Thanks for your honesty. I can't believe how many of these "moderators" feel the need to lie as some kind of form of debate.
I don't really understand the point of this thread. The effect of genetic drift is strongest in small populations where inbreeding is more likely to occur (because there are fewer mates to choose from) and I am sure that genetic drift played some part in certain aspects of human evolution but I seriously doubt that it is responsible for all perceived racial differences. Inbreeding isn't really a hugely benificial thing for an organism to engage in however. This is why sexual reproduction is so common throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. Remember, flowering plants go through a LOT of trouble to have their flowers outcrossed. Also, hybrid vigor, the advantage of a hybrid between two genetically distinct groups is a well documented phenomenon. Sex is a good thing, sex with someone unrelated to you is even better Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you asserting that inbreeding is genetically benificial in most cases? ETA: Or are you suggesting that interbreeding between 'races' destroys the advantages that those races have built via selection - hybrid depression? This would assume first that those features are advantageous in our modern society. I would claim they are not, given we have access to sunblock and vitamin D. Jessica = still confused
I think willy brings up a valid point. Sexual selection may have been the dominant force that created the superficial differences between races. Inbreeding is a derogatory and innaccurate term. However, people tend to marry people that look like themselves. There are evolutionary reasons for this. This could replace geological isolation as a major selection factor.
I'm still a bit confused here however, inbreeding does not equal sexual selection. In evolutionary genetics, inbreeding is more commonly thought of in terms of inbreeding depression, a very undesirable thing. Are you saying that he means "sexual selection" when he says "inbreeding"? That would make more sense to me. I also don't think we know that sexual selection is responsible for many of the physical traits that differentiate the races. For instance, just because darker skin conferred a selective advantage protecting its bearers DNA from UV damage, this does not necessitate that the trait is also attractive to the opposite sex and therefore sexually selected for as well. I'm sure it's possible, but why assume that there are two selective forces acting when there need only be one? It is just as likely that some of these traits were fixed in the population as a result of genetic drift. Are there any studies that suggest skin color or other physical traits are the result of sexual selection? That would be an interesting read.
Agreed. But if there are superficial differences, there may well be other differences as well -- like intelligence, the propensity to do violence, laziness, bigger dicks, ...., right? Baron Max
I can't think of a reason to prefer a dumber mate over a smarter one, or a weaker one to a stronger one, or a lazier one to a more active one... This is still common in our culture, women prefer large muscular agressive alpha male types.
Yes, but we're talking about racial traits here, skin color in particular. I don't think intelligence is a racial trait. I don't really think there is any reason to assume that skin color necessarily be a sexually selected trait when there is evidence that it confers a benefit with regards to basic survival. I agree that stronger men would have been sexually favored, but I don't see what that has to do with race. -- maybe I misunderstood your point? Also, I've always gone for the geeks- my husband is a geek Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dominant traits - like dark skin and eyes in humans - don't require sexual selection or inbreeding. It's recessive traits - like strange eye colors, yellow hair, and translucent skin - that need things like sexual selection or inbreeding. Inbreeding would only explain some of the white races, not any of the yellow, red, or black ones, (assuming skin color is one of your criteria for "race", which is kind of silly but fairly common). SAM had a good link to a sexual selection argument for Northern European eye colors, which are truly striking and unique among humans.
Well I'm sorry dude. I didn't catch the UC link. I read through as much of the stuff as I could stomach and it certainly seemed like a pseudoscientific approach to racism. I removed the infraction. But as far as I'm concerned you're still skating on thin ice because virtually everything I've seen you post is a blatant attempt to establish a beachhead for racism on SciForums. It ain't gonna happen.
This is worth repeating, in these circumstances: Dark skinned people hold most of the genetic diversity of the human species. They are the last category of humans that could be called "inbred". If there is any such thing as a human "race", there are several dark-skinned ones. Comparing "whites" to "blacks" would be something like comparing "terriers" to "dogs".
I posted this thread because I got a infraction for saying: "The more a group of being's inbreed the more they will look alike. The less a group of being's inbreed the less they will look alike."
:bugeye: You have received infractions because you are a racist troll. You’re not fooling anyone. You racist trolls are all the same. You mix your racism and bigotry with out-of-context scientific concepts in an effort to legitimize your intolerance. The scientific validity of your musings on inbreeding aside, the only reason you are bringing it up in the first place is because your aim is to associate its negative connotations with the supposed inferiority of certain ‘races’ other than yours. This is, of course, totally bogus.
The Finns are nicely inbred. Which makes them excellent study subjects to research human syndromes since most syndromes are caused by recessive alleles. I think some American company already tried to buy a Finnish database with all this info because it is a goldmine for medical research.
Just out of curiosity - what information is there available on traits swapping from recessive to dominant? It seems logical that if a certain recessive trait is very beneficial to its bearer and it stays in the gene pool for a long time due to only sexual selection, it will eventually change to a dominant trait, to enable sexual selection concentrate on other potentially beneficial traits.
You are all reading too much into the benefit of being dominant or recessive. An allele is either dominant or recessive based on how it works. Being dominant or recessive says absolutely nothing about traits being beneficial or not.
I'm not following that. Why would it "change" into a form that hides its competition from selection pressure? Genes are only "dominant" or "recessive" in relationship to each other. A dominant gene that imposes a handicap or vulnerability will be eliminated from the gene pool much more quickly than a recessive one - it's comparatively more difficult to get rid of a completely recessive gene.
Yep. But what does that have to do with the topic ...."Racial Inbreeding"? Note the term "racial"? How could the European royal families have done any "racial" inbreeding? Baron Max
I think people are getting too touchy with the term "inbreeding". I know SAM posted a definition from wikipedia, which basically defined it as incest, but it is technically applicable to any group.
