Racial Inbreeding

W

Willy

Banned
Banned
Scholars believe the color differences in human skins can be traced to climatic adaptation. They argue that the high levels of melanin in dark skin originally protected people living outside in hot, sunny climates, notably in Africa and South Asia, from skin cancer. Conversely, in cold climates, the low amount of melanin in light skins enabled the early humans to soak up vitamin D from a sun often hidden behind clouds.

These color differences were reinforced by millennia of inbreeding when humans lived in small groups that were geographically and socially isolated.

This inbreeding also produced variations in head and nose shapes and other facial features so that Northern Europeans look different from people from the Mediterranean area, such as Italians and, long ago, Jews. Likewise, East African faces differ from West African ones, and Chinese faces from Japanese ones. (Presumably the inbreeding and isolation also produced the DNA patterns that geneticists refer to in the latest scientific revival and redefinition of race.)


http://www.contextsmagazine.org/content_sample_v4-4.php
 
FYI:

Inbreeding is breeding between close relatives, whether plant or animal. If practiced repeatedly, it often leads to a reduction in genetic diversity, and the increased gene expression of recessive traits, resulting in inbreeding depression. This may result in inbred individuals exhibiting reduced health and fitness and lower levels of fertility.

Livestock breeders often practice inbreeding to "fix" desirable characteristics within a population. However, they must then cull unfit offspring, especially when trying to establish the new and desirable trait in their stock.

Inbreeding may result in a far higher expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:

* reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* increased genetic disorders
* fluctuating facial asymmetry
* lower birth rate
* higher infant mortality
* slower growth rate
* smaller adult size
* loss of immune system function.

Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental stresses, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.

Inbreeding in humans

The taboo of incest has been discussed by many social scientists. Anthropologists attest that it exists in most cultures. As inbreeding within the first generation would produce expression of recessive traits, the prohibition has been discussed as a possible functional response to the requirement of culling those born deformed, or with undesirable traits. The eugenicists used breeding techniques to promulgate their ideas of human perfection and "illness" on all humans. Some anthropologists like Charles Davenport advocated the traditional forms of assortative breeding to form "better" human stock.

[edit]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
 
Last edited:
Willy said:
Scholars believe the color differences in human skins can be traced to climatic adaptation. They argue that the high levels of melanin in dark skin originally protected people living outside in hot, sunny climates, notably in Africa and South Asia, from skin cancer. Conversely, in cold climates, the low amount of melanin in light skins enabled the early humans to soak up vitamin D from a sun often hidden behind clouds.

These color differences were reinforced by millennia of inbreeding when humans lived in small groups that were geographically and socially isolated.

This inbreeding also produced variations in head and nose shapes and other facial features so that Northern Europeans look different from people from the Mediterranean area, such as Italians and, long ago, Jews. Likewise, East African faces differ from West African ones, and Chinese faces from Japanese ones. (Presumably the inbreeding and isolation also produced the DNA patterns that geneticists refer to in the latest scientific revival and redefinition of race.)


http://www.contextsmagazine.org/content_sample_v4-4.php
Click to expand...

Are you deliberately being stupid ? :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
The problem is there wasn't really much geographical isolation, unless you consider islands. That's why I think the superficial differences between the "races" are a result largely of sexual selection. It comes about as a result of culture. Cultures tend to breed within themselves.
 
I don't understand what this thread it trying to get at. ???
Wouldn't moving across the planet and having children with other cultures/races be a part of evolution?
 
I posted this thread because I got a infraction for saying:

"The more a group of being's inbreed the more they will look alike.

The less a group of being's inbreed the less they will look alike."
 
We are all from the same woman that gave birth to the first human. That means we are all inbreeding for we are all brothers and sisters.
 
More than likely from the findings of Dr. Leaky and his crew. That doesn't mean that it is the exact place, its only the place that has been located so far with bones that date back nearly 3 million years linking humans to that which evolved there.
 
willy,
interesting subjct.
so, you propose that inbreeding helped to shape a cultures traits right?
you do realize that this applies to your culture as well do you not?
also, the fact that even albinos have melenin in their skin says that ALL of us are descendants of africans. in essence willy you have black blood.
why does it suddenly smell like J.B. in here?
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Yes he is, and I'd say he's about three days away from being permanently banned from SciForums. This is the second time he's posted something from a racist website, which is an egregious violation of our rules.
Click to expand...
Racist website?

It is from the University of California.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Yes he is, and I'd say he's about three days away from being permanently banned from SciForums. This is the second time he's posted something from a racist website, which is an egregious violation of our rules.
Click to expand...

:scratchin:

I think you meant to say this:

Biology & Genetics is one of this website's scientific subforums. Please comport yourself like a scientist in these halls. You have not participated in this discussion so you can't fall back on the excuse that you've been trying to explain this to us knuckleheads and you just can't get through so you're expressing your frustration.

You don't jump into our discussions and just start insulting people without making a single substantive statement. That is not science, that is trolling and it is a violation of the rules. If you have something to offer, do so.
 
Willy said:
Racist website?

It is from the University of California.
Click to expand...

It published by the University of California Press. That is not the same as being from the University of California.

ASA, the american sociological association is behind it. An organization that promotes the field of sociology.

What you have quoted though is an editorial. And if you read the entire thing, well, in fact you can read the summary at the very beginning, you find out that it is not a racist piece at all:

Why does the idea of race continue to exert so much influence in the United States? Because the skin colors and other physical features used to define race were selected precisely because they mirror the country's socioeconomic pecking order.
Click to expand...

merely it describes by racism is a popular theme in the US and why it is apparently seen as an important issue.

Of course selective quoting can turn any piece into a stinking sack of puss.

But the link is definitely not to a racist website.
 
Exhumed said:
:scratchin:

I think you meant to say this:

Biology & Genetics is one of this website's scientific subforums. Please comport yourself like a scientist in these halls. You have not participated in this discussion so you can't fall back on the excuse that you've been trying to explain this to us knuckleheads and you just can't get through so you're expressing your frustration.

You don't jump into our discussions and just start insulting people without making a single substantive statement. That is not science, that is trolling and it is a violation of the rules. If you have something to offer, do so.
Click to expand...

Hey its an honest question, i cant believe anyone in their right mind would belief anything that stupid. So it has to be deliberate on his part. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top