According to anthropology, human race further gets divided in Caucasians, Mongoloids, Aboriginals, Eskimos, Red Indidians and Negro's. How far, is this classification, though maybe anthropologically correct, correct in terms of difference in genes and gene expression. (Also what are the reason for the number dominance of Caucasians over other human divisions.) Is it at all correct?


closed as primarily opinion-based by Remi.b, David, WYSIWYG, iayork, Bryan Krause Sep 11 at 13:53

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


There is no genetic basis for these classifications. Most human genetic diversity is in Africa. Diversity only decreases with geographic distance from this continent. There are geographic clines, not the clusters that one might call race. Here are some results from Rosenberg's 2002 Genetic Structure of Human Populations:

  • 93-95% of variation occurs within populations
  • 3-5% of variation occurs between populations

Local adaptation occurs, such as height and pigmentation but these phenotypes are polygenic and should not lead to binary classifications. There are some very interesting case studies on local adaptation that you should look into. ex)EPAS1 gene and no hypoxia among Tibetans or lactose persistence on three continents

There is no genetic basis for dominance of one population over another.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.