On 18-7-2009 17:28, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4A6### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 18-7-2009 1:37, somebody wrote:
> Some
> humans also seem to have an attraction to the exotic, which also makes it
> more complicated. But these are perturbations to the basal preferences.

That may be your basal preference, it is not mine. ;)

>>>  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.
> 
> One can always construct special circumstances, or exceptions, that go
> against the rule. 

As I said I don't believe in your rule. What I tried to do is give 
examples of superstimuli and show that in that case the race is for all 
but the biggest racists not important. No matter what race you will 
react the same. Think of it this way, if you see your SO with someone of 
another race, will you think: 'it does not matter, hse doesn't fancy 
members of that race'.

> You do have a point, however, if the rich black males
> outnumber rich white males, or white bodybuilders outnumber black
> bodybuilders in mixed populations, and if those qualifications are largely
> deemed desirable by the females.

I have a point if you or your SO has at any point fancied someone from 
another race than yours.

>> 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).
> 
> Yes, it should be studied. But the conclusion that "study caught populations
> as they split into species" is premature and risky, IMO.

Can't get to the original article, thanks to the concept of IP in 
science, but superficially it looks like one of those articles where 
people do research and then add some DNA sequencing to get it published.
 From the abstract alone I would not have been able to write the story 
in the link. It seems they have a separate message for the peers and for 
the general public.

Post a reply to this message