On 18-7-2009 1:37, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4A6### [at] hotmailcom...
>> 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?
> 
> There are of course exceptions, but if I were to statistically analyze, I'd
> be surprised if, on average, I did not find Europeans and likely Middle
> Easterners to be more attractive than geographically more distant peoples. I
> don't disagree that it's not cultural, I've had little exposure to, say,
> east indian TV or culture, and have not been brainwashed by their norms of
> beauty.

Some of them are even more beautiful by our standards than theirs. E.g. 
a tan (suninduced ot congenital) is considered adding beauty to a female 
here whereas at least for some in some groups in Japan you can not be 
white enough. Hence some Japanese woman are more beautiful in Europe 
than in their home country. (example not pulled from thin air).

>  But that doesn't change the relevant aspect - that is, men hunting,
> so to speak, in different domains and hence feeling less threatened by males
> of the other race/culture/...etc does not automatically imply divergence of
> species. 

If you talk about humanity, then I don't think it is useful to discuss 
it, because your premise is false. White men will feel threatened if 
their wife is in a pleasant conversation with a rich, well dressed black 
male and skinny black males will feel the same if their wives are 
talking to a white bodybuilder.
If this is about the example of these birds, it is slightly more 
complicated. I would definitely like to see data on female behaviour. If 
a female with a black father prefers all black males and likewise for 
chestnut breasts the case would be even stronger. But this is research, 
within the boundaries of their protocol they did only check male 
behaviour. I personally think the case is already strong enough, and I 
hope that it generates money for more research to make the case 
undeniable for even the greatest sceptic (at least those that look at 
data, you never convince an anti-scientific creationist).

> It's impretive that evolutionary biologists do not make
> unjustifable leaps in their reasoning so as not to give ammunition to
> creationists.

Sure, no doubt about that.

>>>>> 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).
> 
> That's not inevitable. Physical separation for N number of generations is
> not an automatic guarantee of speciation for any N, as far as I am aware.

There is no fixed N as it is a stochastic process. There is also that 
annoying thing that it is hard to define if two populations that are not 
living at the same time are separate species or not. Example: you have a 
species with two subgroups A and B that can interbreed but choose not 
to. After some time you have groups A' and B' that can not interbreed 
anymore. It is not unlikely that A' now also can not interbreed with A, 
so is this A' still the same species as A?
Apart from that sort of technicalities, mutations will accumulate in 
both groups, in genes that change the appearance, in genes that 
influence the preference for a certain appearance, in genes that 
influence the diet and thus the territory, and even less subtle changes 
that span multiple genes.
You are not able to interbreed with chimps and bonobos. Not only because 
you find them (probably) unattractive but also because our genes do not 
match. Somewhere along the line two chromosomes fused to one bigger one, 
so that we now have 23 pairs of them and the chimp still 24. There are 
also some other large reshuffelings of genes that will prevent mixed 
offspring. How the 46/48 chromosome hybrids ever were compatible is a 
thing that amazes me everytime, but that is something for another 
discussion.

Post a reply to this message