People wouldn’t be said to have been “bred” into anything in this case, however. This would be a case of natural selection probably involving vitamin D levels and/or skin cancer. =}
I think considering where they are (Russia since the 17th century), the natural selection would involve adaption to cold, starvation resistance, strength, and whatever else it takes to live in Russia under random idiot dictators. They would probably be bundled up, so skin cancer wouldn’t be a major detractor until later in life, and by then you probably have all the kids your are gonna have. Vitamin D deficiency could be countered with more fish consumption (not that familar with the whole of Russia’s food entree, but IIRC, fish is a big source in harbor cities), but they’d probably still have kids with Rickets at a higher level.
I’m not sure you understand. Being more able to produce vitamin D in places without as much direct sunlight is the prevailing theory on why light skin was selected.
Even if this were so, it isn’t like people knew that fish had vitamin D in it. Centuries of trial and error never told us that you could prevent rickets with certain foods. I don’t mean to drag this aspect of the thread out too much…it really doesn’t matter. I’m just being a pedant. 
Its a great site, but I didn’t put it together. I wish I could claim credit, but I can’t.
So who did?
Biggirl is right, linking there saves a lot of headache.
Now where did I get the idea that it was you edwino? Well, if it wasn’t you, I have no idea who did it.
Yep, a big up to Biggirl – I thought I’d committed that page to the Favorites before but didn’t so I’m glad you posted it again…I did know who put that page together but I’m damned if I can remember…I’ve seen Tom post the same link, I think he’ll remember. 'cept I don’t think he’s around at the moment.
Anyway, thanks for the link !
The Doper what did the site Biggirl linked to, http://eneubauer.com/, is eponymous.
Now, I’m getting upset with y’all. How can you have a thread asking about how many races there are and have absolutely no one at all mention the rat race? :mad: Get it together, people! The rat race is the most important race there is.
Tars is right- it would take thousands of years for the dark skin color to disappear, if not far longer. What genotypes were originally selected by Natural selection, hardly will be selected in todays civilized society. What you have to show is that the differences will stop them from having as many kids as other peoples without that feature. Right now, it appears only intelligence is a selecting factor- the smarter you are, the less kids you have! 
So, Mustean, selection for Vit D would not be very important in the days of vitamin supplements & vitamin enriched foods.
The old saw about there being “4 races”- and making skin colour divide them, is bushwa (at the time, however, they were trying to be come up with a scientific method- we know now they were wrong, but …). Skin color can appear independently, and so can bushy/straight hair, etc. The “negroids” are no more a “race” than all black dogs are the same breed, etc. Besides, innerbreeding has taken much of the genetic differences out- we all possess rather closely related genes. No “race” (OK, maybe some tribes can- like the Pygmies, so MAYBE they are a “race”) can be spotted simply by it’s genetitics- altho of course one can tell if they have the gene for dark skin- but then they could be a Bushman, New Guinea native, or Sub-Saharan african. Forensic pathologists can tell certain things from bones, which would make it LIKELY that the dead dude was of “asian” extraction, say. But not for sure.
Now, there are some isolated tribes, who inbreed primarily locally so much that they were/are perhaps a “race”. The Pygmies, for example. But you can’t lump them together with the Australian Bushmen based upon that fact they both have dark skin & bushy hair. Clearly, the gene combo for fast running is prevelant amoung that one east african tribe- but that does not mean that EVERY member of that tribe, and ONLY members of that tribe has that particular combo. If that gene grouping continued to be advantagous- AND the tribe was isolated so that it did not interbreed- than after a while, it could become a “sub-species”, or “race”. But it isn’t one now, nor is it likely to become one.
Maybe a better term would be “exteriour difference grouping”, in which case there are 3 main groupings.
Thanks celestina. I always thought it was edwino too. (And I have it bookmarked and was ready to post it here until Biggirl beat us all to it.)
Algernon, you’re welcome, Sugar. Glad that I could be of some assistance here.
What DrDeth said. And it is possible that somewhere someone figured out that fishing communities have less ricketts. It was known for years about Milkmaids not getting smallpox until Edward Jennerfigured out why. I don’t know enough about Russian fishing communities to even try to guess whether it was figured out.
Slight hijack, but I have prepared a response of sorts to that website; it can be found at http://www.geocities.com/racefaq
Thoughtful comments and suggestions are welcome.
From the racefaq site:
This statement would be more accurate if it said " The classic example of this point - that race has predictive value about alleles - is the allele for Sickle Cell Anemia which is more common among some groups identified as black than groups not identified as black."
A “black” from Capetown is no more likely to be susceptible to Sickle Cell than a “white” from Helsinki. On the other hand, a “white” from Messina or Piraeus is more likely to be susceptible to Sickle Cell than a “black” from Durban or Port Elizabeth.
There is no predictive value regarding Sickle Cell, based on appearance, for most of South Africa, for Niger, or for the northern sections of Chad, Sudan, or Ethiopia. (The Sickle Cell line runs south of Lake Chad to Somalia.)
Maybe so, but it doesn’t change the fact that what I have termed the “strong” version of “race doesn’t exist” – the claim that race has no predictive value as to genetic makeup (with the exception of certain genes related to appearance) – is false.
Here’s what the site says:
The point you made supports what I have termed the “medium” interpretation - that race is “fuzzy.”
Some people use “race” to refer to any group of people that can be based on nationality, culture, or language, “Irish Race”, “Jewish Race”, “Latin Race”…other’s use it to broader groupings with vaguely defined physical traits (“Caucasian” etc.).
So there is an infinite number of races. And the meaning of “race” can change from place to place. For instance, in much of the United States there is a “Hispanic” group that has been socially and culturally defined as a “race” by many people. Yet in Latin American countries such as Mexico or Colombia, the local population - presumably all “Hispanic” - is often clearly divided into “whites”, “blacks”, Indians", “mestizos”, “mulatos” and so on. So in a population where Anglo-Americans may see one “race”, a Latin American may see five or ten different races.
Likewise, many people who would be “black” in America would be “mixed” or even pass for “white” in Brazil or South Africa. Perhaps some American “whites” may not be accepted as such elsewhere in the world. So saying how many races there are or who belongs in which one is an exercise in futility.
I would say that it is more accurate to note that your claim is vague enough to be true. Who is in this “race” that allow for predictive values and what can actually be predicted?
I have never been a big proponent of what you are calling the “strong” version, anyway, but I see no value in “race” as you seem to have proposed it. Some nebulous group of people, who include multiple populations with clear differences, are lumped together into some vague category about which you can make “predictions” based on the fact that some smaller group(s) within your arbitrarily assembled group will bear out that predicition. It hardly seems worth the effort.
Again, your argument supports the “medium” interpretation of the “race doesn’t exist” position - that race is “fuzzy.”
Moreover, you seem to agree that the “strong” viewpoint is incorrect.
Since I am not claiming that the “medium” interpretation is false, it’s hard to fathom what your point is. I suppose I can’t stop you from arguing the “medium” viewpoint all day long, however.
No, I am trying to find out how the “strong” argument (if it exists) is wrong. It very nearly sounds like a straw man. If you dump enough people into any vaguely defined group, you can make statements about individuals in it that may be true and then claim that the “group” supports the generalization. That seems rather pointless, so arguing that opposition to a misleading set of generalizations is wrong seems equally pointless.
Do you accept lactose-intolerance as an identifier for race? If not, why not? Lactose-intolerance in adults can be identified (more clearly that racial characteristics, actually) for large groups of humans. Why not simply define that trait as a racial identifier? If that is not a good identifier of race, how is your opposition to that definition different than the “strong” opposition to skin-color race?
Then read the Race FAQ. It explains how the “strong” position is incorrect.
**
I know, it’s hard to believe that anyone would actually make (or imply) such a ridiculous argument. But I believe it’s happened on these boards.
**
Yet again, you are arguing for the “medium” viewpoint. Perhaps it’s therapeutic?
**
Honestly, I have no idea what you mean by the phrase “identifier for race.” Feel free to elaborate.