Why would two races differ *exclusively* in their looks and not the genes that determine other traits?

Question

Seriously, do you not logically understand why that is ridiculous? Why does everyone just kind of say "provide a study" bla bla bla. Again, WHY WOULD RACES BE THE SAME? We evolved in different environments and different conditions, and therefore different traits were important for different groups which they evolved over time. Just like the shape of the face and skin color are evolutionary traits that evolved differently depending on environment (for example black skin is more adopted to a hot climate), other features, like intelligence (yes there are various types of intelligence), strength, stamina also had different importance in different groups, depending on the lifestyle.

You can't deny that these traits evolve over time, because neanderthals were in various ways less evolved than us, and those who came before less evolved than them. If you don't know why that happens in species in general, read about the basics of evolution. Now, if we DO evolve all those traits over time, why would two groups that got separated and lived different lives, evolve the same traits with the same speed? There are numerous factors for the speed of evolution, and if you know about the basics of how it works you will see that this is impossible.

Why does everyone need a study for this? Can't think for yourself?
I hate it when people just claim something without thinking and trying to rationalize just to fit their agenda.

So please argue with me.

Answer 1

They don't. Among any race, there are a lot of genetic differences. The thing is that these differences tend to be pretty minor and superficial. As a species, humans have much less genetic diversity than a lot of other species - about 70,000 years ago, we went through a population bottleneck where only about 5,000 humans (give or take) survived. We're all descended from this surviving population, and diversity is decreased even further since most populations came from small groups that migrated out of Africa. We just haven't had enough time to accumulate significant differences, especially given that humans are amazing at migrating, and very few populations were truly isolated from one another.



Even on a purely genetic level, you have to remember that we're dealing with populations and their gene *pool*, not the genes of an individual. There's often more variation between individuals that we'd consider the same race than between individuals of different races. So while you can look at averages and general trends, they aren't usually applicable to the individual.



In other words, there's enough overlap in the "error bars" between different races that you can't draw a meaningful conclusion, or apply the statistics to an individual data point (i.e. a person). You can actually see this in medicine - there are some diseases that are more likely to show up in people of a given race, and some groups have genetic traits that make certain specific medications dangerous or ineffective. That said, knowing the patient's race doesn't determine the correct course of treatment for the individual - it just influences where to look first, and extra factors to take into account.



It doesn't make things easier that the concept of "race" is poorly-defined, and to some extent, arbitrary. There's a lot of overlap at the edges, and a lot of subdivision within races... and that's before you even take culture and social constructs into account. Long story short, it's not really accurate to say that race is purely a social construct, but it's also not a distinct thing - it's a way for us to categorize people based on a bunch of different social, geographic, and physical traits.



http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-race-exist/

Answer 2

On the question of differences between races, Charles Darwin wrote:

There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,—as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual, faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans, who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea."

Answer 3

Well of course they do. Some races are tall, some short, which gives a racial advantage to some races in basketball for instance. However even within a racial group there is considerable variation and the inter-racial variation is usually less than the intra-racial variation.



I have seen some articles about race based medicine and there could be some basis to this.



How about intelligence? Those who say there is distinct variation between races usually concludes that THEIR race is superior. I have worked with people from many races and I find no reason to think any group is more intelligent than another; nor am I aware of any scientific proof that this is so.

Answer 4

Because "looks" is how races are defined. This is like dividing the human species into groups by eye color and then saying that it's OBVIOUS that all green-eyed people MUST have an increased chance of pancreatic cancer. It's ludicrous.



The underlying assumption you're using here is that races are biologically based - that is, that all black people are more closely related to each other than they are to someone of another race. This is completely, totally, 100% false. A race is a loose conglomeration of people thrown together based solely on superficial phenotypic traits. They are NOT legitimate evolutionary groupings.

Answer 5

Different races do not differ exclusively in skin color- there are some other minor differences between the two, including higher prevalences of certain disease in some populations, different responses to a few medications (e.g. ACE inhibitors are less effective in African-Americans) and so forth.



As for intelligence, which seems to be the main focus of your question, there are a few things to clear up on that:



1- There is no evidence that different ethnic groups perform differently on standardised intelligence testing, assuming questions do not contain material only known to members of a particular culture.



2- Your claim that intelligence is "the most rapidly evolving trait" is not correct. There is again no evidence that human intelligence has changed to any significant extent in the past 20 000 years, or at all since humans evolved. For this to have been the case, human societies would need to have exhibited selection pressure based on intelligence- i.e. more intelligent people would have had to be more likely to reproduce and have children compared to less intelligent people, and this would need to have been widespread enough to significantly affect the genetic makeup of the population. There is no evidence that this has occurred; with the exception of the very intellectually impaired, people of almost any intelligence level tend to be able to marry and have children, and in the most recent years, people of higher intelligence tend to be LESS likely to reproduce (largely as more intelligent women are more likely to defer having children for careers and other goals, and to have fewer children per family).



3- I presume you are referring to "persecuted" groups (prosecuted means brought before a court). There is again, no evidence that any ethnic group has been persecuted because they have a lower intelligence level, largely because there is no evidence that any ethnic group is any more or less intelligent than any other.



I agree with you that differing intelligence across ethnic groups is an area that would be subject to legitimate scientific study, but there is no evidence that such differences exist.

Answer 6

They would almost certainly have different allele frequencies of other genes, and/or genes themselves that would be more common in one group than in another.

A classic example is sickle cell anemia. The allele for sickling is more common in some groups than in others, as a result of selection pressure from malaria.

See the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health#Single-gene_disorders