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

> >>> 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.

Post a reply to this message