tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post4295249985804713711..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: John Hawks on Anne Wojcicki on RaceDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84001301356422187362009-10-18T20:04:58.613+03:002009-10-18T20:04:58.613+03:00Pseudohistory, pseudoscience, mythology and tall t...Pseudohistory, pseudoscience, mythology and tall tales is no match for history.<br /><br /><br />The need to believe that slavery 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century U.S. and new world slavery only affected your bogus made up "sub-saharan" Africans, doesn't hold up to the most elementary and basic scholarship. This type of pseudohistory was created to match up with pseudoscience anthropology so that Europeans could lay claim to all things African, including its history and culture.<br /><br /><br />People transported to the Americas from the 16th to 20th centuries included north Africans, southern Africans, east Africans (including those in the horn), arabs, levantines, Turks, Iranians, south Asians, not to mention the Native Americans used as slaves as well.<br /><br /><br />The above is historically documented fact. Its not included in any American curriculum of course since it completely destroys the eurocentric racial hierarchy flim flam.An Africanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15305589102678855629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79029349666058672232009-10-18T19:47:04.523+03:002009-10-18T19:47:04.523+03:00Lamprecht scribbled:
.....
You can post all of t...Lamprecht scribbled:<br /><i>.....</i><br /><br /><br />You can post all of the junk pseudoscience that you want. Everyone knows how whites want to claim that any African American who they believe either looks good, is a leader, is successful, creative, is intelligent must be mixed with some other ethnic group.<br /><br /><br />Funny they how this need is non-existent to any AA who is in prison. <br /><br /><br />The reason is because there is no self-esteem in it for whites to claim something they deem as negative.<br /><br /><br />Whites have sunk so low mentally that you have to actually either use another ethnic group to bolster your self-esteem or keep anything positive that is AA away from AAs as a group. Just to maintain your deranged, delusional, and depraved racial hierarchy.<br /><br /><br />Pathetic.An Africanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15305589102678855629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16147952535614734812009-09-19T22:21:18.690+03:002009-09-19T22:21:18.690+03:00It's laughable how "An African" igno...It's laughable how "An African" ignores genetic data!<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"...estimates of the European-American genetic contribution to the African-American gene pool were 27.5%–33.6% for the Y-STR haplotypes and 9%–15.4% for the mtDNA types"</i><br /> - Kayser et al (2003) "<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?zmw2tkibyft" rel="nofollow">Y chromosome STR haplotypes and the genetic structure of U.S. populations of African, European, and Hispanic ancestry</a>"<br /> <br /> Out of 115 African-Americans sampled, 33.9% had non-Negroid Y-DNA. 2 had E3b, 1 had G, 5 had I, 27 had R1b, and 4 had R*.<br /> - Vallone and Butler (2003) "<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?tmy2xjdom3z" rel="nofollow">Multiplexed Assays for Evaluation of Y-SNP Markers in U.S. Populations</a>"<br /> - Valloen and Butler (2004) "<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?zyjngyzi4gi" rel="nofollow">Y-SNP Typing of U.S. African American and Caucasian Samples Using Allele-Specific Hybridization and Primer Extension</a>"<br /><br /><br /><br />In a study of 109 African-Americans from Chicago, Pittsburg, Baltimore, and North Carolina, European admixture estimates were 18.4%, 18.3%, 15.9%, and 18.8% respectively. <br /> - Smith et al (2004) "<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?thenmma4zzj" rel="nofollow">A High-Density Admixture Map for Disease Gene Discovery in African Americans</a>"<br /> <br /> Another study using the WLS method* claimed African-Americans are 78.7±1.2% West African, being 18.6±1.5% European.<br /> - Parra et al (2004) "<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?y0jxnorm0eg" rel="nofollow">Implications of correlations between skin color and genetic ancestry for biomedical reserach</a>"<br /> <br /><br />A sample of 100 African-Americans from <a href="http://www.hapmap.org/" rel="nofollow">HapMap</a> and <a href="http://ccr.coriell.org/" rel="nofollow">Coriell Cell Repositories</a> were analyzed.<br /> Two principal components shown: <br /> http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9130/aamerf.jpg <br /> As you can see, African-Americans are heavily mixed, estimated at 21±14% European, with results from 1% to 62% according to the study. <br /> - Price et al (2008) "<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?g1gwrnyzbzu" rel="nofollow">Effects of cis and trans Genetic Ancestry on Gene Expression in African Americans</a>"<br /><br /><br /> *Long (1991) "<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?k4mtwfmid0d" rel="nofollow">The Genetic Structure of Admixed Populations</a>"<br /><br />We also have the "One drop rule" that you probably know a bit about.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11509954348536523720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6663485861467883202009-09-13T19:40:11.892+03:002009-09-13T19:40:11.892+03:00Let me repeat for the African:
Most Europeans, my...Let me repeat for the African:<br /><br /><i>Most Europeans, myself included, could go an entire lifetime without laying eyes on an African and not bat an eyelash. Trouble is Africans come to us and not vice versa. Hope this helps in your understanding of European/African interactions.</i><br /><br />That should be your starting premise and not some ridiculous conflation that you conjured up in your little, underdeveloped brain. Thanks.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83133384571187468872009-09-13T01:27:21.861+03:002009-09-13T01:27:21.861+03:00Let me humor you goons again. Again this is just h...Let me humor you goons again. Again this is just humoring your desperate mixing fantasies. Let's believe your fantasies.<br /><br /><br />What woman on earth would have a rape child? What woman on earth would not have an abortion?<br /><br /><br />And before you go there, abortions have been around since the beginning of mankind.An Africanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14601687721047284529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59862550621875884292009-09-13T01:09:34.935+03:002009-09-13T01:09:34.935+03:00Maju scribbled:
From Wikipedia:
Don't make ...Maju scribbled:<br /><i>From Wikipedia: </i><br /><br /><br />Don't make me laugh. Your case just went out the window on that alone.An Africanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14601687721047284529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71790984482175725542009-09-07T21:55:39.397+03:002009-09-07T21:55:39.397+03:00There is such thing as race; it is a social constr...There is such thing as race; it is a social construct. <br /><br />We are very fortunate that this social construct is able to express itself in people’s physical attributes and help to identify skeletons. <br /><br />I had an osteology lecture last week that included the skeletal characteristic of various "races" and how they express themselves physically. The professor even had the temerity show us examples of “mixed race” individuals and talk of the special care one must take in identifying such specimens. She even spoke of how some MtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups are common among some races than others and. should you be able to recover DNA, you can use that information to help in determining the “race” of the specimen.<br /><br />She also started the course two weeks ago with the standard disclaimer about race being a social construct.<br /><br />I love anthropology courses.Bolinagahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04540899814735176413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21931644104149064662009-09-06T21:40:00.678+03:002009-09-06T21:40:00.678+03:00Thats fantasy.
Uh?
From Wikipedia:
Genovese c...<i>Thats fantasy</i>.<br /><br />Uh? <br /><br />From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Treatment_of_slaves" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>: <br /><br /><i>Genovese claims that because the slaves were the legal property of their owners, it was not unusual for enslaved black women to be raped by their owners, members of their owner's families, or their owner's friends. Children who resulted from such rapes were slaves as well because they took the status of their mothers, unless freed by the slaveholder. Nell Irwin Painter and other historians have also documented that Southern history went "across the color line." Contemporary accounts by Mary Chesnut and Fanny Kemble, both married in the planter class, as well as accounts by former slaves gathered under the Works Progress Administration (WPA), all attested to the abuse of women slaves by white men of the owning and overseer class.<br /><br />(...) Frederick Douglass, who grew up as a slave in Maryland, reported the systematic separation of slave families and widespread rape of slave women to boost slave numbers. [<a href="http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Douglass/Autobiography/01.html" rel="nofollow">ref</a>]<br /><br />(...) As in President Thomas Jefferson's household, the presence of lighter-skinned slaves as household servants was not merely an issue of skin color. Sometimes planters used mixed-race slaves as house servants or favored artisans because they were their children or other relatives. Several of Jefferson's household slaves were children of his father-in-law John Wayles and the enslaved woman Betty Hemings, who were brought to the marriage by Jefferson's wife</i>.<br /><br /><i>You have to have women who would allow themselves to be raped</i>.<br /><br />This is the most brutal oxymoron I have ever read! Rape means that the raped person does not agree to sex - check your dictionary!<br /><br />Of course there were surely cases when the slave woman would (more or less reluctantly) accept that situation for whichever reason but most probably because it did offer for her and her eventual children a somewhat privileged status (within the brutal situation of slavery). But, even if we would consider this kind of rather forced concubinage not to be rape, strict rape existed and was frequent anyhow. <br /><br /><i>You need to have someone to want to rape these women</i>. <br /><br />Not sure what you mean but rapists do exist and with all likelihood existed in the past. Today this is considered criminal and highly immoral (of course) but in the historical context of slavery, when slaves were considered mere property, and when patriarcal (machista, mysogynous) values in general were much stronger than today, this kind of hierarchical rape was surely acknowledged as normal - maybe even favored. Just remember that in Medieval and even Modern Europe, aristocrats had such sick privileges over their serfs and slaves (the widespread <i>ius prima noctis</i> - but in practice rape and concubinage must have been much more widespread than this rule).<br /><br />And if you mean that white men do not ever desire black women, that's just false: black women can be as hot and desirable as any other.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66818165801380864572009-09-05T20:41:44.501+03:002009-09-05T20:41:44.501+03:00It really makes one question the intelligence of t...It really makes one question the intelligence of those who wish to believe that a woman would not only give birth to a child that is the result of a rape, but would also raise it and want to see a reminder of the event on a daily, hourly, minute by minute, second by second basis.<br /><br /><br />Throughout the history of this planet, what woman would have a rape child?<br /><br /><br />Fantasy is no equal to commonsense and sound logic/analysis.An Africanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17499348089648858672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69167400617258774102009-09-05T11:08:31.577+03:002009-09-05T11:08:31.577+03:00Thanks for that Ken. I visited the Museum of Blac...Thanks for that Ken. I visited the Museum of Black History (or some such title) in Memphis and I realised two things we have to remember about American history. 1) the first African who went to America didn't go as slaves. They went as indentured servants so, in theory, they were free after their term of servitude (maybe 7 years) and 2) the first slaves that went to America were not black. It's a side of US history that's not widely publicised.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11513578803489189872009-09-04T12:13:40.273+03:002009-09-04T12:13:40.273+03:00"That's surely why racism was invented: a..."That's surely why racism was invented: as a knee-jerk reaction to this rather novel fact that 'threatened' traditional identities. At first it was just a matter of religious (merely cultural) discrimination but eventually it became racial (skin-deep biological)". <br /><br />Granted that some level of racism has always existed: the culture you're most familiar with is the one you automatically feel is the natural, and therefore superior one. But I've heard it argued that racism became especially prominent as a justification for the huge numbers of slaves required for the labour-intensive farming systems that developed in the New World. Could be something in the idea.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58733832864437939322009-09-04T12:02:06.585+03:002009-09-04T12:02:06.585+03:00Inter-racial sex depends entirely on the cultural ...<i>Inter-racial sex depends entirely on the cultural attidudes to it at the time</i>. <br /><br />And availability. Races after all have formed by relative isolation from each other, this is something dictated not by culture but by geography and history. Only as intercontinental interactions (globalization) became more and more common, specially in the last centuries, the availability of a wide array of racial choices became real. That's surely why racism was invented: as a knee-jerk reaction to this rather novel fact that "threatened" traditional identities. At first it was just a matter of religious (merely cultural) discrimination but eventually it became racial (skin-deep biological). <br /><br /><i>I presume you're refering to the wish to keep races apart and prevent them from having sex. Sounds as though An African would disagree</i>.<br /><br />I presume both presumptions of yours are presumably right. <br /><br /><i>Many Scots were sent as slaves after the uprising in Scotland</i>.<br /><br />Didn't know that.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72966815603942299992009-09-04T02:14:49.233+03:002009-09-04T02:14:49.233+03:00"The further back you go in history the less ..."The further back you go in history the less and less you have interracial sex between ethnic groups". <br /><br />Not true. Inter-racial sex depends entirely on the cultural attidudes to it at the time. The cultural fact of slavery has meant that, as Maju says, the bulk of inter-racial sex in the USA in the past was between European men and African women. <br /><br />"It is a legacy of historical racism and, IMO, should not be happening anymore". <br /><br />I presume you're refering to the wish to keep races apart and prevent them from having sex. Sounds as though An African would disagree. <br /><br />By the way, there were more than just 'some white slaves (Irish mostly)'. Many Scots were sent as slaves after the uprising in Scotland. And there is a belief by some that James Cook was sent to the South Pacific to investigate the possibility of sending England's convicts to Australia, seeing that the main previous destination (North America) had ceased to be available for such a purpose. So racial mixing was possible within the slave population almost from the beginning, although we know that slave owners often had sex with their fematle slaves (or possibly not just female slaves, but that wouldn't have produced children).terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88547156784576092202009-09-02T22:47:31.412+03:002009-09-02T22:47:31.412+03:00African: rape and concubinage was widespread in th...African: rape and concubinage was widespread in the slavery age - that is a fact we surely dislike but way too real. Additionally for the next century Jim Crow laws established that crazy "one-drop rule" of the USA, that made all mixed people "blacks" by decree, twisted logic that has survived till now culturally. And Afroamericans generally accept that as a sociocultural fact too, so mixed people reproduced (and mostly still do) within the AA ethnic group. <br /><br />Genetic studies generally place AAs much closer to West African samples than to European ones but they do not cluster tightly with real Africans but show a cline between 100% Africanness and about only 50%. I'd say that the average AA has like 80% African ancestry but maybe as much as 20% European. And that should be greater in Y-DNA lineages, for obvious reasons. <br /><br />Even if inter-ethnic relationships and reproduction are now at an age low (probably not but anyhow), AAs carry a legacy of some European blood from all that history in America. While in most this is not too obvious in phenotype, for some is. <br /><br />And for the record there were also some white slaves (Irish mostly) and other, often enslaved or marginalized, mixed groups like the Melungeons that may have served as additional bridge for gene flow.<br /><br />In any case, wanting to keep races that live side by side apart is doomed: eventually, you know, sex happens. It is a legacy of historical racism and, IMO, should not be happening anymore.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6279990717640348072009-09-02T17:45:14.708+03:002009-09-02T17:45:14.708+03:00Maju scribbled:
But as Afroamerican you should be...Maju scribbled:<br /><br /><i>But as Afroamerican you should be aware that most AAs have some degree of admixture with Europeans (this is evident whith genetics), even if the main component by far is West/Middle African.</i><br /><br /><br />What planet do you live on? What methodolgoy of luncacy do you subscribe to that would lead you to believe that African descended men and white women were producing children the extrordinary amount of offspring that would fulfill all of jackels needs for African Americans to be this mixed hybrids with "europeans"?<br /><br /><br />The same goes for African descended women and white men. What mind altering substance leads you to believe that African women not only would have sex with white men but would also have their children?<br /><br /><br />How many white women were having children with AA men? 1 out of every 2, 1 out of every 3, 1 out of every 20?<br /><br />How many African women were having sex, yet alone children with white men? 1 out of every 2, 1 out of every 3, 1 out of every 20?<br /><br /><br />Since you claim to be such an authority on AAs. Fill everyone in with the appropriate numbers and back it up. <br /><br /><br />If anything its whites who are mixed with Africans, since most of the offspring of black/white unions go on to produce children with whites.<br /><br /><br />The further back you go in history the less and less you have interracial sex between ethnic groups, but especially between blacks and whites.<br /><br /><br />You'll probably fall back on what all desperate racialists use and that is rape.<br /><br /><br />No woman in their right minds have rape babies. Yet alone would actually raise one. You need a shrink if you believe otherwise. <br /><br /><br />On top of that they would have had to not fight the black woman to commit such a cowardly sick act but also any of the other African descended men and women who were in earshot.<br /><br /><br />African Americans look like Africans from northern, eastern, southern, western, and central Africa. That is why many African Americans often get mistaken by Ethiopians, Egyptians, Somalis, as being one of them. If it bothers you feel free to consult a psychiatrist.<br /><br /><br />For that matter Italians, Greeks, Turks, Iranians, Levantines, Arabs, and South Asians were also brought over and used as slaves.<br /><br /><br />Look it up, its historically documented.An Africanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589179767715455186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90727425056002778662009-08-31T20:34:11.410+03:002009-08-31T20:34:11.410+03:00Why that agitated reply? It's obvious that all...Why that agitated reply? It's obvious that all the intermediate category that elsewhere are called by other names "mulatto", "mestizo", "moreno"... have been absorbed sociologically (and biologically) in the USA by a single ethnic group: AAs. A good example is Obama: he is sociologically Black (and can hardly escape that category) but ancestrally, genetically, he's 50-50: he's as black as white and vice versa. <br /><br />I agree though that use of the term mongrel and other breeding terminology applied to humans is totally out of place. <br /><br />But as Afroamerican you should be aware that most AAs have some degree of admixture with Europeans (this is evident whith genetics), even if the main component by far is West/Middle African. IMO there's no shame in admixture and that's a reason why I'm quite reluctant to accept racial categorization (and when asked I usually reply "human"). Everybody has some admixture (except Polak, I guess) and it's something generally good - otherwise clonation would have defeated sex long ago.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43864989149207762352009-08-31T10:48:05.367+03:002009-08-31T10:48:05.367+03:00I couldn't let this comment go:
"Nature...I couldn't let this comment go: <br /><br />"Nature does not select for traits: nature selcts for survivability". <br /><br />Nature selects for traits that enhance survivability. It's as simple as that. Even in artificial selection it is useless to select for just one trait. A while ago Dienekes posted research that showed the gene for enhanced milk production is connected in some way with a gene for lowered fertility. So artificial selection is no simple matter.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16094869733002757842009-08-31T10:44:21.566+03:002009-08-31T10:44:21.566+03:00"It's extremely different".
Maju...."It's extremely different". <br /><br />Maju. It is exactly the same. The fact that artificial selection can be 'for milk or other of such things that would never be selected for in nature' is of no consequence whatever. The gene pool is simply being altered, whether by natural or artificial selection. It makes no difference in effect. If you don't understand that it's time you did a course on basic population genetics. <br /><br />"What I say is that we are discussing subspecies and cheetahs are not". <br /><br />My original mention of the cheetah was in relation to species with a limited gene pool. It was you who brought up the completely irrelevant subject of subspecies in relation to this inbreeding. <br /><br />"Man, the first time I saw a cow without horns... really impressed me. How can the animal excercise self-defense?" <br /><br />The really interesting thing concerning cattle without horns (I assume you are not aware that the condition is actually called 'polled') is that it is in fact a naturally occurring dominant gene. In the wild any cattle with the gene would have been selected against, they were at a breeding disadvantage. However humans obviously quite liked the idea of domestic cattle without horns so have selected for it. But there is a downside. Polled calves tend to produce a more difficult birth because of the shape of their head. Hope that little explanation helps you understanding of population genetics.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27341213513762618322009-08-30T13:40:55.130+03:002009-08-30T13:40:55.130+03:00It's the same thing.
It's extremely diffe...<i>It's the same thing</i>.<br /><br />It's extremely different: like eugenics and natural reproduction, like order and chaos. Nature does not select for traits: nature selcts for survivability, people for milk or other of such things that would never be selected for in nature. So we get surrealistic products: dogs with moustache, bulls without horns, etc. <br /><br />How many naturally occurring subspecies of wolf are out there? A few, all very alike. How many breeds of dog: zillions! Each one more extreme. Breeding has little to do with how Nature works. <br /><br /><i>Cheetahs are a subspecies?</i>- <br /><br />No. What I say is that we are discussing subspecies and cheetahs are not. <br /><br /><i>Humans breed their cattle for the purposes they need them, namely to eat them, milk them, and have them pull on ploughs and carts</i>.<br /><br />And show them in expositions. But that's the key: we transform them intentonally, unlike what happens in nature. That's why breeds are so funky and colorful. <br /><br />Man, the first time I saw a cow without horns... really impressed me. How can the animal excercise self-defense? What next? A cow without legs?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11616673179950469602009-08-29T23:47:07.885+03:002009-08-29T23:47:07.885+03:00not by causing them to be slower, dumber and fatte...<i> not by causing them to be slower, dumber and fatter, as humans do with their cattle</i><br /><br />Humans breed their cattle for the purposes they need them, namely to eat them, milk them, and have them pull on ploughs and carts.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73309245906268511462009-08-29T23:39:06.639+03:002009-08-29T23:39:06.639+03:00"Crucial issue".
No. It's differ..."Crucial issue". <br /><br />No. It's different, that's all. Selection in nature usually involves selection for several attributes whereas under domestication selection is often more focused on a single attribute. It's the same thing. <br /><br />"Lions affect the slection of zebras by causing them to be faster and more alert, not by causing them to be slower, dumber and fatter, as humans do with their cattle". <br /><br />OK. I'll breed a line of cattle that are faster and more alert. Would you be happy then? <br /><br />"Are we talking subspecies or whole species brought to the brink of extinction by modernity?" <br /><br />Cheetahs are a subspecies? Of what? Anyway it's got nothing to do with 'modernity'. Species were becoming extinct long before humans of any sort had evolved. It's just that we can examine the process today. The final step in extinctioin is almost always inbreeding.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80820045081661279372009-08-29T13:23:10.535+03:002009-08-29T13:23:10.535+03:00Selection is still operating, just towards differe...<i>Selection is still operating, just towards different results</i>.<br /><br />Crucial issue. Also selection is accelerated and twisted/distorted. Animals that would survive and reproduce in nature are not allowed to dos so while others that might well die off without offspring are protected to breed. Nature would have never allowed the sausage dog, for example - in fact, wolves are much less differentiated than are dogs: breeds make no sense in nature. <br /><br /><i>Do you really believe that lions farm zebras?</i> -<br /><br />Obviously not. Lions affect the slection of zebras by causing them to be faster and more alert, not by causing them to be slower, dumber and fatter, as humans do with their cattle. <br /><br /><i>That's completely untrue as well. Cheetahs, for example, have a very limited gene pool. And many threatened species are threatened precisely because they have become very inbred</i>.<br /><br />Are we talking subspecies or whole species brought to the brink of extinction by modernity?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20253076374591419932009-08-29T00:24:34.126+03:002009-08-29T00:24:34.126+03:00"the same that there are no fences in nature ..."the same that there are no fences in nature much less masters". <br /><br />Surely mountains, deserts and forests have exactly the same effect. And what's this about 'masters'? Whether the 'master' be a human individual or natural selection is immaterial. Selection is still operating, just towards different results. <br /><br />"Also you'd never see in nature that a zebra is selected for the amount of meat it can provide lions with". <br /><br />Do you really believe that lions farm zebras? On reflection I suppose that to some extent they do. Maybe you're onto something. That's why zebras are such plump-looking little horses. <br /><br />"That kind of extreme inbreeding doesn't normally happen in nature". <br /><br />That's completely untrue as well. Cheetahs, for example, have a very limited gene pool. And many threatened species are threatened precisely because they have become very inbred. <br /><br />"So using the word race without causing confusions is a bigger problem than using the word species without causing confusions". <br /><br />That probably sums this post up. Thanks.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70262701245065746292009-08-27T11:33:45.356+03:002009-08-27T11:33:45.356+03:00My original post seems to have flopped somehow, so...My original post seems to have flopped somehow, so sorry for coming back late. I want to point out that there is a big risk of talking past each other whenever the subject of race comes up.<br /><br />On the one hand it is true that scientists do talk about race. So is it silly to say science has proved there are no races, as we often see posted around the internet?<br /><br />I think it is not actually that silly, but only because of a language/communication issue.<br /><br />"Race", unlike the word "species" is not a word that scientists have the monopoly on. In the case of "species" Darwinian science takes a pre-Darwinian scientific word and re-defines it. Species no longer means something fixed, and it is no longer all that important to biology. Well read creationists sometimes try to point to cases where biologists disagree on how many species there are of a particular animal or plant and claim this somehow shows a problem in biology but Darwinian biology properly understood has absolutely no problem saying that species are not clearly defined, and STILL talking about species.<br /><br />The problem with the word race is similar but more difficult. Scientists use it just like they use the word species, fuzzily, whenever talking about distinct populations smaller than a species. But notice that this approach uses the word in a slightly pre-Darwinian way, implying that there are levels of phylogeny, species being higher than race and so on.<br /><br />In general we see biologists using words like clade more often now, and not bothering as much anymore with whether a clade is a "genus" or a "family" or whatever. This is a perfectly natural and logical development under Darwinism.<br /><br />In the case of the word "race" we have not just a bit of confusion however, but a serious issue in the public, because they have a clear definition of what a race is, and it is not just any relatively clearly defined population smaller than a species.<br /><br />So using the word race without causing confusions is a bigger problem than using the word species without causing confusions.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51880556003831222502009-08-26T12:51:28.301+03:002009-08-26T12:51:28.301+03:00Whether that barrier is a result of mountains, des...<i>Whether that barrier is a result of mountains, deserts, forests or fences is immaterial, the result is the same</i>.<br /><br />No! The result is hyper-specialized crits that can't live autonomously in most cases and an accelerated "evolution". Nothing of that would be in nature, the same that there are no fences in nature much less masters. <br /><br />Also you'd never see in nature that a zebra is selected for the amount of meat it can provide lions with. <br /><br />Finally the genetic variability of breeds is, in most cases, extremely low, as was evidenced by the recent studies on dogs' genetics. That kind of extreme inbreeding doesn't normally happen in nature, nor among humans (except maybe in Hitler's mad fantasies). And when it does happen accidentally it's usually a total disaster (like in those island populations that can't almost even contact foreigners - look up Tristan da Cunha, for example). <br /><br /><i>So do we abandon the term 'subspecies'? That merely shifts the problem. The boundaries between many species are also often difficult to define. The inability to form fertile offspring is in no way a consistent guide. Unfortunately evolution doesn't produce nicely compartmentalised results</i><br /><br />Sure but the term species is still much more clear. And, in what regards to humans, whose closest living relatives are chimpanzee and bonobo, the difference between species and race/subspecies/type is brutal and hence very clear. <br /><br />We may have some doubts re. Neanderthals and other extinct branches but not re. living ones.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com