How come white people don't all look alike?

[engjs]

A third possibility presents itself from the work of Jared Diamond. The people in south east asia, from Madagascar across the top of Australia to Easter Island, mainly descend from one village off the coast of Japan who 4000 years ago developed outrigger canoes and consequently expanded and wiped out most of the original people in those areas. Similarly, the people in Africa from the equator down to the fish river mostly descend from a village somewhere near the Cameroon or north of it, who 6000 years ago developed metal farming tools and consequently expanded and wiped out most of the original people in those areas. Hence the reason asians and africans (at least those from those areas) all 'look alike' is because they are much more closely related than caucasians.

Jim

[Khadaji]

Hello engjs. It is usually considered polite to add a link (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/92/how-come-white-people-dont-all-look-alike) to the column you are referencing.

Welcome to the boards. :)

[Exapno Mapcase]

Cecil wrote:
Coon's idea was that there originally were five basic races that evolved separately, in widely differing times and places, from our homo erectus forebears--Caucasians, predictably, being the first.

Coon, I should point out, was not a crackpot, and there is a certain amount of fossil evidence to support his view.
It's possible that somebody still thought there was fossil evidence for this in 1982. No respectable scientist believes this today.

He does debunk it and call it a racist theory, so I'm not accusing him of anything. Merely pointing out that our understanding of evolution has changed enormously over the past quarter-century.

[Chronos]

I can maybe accept that the populations of southeast Asia went through a narrow population bottleneck, but Africa? Africa is where all humans ultimately originated, and as a consequence has significantly more genetic diversity than all the other continents combined. And even if there's a small region south of the equator in Africa that's relatively homogeneous, that's not where most black people in America (the questioner was American) come from.

[bibliophage]

I believe engjs is referring to the Bantu expansion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion) The Bantu peoples are genetically relatively homogeneous, but Africa as a whole is the least homogeneous continent.

[John W. Kennedy]

Cecil wrote:
Coon's idea was that there originally were five basic races that evolved separately, in widely differing times and places, from our homo erectus forebears--Caucasians, predictably, being the first.

Coon, I should point out, was not a crackpot, and there is a certain amount of fossil evidence to support his view.

It's possible that somebody still thought there was fossil evidence for this in 1982. No respectable scientist believes this today.Unless the evidence has been conclusively shown to be forged, it's still evidence, just as standing outdoors and looking around you is still evidence that the earth is flat.

[ftg]

The more recent research I've read about human "subdivisions" based on DNA testing is that sub-Saharan Africa is 4-5 groups and everybody else is in one group. That means that Swedes, Japanese, Dravidians, Australian Aborigines, Mayans, etc. are all variations on a theme. Meanwhile Khoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoi) and Hadza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadza_people) are nearly the most genetically distinct humans.

Cecil refers to superficial traits, and the science done since he wrote drives home this point. In some areas, appearances diverged one way and in other areas appearances diverged in another way. Which features of appearances one focuses upon seems to be based on old-style notions of races. E.g., people in east Asia can detect differences that most westerners don't pick up on.

[Mijin]

Unless the evidence has been conclusively shown to be forged, it's still evidence, just as standing outdoors and looking around you is still evidence that the earth is flat.

The fact that the earth may look intuitively flat may be considered evidence but it's hardly evidence that the earth is flat because the same observation is also consistent with the large, spherical earth hypothesis.

What Exapno Mapcase said may well be correct. I don't know the specifics here, but something which was considered evidence for one model may not be considered so at a future time.
e.g. All the fossils from region A have a characteristic X and all the fossils from region B have a characteristic Y. You might consider this evidence for two distinct races. But then you find a bunch of Y type fossils in region A and X type fossils in region B. And then a lot of fossils in both regions that are intermediate between X and Y.
Suddenly those original fossils (which have not changed or been debunked) are evidence of nothing.

-----------------------

This is a completely pointless thing to add to this thread but anyway: Wouldn't it be cool if there were more variation? It sucks that most everyone has dark hair and eyes like me.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Unless the evidence has been conclusively shown to be forged, it's still evidence, just as standing outdoors and looking around you is still evidence that the earth is flat.

Misinterpreted "evidence" is not "evidence" any more than David Barclay's "evidence" of non-linear motion is "evidence."

[Zoe]

Who says that all whites don't look alike? Just as many Asians can distinguish differences in the features of people from different Asian countries, perhaps they can see a smilarity in the way most white women look or most white men.

Sometimes at the first of school I would have trouble telling all of my students apart. I would have to learn approximately 150 names in order to extablish control of the classroom very quickly. One year most of the white girls wore their hair long and curly with the top part pulled back from their foreheads and clasped in a barrett. And they were all named Stephanie. That was a nightmare.

[StarvingButStrong]

I've often wondered what description/markers police use for 'be on the lookout' type announcements in, say, Japan. "Suspect has black hair and brown eyes" seems a bit useless....

[John W. Kennedy]

Whites have a greater range of hair and eye color. Blacks (despite racist iconography) have a greater range of noses, lips, and hair types. Asians have a greater range of head shapes. We are all programmed in infancy and early childhood to notice the differences distinguishing people that are important to us at that time. For example, I grew up in a small town in Maine in the 1950s, so it is much easier for me to distinguish among whites.

[Stranger On A Train]

I can maybe accept that the populations of southeast Asia went through a narrow population bottleneck, but Africa? Africa is where all humans ultimately originated, and as a consequence has significantly more genetic diversity than all the other continents combined. And even if there's a small region south of the equator in Africa that's relatively homogeneous, that's not where most black people in America (the questioner was American) come from.And anyone who thinks that "they all look alike" either has had little exposure to blacks or needs the services of an occulist. I've had quite a few black friends and more neighbors, and I have never had difficulty telling them from each other. John W. Kennedy has it right; we tend to focus on the characteristics that we use to differentiate ourselves, but that is an inculcated bias.

Stranger

[Irishman]

Zoe said:
One year most of the white girls wore their hair long and curly with the top part pulled back from their foreheads and clasped in a barrett. And they were all named Stephanie. That was a nightmare.

Why? Couldn't you just point at a girl and call her "Stephanie"? ;-)

[hogarth]

Who says that all whites don't look alike? Just as many Asians can distinguish differences in the features of people from different Asian countries, perhaps they can see a smilarity in the way most white women look or most white men.
Cecil addressed this in his follow-up column.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2452/own-race-bias-revisited

[mr. jp]

There is a factual error in this column. Cecil mentions a people he calls "the Moors". Actually there is no such people. He is probably thinking of "the Moops", who are a people of Arab and Berber descent living in North Africa, who invaded Spain in the 8th century.

[engjs]

The more recent research I've read about human "subdivisions" based on DNA testing is that sub-Saharan Africa is 4-5 groups and everybody else is in one group.

Could someone post some links that point to this research, or better yet a general commentry on it? I'd be keen to read up on it.

Jim

[Exapno Mapcase]

There is a factual error in this column. Cecil mentions a people he calls "the Moors". Actually there is no such people. He is probably thinking of "the Moops", who are a people of Arab and Berber descent living in North Africa, who invaded Spain in the 8th century.

The heck? :confused:

[John W. Kennedy]

There is an old meme, related either to Trivial Pursuit or the home version of Jeopardy, which either originated in or was referenced in a Seinfeld episode, about a misprint of "Moop" for "Moor" in an answer (or in a question, if it was Jeopardy).

[Mijin]

Could someone post some links that point to this research, or better yet a general commentry on it? I'd be keen to read up on it.

Jim

He may be referring to the Y-chromosome haplogroups. Here's the current wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup) on it.

I find it a pretty confusing subject. But my understanding regarding these haplotypes is that there are basically three root kinds: A, B and CT. Types A and B occur only in sub-saharan africa (or in populations that have recently left that region). All other populations are type CT, including some African populations.

There may be issues with citing this as evidence that sub-saharan africa is the most genetically diverse region, but in any case, I think there is other evidence that supports that view anyway.

[Sailboat]

Whites have a greater range of hair and eye color. Blacks (despite racist iconography) have a greater range of noses, lips, and hair types. Asians have a greater range of head shapes. We are all programmed in infancy and early childhood to notice the differences distinguishing people that are important to us at that time. For example, I grew up in a small town in Maine in the 1950s, so it is much easier for me to distinguish among whites.

Exactly.

And, of course, whether people with dark skin "all look alike" is completely subjective and depends on what you're looking at.

PS: And the "multiple separate origins" theory of human evolution was always dodgy at best. Scientists don't assume multiple different forces cause gravity, or that apples evolved in multiple separate places. It always sounded, to me, like a weak attempt to say "Maybe *our kind* didn't evolve from Africans."

[caligulashorse]

Exactly.

And, of course, whether people with dark skin "all look alike" is completely subjective and depends on what you're looking at.

PS: And the "multiple separate origins" theory of human evolution was always dodgy at best. Scientists don't assume multiple different forces cause gravity, or that apples evolved in multiple separate places. It always sounded, to me, like a weak attempt to say "Maybe *our kind* didn't evolve from Africans."

Uusually it's called "multi-regional hypothesis", though they have apparently started using "mulitple origins" in some instances. Seperate is logically redundant in that phrase.

It is against Occham's Razor to suggest a multi-regional theory without much compelling evidence. The neaderthal is decent evidence, but I wouldn't call it compelling. The Mungo man, however, is the very definition of compelling. It's not dodgy at all. Current evdince supports the multi-regional hypothesis, not one origina "out of africa" model.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The Mungo man, however, is the very definition of compelling. It's not dodgy at all. Current evdince supports the multi-regional hypothesis, not one origina "out of africa" model.

Maybe not. From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_Man).
The results can be reconciled with the Out of Africa model, however, if the Mitochondrial Eve mtDNA type, and the Mungo Man mtDNA type were both spread from Africa, with one maternal line going extinct and one surviving to today. The time of the split between Mitochondrial Eve and Mungo Man's maternal ancestor must have been earlier than the date when the main wave of fully modern humans left Africa, about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago.

Since remains of a robust form of modern humans have been found in Ethiopia dating to about 160 ka, and similar remains have been dated at Jebel Qafzeh in Israel at about 100 ka, it is conceivable that Mungo Man's maternal ancestor left Africa in an early wave. Indeed, Schillaci has recently found morphological similarities among the crania of early humans of the Levant and those of Australasia [1].

The study by Adcock has been criticized by a study conducted by Chris Stringer. Adcock claimed to have found an exceptionally large amount of ancient DNA from the Mungo remains. This finding is inconsistent with other researchers who were searching for Neanderthal DNA. The study indicates that Ancient DNA is most likely preserved in cold environments such as those found in Europe. But even in the case of Neanderthal remains, the probability of extracting DNA is still low. The study further indicates that the likelihood of any DNA being preserved over the 40,000 - 60,000 years since the Mungo burial is very low. [2]

The multi-regional hypothesis has enormous problems that have never been even partially explained satisfactorially. Every "explanation" involves a dozen ad hoc theories with no support that require another dozen imaginary scenarios to justify them even internally.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis) has this as the mechanism. Remember, this is supposed to be a positive description, not a devastating criticism.
For periods of time some populations became isolated, developing in a different direction. But through a complicated process involving continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and other vehicles of evolution, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction, while maintaining adaptations to regional factors.

Eventually, the more unusual local varieties of the species would have disappeared in favor of modern humans while retaining some regional adaptations, but also with many common features.

[EdwardLost]

I seems likely to me that the commonly recognized human "races" have their origins in the discoveries of agriculture. Before agriculture, distinctive physical traits were probably spread more uniformly around the populated world. People in different regions would have looked different from one another because of local adaptation and genetic drift, but you would probably have seen only gradual changes in appearance as you traveled from place to place - not big jumps from one "type" to another.

Agriculture allowed small regional populations to suddenly and massively increase in number, spread, and replace the non-agricultural natives over large regions. The Bantu expansion was mentioned. The East Asian "race" (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc.) are probably all largely descendants (70-90%) of the original discoverers of rice cultivation in some small corner of China who replaced a more diverse range of phenotypes in that part of Asia. Europeans are likely 70-90% descendants of the earliest wheat/barley/etc. cultivators in the Middle East. The lighter skin, hair, and eye colors are probably later adaptations of dark-skinned people moving into less sunny climates and suffering vitamin D deficiencies. As to why East Asians seem to look more alike (assuming you buy that), I would guess that the rice-growers' ballooning and expansion was more sudden and complete: starting from a smaller (maybe more recent) seed population and with a smaller percentage of "native" genes being absorbed into the expanding population wave. It's also possible that the new environments did not impose much adaptive pressure for new phenotypes (as cloudy Europe did on the Middle Easterners).

[DSYoungEsq]

excised because it's not relevant, really

[tk4212]

I've lived as a caucasion guy in a non caucasion society, and local folks there did think we all looked alike to some extent. I got friendly greetings wherever I went, often called by whatever name the last white guy to wander through had been called. Happened all the time, even from people who knew the other dude in question at least a little bit well

[Palsboss]

Living in Japan, and also being of Japanese descent, I would have to agree that I see alot of "evil twins" in Japan, including guys that I think look alot like me and vice-versa. However, to say white people don't look alike can only be attributed to the convention of not saying that white people look alike. They do, and it seems more so in places like the midwest.

But since there is no common practice of saying whites all look alike, no one actually sees it, or at least points it out.

Further, asians have more commonality of physical features like black hair, brown eyes, shorter stature, etc., which makes for more look-alikes. But I can say that because of the larger population, there are a lot more "attractive" asians in big asian cities that you would see in perhaps, San Francisco or Los Angeles.

:D

[InterestedObserver]

Interesting topic, though I don't have much in the way of scientific data to offer to it. The original question wasn't actually why don't all white people look alike (that was just a snarky title) of course.

As for the actual question of more apparent variation between "white" peoples and those of other origins, I don't really find that to be the case. I am "white" (Anglo of British/French ancestry) and I notice WIDE variations between individuals of Asian, African, etc...ancestry. Many different skin tones, bone structures, eye shapes, hair types and shades, body types, etc. About as much as between "whites", imo, just perhaps more subtle? (as opposed to say, my red-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned, small-framed grandmother and my almost black haired, olive-skinned, hazel-eyed, taller self)

As I understand it though, the genetic variation between ANY of us humans is miniscule, regardless of race/ancestry.

I recall reading a study years ago which postulated that red heads were, compared to other variations both among and between races, the most extreme variation, almost a separate line altogether. Not sure if that has been de-bunked or confirmed or what, but I laughed, thinking of Tom Robbins' novel, "Still Life with Woodpecker" :D

[natalie_kiko]

By white people i'm assuming you are referring to americans..brown hair blond hair etc... America is considered "the melting pot" where we all come together from different nationalities, therefore we have tons of different genes in us so we are very diverse.

If you are referring to lighter skinned people in general, we are designed for the climate that best fits us by the whole natural selection. therefore some may have lighter hair to stay cooler than dark, same with skin.

[Mijin]

Let's not forget though that looking different and genetic diversity are not the same thing.

Africa is by far the most genetically diverse continent, yet to some people "they all look alike".