Race And Human Genetic Diversity

textures and color, nose, lips, and muscles, sexual habits, morals, and religion were also considered as criteria to assign a "race" to a human being. Fundamental systems based mainly on physical characteristics allowed scientists to justify racial group placement.

There is also a great deal of research done on genetic differences versus perception. It was even proven that the concept of race is merely a social construct and not nearly as scientifically in-tune as many believe it is. A study conducted by Eric D’Arcy of Harvard University in 2002 on alleles revealed a substantial observation on genetic differences between races and a socially constructed perception. Scientists found that, while alleles that were region-specific did show up, they really only appeared and occurred in numbers barely enough to construct any sort of trademark. In fact, they were found only in about 1% of the people of that specific region.

In my opinion, this article shows the importance of knowing the difference between race and culture. Race can be taught in a “biological variation” which results

The idea of race is real, but it is not biologically reality. Race is based on cultural perspectives that we as human beings use to identify persons around the world. “Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning” (Gannon) Meaning that there is nothing biologically real about race. And that it is strictly culturally developed.

The term “race” has been defined differently throughout history. Race has been not only defined as skin color but also defined as social class, national origin, religion, and language have all been used in history to separate different groups in society. Leibniz in the 17th century defined race religiously, dividing groups in two groups Christian v. Non-Christian. It wasn’t until 1735 when Linnaeus distinguished groups by skin color and geographic origin. He had four separate groups: Europeaus (white), Africanus (black), Americanus (red), and Asiatic (yellow) (Uppsala Universitet,

In Sharon Begley’s article, “Three is not enough,” the author focuses her argument on the fact that race should not be defined by his or her body components, such as DNA, hair, eye, or skin color. In other words, race should be justified by their social interactions with others and build upon one’s behaviors and actions.That is to say, one’s skin color, physical appearance do not define who he or she is, nor does it impose a stereo type of that a certain group of people. The word race is often misunderstood, many believe that race is used to label one group of people, and make assumptions about a certain group of people. However, this is wrong according to Sharon Begley, author of “ Three Is Not Enough”. Begley cites a study done by biologist

The question that seems to be an ongoing topic of discussions is whether or not biological differences has any scientific validity when relating to race. The concept of race was established over the years based on physical features and variations of skin tone. These variations stem from environmental conditions causing slight variations in our genome. The essence of Homo sapiens is the same with slight variations in the DNA strands know as alleles. These variations are what cause physical differences that make up what we have defined over the years classified as different races. The variations have not evolved enough to prevent reproduction amongst the races.

However there is no discernible difference in genotype between perceived ‘races’, as the variation observed in the morphologies and cultural patterns of geographically distinct groups are physical markers that are interpreted through social practice.1 Renowned geneticists, Francis Collins and Craig Venter after initially mapping the human genome, announced in June 2000 that 99.9% of humans are genetically identical despite perceived race.2 Subsequently, evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, then further substantiated that within that 0.1% of difference, 85% of phenotypical variation was prominent inside geographically distinct groups, while only 15% occurs between them.3 It has been proposed by academics such as Naomi Zack, that to continue to refer to race as a purely biological notion is detrimental to social understanding as it reinforces a false notion.4 Although observable difference between groups does exist as variation caused by the evolutionary process of random drift and adaption5, these differences are phenotypical and only become salient to racial philosophy when interpreted socially. DeSalle and Tattersall explain that variation is driven by environmental influence on genotype, highlighting that insights into cultural practice are more productive in discussions about difference. A case study provided by DeSalle and Tattersall uses the example of lactose intolerance, explaining that, “Among norther European populations, only about 1 to 15 percent

Race is not all biologically real. According to Fuentes, race cannot be categorized as black, Asian or white because there are morphological and physiological variations (Fuentes 2012:74). Humans are all one race, whether they are different in skin color, body shape and size. Many religious beliefs support the idea of everyone being equal, regardless of the previous differentiations mention above, but science has devoted to the study of where humanity has originated and has expanded the idea of the word 'race'. Scientifically, humanity rose from the first ancient apes that best fit the characterizations of today's humans. Whether this is true or not, it is indeed very convincing that perhaps our first ancestors could have spread to different

The English term ‘race’ is believed to originate from the Spanish word raza, which means ‘breed’ or ‘stock’ (Race). People use race to define other groups, this separation of groups is based largely on physical features. Features like skin color and hair don’t affect the fundamental biology of human variation (Hotz). Race is truly only skin deep, there are no true biological separations between two ‘racial’ groups. Scientifically speaking, there is more variation between single local groups than there is between two large, global groups; the human variation is constantly altering (Lewontin). The majority of today’s anthropologists agree that race is a form of social categorization, not the separation of groups based on biological

The study of humankind can be exhilarating. Regarding where humans come from, physical traits of a human, and the human behavior are all the discoveries anthropologist are ready to take. For many centuries populations were classified by which ruler they were under or where they lived at. However as we know today there are many different ethnicity’s in New York City alone, we could not know more about each individual one if they were just categorized as “New Yorkers.”As for anthropologist in the early nineteenth century due to the many different varieties of people four “major groups” were formed based on populations with the most distinct physical traits, “Blacks”, “Whites”, “Caucasoids”, and “Mongoloids.” However categorizing these four mass populations under the term “major” may suggest there four groups are of greatly quality than others; so they were renamed “extended

Anthropologists don’t use race to explain human variation because “race” is a social construct  there is no race there is just the human race nationalities, languages and cultures is all the makes us different from each other according to the book and lecture the race concept first came to be in  the fourteenth century. Race was invented during the explanation during the exploration of the world, As Europeans explored the western hemisphere they noticed the new people they observed had different skin pigmentation.

Race is a social construct that was created by the Europeans in order to minoritize different racial groups. In the reading by Bonilla-Silva, he defines race to be manmade, “This means that notions of racial difference are human creations rather than eternal, essential categories… racial categories have a history and are subject to change.” For example in a lecture by Dr. Aguilar-Hernandez, he stated that the Irish, Italians and Jews were called black before but are now considered white, Mexican-Americans were also considered white up until the 1980s. These ideas lead to the racialization of racial groups.

The idea of race has been disproved due to lack of genetic variation within humans. There are not genetically distinguishable differences between humans, contradicting the idea there are subspecies as suggested by Carl Linnaeus’ theory of racial taxonomy (later taken up by Blumenbach in 1779 and expanded upon to categorise five races instead of four). Subspecies within the human race would require much greater genetic variation between ‘races’, whereas it has been determined that there is more genetic variation within a group of people than between groups of people. This can be attributed to the amount of time homo sapiens have

Race biology is not real, it was something created from faults in society. Though humans have evolved minor genetic variations from group to group that is mostly due adaptations to deal with diseases, such as which allowed people to sickle cell anemia to survive malaria (Fuentes 2012:93). Race is what we perceive is as a result of populations having high amounts of variations between each other. Those variations are divided up amongst the population’s individuals. These variations are more pronounced in an area due to geographical barriers that prevent gene flow. However, in the end thanks to things like the human genome project we know that humans no matter the ancestry have very similar genetic make