WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two big genetic studies confirm theories that modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated through Europe and Asia to reach the Pacific and Americas.
ADVERTISEMENT
The two studies also show that Africans have the most diverse DNA, and the fewest potentially harmful genetic mutations.
I didn't realize this theory was still even in dispute...
On the subject, I highly recommend everyone read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Kandahar said:On the subject, I highly recommend everyone read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Variations in skin color evolved long after humans migrated out of Africa. There are evolutionary advantages to having darker skin in hot climates, and lighter skin in colder climates. Just like there are evolutionary advantages to having slanted eyes if one lives in areas of Asia prone to dust storms.
Aren't the only Eugenics people left racists and nazis? Ignoring morality, Eugenics is simply incorrect scientifically anyway.
Surely there is no credible scientists that still think eugenics is correct.
So, have you read Alice Walker?
The theory she puts forth in her books is this:
White people are a mutation- like albinos, I guess.
We started out as albino african black people.
We were driven out of our tribes and villages, exiled for being freaks.
Somehow, a number of us exiles hooked up with each other and traveled north, into the cold, away from the land of plenty, and eventually made our way to Europe and started a new race.
But instinctively, subconsciously, we've always hated and resented black people for rejecting us and driving us away.
Which book discusses this theory? I think it's The Temple of My Familiar.
Food for thought.
It actually makes sense, the way she outlines it.
It sounds silly, summarized like that, but maybe I'm leaving something out.
it's been awhile since I read the book.
--snip-- You are all now my African brethren. But no reparations for you. Only us darkies.
LOL, you mean we have to pay reparations to those who remained in Africa too?
No. Just the ones you brought over to America.
What, you don't want to go back? :2razz:
No. Just the ones you brought over to America.
They are all dead long ago.
Define "correct." I can think of a great many geneticists who will tell you that Eugenics works, that you can breed for a desired outcome, but none who would regard it as a good idea or moral to do so. I believe Dawkins once put it that "you could breed for high jumpers or distance runners, but at a certain point you would find that they would (while better at running/jumping) become utterly incapable at other activities.
You could breed a high jumper with a high jumper, that doesn't mean that the offspring will be ALL hight jumpers. You have to factor in recessive alleles and maybe multiple genes into the equation. Heterozygosity prevents eugenics from actually working.
That's why you can't breed the race to be all intelligent, that is why you can't breed out genetic disease, that is why you can't really breed towards a certain genetic goal.
Example, trying to destroy the "red hair" gene, which is recessive. You can prevent people with red hair from breeding do that they can't pass on their DNA, fair enough they the world population with red hair (its at 1%) would drop. But people with blonde, brown, black hair can still carry the red gene, and therefore come of their children will have red hair. This of course is a very simplified example.
You hang out w/ Eugenics groups?
Aren't the only Eugenics people left racists and nazis?
Ignoring morality, Eugenics is simply incorrect scientifically anyway. Surely there is no credible scientists that still think eugenics is correct.
Define "correct." I can think of a great many geneticists who will tell you that Eugenics works, that you can breed for a desired outcome, but none who would regard it as a good idea or moral to do so.
I believe Dawkins once put it that "you could breed for high jumpers or distance runners, but at a certain point you would find that they would (while better at running/jumping) become utterly incapable at other activities.
You could breed a high jumper with a high jumper, that doesn't mean that the offspring will be ALL high jumpers. You have to factor in recessive alleles and maybe multiple genes into the equation. Heterozygosity prevents eugenics from actually working.
Example, trying to destroy the "red hair" gene, which is recessive. You can prevent people with red hair from breeding do that they can't pass on their DNA, fair enough they the world population with red hair (its at 1%) would drop.
You cannot breed for intelligence because we don't exactly know what causes it or how to quantify it. However, you can in fact breed for a genetic goal. Its called selective breeding, we do it with our vegetables, with our livestock, its how we've domesticated animals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?