 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> 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, that we are at a speciation crossroads.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
> that we are at a speciation crossroads.
what makes you think we aren't?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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.
> > 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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I don't know. But since "interracial" marriages are more exception than
> norm,
I think that's more because races don't mix all that much. How many African
folks are there in Japan to get married?
I think when you're in a place that has lots of different "races" mixed
together, you get a fair amount of interracial marriages, just from personal
gut feeling and nothing scientific.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4A6### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 18-7-2009 1:37, somebody wrote:
> > 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).
True. It might even be genetic features of an individual that may make one
less attractive to own group and more so to an outside population. 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.
> > 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. 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.
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
