Each race has its own characteristics that differ from the other races. These differences are based on how the race evolved according to the surrounding area to survive. I'm having trouble finding scientific research with details and and possibly pictures. Does anyone know any good resources for this information?
215365
There are some great maps out there correlating skin tone with a modeled optimum at each geographic point.  That optimum is based on balancing the need to avoid burning and skin cancer against the need to obtain UV light for creation of vitamin D.  \n\nOther adaptations relate to features of the environment.  Northern Europeans, Inuit, and Eskimo people have a distribution of fat on their bodies that is optimized for heat retention.  The body shape of a Masai, for example, would be less than optimal near the North Pole.\n\nThere is a hypothesis that many traits are associated with sexual selection or may pertain to the tradeoff between sexual selection and aspects of the environment.  The distribution of fat tissue, particularly in women, in different races has been proposed as correlated with cultural differences in male preference as well as with adaptaion to the local environment.\n\nFinally, there is the feature of accident.  The epicanthal fold of many East Asians might have been beneficial to many Caucasians, but perhaps by chance the feature simply wasn't present in founding populations in Europe.  Characteristics in founding population and gained or lost by chance certainly play a big role in differences in humans from different geographic areas.  Not everythig is adaptive.\n\nBear in mind that this is not based on fixed differences among populations or races of humans, but instead on gene frequency in different populations.  For example, Swedes are lighter in skin color than the Ndebele not because each population has distinct genes, but because those genes differ in frequency.  Among all the loci that contribute to skin color, Swedish populations have very few alleles that code for dark skin.  Each individual Swede will therefore have only a few dark loci where dark alleles are present whereas most loci will have light alleles.  The Ndebele populations and individuals would act in reverse.
39935
Diverse means different. It's not just race. Its has to do more with a diversity of cultures, that is traditions, customs, behaviors, language, religion and even gender and sexual preferences. All this comes into play when we see what makes us different from someone else.
446345
I heard that, and I heard the same thing about Blue eyes.  Most reputable sources say it is wrong, but it seems to make sense to me.  Blonde hair and blue eyes are recessive traits and you'd think the dominant traits would eventually take over in the human race.  That's evolution, right? But who knows.  Science has been wrong before.
575490
The thing about race... is that it is subjective. Different people classify race differently. How many categories are there? Some people think three: black, white and yellow. Some say 4  with natives, others 5 with brown\n\nReally, race is like a rainbow. There is every mix of colour.  People are those colours and inbetween.\n\nFrom what I have heard, you are correct. Most geaneaology books classify mediterranean people as a separate category. \n\nIn reality, race is just the colour of our skin. Our DNA is so similar that the differences are barely anything. \n\nDon't try to classify yourself, embrace who you are.
346210
First off, there are many definitions or concepts of what a species is. This classical article by Alan Templeton\nhttp://www.omniscellula.net/simposi/articles/speciation.pdf\nprovides a review of some of them.\n\nNow, as I see it, the statement that you cite is not referring to the typical definition that you mentioned (Ernst Mayr's "biological species concept", based on reproductive isolation). Rather, it is referring to the quantification of divergence of continuous characters between populations. These divergences are usually assessed either by morphological analyses, or by measurements of the differences in the structure of given molecules and macromolecules (proteins, histocompatibility complex, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, etc).\n\nBTW, here's another article on species definition that discusses a "genotypic cluster definition" of species:\nhttp://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/jim/pap/mallet95tree.pdf\nthat may be a good approximation to a genetic/molecular definition of species.\n\nMolecular divergence can be measured, but the significance of these divergences is ultimately arbitrary, that is, the researchers  decide, based on their calibrations of divergence between other populations, if the discrepancy is large enough that it can be interpreted as different species, or if there is enough internal molecular variability within those populations that the differences among them are not significant (as has been demonstrated for most of the variation among and within human populations). \nSee this example:\nhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/4d9ku0ppcm6t0xjy/\nwhere the divergence between two populations was compared with other species pairs to decide if they should be considered as separate species.\n\nAs you probably know, sometimes (well, often) the results of morphological and molecular approaches do not agree with each other, because there are some major methodological differences, and the sources of data are quite different. However, combined approaches are (IMHO) what we the biologists should be working for. \nUltimately, I think these issues are consequences of our inbuilt need to put things into neat little boxes, that clashes with the infinite continuum of nature :-)
194545
Yes, they evolved from the same species. In fact, every species evolved from the same life form. The physical difference between various races are caused by evolution and adaptation. Throughout the ages, there are genetic mutations in all species. If the genetic mutation is unfavourable, the individual dies. If it, on the other hand, benefits the individual, then the individual survives. Hence, the mutation gradually becomes a standard feature of the species. \n\nNow, due to the size of the Earth, it is only understandable that people in different parts of the world would undergo different mutations. The clearest example is the difference in skin colour between ethnic Africans and ethnic Europeans. Africans development a greater amount of pigment, as it protected them from the sun. The species evolved. Europeans, on the other hand, were in no need for this pigment as the climate was different in Europe. Thus, they evolved to have less pigment than Africans, for instance. This principle then explains any physical differences that one might find when looking at the human race. \n\nNow, out of curiosity, what are these mental affinities you speak of?
513741
At one time there was a "scientific" discipline called Anthropometry, in other words "the measure of man".  People thought that by getting measurements of people they could be classified into various racial types and sub-types.  The rise and fall of this pseudo-science is described in the first reference below.  After much study, science has switched to trying to understand the similarities and differences between various human populations using genetics.  Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from your mother, and mutations of these chromosomes has been shown to shed light on the radiation of modern humans out of Africa (2Nd ref.)  Also, the Human Genome Project has pretty much ended race studies as such - human similarity vastly outweighs difference.
186182
If all humans started in Africa a very long time ago, they did not all stay there.  They wandered.  And as they wandered, tribal groups formed which were isolated one from another.  The characteristics of a given tribe were selected out in response to different environments.  Thus, for example, northern Europeans store fat on their bodies efficiently (way too efficiently for modern times!) to protect them from the cold winters.  The closer to the equator a tribe is, the darker skin is more valuable, and selection brings it to the forefront.  \n\nSo that's how we separated.  Now, with world wide transportation, we are coming together once more.  And as people from different gene pools breed, they produce the healthy children who have fewer matching of recessive traits.  Recessive traits are more likely to be the ones that cause problems.  So yes, it is better for us to mix, for the evolution of the species as a whole, and for the beauty and good health of the individual children thus created.
64997
The four priciples are:\n1. More individuals are born than survive to reproduce \n2. Heritable variation exists among individuals \n3  Struggle for existence or competition\n4. Adaptation
577148
Excellent powerpoint with a variety of answers\n\nhttp://www.anth.ucsb.edu/classes/Anth153S/Lecture12.pdf\n\n\nI ahd the same question but now I have the scientific answer
148445
Wikipedia has a good summary:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_species\n\nAn extract from this wikipedia page:\nDarwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them, as summarized by the biologist Ernst Mayr:\n\nSpecies have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood. \nPopulations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations. \nFood resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time. From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals. \nIn sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant. \nMuch of this variation is heritable. \nFrom this Darwin infers: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring; and that these advantageous characteristics are inherited by following generations, becoming dominant among the population through time. This is natural selection.\n\nDarwin did not suggest that every variation and every character must have a selection value. However, he pointed out that, because of our ignorance of animal physiology and its relationship with the environment, it was extremely rash to set down any characters as valueless to their owners. It is even more important to notice that he did not suggest that every individual with a favorable variation must be selected, or that the selected or favored animals were better or higher, but merely that they were more adapted to their surroundings.\n\nDarwin further infers that natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species. He puts forward myriad observations as demonstrations of this, and also claims that the fossil record can be interpreted as supporting these observations. Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. Modern DNA evidence is consistent with this idea.
43186
The reason why people have problems with this concept is simply because they fail to understand the difference between a BIOLOGICAL reality and a CULTURAL reality.\n\nLook, if we wanted to we could group people by shirt colour couldn’t we? People with blue, green or purple shirts in one group, red yellow and orange in another and blacks, whites and greys making a third group? Do you agree that we could do that? We could then choose as a SOCIETY to teat those groups differently. We can tax them at different rates, throw them in prison whatever we like. \n\nWhat we have here is an example of a CULTURAL reality. The division of people by shirt colour is indisputably real. It indisputably has real effects on the real lives of real people. By any standard you like it is real. But do you also accept that such a division by shirt colour is not based in BIOLOGY? Do you accept that there is no common genetic thread amongst all the people in the green shirt group? Do you accept that it is perfectly possible for two people who are very closely related BIOLOGICALLY to be placed in totally separate shirt groups?\n\nWell, race is no different in any way at all. We have traditionally grouped people according to certain racial features. Those features were chosen at random, they are just as random as shirt colour. And they tell us no more about the person than shirt colour does. \n\nThat is what we mean when we state that race has no BIOLOGICAL reality. Black people are not closely related to one another. A random black person has a greater chance of being related to a White person or an Asian person than to another Black person. A White person has the same chance of being related to a black person as to another White. The only common feature held by Black people is the feature that we used to define them in the first place: black skin. That’s it.\n\nSo to answer your question, yes race is real. Nobody has ever denied that race is very, very real. How could you anyone possibly deny that race is real?  But race is CULTURALLY and HISTORICALLY real. It is not BIOLOGICALLY real.\n\n>>>>> Is the difference in skin colour and hair texture down to mutations\n\nIf you go back far enough, yes. But what  you need to realise that it isn’t just one mutation. There is no common skin colour gene found amongst all black people or all white people.  Heck, there isn’t even a common skin colour found amongst all the people we define as Black or White. That is precisely why race has no biological meaning.
67563
A few points of clarification.\n\nFirst an etiquette suggestion. People from Africa don’t “have hair different from ours”. You should realise that people from Africa are ‘allowed’ to use the internet too. Whatever hair type you have, you need to realise that it isn’t shared by everyone else reading.\n\n\nSecondly you need to realise that people of African decent don’t have any common hair type at all. People of African descent have straight blond hair, wavy brown hair, curly black hair and every other possible combination. In short people in Africa don’t have hair “have hair different from ours” It becomes a real problem when people speak of ‘Africa’ as though it’s some sort of united whole. People in Africa include:\n\nTypical white-skinned people of Egypt or Libya who regularly have blue eyes and blond hair.\n\nAsian Malay people of Madagascar who have the typically ‘Asian” brown skin, epicanthic fold and straight black hair.\n\nGolden-brown skinned San and Hottentot people of southern Africa who normally have an epicanthic fold and very tightly curled hair of extremely determinate growth.\n\nAnd of course all those groups blend with one another seamlessly. As a result there is simply no basis in saying that there is any typical African hair type.\n\nBeyond that I’m not quite sure what you are asking. \n\nDo you want to know why people of African descent have evolved to have that hair type?\n\nOr do you want to know what makes hair grow in that fashion? \n\nThe first question entails a very complicated answer. The first I assume you are asking why many  African Americans, who are mostly of West African Negro descent, have a common curly hair type. But even that is somewhat misleading because people who have lived in northern Europe for millennia also have the same hair type occasionally, it’s just rarer there.\n\nAs for why that hair type, the answer probably lies in our ancestry. Humans evolved in Africa and spread out from there to cover the rest of the world. The first humans are assumed to have had hair similar to the modern San and Hottentot groups. That is tightly curled coarse hair, but hair of determinate growth. In some ways San hair is more like pubic hair or many types of beard in that it grows for relatively short periods of time before it falls out. As a result the hair always stays short. That make sit very easy to manage. For our first human ancestors that was probably advantageous since it reduced the opportunity for parasites like lice to take hold and made it very easy to manage since it never requires cutting.\n\nLater humans, still confined to Africa, developed head hair of the same basic tightly curled type, but of indeterminate growth. What that means is that it will keep growing for months or years before it falls out. As a result the hair needs to be trimmed or it will grow into an ‘Afro’ or dreadlocks. Exactly why this change from short to long hair occurs is a mystery, but it was probably simply because people find long hair sexually attractive. \n\nAfter a few people moved out of sub-Saharan Africa a hair type developed which was less tightly curled leading to wavy or even straight hair. Once again there is no sensible reason why this occurred, though it has been speculated that the fact that straight hair becomes greasy may have aided in cold tolerance or may have assisted in parasite control in climates where the head was covered with clothing.\n\nSo in short African Americans commonly retain the ‘second’ type of human hair, being long and tightly curled. Many other people have a third hair type that \n\nAs for why African-American hair grows in that manner, it’s largely genetic. Hair is produced from hair follicles, which almost ‘squeeze’ the hair out of a hole in the skin like tooth paste being squeezed out of a tube. In people with straight hair the hole is round and so the hair is round. People with curly hair have flattened holes and the hair i
575013
It's not entirely believable that we evolved from apes. If you have ever actually looked into the question you would know that animals do evolve. I'm a Christian and still don't refute the facts that "survival of the fittest" is an actual scientific process. People don't evolve from ants because they have an entirely different make-up than people. Ants have an exo-skeleton while mammals do not. One good example of things evolving are moths. During the industrial revolution in Europe many objects (trees) became covered with a light soot. The moths used to be able to camoflauge themselves on tress but couldn't anymore because of the soot on the trees. Survival of the fittest was demonstrated because all of the darker moths that blended in with the trees were not eaten by preadtors. When these dark colored moths began surviving they reproduced and their offspring were well-suited to their environment due to their dark color. Evolution can not be denied. How can you explain how some animals must be "2 sexes" so that they can ensure their population can continue? It's obvious that at one time those types of animals were either male or female and had to "evolve" to survive. The whole theory behind evolution is: "Those that are best-suited to their environment will survive." Maybe not all monkeys had problems with predators as others did, which means they had no reason to evolve. Darwin broke-it down very easily and demonstarted a gradual change that developed us into humans.
249435
First we have to get rid of the idea that "race" counts for anything, other than some biological differences due to evolution for survival in different parts of the world.\n\nRace has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. It is a stupid notion outside of biology.\n\nUnfortunately, as long as people insist on making it seem either good or bad (both ways, mind you) it will continue to be a problem.
130774
The facial features of Caucasians are likely not so much an adaptive trait as they are either a linked trait, or due to genetic drift and the founder's effect.\n\nIf the population of Homo sapiens that initially settled in Europe had a larger than normal proportion of people with 'fine' facial features, these proportions may have been preserved through subsequent generations.  Much the same thing can be seen in isolated areas (such as many islands) where the inbred cat population has a higher than normal incidence of polydactyly (six or more toes).  It's not an adaptive trait, but in the absence of selective pressure/competition and no influx of more dominant genes, the trait survives.\n\nIf the trait was linked to traits that were adaptive (i.e. pale skin that serves to increase Vitamin D production), then the fine facial features would be selected for through natural selection.  Not directly, but because the fair skinned people also happen to have fine facial features.\n\nSo there may not be a 'point' to European facial features, they are simply a legacy of the history of the genes of that region.
470166
Put in simplest terms, naturally occuring genetic variation gives some species, and some members of species a competitive advantage over others. Call these variations ADAPTATIONS, and environmental factors NATURALLY SELECT for organisms that have these adaptations, and select AGAINST organisms that do not have these adaptations. Thus, those that survive (the fittest) pass these adaptations on to their offspring, and those that do not have the adaptations, die off. Keep in mind this selection takes many many many years. \n\nThe nature of sexual reproduction is to create variation, and variation will be in either "direction of a phenotype" (a person who is 6'0 will have children who are 5'10, 6'0, and 6'2 for example). This is the nature of inheritance.\n\nNow, lets hypothetically say that we were all at one time "species X". The average member of species X can run 6mph. Well, some members can run 9mph, and some can only run 3mph, again by nature of inheritance. Well, if food were running short lets say, or any situation that "selected" for faster species members, everyone who ran LESS THAN 7mph would die, and those who ran GREATER than 7 MPH would survive.\n\nSo now when this population of faster runners reproduces (7mph,8 mph, 9 mph), their offspring will run, again by nature of inheritance, maybe between 6mph - 12mph (as opposed to 3mph - 7mph). Lets call this group now SPECIES Y. \n\nSuddenly, perhaps more food is available, and speed is no longer a selective advantage. Well, variation will continue to occur, but this time, slower members will not be selected against. So, some will continue to be slower, and some will get faster. The ones who get faster, are Species Z. The ones who didnt get faster, remain Species Y. But both have survived because nothing has selected against them!!!\n\nSo looking at humans and their "evolutionary predecessors", remember that humans have slowly been removing themselves from any competition with apes. Only this time don't look at speed, look at many many traits (intellience, walking on 2 legs, opposable thumbs, etc.) We have been able to find our own food, and are involved in littlle competition with them for quite some time now. \n\nWhen thinking about evolution, you must think BIG PICTURE. That's how I always saw it. You must think who is gaining SELECTIVE ADVANTAGES because of ADAPTATIONS FOR SURVIVAL, and who is going to be at SELECTIVE DISADVANTAGE based on COMPETITION AND LACK OF SURVIVAL.