On 17-7-2009 22:35, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4A6### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 17-7-2009 22:17, somebody wrote:
>>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
>>> news:4a60b186$1@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>>> Well, so much for the old "we've never seen it happen, so it can't."
>>>>
>>>>
>
http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Study_catches_2_bird_populations_as_they_split_into_separate_species.asp
>>> It's somewhat of a stretch, and similar to saying that since Asian males
>>> don't see African males as much a threat as they see Asian males, and
> vice
>>> versa,
> 
>> well, do they?
> 
> I don't know. But since "interracial" marriages are more exception than
> norm, however you define race, it's not unreasonable and could be the
> subject of a social study.

intercultural and intersubcultural and intersocial mariages are 
uncommon. interracial is just correlated with that. At least from my 
point of view, which is one from a subculture where race is not an 
issue. Race is for me just as relevant as length or haircolor. I notice 
it but it doesn't turn me on or off. I the group of people that I 
usually encounter race also does not seem an issue, lots of interracial 
pairs.

Or to put it at a more personal level: do you fancy any white, black, or 
asian (etc) movie stars, musicians, or ordinary people you met?

>>> that we are at a speciation crossroads.
> 
>> what makes you think we aren't?
> 
> My point is, why that should make us think that we are?

Because of the definition of a species. If two groups don't mix they are 
two separate species (or if you you the stricter definition of unable to 
mix, they will inevitably be soon).

Post a reply to this message