I personally believe in trying to increase and preserve human diversity, as opposed to mixing everthing, as to my admitedly limited knowledge, genetic distance is what leads to allopatric speciation. This would presuppose a degree of what is commonly be considered ''racism'', though not necissarily in the sense of mindless lynchings and genocide. The perservation of european language groups, perhaps with limited interchange, and complete isolation from relatively more distant gene pools. It is not that huge genetic distances are already extant, but rather, if historical races/peoples/populations which could also be grouped according to phenotypical characteristics seperated, then i believ diversity would increase. This is nothing to do with a master-race ideology, but if a groups chose to feel about itself this way, the empirical/matematical result may well be increased long-term diversity. So, therefore, is ''racism'' inherently evil? I do not believe it is, i am not a superstitious parrot myself.
Racism caused a lot of anxiety, personality disorders, societal downfalls...therefore it is not good. I can't say it's evil in the purest sense of the word, but if certain people become extreme racists that it causes death and destruction, then it becomes evil. Just like what happened to the Jews in World War II. I can't make sense why you think it is not evil. Really, you have to prove your point. What you have stated above is a mere support for diversity of species...not really racism. I appreciate diversity of culture, ideas, opinions and beliefs...but it doesn't mean that a superior race should exist...we all belong to the highest kingdom...we are mammals given with a brain to think things over, give birth to new ideas, and discover new things that is left undiscovered. Whatever color, language we speak, and appearance we have, we are all HOMO SAPIENS
well said. i see great value in the diversity of the human race. interbreeding (i'm a mutt myself) is a natural way to both preserve and expand on the diversity that already exists. in the movie bulworth it is suggested that we should intermingle all of the various genetic pools "until we're all the same color". i don't think this is feasible or ever desirable. i would venture to suggest that this could turn our gene pool into a desert. as the black plague swept across europe, there were people who survived because they were genetically resistant to the disease. on the other hand, too much inbreeding among the european aristocracy led to hemophilia and other problems. i don't think that any one ethnic or racial group should be considered "superior" to another. there is value in maintaining a connection to our cultural heritage(s); but, at the same time, we need to recognize that we need to evolve beyond social darwinism and relate to each other on a human level.
Hemophilia is a disease which is inherited or passed on through the recessive gene. Due to inbreeding, the probability of two recessive genes coming together in one human is increased. Inbreeding is not really the cause of hemophilia or other problems. Some traits and diseases are passed on through dominant and recessive genes. Inbreeding just amplifies the probability of recessive genes being expressed because of the recessive-recessive combination.
Racism is preservation of your own tribe, which is a collection of genetically-transmitted learned ideas.
Hi, Haemophilia isn't your typical recessive disorder - it's sex-linked. The allele that causes haemophilia is carried on the X chromosome, and because men don't have another X chromosome that could carry a 'healthy' allele to mask the haemophilia allele this means that many more men are affected than women. So basically, men don't have to inherit two haemophilia alleles to suffer from the disease, they only have to inherit one from their mother's side. Cystic fibrosis would be a better of example of your typical recessive disorder.
Interestingly groups of humans (i.e. races, ethnicites etc) are not all that genetically different. A study was done into the genetics of two groups of a species of monkey living about 50 miles apart and they were found (accidentely) to be more genetically different than two different groups of humans (I think it was Icelanders and Australian aboriginees.) I've always noticed that many Americans seem to consider Hispanics as a different 'race' to Northern European Americans. Is that right, or do they just consider them a different ethnicity? The only reason it comes across to me that they consider Hispanics a different race to Northern Europeans is because in crime figures and stuff there's always talk of blacks, whites (races) and Hispanics (ethnicity.)
To the best of my knowledge no one has located genes that pass on cultural beliefs. One theory certainly, but not fact.
Cultural beliefs would have to be passed down by a collection of linked genes for culture to be genetic. No doubt it would be a complex linkage through many gene loci, but even so no one has found a genetic link as the situation stands.
Gene mixing DECREASE diversity I believe. It doesn't increase like some of you said. Human has a tendency to specialize within an environment. The diversity (light skin, dark skin) is the result of the specialization. But today we no longer need the specialization. We are now in a globalized community. People will start to be more mixed. Europeans will have to get darker because darker skin is better at protecting solar radiation. Very soon, like within 100 years, we will be able to change skin/hair/eye color permanently as a cosmatic procedure. Eventually science will end racism.
Linked genes? Again, a broken supposition. They are linked only by their correspondence to real world events and natural selective process. When you look in the wrong areas, you don't find the links.
Gene linkage is when one gene affects the outcome of another. Albinoism is an example - you can have genes that code for melanin in the skin, hence you get dark skin, but if you were an albino these genes would not be expressed. Obviously if you weren't an albino these genes would be expressed. The reason albinoism causes lack of skin colour is because the gene loci produces an intermediate protein which needs to be present for melanin to be produced by the proteins produced at the 'skin colour' loci. The albino mutation means this intermediate protein is not produced. Complicated gene linkages can be difficult to trace. The fact still remains though that no one has found a genetic link to culture, to the best of my knowledge.
Still looking in the wrong place. Race is collected characteristics, not linked ones. Your entire argument here has been a semantic fallacy.
Gene linkage aside, there's no evidence of 'cultural genetics', as it were. We know there's a gene that causes black skin, as yet no one has located genes that cause certain cultural beliefs. If they ever find such genes then I will accept that there is a bona fida link between genetics and culture. Of course culture can be propogated along racial and ethnic lines, but as yet no one has found evidence that cultural beliefs are passed on genetically. The only reason I originally mentioned gene linkage is to illustrate how complex genetics really is - it's not as simple as your simple Mendelian dominant and recessive alleles on one loci causing a given phenotype. Just to clarify this statement as well, I was saying that if culture is inherited genetically, then it would be a collection of characteristsics and these characteristics would probably be the result of gene linkage, and thus not as simple to trace as simple single loci Mendelian characteristics.
Thanks a lot Piran! You really cleared that up! Sorry, I'm not a biology major...it just happens that I have 15 units of biology in the university and sadly it does not guarantee me remembering every single bit of it. Thank again! At least, my point is still supported that Haemophilia is not a result of inbreeding Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
