Debate Do human races exist, or ever existed in the past?

[Tomenable]

When I run Classical Clustering of populations from my Basic World K10 Global25 calculator using PAST5 software:

Basic World K10 by Tomenable (Piotr Kapuscinski) - ExploreYourDNA Calculator

En mode Scaled

www.exploreyourdna.com

Past 5 - the Past of the Future - Natural History Museum

Past is free software for scientific data analysis, with functions for data manipulation, plotting, univariate and multivariate statistics, ecological analysis, time series and spatial analysis, morphometrics and stratigraphy.

www.nhm.uio.no

I can't help but notice that all of the major clusters which emerged correspond quite well to old racial classifications:

IMAGE

At first, not surprisingly, the algorithm divided populations into Africans and all Non-Africans.

1. Secondly Africans were divided into South Africans and all other Africans.

2. Thirdly all other Africans were divided into Central Africans and others.

3. Then other Africans were divided into West Africans and North-East Africans.

In old racial classifications, these divisions correspond to Capoids (South Africans), Bambutids (Central Africans) and Negroids (West Africans and apparently also North-East Africans, but only these without much of West Eurasian admixture, such as the modern Dinka or ancient East African foragers from Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia).

=====

Non-Africans were divided by the clustering algorithm initially into two groups:

1. Sahulians (inhabitants of the old continent of Sahul) and all other Non-Africans.

2. Then other Non-Africans were divided into West Eurasians and all other Eurasians.

3. Then all other Eurasians were divided into East and South Eurasians and Native Americans.

4. Then the former group was divided into East Eurasians (or East Asians) and South Eurasians.

In old racial classifications, these divisions correspond to Australoids (Sahulians), Caucasoids (West Eurasians), Veddoids & Negritoids (South Eurasians), Mongoloids (East Eurasians) and Amerinds (Amerindians, who descended from Beringians). Veddoids refers to these South Asians who don't have much of West Eurasian admixture.

=====

Map of original distribution of each cluster:

=====

What do you think about this? Are there any publications which seriously deal with this subject?

 

[Vitruvius]

When I run Classical Clustering of populations from my Basic World K10 Global25 calculator using PAST5 software:

Basic World K10 by Tomenable (Piotr Kapuscinski) - ExploreYourDNA Calculator

En mode Scaled

www.exploreyourdna.com

Past 5 - the Past of the Future - Natural History Museum

Past is free software for scientific data analysis, with functions for data manipulation, plotting, univariate and multivariate statistics, ecological analysis, time series and spatial analysis, morphometrics and stratigraphy.

www.nhm.uio.no

I can't help but notice that all of the major clusters which emerged correspond quite well to old racial classifications:

IMAGE

At first, not surprisingly, the algorithm divided populations into Africans and all Non-Africans.

1. Secondly Africans were divided into South Africans and all other Africans.

2. Thirdly all other Africans were divided into Central Africans and others.

3. Then other Africans were divided into West Africans and North-East Africans.

In old racial classifications, these divisions correspond to Capoids (South Africans), Bambutids (Central Africans) and Negroids (West Africans and apparently also North-East Africans, but only these without much of West Eurasian admixture, such as the modern Dinka or ancient East African foragers from Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia).

=====

Non-Africans were divided by the clustering algorithm initially into two groups:

1. Sahulians (inhabitants of the old continent of Sahul) and all other Non-Africans.

2. Then other Non-Africans were divided into West Eurasians and all other Eurasians.

3. Then all other Eurasians were divided into East and South Eurasians and Native Americans.

4. Then the former group was divided into East Eurasians (or East Asians) and South Eurasians.

In old racial classifications, these divisions correspond to Australoids (Sahulians), Caucasoids (West Eurasians), Veddoids & Negritoids (South Eurasians), Mongoloids (East Eurasians) and Amerinds (Amerindians, who descended from Beringians). Veddoids refers to these South Asians who don't have much of West Eurasian admixture.

=====

Map of original distribution of each cluster:

=====

What do you think about this? Are there any publications which seriously deal with this subject?

It's a taboo subject in much of the western world but the truth is as you've said; the old racial classifications were roughly correct in seperating europeans, africans, east asians, native americans and middle eastern populations. Academia attempts to often times create a divide between the present study of geneaology and old world racial classifications, but it in reality confirms much of what was already assumed through observation of phenotype.

 

[traveller]

Such clear clustering that matches with phenotypes kind of reinforces that the main difference between humans is based on how we look

What we have seen very clearly through genetics, though, is that most groups blend into each other. Same with any type of clustering - it focuses on any difference that can be found, but doesn’t necessarily quantify, how big the difference is.

 

[Tomenable]

I calculated more or less how numerous each group from my clustering graph (in the first post of this thread) is today.

1. East Eurasians:

About 1719 millions NE Asians + ca. 680 millions SE Asians (who are somewhat mixed with the Hoabinhian component).

2. West Eurasians:

About 1756 millions people (including North Africans), this includes ca. 1118 millions Europeans and their descendants.

3. West & NEast Africans:

About 1109.5 millions + around 200 millions mixed with Eurasian component Horn of Africa populations and Mulattos.

4. South Eurasians:

Around 123 millions Adivasi in India (who are still overwhelmingly AASI) and an estimated 2 million Negritos in SE Asia.

To this we can add ca. 1739 millions other (Non-Adivasi) South Asians, who however are mixed with West Eurasian DNA.

5. Amerindians:

Around 81.5 millions + ca. 417 millions mixed-race Mestizos, Pardos and Zambos (Zambos number only over 600,000).

6. Sahulians:

Around 17 millions pure Melanesians + ca. 5.5 millions mixed-race Oceanians with some Melanesian ancestry component.

7. Central Africans:

There are only around 1 million Central African Pygmies left - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4711706/

Of course various Bantu groups have some degree of Central African admixture, but are overwhelmingly West African.

8. South Africans:

Around 0.5 million of pure Khoisan peoples remain, and there are ca. 5.5 million mixed-race Coloureds in South Africa.

And also some of the Southern African Bantu groups such as the Xhosa have various degrees of Khoisan admixture.

9. Other mixed groups:

Mixed Central Asians - ca. 179 millions
Blasians (Madagascar etc.) - ca. 32 millions
Multiracials and others - ca. 16 millions

Total population of the world at the time of this calculation: 8083.5 millions

 

[Tomenable]

By the way the notion of race never was based on the premise of a purity without any mixing.

For example John R. Baker in his 1974 book "Race", in chapter "The meaning of race", wrote:

"(...) The reader is aware that in following a widely distributed animal over its range, one often notices alterations in its appearance. The changes are particularly evident wherever a partial geographical barrier intervenes, such as a range of mountains, a desert, or a wide river. The populations on the two sides of the barrier are not, however, entirely distinct. Intermediates are found, and there is often direct evidence of interbreeding, though not on a sufficient scale to make the two populations indistinguishable. If the two populations are so distinct that one can generally tell from which region a specimen was obtained, it is usual to give separate names to the two races. If every specimen could be identified with certainty as belonging to one population or the other, it would be evident that no gene-flow occurred between the two, and they would therefore be regarded as different species in the genetical sense of the word, however small the differences might be. It is the fact that intermediates do occur that defines the race. (...)"

Then he added:

"(...) For practical purposes it may be found convenient to make an arbitrary decision as to the proportion of intermediates that are allowable, if different races are to be recognized. One may argue that a population ‘A’ is distinguishable from a population 'B’ if x% of the individuals constituting population ‘A’ can be recognized as not belonging to population ‘B'. It will be understood that the correct value to be assigned to x cannot be discovered by objective means; nevertheless, if a high figure (perhaps 75%) is agreed upon by taxonomists, one can scarcely doubt that there is a distinction worthy of recognition as subspecific or ‘racial’. Very commonly, however, the differences observed are so evident, and x is clearly so high, that no statistical investigation is necessary to convince other taxonomists that races should be distinguished. (...)"

 

[Pax Augusta]

By the way the notion of race never was based on the premise of a purity without any mixing.

For example John R. Baker in his 1974 book "Race", in chapter "The meaning of race", wrote:

"(...) The reader is aware that in following a widely distributed animal over its range, one often notices alterations in its appearance. The changes are particularly evident wherever a partial geographical barrier intervenes, such as a range of mountains, a desert, or a wide river. The populations on the two sides of the barrier are not, however, entirely distinct. Intermediates are found, and there is often direct evidence of interbreeding, though not on a sufficient scale to make the two populations indistinguishable. If the two populations are so distinct that one can generally tell from which region a specimen was obtained, it is usual to give separate names to the two races. If every specimen could be identified with certainty as belonging to one population or the other, it would be evident that no gene-flow occurred between the two, and they would therefore be regarded as different species in the genetical sense of the word, however small the differences might be. It is the fact that intermediates do occur that defines the race. (...)"

Then he added:

"(...) For practical purposes it may be found convenient to make an arbitrary decision as to the proportion of intermediates that are allowable, if different races are to be recognized. One may argue that a population ‘A’ is distinguishable from a population 'B’ if x% of the individuals constituting population ‘A’ can be recognized as not belonging to population ‘B'. It will be understood that the correct value to be assigned to x cannot be discovered by objective means; nevertheless, if a high figure (perhaps 75%) is agreed upon by taxonomists, one can scarcely doubt that there is a distinction worthy of recognition as subspecific or ‘racial’. Very commonly, however, the differences observed are so evident, and x is clearly so high, that no statistical investigation is necessary to convince other taxonomists that races should be distinguished. (...)"

It depends on the cultural context, as the concept of race is fundamentally a social and cultural construct rather than a rigid biological one. In the United States, the term "race" is far more prevalent in everyday discourse, woven into everything from census categories and policy debates to media discussions on inequality and identity, owing to the country's deep-seated history of slavery, segregation, and civil rights movements. By contrast, in much of Europe, the word carries heavier baggage from associations with eugenics and Nazi ideology, leading to greater caution in its use; many European countries opt instead for terms such as "ethnicity," "origin," or "migration background" in official and public contexts to sidestep those toxic connotations.

 

[Power]

only europeans and near easterners are fully and almost fully / predomintantly west eurasian

 

[—BoNe—]

Ethnicity: set of Y haplogroup + mt.

Race: set of Y haplogroup + mt (+ language, + ethical/political/religious cult, + geographic location)


The concept of race that circulates most in popular knowledge is the Anglo-Saxon one, the inventors of scientific racism.

Because of them, the rest of the planet has to morally pay for Masonic/Protestant exterminations and slavery.

Ethnicity is “genotypic.”

Race is “phenotypic,” you have to make an effort to match what’s already established, what’s already been functioning for years.

Ethnicity is a right, race is an obligation.

Practicing a cult in the long run modifies ethnicity, and in genetics, the order of factors does alter the result.

We need to get up to speed on epigenetic concepts and know how to find their equivalents in our culture; in 2025, if you stop any person on the street, they have no remote idea of how evolution works.

Facts are still being defamed, like that a certain % of our DNA is “junk” when shortly after it was proven that it’s directly related to epigenetic mechanisms; they are reserves that help allelic modification under x factors.

What doesn’t exist are different neurological conditions between different races; culture is the only factor that alters that data.

Thinking with Roman mathematics will never make you superior to someone who thinks under Einstein’s relativity.

Muslims will never exceed 80 IQ if they don’t stop worshiping a schizophrenic pedophile; that’s absolutism. Xenophobia has nothing wrong with it if it’s to reject clitoris ablations.

Each letter of the Y haplogroup has between 50,000-10,000 BC more endogamy than a dog that’s the son of its grandmother; of course races exist.

We are the mammalian species that has mutated the most in the entire history of the universe in the least amount of time, because our conscious understanding of reproduction could date back to 5 million years; even between Denisovans, Neanderthals, and sapiens, there wouldn’t be genetic differences as people think, unlike between a bulldog and a chihuahua.

People often bring up the comparison with dog breeds in these topics, but we weren’t formed 150 years ago with practices that involved 25-50% consanguinity.

We have 200,000 years of consanguinity; we’re on another level.

What we learned to do with domestication causes evolutionary leaps that through natural genetic drift would take hundreds of millions of years (stop and think how long it would take a wolf to become a chihuahua through natural genetic drift).

All human races, so to speak, would be within what would be a German Shepherd and a Belgian Shepherd.

Races can be formed by soft cults over long periods or in 2, 3 generations with extreme endogamy; altering evolution isn’t just about time, but about understanding the mechanisms to do it.

Not a single animal on the planet could have been domesticated if those concepts weren’t already well understood generations before what people estimate; the domestication of the horse took us from 6000 BC to the Iron Age.

That’s obligatorily 6000 years of strict cult practicing specific breeding and selection methods that were passed from fathers to sons uninterruptedly.

The real problem in the topic of races is with the current woke progressive supremacism, which in practice is even worse than Nazism.

Of course races exist and all are wonderful.

What is inferior or superior are cultures.

Truth is universal, mathematics are the same for everyone; the absurdity we’re reaching with tolerance toward backward cultures imposed by elites alien to that same reality (since they live in luxury urbanizations without immigrants) is psychiatric.

 

[Miguel]

Are Mongoloids mixed with Negrito?

Because they cluster together more closely than Mongoloids with Amerindians.

It isn't something of the rice agriculturalist conquest of Southeast Asia by the dates.