Imported weed diversification supports macro-evolution

kurusu, Speciation is a part of a process that may result in macroevolution at some point, when compared to the "start" point.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Melatonin is a neurotransmitter.Melanin is skin pigment.

This is just too preciously politically correct, and missing the whole point. Is or is it not the very same process of population genetics that has produced the human "races," no matter what you think of the term, and no matter how much genetic diversity still exists within them, that leads to speciation in animals, produces "ring species" for instance? I'm talking about something OBSERVABLE. One can usually tell a Norwegian from an Italian, an Arab from a Mongolian. Sheesh. And there are even recognizable differences in general appearance between members of isolated tribes who are nevertheless related.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 11:38 AM

No, it's what's supported by the DNA data. Your average !Kung from Namibia differs immensely, as human variation goes, from his fellow "Negroes" that are of Bantu or Ethiopian descent. The genetic distance from Swede to Montegnard is small by comparison.

I know genetic differences within/between races has been covered before somewhere, but I think it's time to cover it again.How about submitting something to the Proposed New Topics forum?Per this topic - People, get back on the weed.Adminnemooseus

Unfortunately I forget where this subtopic started, but the DNA picture is not the point. I'm talking about the OBSERVABLE differences from one isolated population to another based on the principles of population genetics. That is, there are lots n lots of different groups of human beings that have developed their own genetic picture that differentiates them from the others, mostly because of migration.Moose, this IS on the topic of the weed. It's about the normal processes of variation, how you get a different type of something.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 01:03 PM

How about a Norwegian whose father was Italian? Or the son of an Arab and a Mongolian? Or could you identify by sight a Jew? How is a religion a race?The problem with race is that it obeys none of the laws of genetics that you and I are familiar with. If a white person and a black person have a child, that child is typically described as "half-black"; if two half-black people have a child and that child is 1/4 "black", we're well beyond making any sense of race in a human species that has only two copies of every chromosome. As a diploid organism you're either full, half, or none.Sure, we would expect human evolution in varied remote geographies to result in semi-seperated populations of human beings identifiable by certain physical traits. But the cultural concept of "race", which conflates genetics, ethnicity, religion, and a host of other biases, has really no basis in physical reality. And it should be noted that the trend in humans now is one of decreasing genetic variability between groups, not increasing. If we ever were "raced", we're rapidly ceasing to be so.

Well, gee, thanks for acknowledging that simple point finally. Just the usual political correctness. Who cares. You're getting all hung up on a term. Gotta get all that political baggage into it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 01:47 PM

Faith, No, races as you understand them were not produced. It is in fact genetics that has taught us this.There are populations of black africans that are more dissimilar to each other than whites are to them, genetically speaking. Australian aborigines are more similar to white caucasians than black africans. This means that we do when we declare races is that we are taking a small part of a large character set & attributing race in this way. Unfortunately we are also ignoring the larger picture which leads us to false conclusions. None of the groups you cited are races. And as for assigning races to groups because of OBSERVABLE characters, how about big noses? They are observable. Eye colour? It goes on. Why not. Dark skin is not indicative of common descent in human populations, so why lump them together because of it?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-26-2006 02:26 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

That's why it's such a bad term; it comes pre-loaded with all that political baggage. It clouds the discussion and obfuscates meaning. Given that that's the case I don't understand why you're so adamant that this term be used.

"No, no, no, no, I don't smoke it no more
I'm tired of wakin' up on the floor..."-- R. Starkey

quote:

---

One can usually tell a Norwegian from an Italian, an Arab from a Mongolian.

---

Oh?What race is this man?

Faith,In addition to Schraf's post, what race are these children? Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Irrelevant. Where did I say I personally could recognize all the different races and tribes of humanity any more than I could recognize the five different races and tribes of goatsbeard?This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2006 08:08 PM

Where did I say I could recognize all the tribes of humanity?And where did I say I could recognize if a tribe recombined with another tribe?