Alpha rules - if you don't know what alpha rules are do not post and rather just curl up in a ball and vegetate

The biological significance of the human races - discuss!

As a starting point for this discussion we could explore the notion of the discontinuous mind as was tentatively approached in this rainbow (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71848)thread in free thought.

With the simple notion of rainbow it was shown that people see distinct colours where there are patterns.

Similarly we see clear classifications of human specimens where there is also a spectrum. See for instance this example (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1555806&postcount=28)

Clearly Colin Powell is just as white as Bush, yet still he is seen as a member of the black race.

What could possibly be the biological significance of this?

See the following example (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1555860&postcount=30) on speciation between closely related ciclid fishes. Despite being normally not willing to mate at all because they have a different colour, red and blue, they will mate under monochromatic conditions because besides colour the fishes are indistinguishable.

Behavioural limitations based on obvious characteristics is a excellent mechanism to promote speciation.

Is something similar occuring in humans? Or has something similar occured?

Is this a case of evolution of evolvability, with the noted adjustment that radiation is a classification of evolvability?!

Has the discontinuous mind evolved for other purposes and is it now highjacked by cultural evolution.




- responses preferably accompagnied by references to primary relevant up to date literature or popular science works, unless the response is conceptual or theoretical.

Has the discontinuous mind evolved for other purposes and is it now highjacked by cultural evolution.

Who's cultures? If you are asking about Africas or Chinas there would be different views on each.

I'm not asking you anything other than to formulate your thoughts on the matter. Are you possibly suggesting that there are cultures with a continuous mind?

Then it would be bigotry that separates people from inter racial or ethnic breeding.

Then it would be bigotry that separates people from inter racial or ethnic breeding.

can we have some kind of explanation, reference, argument for your opinion?

I think that what I stated so simply is the best way for me to express what I want to say about your question. If I wish to added more I would have.

This is a thread in the biology subforum. Not free thought.

And alpha rules are invoked.

Maybe you could be polite enough to actually do more than give some kind of random opinion?

It isn't a "random" opinion , it is an opinion held by many people I'd think. I only state though what I'd believe to be the single most prevelant cause for the problem of non interbreeding between ethnic groups. You asked and I've answered , if you're not comfortable with my answer then stop asking your questions and you'll not get answers that you dislike.

It isn't a "random" opinion , it is an opinion held by many people I'd think. I only state though what I'd believe to be the single most prevelant cause for the problem of non interbreeding between ethnic groups. You asked and I've answered , if you're not comfortable with my answer then stop asking your questions and you'll not get answers that you dislike.

I don't put emotional value on your answer. I just don't see any explanation.

people don't interbreed because they don't interbreed (bigotry).

What kind of biological explanation is that? I don't care about what people think. I want to discuss science here, not what people think.

made a nice thread on human races in freethought:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1572231
opinions can go there.

Isn't psychology a science? I'm discussing that type of an answer with you, a psychological answer to your question. I'd think it stems from humans own brains why they don't breed with other not of their ilk. If I'm wrong, then please excuse me for givining you my answer at all.

make a thread in psychology.

spuriousmonkey,
Is something similar occuring in humans? Or has something similar occured?
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be asking if the discontinuous human mind could possibly have contributed to the different 'races' we have today. As dark-skinned peoples migrated from Africa to the cooler climates, it is thought that the dark skin was no longer a benifit, and some individuals began to be born with lighter colored skin. Are you suggesting that lighter skinned people may have preferred to mate with other lighter skinned people, thus contributing to the trait? I am not stating you are suggesting that, just asking if you think that, or if you think less-educated people may believe that.
It would seem illogical to me, as there should have been the same contributing factor for the dark-skinned people. That is, there should have been a tendency to separate light-skinned and dark-skinned peoples in the same enviroment and location. If the discontinuous mind is supposed to favor mates of the same color, it would not eliminate the dark-skinned people from colder climates in man's early history. It should have led to peoples of both skin types co-existing in the same enviroment. This is, of course, JMHO. Is there a flaw in my logic?

What kind of biological explanation is that? I don't care about what people think. I want to discuss science here, not what people think.

Then you shouldn't have made your OP entirely about what people think (i.e, "discontinuous mind").

If there's anyone out there enforcing the alpha rules, Spurious should immediately be cited for abusing them in order to berate honest responders.

If there's anyone out there enforcing the alpha rules, Spurious should immediately be cited for abusing them in order to berate honest responders.

Would somebody briefly explain Alpha Rules?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62837

[SIZE="1"]Clearly Colin Powell is just as white as Bush, yet still he is seen as a member of the black race.

Spurious,

Isn't this due to something called the 'one drop rule'?

"Biological significance of the human races"? What the fuck is that?

I think that the question is beginning on an assumption - that races in human beings are significant. It would be difficult to classify the different human "races" at even a subspecies level. Thus - from the biological standpoint - there is little or no significance.

So, this is a concept we are dealing with that is not based on facts but on perceptions. Some studies show that an animal will preferentially mate with an animal that looks similar to what it has seen in its lifetime (the template so to speak). Yet other studies have found that animals will preferentially mate with a "novel" male or female. There is no adequate explanation as to why in either case as yet.

Behavioral limitations to mating based on obvious characteristics smacks of the "good genes" theory - but it is not to promote speciation. Selection for the average is not directional selection and ends in less variability rather than more.

In addition, evolution (from a biological standpoint) is evolution by selection. Cultural evolution uses a more loose definition that requires only change over time. The two are not quite synonomous.
Then - you still have to consider if a discontinous mind "evolved" (as in, this is just the way it is made to function) or is it taught?

Isn't it quite simple? It's about the survival and benefit of a species. Or even perceived benefit by selection. That's why we choose mates with qualities we deem superior or advantageous and reject those that seem otherwise.

Besides that, we instinctively want to preserve and promote our likeness, the specialization and discrimination is just a finetuning of the survival of the species.

Even those who value qualites that another deems inferior can perceive them as superior because we are all inherently self-promoting. The survival instinct.

Even those with inferior traits would not out themselves or not mate for the benefit of the gene pool, for example. Maybe unfortunately except for the most conscientious.

As for certain characteristics, it doesn't always translate to superior or inferior but just different but valuable and integral to the identity of that species or subspecies(race).

Would somebody briefly explain Alpha Rules?
spurious should have done this at the outset, for the benefit of our new users. He's been rather naughty in not doing so.

As a minimum the Alpha rules are:


No trolling.
No personal attacks.
No hijacking, derailing; no off-topic posts (the last of these emphasised for effect!).
Be polite!


Additionally, in a scientific topic such as this (in one of the science subforums - Biology & Genetics, in this case), you're expected to have a scientific approach:

Present arguments calmly, logically, precisely; don't ramble; stick to the point.
Present appropriate evidence - peer-reviewed, ideally - to support any contentious claims. Your quotes from Wikipedia will not be taken seriously!


They're the main ones I think. Older members will tell you if I've left out anything important.

The positive aspect is we are all a work in progress, nothing is fixed in stone thanks to evolution especially our negative or inferior traits.

The biological significance of the seeming disconnect between skin color and race, is that skin color is only one aspect of inherited traits. A more accurate picture of ancestry can be determined by analyzing DNA.

I think you are also talking about sexual selection. Geographical isolation is the more typical route of diverging species, but any kind of isolation will do the same thing. Given that people are not so much constrained by geography, sexual selection may indeed be more powerful in creating "races". Identification with skin color is only one possibility. Cultural factors like language could be equally powerful.

Oh - and it is also an assumption that the mind is discontinous. Is it not more likely that, for example, the colors of the rainbow are stated as reference points rather than to the exclusion of all other colors (primary or not). It is similar to saying "The east coast." Most of the east coast might actually be northeast of someone in the south or southeast of someone in the north - but east coast gives one a generalized reference point.

As for the idea of adaptive radiation - races in humans are not an example of adaptive radiation. They are examples of the variability inherent in the genome. It is that variability that has enabled such success in promotion of the species.

Since 'race' and 'subspecies' are synonyms and all humans are of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, I would say that today there is only one human race.
So there are no different human races. This makes the significance zero.