Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is the most accepted classification of the different races?

  1. Dec 31, 2007 #1
    This question may be best posted here.

    What is the most accepted classification of the different races of the entire world?

    I am after the classification according to physical features only.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 31, 2007 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Accepted" how and by whom? Ie, you are correct to post this in social sciences, since race is not a biologically sound concept.
  4. Dec 31, 2007 #3
    I think there is 1 class. Human.
  5. Dec 31, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know but I think there are three:

    Indo-European (Middle Eastern is also included in this group)

    I am not sure if Polynesian is considered separate or if it's part of Asian. If separate, it split a long time ago.
  6. Dec 31, 2007 #5
    I was after the classification accepted by the majority of scientists like biologists who are pro race classificationists, if there is such a classification.
  7. Dec 31, 2007 #6
    I just can't help but notice that people from one particular area (country) look much different to another. However they look alike amongst themselves hence a need for race classification.
  8. Dec 31, 2007 #7
    What does the indo stand for?
  9. Jan 1, 2008 #8
    "Race" is not a biological or scientific term, because there is no objective biological criteria for distinguishing between these so called races. Species can be objectively defined (at least at any given time) as reproductively isolated communities.

    Looks can be deceiving. Most variation is within communities, not between.

    RACE - The Power of an Illusion
  10. Jan 1, 2008 #9
    - Yellow labradors and black labradors also look different, but they're still the same race.

    Like Moridin pointed out, there really isn't a rigid, consistent, systematic way to divide between races - so at least to me, especially in such a hot topic as this is, the question becomes "what's the use?" - to which the answer seems to me to be something like "not much - in fact it might be kind of dangerous, seeing the way many people see science and scientific categories"

    But honestly, I don't know more about biology than the average person.

    - Not really - for example; there are cases where A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, but A can't reproduce with C. What then?
  11. Jan 1, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Eastern Indians and Europeans are part of the same race.
  12. Jan 1, 2008 #11

    The indians originally in America? They look more like Asians?
  13. Jan 1, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No! Eastern indian! India, Pakistan. etc. They are the same race as Europeans.

    And yes, native N. Americans are originally Asian (or is it Polynesian?).
  14. Jan 2, 2008 #13
    Your information about human migration patterns seems very middle school like!!!!!!! I hope you guys don't teach Biology or for that matter, Anthropology . These comments are "Watson" like from "Watson & Crick" fame. Shame on you Anglos!!!
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2008
  15. Jan 2, 2008 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Care to elaborate? I don't recall anyone talking about migration.
  16. Jan 3, 2008 #15
    RIght, that makes much more sense. I did suspect they were very close to Europeans. In fact for me, Eastern Indians seems to be the best resemblance of the whole population of the earth for they have characteristics from all three major races, Asians, Europeans and Africans.
  17. Jan 18, 2008 #16
    How about more of a distinction:

    Europeans (i.e whites)
    East Asians
    Middle East / West Asia (Indo-Europeans)
    Native Americans
  18. Jan 18, 2008 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Because we can trace East Indians and Europeans back to a common ancestry and we can trace native NA'cans back to either Asian or Oceanian ancestry (I forget which).

    By definition then, they're the same race.

    It is less clear if the four primaries have common ancestry. Many argue that modern man was born simultaneously in these places.
  19. Jan 19, 2008 #18
    Why do you put Middle East and Europe together? For one, Afro-Asiatic languages are not Indo-European it that's what you meant.
    I also do not agree on a biological classifcation of race since there are clines as you radially move away from a certain spot.
  20. Jan 19, 2008 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Race is not about language.
  21. Jan 19, 2008 #20
    You said you can trace Indians and Europeans to a common ancestry, but how did you do that? Or rather, how did researchers do that? With langauge.
    If one wants to divide the world into arbitrary racial classifications using language they must be consistent.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook