I got into this years ago with a professor knowledgeable in anthropology.
There is no "mutation" that is unique to one "racial" group. There are
differences in the distributions of some, tendencies to express one
rather than another in certain populations. Note that even in somewhat
inbred populations, like the Amish, Askenazic Jews, or Pimas, there is
nothing more than a tendency to have more carriers of lethal or
semilethal characteristics. Cold selected for shorter extremities in
Eskimos and Neanderthals; malaria for modified hemoglobin in
Mediterranean and African populations. I recall an article years ago that
noted that the proportion of sickling in American descendants is less
than in current African populations, for the selection pressure is off.
The fact is that the environment is never 100% effective.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:33:51 -0000 Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM
> Could you elaborate on that statement... I understand that genetics
> proved that we have all come from common ancestors, and, possibly,
> that we
> are of the same species (the point of contention in my original
> post), but
> does it in any way cast the idea of "strains" or "subspecies" or
> "races" in
> doubt. After all, for example, genetically, I believe, various
> groups are
> susceptible to different illnesses. I have been told that such
> are enough to classify micro-organisms, if not higher creatures.
> Could this
> be a basis of further breakdown of our species?
> Norm Woodward
> Warner Robins Georgia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SteamDoc@aol.com [mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 7:15 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: evolution and race
> Not to mention the realization evolutionary genetics has given us
> that the
> whole concept of "races" of humans is scientifically dubious.
> Allan Harvey, firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 15:14:38 EST