|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 17-7-2009 22:35, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
> news:4A6### [at] hotmail com...
>> On 17-7-2009 22:17, somebody wrote:
>>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |