To answer the question whether the concept of human race(s) would be biologically valid or not, I would first like to go down the simple route and just say that from what I've been taught, we're all human sapiens sapiens.
But that does not answer certain observations and obvious physical differences like skin color and shape of eyes, so I will try to go into detail on some of my personal thoughts on this subject.
I would also like to mention that it's discussions like these that make me realize how limited my English actually is.
Jeeba Jabba wrote:if one scientist can horde acclaim for stating that the African male is the most physically fit man on the planet, why is it so crazy to think that a Chinese mind is farther advanced than a Liberian's?
While it might be possible that a Chinese could have a more advanced brain than a Liberian, I am pretty sure that the other Liberian could possibly be as smart as said Chinese.
I think U-said-it posted a good link:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
While there are obvious differences between humans from different regions, it is true that there also seem to be more differences between humans within a region than to those from other regions. Just like a Chinese can be extremely tall and have a freakin' monster cock and a Liberian can be small and have a short penis.
I disagree with toastman's point of humans being well traveled and connected to each other. Aside from such exceptions as the US, Israel and to a degree the ex-Soviet Union, people lived and still live in comparably closed areas with next to no actual contact to outsiders or immigrants from other regions. But at the same time I know that in the earlier days of mankind, travel did exist. Some scientists found out that European human live can be traced back to exactly four African women, and we know that at some point Asians traveled across the Arctic to North- and South-America to found the first human civilizations there. But all of this wasn't that long ago, yet on the other hand doesn't contradict that people since then lived comparably isolated for thousands of years.
So, while I think that mankind is too young to create valid genetical differences between humans, modern travel on horse, ships and planes is as at best as old as the Torah, and thus not old enough to nullify thousands of years of incest.
A lot of these differences we notice between humans as such also seem to have their origins in meterological differences (the heat in Africa, the cold in the Arctic), which result in a variation on physical appearence (skin color, shape of eyes) but mostly in cultural differences (not easy to built a modern civilisation if it's so damn hot or so incredibly cold).
Most other differences between humans come from different social environments and thus psychological and educational differences. Deep down inside we're all still animals, but aside of some basic instincts that we share with most other living beings, there's next to nothing in our mind that couldn't be taught or learned.
Nowadays, a few hundred years after the American and French revolution, and just two generations after Freud and the end of colonization, with the global exchange of information and trade, we see that most countries do achieve the same kind of civilisation as was thought to be exclusive to Europeans.
I think that the short period of an advanced European civilization came from a number of things: A comparably small landscape surrounded by water and with many rivers and mild climate that provided a perfect agricultural backbone for developing culture. Still, most of Europe was an extremely primitive wasteland until the Romans came and went. From the Italian boot they traded with (and stole from) most cultures in their direct neighborhood. Their culture had strong influences by ancient Greek and Egypt. Even when Rome fell, parts of these cultural achievements survived Christianity.
In younger history, and until very recently, the superiority of European civilization was thought to be genetical. When Hitler grew up, Russia was still a monarchy that kept people poor and stupid (remember that in Christianity
only priests and monks were allowed to learn how to read + write). Napoleon failed to free Russia, so unlike European monarchy which had to make many concessions to the French revolution (which itself was inspired by the American revolution I have to add), Russia still had an extremely 'pure' and Christian form of monarchy that treated people like garbage. German racists in 1900 then based what was to became a theory on 'slavic subhumans' on their observations on a comparably primitive civilization in Russia, which during WW2 almost led to the extinction of Russian people (that was the goal of the Nazi's Barbarossa).
To get back to your example, Jeeba, I highly doubt that brain size is really a thing of regional differences or race. But even if there would be an actual difference in brain size among inhabitants of certain regions in comparision to those of others, it'd be more a question of how you can be given the right tools and the social environment to actually use your brain.
To wrap this up, I guess what I am trying to say is what Ex-Cyber wrote: '
The concept of a reproductively-isolated population with [small but]
identifiable genetic characteristics is valid, but in practice that has damn near nothing to do with the social construct of "race" (which is based mostly on a weird mix of facial features, skin color, and culture/ethnicity).'
Mice actually share
99% of their genes with humans, now imagine how incredibly small any difference between a black guy and a white guy would be.
I honestly question the value of highlighting these 0,000...1% of gentical difference.
Insane homebrew collector.
