, too, which is problematic. Excluding skin color, East African populations with a non-Negroid facial features central tendency craniofacially cluster with Europeans before joining the sub-Saharan African or Negroid cluster.19) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__19) Similarly, genetic analyses of East African populations such as Somalis and Ethiopians reveals major affinities to both Euro-Mediterraneans and sub-Saharan Africans.20) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__20), 21) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__21), 22) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__22), 23) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__23), 24) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__24), 25) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__25), 26) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__26) See also the following principal components analysis of African populations and neighbor-joining dendograms from Cavalli-Sforza and others' 1994 book on the history and geography of human genes:

a) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/ce1.gif?w=100&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fce1.g if%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache) b) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/ce2.gif?w=40&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fce2.g if%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache) c) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/ce3.gif?w=50&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fce3.g if%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)


Therefore, numerous East African populations are not classifiable as Negroid or Caucasoid, and they certainly didn't end up as they are via a simple admixture scenario.

“Mongoloid” is a more ambiguous word. Mongols, Chinese, Koreans and Japanese would be unambiguous examples of a Mongoloid, but a popular early-to-mid 20th century tentative racial classification scheme proposed by Carleton Coon classified northeast Asians, southeast Asians, Eskimo-Siberians and Native Americans all as Mongoloid, which may make it difficult for individuals harboring a relaxed or a strict definition of a Mongoloid to effectively communicate with each other.

“Caucasoid” is the most ambiguous word in this group. It is frequently encountered in the non-anthropological scientific literature, where it refers to whites but not a biological race. “Caucasoid” in colloquial usage in Western societies also refers to whites. However, Carleton Coon's popular tentative racial classification scheme included people as far south as North Africa and as far East as India in the Caucasoid group. We have seen above that East Indians and whites cannot be classified into the same race as per the phylogeographic criteria. There is also clinal variation from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. Therefore, caution is required when using formerly in vogue racial terminology, especially “Caucasian.” One could talk about Caucasoid features with less ambiguity than talk about who or what is a Caucasian. For instance, a Somali or Ethiopian could be found with a Caucasoid basic face design, but whereas his facial features could be said to be Caucasoid, the person himself could not be classified as a Caucasoid in a meaningful manner.



What are some common race denial arguments?

Some common arguments that deny racial reality among humans and responses to them are provided below.



The racial classification schemes proposed by different authors have been inconsistent with each other

There has certainly been a great deal of inconsistency with respect to the number of races, but then the formal, standard phylogeographic criteria for assigning races date to around 1990. Different criteria will yield a different number, but not if the criteria are well-defined and widely accepted as the phylogeographic criteria mentioned in the beginning are.

An important issue that seems to have escaped the attention of those harping on the inconsistency of the number of races in different racial classification schemes is that no serious scientific attempt at racial classification has classified any two of the following groups into the same race: Danes, Chinese, Congolese. Therefore, there is some consistency. This can be depicted in more detail as follows.

The following comparison is of Coon's 5-race system vs. Brace's zero-races system comprising of 8 geographic clusters.


http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/class1m.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fclass 1m.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)


Now consider Glowatzki's 36 races:


Plate Races Illustration Plate 1 Nordid, Dalonordid, Osteuropid, Alpine, Lappid, Dinarid http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/g1.jpg?w=25&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fg1.jp g%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache) Plate 2 Mediterranid, Berberid, Orientalid, Indid, Indid (Gypsy), Armenid http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/g2.jpg?w=25&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fg2.jp g%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache) Plate 3 Turanid, Weddid, Polynesid, Ainuid, Mongolide: Tungid, Sinid http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/g3.jpg?w=25&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fg3.jp g%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache) Plate 4 Palaemongolid, Sibirid, Eskimid, Silvid, Zentralid, Brasilid http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/g4.jpg?w=25&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fg4.jp g%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache) Plate 5 Lagid, Andid, Australid, Neomelanesid, Sudanid, Kafrid http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/g5.jpg?w=25&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fg5.jp g%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache) Plate 6 Nilotid, Palaenegrid, Aethiopid, American Negrid, Bambutid, Khoisanid (Bushman) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/g6.jpg?w=25&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fg6.jp g%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)

Look at some of the details underlying Brace's dendograms (based on 24 largely neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances):





http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/class2.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fclass 2.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)

What is the take home lesson? It is obvious that the differences between the three classification schemes involve the level of grouping that constitutes the race taxon, but the structure of the groupings is similar, i.e., it isn't the case that one scheme is classifying Swedes and Eskimos together before they join other groups whereas another scheme is joining Eskimos and black Africans together before they join other groups. This is an example of broad consistency. The decisions regarding which level of grouping to consider as a racial/subspecies taxon will be consistent if there are agreed upon well-defined criteria for species, which have been in place since around 1990. There is no reason why humans should be exempt from these criteria. Indeed humans aren't and manifest racial divisions.



Inconsistent classification trees/patterns depending on the trait chosen

This is a common argument, some illustrative examples of which are shown below. Race deniers take features like skin color, frequency distribution of the Hemoglobin S gene, tooth size or frequency of O blood group and show that the classification based on any of these individual traits produces a grouping that is strikingly different from a classification based on another individual trait:


a) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/brace1.gif?w=60&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fbrace 1.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache), b) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/brace2.gif?w=60&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fbrace 2.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache), c) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/brace1.gif?w=60&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fbrace 1.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache), d) http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/cosmides1.gif?w=60&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fcosmi des1.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)



This race denial argument is very lame. As the phylogeograhic criteria show, race is not assigned by a single trait but by a set of phylogenetically concordant traits. In addition, there is a geography requirement, i.e., one cannot go around combining populations that have historically developed in well-separated geographic regions.

Three of the images on the left above are from C. Loring Brace. On the other hand, Brace himself has show that the use of 24 craniofacial inter-landmark distances makes people cluster with others in their geographic region of origin before they join other such clusters, the clusters being along geographic lines. Brace then tells us these regional clusters of populations owe the similarities in their appearance to the perpetuation of traits that are shared by virtue of kinship but which have no other biological significance. Well, Mr. Brace, race is shared by virtue of kinship and need not have any other biological significance.



Races blend into each other and hence are not non-overlapping discrete entities

Races do not need to have zero percent overlap in order to be valid taxonomical categories. The statistical tools used to examine whether a given distribution is of a categorical or continuous nature – e.g., cluster analysis, taxonometrics, discriminant analysis – do not require no overlap between categories. An example can be roughly visualized in the form of a rainbow where each color band blends into its adjacent bands, yet distinct bands are clearly visible.



So-called human races can successfully reproduce with each other

Some authors like Joseph Graves have argued that valid racial categories would exist if “pairs of individuals from different races either had reduced capacity, or no capacity, to produce viable offspring.” 27) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__27) Graves is defining race as species. On the other hand, there is an increased likelihood of negative health consequences from race mixing among humans (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmajority rights.com%2Findex.php%2Fweblog%2Fcommen ts%2Falon_ziv_on_race_mixing%2F).



The existence of clinal variation

The clinal variation argument is a variant of the observation that races blend into each other at the boundaries of contact. With respect to one or even multiple markers (anatomical or genetic), one can observe a smooth change over a broad geographic region said to comprise of two or more races. Serre and Pääbo have argued that if people are sampled as shown to the left below as opposed to the sampling shown on the right, then evidence for clustering or racial distinction will emerge as an artifact of sampling in the first case but no clustering will be seen in the second case.28) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__28) Serre and Pääbo also argued that evidence for clustering is partly a result of the assumption that the allele frequencies are correlated (alleles are different versions of the same gene or locus).


http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/serre.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fserre .gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)


However, Rosenberg et al. have shown that provided a sufficiently large number of markers are used, notwithstanding a) geography-based sampling as in the image shown to the right above, b) clearly observable clinal variation and c) an uncorrelated alleles assumption, population/geographic clusters still emerge.29) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__29)



Human populations have been separated from each other over too short a time period to develop racial differences

This belief stems from the “recent out of Africa” hypothesis, which states that modern humans emerged in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago and replaced archaic humans as they spread out, and stems from mitochondrial DNA evidence. However, nuclear DNA data clearly show that the modern humans that rose in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago extensively absorbed archaic humans as they spread out.30) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__30) Therefore, differences between human continental populations go back a lot earlier.

John Goodrum compiled the following comparison of genetic diversity, assessed in terms of average heterozygosity of autosomal microsatellites; the heterozygoisty of a population (H) is the percentage of individuals that are heterozygous (have two alleles) at a random locus. H varies from 0 to 1 or 0-100%; the higher the value, the more genetically diverse the population. In the table below, He is the expected heterozygosity and Ho is the observed heterozygosity.


http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/goodrum1.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fgoodr um1.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)


See Goodrum (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FRFaqHTML.html) for the references in the table above.


It should be clear that humans are more genetically diverse than many mammalian species. Protein diversity is also a lot higher among humans [He = 10-14%,31) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__31) He = 14.8%32) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__32)] than among mammals on average [He = 5.1%33) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__33)] as well as most other species with a backbone [He usually less than 10%34) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__34)].



The majority of variation among humans is found within populations and only a minority between populations

This is generally true. For instance, roughly 85% of the genetic diversity among humans is found within populations and 15% between populations. However, this does not in any manner imply that races do not exist/cannot be discerned since most of the information that distinguishes populations lies in a correlation structure rather than mere variation of individual factors.35) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__35)

Some differences between populations can be larger or smaller. For instance, Relethford reported that about 88% of the variation in skin color is found between populations and 12% within.36) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__36) This is an example of how human populations can be substantially different on some counts even though they are less different on most other counts.

Some estimates of the proportion for diversity between populations have improved with time. For instance, Relethford and Harpending's analysis of W.W. Howells' craniometric data, published in 1994,37) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__37) revealed that 11-14% of the variation was between populations, but a 2002 analysis of Howells' dataset by Relethford listed this figure at about 19%,38) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__38) and a 2004 report by Roseman and Weaver,39) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__39) employing a more sophisticated analysis of Howells' dataset, reported that this figure was 22% for size variation, 24% for the first principal component of shape variation and 33% for the second principle component of shape variation; the principle components analysis excluded the dacryon subtense, supraorbital projection and glabella projection because they tended to dominate the first few principal components.



Two randomly selected individuals from different populations can be closer to each other than either individual is to a random co-ethnic

For one or a few markers, in trials where an individual is compared to a randomly selected co-ethnic or a randomly selected individual from another population, in a minority of cases, the individual will be closer to the person selected from a different ethnic group, but the proportion of such cases will decrease with the use of more markers. However, if the entire genetic information is considered, then an individual will be closer to a random co-ethnic than a random individual from another ethnicity.



When one considers the apportionment of diversity, the proportion of human variation that lies between populations is too low to justify the division of humans into biological races

This is a false notion. At about 15% of the overall genetic diversity in humans lying between populations, this value is more than sufficiently large for racial differentiation if the phylogeographic criteria are met. Indeed, numerous species said to comprise of subspecies or races/breeds have lower values of between-populations genetic diversity. Goodrum compiled the following examples of the proportion of genetic diversity in various species that is between populations (FST). In the table below, note that 0.168 is the same as 16.8%, 0.155 is the same as 15.5%, etc.


http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/goodrum2.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fgoodr um2.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)


See Goodrum (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.good rumj.com%2FRFaqHTML.html) for the references in the table above.


The interpretation of FST can be seen in the table below, based on Sewall Wright.40) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__40)


FST Extent of differentiation between populations 0 - 0.05 small 0.05 - 0.15 moderate 0.15 - 0.25 great > 0.25 very great

The classification above is not arbitrary given the variation seen in the animal kingdom, though some would like to claim it. Now consider the following table showing FST between populations based on 150 autosomal genes analyzed by Cavalli-Sforza and others in their book on the history and geography of human genes. In this table, divide a number by 10,000 to get FST value in terms of 0.xxxx or divide by 100 to get FST value as a percentage. For instance, if you see a value of 638 between two populations, the FST or proportion of variation between these populations is .0638 or 6.38%. Note that FST is > 0.15 and even > 0.25 for a number of population pairs clearly belonging to separate races as per the phylogeographic criteria, yet some people deny racial reality among humans!


http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/salter_1.gif?w=300&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fsalte r_1.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)


The following is a summary from Goodrum. A 1998 paper by Templeton41) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__41) reported that an FST of 0.25-0.30 is required for racial differentiation, but there is no such requirement. Templeton misunderstood a rule of thumb in early taxonomical studies where it was required that for two populations to be classified as separate races, 70-75% of the individuals outside the zone where they mingle should be assigned to their respective populations upon inspection.42) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__42) The 70-75% rule of thumb certainly doesn't translate to an FST value of 0.25-0.30. Besides, using the mid-facial region alone, if one had a sample of European, Inuit, black African and Australian aboriginal skulls, in any two population comparisons, discriminant analysis will assign 85-100% of skulls to the correct population,43) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fn__43) easily satisfying the 70-75% rule of thumb, and we know that these populations belong to separate races based on the phylogeographic criteria.

Templeton also reportedly showed that FST values for humans were a lot lower than for large-bodied mammals:



http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/templeton.jpg?w=300&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Ftempl eton.jpg%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)

However, in the figure above, nine of the ten largest non-human FST values, including the eight highest, are based on mitochondrial DNA, whereas the human FST value is based on autosomal DNA. Since mitochondrial DNA has an effective population size one-fourth of autosomal DNA, FST values based on mitochondrial DNA will be much larger than those based on autosomal DNA. For instance, Goodrum provided the following:


Species FST autosomal FST mitochondrial Jaguar 0.065 0.295 Puma 0.167 0.467 Gray Wolf 0.168 0.76

Therefore, it certainly does not follow that the proportion of human genetic diversity that is between populations is too low to justify racial differentiation among humans.



Why do people deny the existence of biological races among humans?

There are numerous reasons apart from being genuinely convinced that biological races do not exist among humans, not necessarily mutually exclusive:
“Authorities” often teach that races do not exist among humans and that belief in races “logically” leads to gas chambers, slavery and other horrible outcomes. Therefore, some people merely state what they have been told and may be combative because they wish to prevent the “logical consequences” of a belief in biological races among humans.
Race-denying scientists, especially those studying population genetics and physical anthropology, may be well-aware of racial reality but deny it officially in order to avoid trouble in the form of funding shortage, lack of study approval because the IRB (Institutional Review Board) deems it tainted by “a racial agenda,” harassment by colleagues/leftists, demonization, trouble getting tenure or more extreme attacks.
Leftists are vastly overrepresented among race deniers. Leftists tend to have a strong interest in social engineering and are therefore averse to factors that limit the prospects of social engineering. Leftists will stick to their worldview even if doing so causes more harm than accepting that their worldview is mistaken and subsequently changing it and their behaviors. Genetically-based differences between populations limit the extent of social engineering that is feasible, easily explaining why so many leftists loathe the concept of biological races in humans.
Malicious Jews, and there are many such individuals among Jews, have a strong interest in undermining the welfare of non-Jews, especially whites. Malicious Jews have been at the forefront of race denial in academia, and the reason is obvious. By convincing others that there are no genetic differences between populations with respect to behavior, talent, personality distributions, aptitude, creativity, acquisition of culture and other features relevant to social existence, opposition to replacement immigration can be reduced, and replacement immigration is surely an excellent way to harm the cultural and genetic interests of a population.


Why are you obsessed with race? What is your agenda?

We are not obsessed with race. People who are truly obsessed with race are the leftist/Marxist academics who deny the existence of biological races among humans while blaming minority failure on racial discrimination. So what is the need for this FAQ?

Western civilization, particularly America, is reeling under the impact of massive Third World immigration, minority handouts, affirmative action and a high frequency of crimes on the part of numerous non-European ethnic groups. The people promoting this have not only made no attempts to examine whether the Third World masses possess the same aptitude as whites and whether they can be made to behave like whites, but also have attempted to sabotage attempts to answer these questions and persisted with their policies in spite of evidence that decades of affirmative action has not reduced the need for affirmative action for American blacks in the slightest amount, reduced the aptitude/performance gap between whites and blacks, made non-Europeans behave like Europeans…in short make the non-Western populations Western apart from looks. These individuals obviously need to convince Westerners that aptitude/behavior differences between populations stem from the social environment, and therefore need to argue that biological differences between populations are minimal and limited to superficial differences, not aptitudes and behaviors. This is why they are especially motivated to deny the existence of biological races among humans.

Are these people denying racial reality to promote racial harmony? Is it reasonable to attempt to promote harmony between ethnic groups by telling a white person that you cannot get this job because your ancestors exploited the ancestors of this non-white who needs to be compensated in the form of getting your job? Does one promote mutual understanding by insisting that the failures of a non-white group stem from white racism? Is it reasonable to place together in the same geographic region a large number of people from populations having different trait distributions pertaining to altruism, respect for individual rights, criminality and intelligence if the trait distributions are primarily caused by genetic differences between the populations? Obviously not. Therefore, if promoting racial harmony were a goal, these individuals would make sure that genetically-based population differences are ruled out before they implement their grand social schemes, but they have done the opposite, i.e., opposing a proper investigation of group differences. Some of these individuals are obviously malicious and hostile toward Western societies and Western people, whereas the others have good intentions but are ignorant and useful idiots for the malicious ones.

The malicious ones know fully well why they deny racial reality…to minimize opposition to their plans, namely the race replacement and dispossession of whites and the destruction of Western civilization. The irony is that for races to exist, there need not be any genetically-based behavioral or aptitude differences between them. Conversely, the existence of genetically-based aptitude and behavioral differences between populations does not imply that these populations belong to separate races. However, it obviously helps the malicious individuals to minimize populations differences. Therefore, the purpose of this FAQ is to hopefully get Western people to ask whether the behavior and aptitude differences they observe between populations possibly result in part from genetic differences since there are numerous genetic differences between populations with respect to a lot of traits. The purpose of this FAQ is not to argue that since races exist, it follows that differences between the races with respect to aptitude/behavior stem from genetic differences.

When more people start wondering whether genetic differences are involved, there will be a stronger sentiment in favor of a moratorium on the grand social schemes currently in place till it is shown that genetic differences between populations are not involved in the discrepancies regarding socially undesirable outcomes. At stake are the health of Western societies and white people, and these stakes are high. If indeed genetically-based differences between populations are implicated, then the grand social schemes currently in place will simply serve to convert First World productive societies to Third World hell-holes with a large and more crime-prone underclass that one could hardly do anything about. It is fair to ask that a proper assessment of the most likely consequences of a grand social scheme be thoroughly investigated before it is implemented.

A second purpose of this FAQ is to be of educational value regardless of any use that it could be put to.



Don't you think that belief in race will lead to racist horrors?

In a 1998 statement denying the existence of biological races in humans, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaan et.org%2Fstmts%2Fracepp.htm) mentioned the following:
During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of “race” and “racial” differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of “inferior races” (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.
Should we be concerned? After all, The AAA experts know better. Seriously, consider what the AAA or equivalent is saying.



A belief in race leads to a belief in superior and inferior races

Really? A race more susceptible to some genetic diseases is less susceptible to other genetic diseases. A white supremacist boasting about the intellectual achievements of whites will have his skin peeling under the hot equatorial sun in no time. A black supremacist proud of the domination of the 100m sprint by West African blacks will be at a loss to explain the near-absence of blacks among martial art champions…and so on. There is no race that has all the advantages or all the disadvantages. Just because a certain race has some advantage, it does not become racially superior to other races; it just has an advantage with respect to the trait in question or, if one insists, it is just superior with respect to the trait in question. Does one have to have an advanced education to understand this? There is nothing about the existence of races that lends itself to a belief that some races are superior to others. If someone who believes in the existence of biological races among humans also believes that his race his superior to others, then it does not follow that his supremacist beliefs stem from his belief in human races.


Racial supremacist beliefs make one want to enslave, dominate or exterminate members of inferior races

What in the world? Many whites are strongly opposed to keeping animals in cages even though they have no doubt that these animals are intellectually inferior to them. Why do these people not want to dominate/control/manipulate/enslave inferior species? Western nations spend a lot of resources saving numerous species from extinction, including species whose disappearance will not cause any harm to the ecology or humans, and this endeavor is supported by many in the general population. Why are these people not letting nature take its course and working to preserve species that are intellectually inferior and worthless to humans instead of speeding up their demise? It should be obvious that a belief in some sort of superiority does not lead to a desire to exploit others. This is not say that people with supremacist beliefs will not exploit others; some will, but the underlying reason will not be the supremacist belief. For instance, whereas numerous whites are attempting to save the great African apes from becoming extinct, numerous black Africans are merrily killing and eating them. Are these blacks eating apes because they believe they are smarter than the apes or because these apes are a delicacy in their cuisine?

It is a given that if the opportunities present themselves, some people will attempt to exploit others if they can get away with it. Slavery has historically been a universal human institution and is also found in non-human species. If a living organism can get away with exploiting others to his advantage, then some living organisms will be found engaging in this behavior in nature regardless of whether they are capable of higher thought or whether they harbor supremacist beliefs if human…this is a straightforward expectation…even some with an inferiority complex will be found to engage in exploitative behavior if they can get away with it.

If one uses supremacist beliefs to justify slavery, does it follow that a desire to enslave and exploit stems from the supremacist beliefs? What comes first…a desire to enslave or a justification for slavery? Do you realize what fine logic the AAA is using?

As mentioned earlier, some ignorant individuals are opposed to acknowledging racial reality in humans because they believe it will lead to horrors, but not all people in the AAA are this ignorant. A number of them belong to the same group that has been pushing the Holocaust hoax (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Fholocaust) upon us…they are not stupid enough to believe that the “logical end” to a belief in races is racism and crime, and they are not motivated in order to promote racial amity…they want whites to believe that the millions of non-whites flooding their nations have the same aptitude as whites and can be made to behave like whites so that whites offer minimal resistance to their race replacement and dispossession. Do not be fooled by them.



1) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__1) Avise JC, Ball RM. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. In: Futuyama D, Antonovics J, eds. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology. Volume 7. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990:45-67.
2) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__2) O'Brien SJ, Mayr E. Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science. 1991;251(4998):1187-1189. obrien.pdf (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fobrien .pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
3) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__3) , 10) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__10) , 13) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__13) , 19) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__19) Brace CL, Hunt KD. A nonracial craniofacial perspective on human variation: A(ustralia) to Z(uni). Am J Phys Anthropol. Jul 1990;82(3):341-360. [Note: It may appear odd that a paper titled ”…a nonracial perspective…” is being cited in support of race, but see the section addressing common reasons for race denial for reasons why Brace's data support the existence of biological races among humans.]
4) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__4) Hanihara T, Ishida H, Dodo Y. Characterization of biological diversity through analysis of discrete cranial traits. Am J Phys Anthropol. Jul 2003;121(3):241-251. discrete cranial traits (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fdiscre te_cranial.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcac he)
5) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__5) , 6) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__6) , 16) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__16) , 29) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__29) Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK, Feldman MW. Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of human population structure. PLoS Genet. Dec 2005;1(6):e70. link (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgenetics .plosjournals.org%2Fperlserv%2F%3Freques t%3Dget-document%26doi%3D10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen. 0010070)
7) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__7) Nei M, Takezaki N. The root of the phylogenetic tree of human populations. Mol Biol Evol. Jan 1996;13(1):170-177. RFLPs (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Frflps. pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
8) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__8) Stoneking M, Fontius JJ, Clifford SL, et al. Alu insertion polymorphisms and human evolution: evidence for a larger population size in Africa. Genome Res. Nov 1997;7(11):1061-1071. ALUs (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Falus.p df%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
9) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__9) Bastos-Rodrigues L, Pimenta JR, Pena SD. The genetic structure of human populations studied through short insertion-deletion polymorphisms. Ann Hum Genet. Sep 2006;70(Pt 5):658-665. I-D (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fi-d.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
click figure: http://wiki.majorityrights.com/_media/race/i-d1.gif?w=50&h=&cache=cache (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_detail%2Frace%2Fi-d1.gif%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
11) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__11) , 18) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__18) Yang N, Li H, Criswell LA, et al. Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers: application to diverse and admixed populations and implications for clinical epidemiology and forensic medicine. Hum Genet. Dec 2005;118(3-4):382-392. AIMs (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fyang.p df%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
12) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__12) Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Gonzalez-Quevedo C, et al. Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India. PLoS Genet. Dec 22 2006;2(12):e215. link (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgenetics .plosjournals.org%2Fperlserv%2F%3Freques t%3Dget-document%26doi%3D10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen. 0020215)
14) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__14) Brace CL, Seguchi N, Quintyn CB, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Jan 3 2006;103(1):242-247. Brace (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fbrace_ paper.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
15) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__15) Seldin MF, Shigeta R, Villoslada P, et al. European population substructure: clustering of northern and southern populations. PLoS Genet. Sep 15 2006;2(9):e143. link (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgenetics .plosjournals.org%2Fperlserv%2F%3Freques t%3Dget-document%26doi%3D10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen. 0020143)
17) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__17) Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, et al. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. Am J Hum Genet. Feb 2005;76(2):268-275. Risch (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Frisch. pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
20) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__20) Wilson JF, Weale ME, Smith AC, et al. Population genetic structure of variable drug response. Nat Genet. Nov 2001;29(3):265-269. Paper (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fwilson 1.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache), comment1 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fwilson 2.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache), comment2 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fwilson 3.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
21) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__21) Tishkoff SA, Pakstis AJ, Stoneking M, et al. Short tandem-repeat polymorphism/alu haplotype variation at the PLAT locus: implications for modern human origins. Am J Hum Genet. Oct 2000;67(4):901-925. PLAT (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fplat.p df%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
22) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__22) Lovell A, Moreau C, Yotova V, et al. Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and western Eurasia. Ann Hum Genet. May 2005;69(Pt 3):275-287. Lovell (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Flovell .pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
23) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__23) Poloni ES, Semino O, Passarino G, et al. Human genetic affinities for Y-chromosome P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes show strong correspondence with linguistics. Am J Hum Genet. Nov 1997;61(5):1015-1035. Poloni (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fpoloni .pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
24) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__24) Hammer MF, Redd AJ, Wood ET, et al. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Jun 6 2000;97(12):6769-6774. Hammer (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fhammer .pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
25) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__25) Sanchez JJ, Hallenberg C, Borsting C, Hernandez A, Morling N. High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males. Eur J Hum Genet. Jul 2005;13(7):856-866. Sanchez (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fsanche z.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
26) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__26) Scacchi R, De Stefano GF, Ruggeri M, Corbo RM. Genetic variation atapolipoprotein E locus in Ethiopia: an E5 variant corresponds to two different mutant alleles: E*5 (Glu212Lys) and E*5 (Gln204Lys; Cys112Arg). Hum Biol. Apr 2003;75(2):293-300. Scacchi (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fscacch i.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
27) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__27) Graves J. The emperor’s new clothes: biological theories of race at the millennium. Piscataway, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 2001:2.
28) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__28) Serre D, Pääbo S. Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. Sep 2004;14(9):1679-1685. Serre (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fserre. pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
30) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__30) Eswaran V, Harpending H, Rogers AR. Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans. J Hum Evol. Jul 2005;49(1):1-18. Eswaran (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Feswara n.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
31) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__31) Takahata N. A genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:343-372. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1995;26:343-372.
32) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__32) , 34) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__34) Nei M. Molecular evolutionary genetics. New York: Columbia University Press; 1987:192-193.
33) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__33) Makarieva AM. Variance of protein heterozygosity in different species of mammals with respect to the number of loci studied. Heredity. Jul 2001;87(Pt 1):41-51. Makarieva (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fmakari eva.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
35) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__35) Edwards AW. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy. Bioessays. Aug 2003;25(8):798-801. Edwards (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fedward s.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
36) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__36) , 38) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__38) Relethford JH. Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color. Am J Phys Anthropol. Aug 2002;118(4):393-398. Relethford (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Freleth ford.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
37) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__37) Relethford JH, Harpending HC. Craniometric variation, genetic theory, and modern human origins. Am J Phys Anthropol. Nov 1994;95(3):249-270.
39) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__39) Roseman CC, Weaver TD. Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. Am J Phys Anthropol. Nov 2004;125(3):257-263. Roseman (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Frosema n.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)
40) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__40) Wright S. Evolution and the genetics of populations; a treatise. Chicago,: University of Chicago Press; 1968.
41) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__41) Templeton AR. Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective. Am Anthropol. 1998;100(3):632-650.
42) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__42) Amadon D. The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies. Condor. 1949;51:251-258.
43) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace%23fnt__43) Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB. Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. Am J Phys Anthropol. Jan 2002;117(1):37-48. Hennessy (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2F_media%2Frace%2Fhennes sy.pdf%3Fid%3Drace%26cache%3Dcache)


Source: MajorityRights.com
(http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.maj orityrights.com%2Frace)