I think whatever is right between two people --> is none of our business! :dohAnti miscegenation has all but vanished from legal code. America is the great melting pot, there's a lot of cultural crossover, especially in urban areas. Is miscegenation wrong or right for the future of our culture?
I think whatever is right between two people --> is none of our business! :doh
Thanks for the kind words, but non-intentional if it were to be.you ended the thread in the second post
Anti miscegenation has all but vanished from legal code. America is the great melting pot, there's a lot of cultural crossover, especially in urban areas. Is miscegenation wrong or right for the future of our culture?
Anti miscegenation has all but vanished from legal code. America is the great melting pot, there's a lot of cultural crossover, especially in urban areas. Is miscegenation wrong or right for the future of our culture?
I don't believe race is biological so interbreeding there of is not possible.Anti miscegenation has all but vanished from legal code. America is the great melting pot, there's a lot of cultural crossover, especially in urban areas. Is miscegenation wrong or right for the future of our culture?
I don't believe race is biological so interbreeding there of is not possible.
Genetically speaking, "race" was debunked years ago. We are all one species. So I don't even know what we're trying to talk about here.
Humanity's appearance-based conflicts are all ethnic and cultural.
http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123You know, race doesn't have to be propagated across a biological medium as people of different races interbreed. I have heard for example, that Jews across the world are more biologically similar to one another than a random sample taken of African Americans. But I have also walked through a Jewish community in Brooklyn, NY which was very much culturally homogeneous.
I think debunking biological differences is somewhat like embracing determinism as a physical concept, though I would be interested to see substantiation of the claim that "race" has been debunked.
...given current scientific data, biological races do not exist among modern humans today, and they have never existed in the past. Given such clear scientific evidence as this and the research data of so many other biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists that demonstrate the nonexistence of biological races among humans, how can the “myth” of human races still persist?
If races do not exist as a biological reality, why do so many people still believe that they do? In fact, even though biological races do not exist, the concept of race obviously is still a reality, as is racism. These are prevalent and persistent elements of our everyday lives and generally accepted aspects of our culture.
Thus, the concept of human races is real. It is not a biological reality, however, but a cultural one.
biology
/bīˈäləjē/
noun
the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.
the plants and animals of a particular area.
"the biology of Chesapeake Bay"
the physiology, behavior, and other qualities of a particular organism or class of organisms.
"human biology"
physiology (fĭz'ē-ŏl'ə-jē)
The scientific study of an organism's vital functions, including growth and development, the absorption and processing of nutrients, the synthesis and distribution of proteins and other organic molecules, and the functioning of different tissues, organs, and other anatomic structures. Physiology studies the normal mechanical, physical, and biochemical processes of animals and plants.
Physical traits due to geographical differences are real. Natural selection favored lighter skin in northern climates due to it being better at absorbing vitamin D, thus giving those offspring a btter chance at surviving into breeding age in areas with weaker sunlight. And, maybe in a million years of isolation between them and our brothers in Africa, a separate race would have evolved. But, the time of isolation was short--a few thousand years not millions--so we are still the same, genetically speaking. We are all part of the human race.
Physical traits due to geographical differences are real. Natural selection favored lighter skin in northern climates due to it being better at absorbing vitamin D, thus giving those offspring a btter chance at surviving into breeding age in areas with weaker sunlight. And, maybe in a million years of isolation between them and our brothers in Africa, a separate race would have evolved. But, the time of isolation was short--a few thousand years not millions--so we are still the same, genetically speaking. We are all part of the human race.
We are all part of the human species. "Racism" occurs 12 times in the Newsweek article. I think the article is just as much about debunking racism as it is about debunking race.
In the article clines were mentioned. This article is attempting to split biological and behavioral traits, which may be convenient for anthropologists. For our purposes, it's just giving a different name to the same thing. Obviously in biology you should be aware of the implications of the theory of evolution. I don't see that this article has taken steps to disprove evolution, but simply assigned a more specific name to biological and behavioral traits, and described how they come about.
Yes, humans are more genetically similar to one another than to other species, but I don't think that race is meant to imply that humans are a different animal altogether, depending on their race. It's a way of collectively referring to a group of clines.
I don't believe race is biological so interbreeding there of is not possible.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, humans from opposite ends of the globe have many different physical characteristics. So?
Humans around the globe have many different physical characteristics which do not immediately change when they are introduced into another region. That's part of what race is. The Newsweek article is just splitting hairs. You're trying to get to the bottom of the issue of race while we talk about miscegenation, as though describing race in a different manner would change the way we talk about miscegenation. Miscegenation is just interbreeding among racial groups, i.e. humans with different physical characteristics from foreign regions where many other such humans exist as a group, together.
Their physical characteristics will change over the next 35,000 years. With or without miscegenation.
That's beside the point. Do you think miscegenation is good for society? You might try considering this from the perspective of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth generation immigration and transient cultures.
Mixing diverse genes is very good for society. Funny you should ask a silly question like that. Are you a fan of inbreeding?
Diversity is relative. Are you a fan of empiricism?
Is miscegenation wrong or right for the future of our culture?
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?