[Joosh (OP)]

Hi, i was wondering if anyone cud tell me why different characteristics and what theyre for e.g why do black people hav wide noses why do whites hav thin noses and why are asians small, also why do the chinese hav slanty eyes? If anyone cud tell me why these traits are necessery id be throughrly grateful. Thanks. Also if asians hav smaller nostrils dus that mean they cant smell aswell as whites and blacks?

[another_someone]

Firstly, it is wrong to say that black people have wide noses.  There is enormous diversity in black people, probably far more just amongst that group than the rest of the world put together.  Some black people have wide nises, but by no means all.

Also, to say that Chinese have slated eyes is a caricature - they do have slightly different shape eyes (not the eye ball itself, just the appearance), but they are not slanted (in fact the differences are not so great as sometimes made out, and certainly not as great as the caricatures would have us believe).

There are lots of things about the shape of human beings that are totally arbitrary (like, in Europeans, the colour of eyes and colour of hair - in no other race other than those of European descent is the colour of hair and eyes anything but dark brown or black).

There may possibly be an element of sexual selection involved in body shape and colour (e.g. if women the women of a particular tribe think that having a wide noise is sexy, then they will marry men with wide noses, and then they will have more children with wide noses; while if women in another tribe think that having a narrow nose is sexy, then they will marry men with narrow noses, and there will be more children with narrow noses).  There is an element of 'us' and 'them', so that if you belong to a tribe with certain physical characteristics, then people with very different physical characteristics may seem alien to you, and so you will try and have children that look right for your tribe, rather than children that look out of place.

[paul.fr]

why do black people hav wide noses why do
...

on the whole, white europeans come from a colder climate than those of a darker skin. A smaller nose helps to warm the air you breath in, and thus gives warmer air to the lungs.

[lyner]

Evolution, dear boy, evolution.

[another_someone]

why do black people hav wide noses why do
...

on the whole, white europeans come from a colder climate than those of a darker skin. A smaller nose helps to warm the air you breath in, and thus gives warmer air to the lungs.

Does a small nose (nostrils, since the nose size itself is another matter) equate to a narrow nose?

In any event, this really is only going to be an issue in very cold climes.  Cannot see this would matter much for Mediterranean peoples, much less for Semitic peoples.

[lyner]

There are many possible explanations for racial physiological differences - often connected with  environment.
Large nostrils probably do the same as elephants' ears - act as good heat exchangers in hot, dry conditions, as air wafts past them.  This may not be a particular advantage where humidity is high so not all races at the same latitude would be the same.
Long limbs probably achieve the same sort of thing - 'northern' races are, as a rule, more stocky, which reduces surface area for a given mass and, consequently, heat loss.
Narrow eyes could be useful in high, cold, winds.
Black pigment is clearly a protection against UV.
Diet is often responsible for size. Since 'the war', kids have eaten more  protein and now they're all ten foot tall. Under nourished sections of society tend to be shorter than their more wealthy 'ruling classes'.
These days, technology tends to remove many of the advantages which accounted for  characteristics acquired many thousands of years ago through darwinian evolution.
Modern medicine is really upsetting the survival of the fittest system.  It is, potentially, producing a time bomb whereby a lot of very un-advantageous characteristics are multiplying. Your average human being is  becoming less and less robust and more reliant on technology to keep healthy.

Quite a scary thought.

[another_someone]

Large nostrils probably do the same as elephants' ears - act as good heat exchangers in hot, dry conditions, as air wafts past them.  This may not be a particular advantage where humidity is high so not all races at the same latitude would be the same.

But this would arguably be more relevant for desert dwellers (such as Berbers or Semites) and less so for fores dwellers - so it does not adequately answer the question.

Long limbs probably achieve the same sort of thing - 'northern' races are, as a rule, more stocky, which reduces surface area for a given mass and, consequently, heat loss.
Narrow eyes could be useful in high, cold, winds.

Certainly true insofar as the stocky build of Lapps and Eskimos, but does not explain the physique of the Scandinavian people, or why they should be more slender and taller than Mediterranean people's.

Another factor to bear in mind is that if you live in a heavily forested area, then having a small body allows you to more easily negotiate the undergrowth, as well as better to hide in the forest.  If you live in open ground, then having long legs will allow you to cover ground more quickly.

Black pigment is clearly a protection against UV.

This is without question.

Diet is often responsible for size. Since 'the war', kids have eaten more  protein and now they're all ten foot tall. Under nourished sections of society tend to be shorter than their more wealthy 'ruling classes'.

I recently heard a comment that within Britain, throughout history, the wealthier members of society tended to be about 2 inches taller than the less wealthy.  This has remained, from what I heard, fairly consistent over time (this is not to deny that both groups have grown, only that the difference remains).

It is conceivable that some of that difference is stress related rather than food related (i.e. that if you eat more, if you have more stress, then more of that goes around your middle, and if you have less stress, more of that goes into building height).

Modern medicine is really upsetting the survival of the fittest system.  It is, potentially, producing a time bomb whereby a lot of very un-advantageous characteristics are multiplying. Your average human being is  becoming less and less robust and more reliant on technology to keep healthy.

Quite a scary thought.

I don't agree with this, and I think it is misunderstanding how evolution is still effecting us.

What modern medicine is doing is making us less able to survive as individuals, but at the same time it creates greater dependency on the society, and so strengthens the social structures (i.e. if you can't live in the world without doctors, and all the protection that a sophisticated society brings; then if follows that you are less likely to break away from that society).  It basically makes humans more like social ants or bees, animals that cannot survive for any length of time away from their colony.

In a way, I would say that this process probably began in the stone age (and potentially could be why modern man, the physically weaker animal, managed to triumph over Neanderthal man).

Crossing threads with the The evolution of toolmaking, if one looks at the relative toolmaking capabilities of social insects to other insects, you can see that insects, that are inherently fairly dumb animals, yet when they combine their talents into large colonies, can leverage even that minimal intelligence to create quite sophisticated structures (e.g. bee hives).

If one then looks at the far superior intelligence of mammals and birds, many of which can already build shelters comparable to a bee hive without any substantive co-operative effort.  But then, if you look at modern humans, bringing with them the intelligence of a slightly above average mammal, combined with the leverage of a large social colony, can create structures that are as sophisticated in relation to what the average mammal can do as that created by a social insect is to a non-social insect.

Thus, in evolutionary terms, the strengthening of social structures is far more important to us, and always has been, than the ability of one individual to survive alone in the world has ever been.

While, as you have pointed out, modern society has made us less fit to live as individuals in the world, and as I have answered, yes but that is an advantage to society; on the other hand, social misfits, who do present a liability to society, however good their individual survival capabilities might be, are generally disadvantaged by society, and will on the whole find it more difficult to find mates within society.

[Joosh (OP)]

So does that mean that as im dependble on our society, medicines and so on i woudlnt neccerserly be able to hack it in the rainforests of lets say, borneo or any other? Also if Caucasoids can live succesfully in Africa. As we are doing now and Negroids can survivor in Europe. What was the point in Evolution of the species?

[another_someone]

So does that mean that as im dependble on our society, medicines and so on i woudlnt neccerserly be able to hack it in the rainforests of lets say, borneo or any other?

There are two parts to this.

Firstly, we are on a progressive scale (things never stay the same), and although we are substantially dependent upon society, we can survive, at least for some time, away from society.

But the really key point is not whether you can survive in the rainforest, but whether you can survive on your own in a rainforest (from a physiological perspective, from a physiological perspective, and from a skills perspective).

Although, with the right training, young many people can be taught to survive in the rainforest on their own, it is clear that we are at a serious disadvantage in that environment, and as a species, we would not survive very long if we all became isolated from each other.  One major disadvantage we have is that our senses (and in particular, our sense of smell, but to a lesser degree, also our hearing) is far less acute than for any other species in a similar situation.  We have replaced a lot of the brain function that would in the past have processed this sensual information with brain function that helps us undertake co-operative actions (e.g. good language skills).  Thus, even those humans who do live in the rainforest, will generally do so in communities of 30 or more individuals, rather than on their own; and those small communities are ever more succumbing to competition from the very much larger communities (numbered in millions) that most humans now live in.

Also if Caucasoids can live succesfully in Africa. As we are doing now and Negroids can survivor in Europe. What was the point in Evolution of the species?

Not sure what you mean by "What was the point in Evolution of the species?".

Most evolutionists will say there is no point in evolution, any more than there is a point in gravity, it simply is, without any explicit purpose to its being.

As you say, "Caucasoids can live succesfully in Africa" by learning to protect their skins from the sun by appropriate clothing and housing.  We don't any longer need dark skin to live under strong sunlight, but this was not always true in the past (and it is still true that we will get higher cancer rates than dark skin people in the tropics).  Much of what we are is because of where we came from (much as the general assumption the the appendix is a vestigial organ that no longer has a function, but may have had a function to our ancestors), but as time progresses, no doubt those differences will either become irrelevant, or possibly disappear altogether.

Similarly, negroids living in less sunny climes are still more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency, but this can be managed, and excess of melanin in their skin has less significant consequences than it once had, and over time will become ever less significant.

[Joosh (OP)]

By the whats the point in evolution bit i ment what was the point in blacks evolving into whites when blacks can live in the same environment anyway? My old science teacher told me that its been suggested that humans probly saw in 4D but obviously evolved becuase it was no use to them hunting (and being hunted) he tried to explain to us how  4D works but know one got it. :s Also anyone know what race inuits are?

[rhade]

I agree with sophiecentaur about the increasing weakness of the species. It is a time bomb, and very worrying.

[another_someone]

By the whats the point in evolution bit i ment what was the point in blacks evolving into whites when blacks can live in the same environment anyway?

But that is not quite true.  Traditionally, the most common source of vitamin D is sunlight (it can also be obtained from some fishes).  With the darker skins of Africans, they are less able to create enough vitamin D in higher latitudes, and so are subject to rickets, problems with immune responses (a recent find of a hominid specimen with TB that was 500,000 years old was suggested that they may have been more susceptible to TB because of reduced vitamin D, becaese they still had dark skin but in a region with less sunlight).

Also anyone know what race inuits are?

Inuits are related to other native Americans, but all native Americans came from Siberia, and so are Asiatic in origin.

How you define race is somewhat subjective, but it is probably most sensible to regard them as a race in their own right (i.e. there are physiological difference that distinguish them from other peoples).

[another_someone]

I agree with sophiecentaur about the increasing weakness of the species. It is a time bomb, and very worrying.

In my view, the two time bombs we have in the human population is increased lifespan (and so reduced adaptability, since it takes longer to create a new generation that can adapt to a new environment), and reduced internal competition within the species (i.e. that we become one global homogenised tribe, and so in the long run may have little global social and genetic variability, and thus again reducing our ability to react to environmental changes).

As I said above, I really do not believe the species is getting weaker (at least not in the sense that SophieCenteur was talking about), just far too specialised.  You are confusing the species with the individual.

We got to where we are by being highly adaptable, and highly competitive; and we are losing both of those historic traits.  We never got to where we are by being big and tough as individuals.

[lyner]

In my view, the two time bombs we have in the human population is increased lifespan (and so reduced adaptability, since it takes longer to create a new generation that can adapt to a new environment)

That's one argument but your previous argument seemed to suggest that our evolution is taking place in other ways - information , communication and technology are providing the necessary adaptation.  I am not sure whether they are 'stable' changes, though.
There is also the fact that a disease which has no immediate cure could spread disastrously via our global transport systems - that's technology giving us a disbenefit.
As far as getting weaker is concerned - physical / mechanical weakness is less and less relevant but the levels of fertility and what we refer to as genetic disorders could increase (are increasing) to a degree where the proportion of able bodied individuals  becomes a social, if not a practical problem. Even now, the age profile of the population is a cause for concern where the cost of care and pensions for older members of society is generating resentment amongst the young.
Can we rely on mechanisms evolving which can cope with this before some serious breakdown in society? Who is to supply all the income to support a growing proportion who cannot contribute effectively?
Euthanasia and wars may well be the result.
On an intellectual level and in the 'grand scheme of things' this may not matter; evolution will carry on, even if that means humans becoming extinct.  But, to us humans, it is a bit of a potential disaster. As a parent / grandparent, I cannot ignore this.

[another_someone]

In my view, the two time bombs we have in the human population is increased lifespan (and so reduced adaptability, since it takes longer to create a new generation that can adapt to a new environment)

That's one argument but your previous argument seemed to suggest that our evolution is taking place in other ways - information , communication and technology are providing the necessary adaptation.

It is, but the problem is that we are all walking down the same path, and increasingly walking in step, so while we may evolve in that direction, we will al walk into the same traps, because none of us are taking different paths.

There is also the fact that a disease which has no immediate cure could spread disastrously via our global transport systems - that's technology giving us a disbenefit.

In a sense, it is part of the same problem.

If one takes the example of the present bet noire, HIV/AIDS.  This disease is causing very severe problems in parts of Africa, with around 30% mortality in some areas.  Yet, despite all the panic in the West, the level of HIV/AIDS in the West, while not something to be complacent with, is certainly not at a comparable level.  There is room to speculate as to whether there was greater social immunity to the disease (a by-product of past problems with syphilis in Europe), or whether there is greater biological immunity in the West (some have speculated that this might be because of our past exposure to diseases such and the bubonic plague).  We still have enough social and biological diversity within the species that we can yet prevent diseases from effecting all groups equally; but with greater homogenisation (both social and biological), such diversity would no longer provide a bulwark against future disease.

As far as getting weaker is concerned - physical / mechanical weakness is less and less relevant but the levels of fertility and what we refer to as genetic disorders could increase (are increasing) to a degree where the proportion of able bodied individuals  becomes a social, if not a practical problem. Even now, the age profile of the population is a cause for concern where the cost of care and pensions for older members of society is generating resentment amongst the young.

Agreed, but what is not clear is how much of this is a biological problem, and how much a social one (probably some of both).

Another factor to bear in mind is that although there is a short term problem, it is most acute amongst Caucasian populations, and is far less prevalent amongst immigrant populations from outside of Europe.  If this is purely a social problem, then the incoming populations should quickly succumb to the same problem, but if it is a biological problem, then it is likely that they will have some longer term immunity to the problem.

On the other hand, if it is a social problem, it may also be reversed fairly quickly.

Nonetheless, even if the situation is reversed, that is not to say there are not serious short term problems, as the present situation still has to work through the system before the new generation start making a difference.

The other factor is to what degree will mechanisation make the shortfall in labour irrelevant.  It would still present transitional problems, but the problems then are only transitional rather than long term.  On the other hand, if mechanisation does make the shortfall irrelevant, then it will be part of a long term process, and human populations will continue to fall, and continue to be replaced by more machines.

Can we rely on mechanisms evolving which can cope with this before some serious breakdown in society? Who is to supply all the income to support a growing proportion who cannot contribute effectively?

Is a breakdown in society necessarily a bad thing?  Ofcourse, from a personal perspective, for ourselves and those who have to live through it, such a breakdown would be extremely unpleasant to live through, but in the long run, would it not better ensure that society continues to evolve?

Euthanasia and wars may well be the result.

I have heard others speculate that the gender inequalities caused by the female fetucide that is practised in India and China might also trigger war.

On an intellectual level and in the 'grand scheme of things' this may not matter; evolution will carry on, even if that means humans becoming extinct.  But, to us humans, it is a bit of a potential disaster. As a parent / grandparent, I cannot ignore this.

I don't even think it will be bad to the human species, although it will ofcourse be a disaster for those societies who have the greatest vested interest in the status quo - those societies being Europe, the USA, and other countries that share the same culture.

[paul.fr]

If one takes the example of the present bet noire, HIV/AIDS.  This disease is causing very severe problems in parts of Africa, with around 30% mortality in some areas.  Yet, despite all the panic in the West, the level of HIV/AIDS in the West, while not something to be complacent with, is certainly not at a comparable level.  There is room to speculate as to whether there was greater social immunity to the disease (a by-product of past problems with syphilis in Europe), or whether there is greater biological immunity in the West (some have speculated that this might be because of our past exposure to diseases such and the bubonic plague).  We still have enough social and biological diversity within the species that we can yet prevent diseases from effecting all groups equally; but with greater homogenisation (both social and biological), such diversity would no longer provide a bulwark against future disease.

would not the main problem in south Africa be a social and education one? rape and suppression of women, tribal doctrine, superstition and the fact that a one time "hero" publicly stated that sex with virgins is a cure for aids. men with aids having multiple partners....and so on.

This does not happen (to such an extent) in the west.

[another_someone]

would not the main problem in south Africa be a social and education one? rape and suppression of women, tribal doctrine, superstition and the fact that a one time "hero" publicly stated that sex with virgins is a cure for aids. men with aids having multiple partners....and so on.

This does not happen (to such an extent) in the west.

Certainly, in South Africa itself, rape and murder levels are high, but whether high enough to account for the level of AIDS - I rather doubt it.  Furthermore, if men only had sex with virgins, then where did the men get the disease from?

But that aside, I did not try and pin down a particular cause for the difference (none that has been suggested has ever been more than speculative), but reasons like the above were what I classed as the social immunity of Europeans (i.e. the European social behaviour probably changed in the aftermath of the arrival of syphilis, and this change in social behaviour made us more resistant to HIV/AIDS).

[paul.fr]

Certainly, in South Africa itself, rape and murder levels are high, but whether high enough to account for the level of AIDS - I rather doubt it.  Furthermore, if men only had sex with virgins, then where did the men get the disease from?

I never said rape was the main factor, and i never even mentioned murder! what i did say is that there are many factors why south Africa has the problem that it has.

The men having sex with virgins already have HIV/aids, which is why i said "...publicly stated that sex with virgins is a cure for aids"...note: cure, not prevention.
The virgins in question are not just teens or older girls, many times they are babies! So they are inflicting HIV/aids on all age groups, this is the problem.

But that aside, I did not try and pin down a particular cause for the difference (none that has been suggested has ever been more than speculative), but reasons like the above were what I classed as the social immunity of Europeans (i.e. the European social behaviour probably changed in the aftermath of the arrival of syphilis, and this change in social behaviour made us more resistant to HIV/AIDS).

The differences are vast, and i doubt they are down to us being more resistant due to social immunity.

here are a few differences between the south Africans, and western gov. culture and health care:

The lack of antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women who are HIV positive

president mbeki refuses to state that HIV causes aids, with statements such as "Does HIV Cause AIDS? Can a virus cause a syndrome? How? It can't, because a syndrome is a group of diseases resulting from acquired immune deficiency. Indeed, HIV contributes, but other things contribute as well."

Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, the health minister, has questioned the effectiveness of ARVs, and urges people to eat lots of beetroot and garlic to fight off HIV.

Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has also voiced support for the Dr Rath Health Foundation, an organisation that promotes vitamin supplements as a substitute for ARVs. The foundation has previously published adverts in South Africa claiming that ARVs are toxic and cause AIDS.

One reason for the support that alternative HIV treatments have gained in South Africa is the popularity of traditional medicines. Around 80% of people living in African countries consult traditional African healers and use traditional African remedies, even if they use conventional medicines as well. Some of these traditional methods of treatment are potentially harmful to people living with HIV; for instance, some people (such as the health minister) claim that African potato boosts the immune system and thereby helps to fight off AIDS, yet a recent study shows that people taking antiretroviral drugs should not eat African potato, because it lowers the level of antiretroviral chemicals in the body and increases the likelihood of HIV developing resistance to the drugs.

I hope it is clear that there are many reasons why HIV/aids is so bad in south Africa, and most of them are social, educational, tribal and superstition.

[another_someone]

I never said rape was the main factor, and i never even mentioned murder! what i did say is that there are many factors why south Africa has the problem that it has.

The men having sex with virgins already have HIV/aids, which is why i said "...publicly stated that sex with virgins is a cure for aids"...note: cure, not prevention.
The virgins in question are not just teens or older girls, many times they are babies! So they are inflicting HIV/aids on all age groups, this is the problem.

But the point I was trying to make is that these are highly newsworthy incidents, and so media reports inevitably overplay the degree to which this reflects everyday life.  Ofcourse, this is not to deny it happens, but only that because they are highly newsworthy, it may not be so much a matter of seeing the tip of the iceberg, as seeing all of the iceberg but making the false assumption that it is only the tip.

In any event, South Africa is just one country amonsgt many that are so afflicted by AIDS.

But that aside, I did not try and pin down a particular cause for the difference (none that has been suggested has ever been more than speculative), but reasons like the above were what I classed as the social immunity of Europeans (i.e. the European social behaviour probably changed in the aftermath of the arrival of syphilis, and this change in social behaviour made us more resistant to HIV/AIDS).

The differences are vast, and i doubt they are down to us being more resistant due to social immunity.

here are a few differences between the south Africans, and western gov. culture and health care:

The lack of antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women who are HIV positive

president mbeki refuses to state that HIV causes aids, with statements such as "Does HIV Cause AIDS? Can a virus cause a syndrome? How? It can't, because a syndrome is a group of diseases resulting from acquired immune deficiency. Indeed, HIV contributes, but other things contribute as well."

Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, the health minister, has questioned the effectiveness of ARVs, and urges people to eat lots of beetroot and garlic to fight off HIV.

Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has also voiced support for the Dr Rath Health Foundation, an organisation that promotes vitamin supplements as a substitute for ARVs. The foundation has previously published adverts in South Africa claiming that ARVs are toxic and cause AIDS.

One reason for the support that alternative HIV treatments have gained in South Africa is the popularity of traditional medicines. Around 80% of people living in African countries consult traditional African healers and use traditional African remedies, even if they use conventional medicines as well. Some of these traditional methods of treatment are potentially harmful to people living with HIV; for instance, some people (such as the health minister) claim that African potato boosts the immune system and thereby helps to fight off AIDS, yet a recent study shows that people taking antiretroviral drugs should not eat African potato, because it lowers the level of antiretroviral chemicals in the body and increases the likelihood of HIV developing resistance to the drugs.

I hope it is clear that there are many reasons why HIV/aids is so bad in south Africa, and most of them are social, educational, tribal and superstition.

I think you have totally misunderstood what I meant by 'social immunity'.

You have yourself suggested that most of the reasons why the differences exist may be 'social' (I would class education and tribal superstition as social also) - but that is exactly what I do mean by 'social immunity' - that we have adapted our social behaviour to make it less favourable for the virus.  We may dispute details about what aspects of social immunity are the more significant, but nothing in what you have said seems to be outside what I would class as social immunity.

Ofcourse, there is one scenario that could possibly be having an effect that would be outside the scope of social or biological immunity, and that is the overall load on the immune system - that because there are higher levels of overall disease in Africa, that this places a continuous load on the immune system, that makes the immune system more vulnerable to attack by HIV.  A related matter may be that increased levels of disease may lead to increased lesions in the skin, and so more points of entry for the virus.  In both cases, there has been some evidence in Europe that HIV is closely associated with other STDs, and although some of this is inevitably merely epidemiological coincidence, it is also very possible that people who are already infected by another STD may be more vulnerable to infection by HIV.

[paul.fr]

...media reports inevitably overplay the degree to which this reflects everyday life.

overplay! There were 21,000 child rapes reported in south africa in 2001 ( i can't find updated figures). That's reported rapes, how many went unreported? Overplay! I think not.