Human races - alpha rules

S

spuriousmonkey

Banned
Banned
Alpha rules - if you don't know what alpha rules are do not post and rather just curl up in a ball and vegetate

The biological significance of the human races - discuss!

As a starting point for this discussion we could explore the notion of the discontinuous mind as was tentatively approached in this rainbow thread in free thought.

With the simple notion of rainbow it was shown that people see distinct colours where there are patterns.

Similarly we see clear classifications of human specimens where there is also a spectrum. See for instance this example

Clearly Colin Powell is just as white as Bush, yet still he is seen as a member of the black race.

What could possibly be the biological significance of this?

See the following example on speciation between closely related ciclid fishes. Despite being normally not willing to mate at all because they have a different colour, red and blue, they will mate under monochromatic conditions because besides colour the fishes are indistinguishable.

Behavioural limitations based on obvious characteristics is a excellent mechanism to promote speciation.

Is something similar occuring in humans? Or has something similar occured?

Is this a case of evolution of evolvability, with the noted adjustment that radiation is a classification of evolvability?!

Has the discontinuous mind evolved for other purposes and is it now highjacked by cultural evolution.




- responses preferably accompagnied by references to primary relevant up to date literature or popular science works, unless the response is conceptual or theoretical.
 
Last edited:
Has the discontinuous mind evolved for other purposes and is it now highjacked by cultural evolution.
Click to expand...

Who's cultures? If you are asking about Africas or Chinas there would be different views on each.
 
I'm not asking you anything other than to formulate your thoughts on the matter. Are you possibly suggesting that there are cultures with a continuous mind?
 
I think that what I stated so simply is the best way for me to express what I want to say about your question. If I wish to added more I would have.
 
This is a thread in the biology subforum. Not free thought.

And alpha rules are invoked.

Maybe you could be polite enough to actually do more than give some kind of random opinion?
 
It isn't a "random" opinion , it is an opinion held by many people I'd think. I only state though what I'd believe to be the single most prevelant cause for the problem of non interbreeding between ethnic groups. You asked and I've answered , if you're not comfortable with my answer then stop asking your questions and you'll not get answers that you dislike.
 
cosmictraveler said:
It isn't a "random" opinion , it is an opinion held by many people I'd think. I only state though what I'd believe to be the single most prevelant cause for the problem of non interbreeding between ethnic groups. You asked and I've answered , if you're not comfortable with my answer then stop asking your questions and you'll not get answers that you dislike.
Click to expand...

I don't put emotional value on your answer. I just don't see any explanation.

people don't interbreed because they don't interbreed (bigotry).

What kind of biological explanation is that? I don't care about what people think. I want to discuss science here, not what people think.
 
Isn't psychology a science? I'm discussing that type of an answer with you, a psychological answer to your question. I'd think it stems from humans own brains why they don't breed with other not of their ilk. If I'm wrong, then please excuse me for givining you my answer at all.
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey,
Is something similar occuring in humans? Or has something similar occured?
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be asking if the discontinuous human mind could possibly have contributed to the different 'races' we have today. As dark-skinned peoples migrated from Africa to the cooler climates, it is thought that the dark skin was no longer a benifit, and some individuals began to be born with lighter colored skin. Are you suggesting that lighter skinned people may have preferred to mate with other lighter skinned people, thus contributing to the trait? I am not stating you are suggesting that, just asking if you think that, or if you think less-educated people may believe that.
It would seem illogical to me, as there should have been the same contributing factor for the dark-skinned people. That is, there should have been a tendency to separate light-skinned and dark-skinned peoples in the same enviroment and location. If the discontinuous mind is supposed to favor mates of the same color, it would not eliminate the dark-skinned people from colder climates in man's early history. It should have led to peoples of both skin types co-existing in the same enviroment. This is, of course, JMHO. Is there a flaw in my logic?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
What kind of biological explanation is that? I don't care about what people think. I want to discuss science here, not what people think.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't have made your OP entirely about what people think (i.e, "discontinuous mind").

If there's anyone out there enforcing the alpha rules, Spurious should immediately be cited for abusing them in order to berate honest responders.
 
"Biological significance of the human races"? What the fuck is that?
 
All knowledge starts with assumption.

I think that the question is beginning on an assumption - that races in human beings are significant. It would be difficult to classify the different human "races" at even a subspecies level. Thus - from the biological standpoint - there is little or no significance.

So, this is a concept we are dealing with that is not based on facts but on perceptions. Some studies show that an animal will preferentially mate with an animal that looks similar to what it has seen in its lifetime (the template so to speak). Yet other studies have found that animals will preferentially mate with a "novel" male or female. There is no adequate explanation as to why in either case as yet.

Behavioral limitations to mating based on obvious characteristics smacks of the "good genes" theory - but it is not to promote speciation. Selection for the average is not directional selection and ends in less variability rather than more.

In addition, evolution (from a biological standpoint) is evolution by selection. Cultural evolution uses a more loose definition that requires only change over time. The two are not quite synonomous.
Then - you still have to consider if a discontinous mind "evolved" (as in, this is just the way it is made to function) or is it taught?
 
Last edited:
Isn't it quite simple? It's about the survival and benefit of a species. Or even perceived benefit by selection. That's why we choose mates with qualities we deem superior or advantageous and reject those that seem otherwise.

Besides that, we instinctively want to preserve and promote our likeness, the specialization and discrimination is just a finetuning of the survival of the species.

Even those who value qualites that another deems inferior can perceive them as superior because we are all inherently self-promoting. The survival instinct.

Even those with inferior traits would not out themselves or not mate for the benefit of the gene pool, for example. Maybe unfortunately except for the most conscientious.

As for certain characteristics, it doesn't always translate to superior or inferior but just different but valuable and integral to the identity of that species or subspecies(race).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top