| |
| Race and Species Confusion |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| geb |
 Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: Race and Species Confusion |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 8
|
I hope it is not in bad form to join a forum and then direct inquiry to a thread somewhere else. It just seemed economical.
I'm not science educated. I brought a question to another science board and the thread never really went anywhere. Might be well deserved - I don't know.
Would anyone here care to weigh in?
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about13001.html
thanks so much,
geb |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4286
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
i think we had a discussion on the subject not too long ago
in a nutshell i think the outcome of the discussion was that whilst restricted mobility of prehistoric populations had started a process of producing more pronounced varieties (races if you want to call them that way), the increased mobility of the past few hundred years is turning H.sapiens into a more homogenised species
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jellyologist |
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 330
|
Geb,
I hope you are kidding and aren't serious. In your sitereferral you ask why a robin doesn't mate with a bluebird but humans mate with eachother.
hint...they are both birds but not the same species. You are a mammal and so is a dog and a whale. Why don't you mate with a dog or a whale? So why are you puzzled a robin doesn't mate with a bluebird? Are you sexually attracted to a cat or a moose? Why would a robin and a bluebird be attracted to eachother and try and mate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4286
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
sorry, i hadn't actually read the link
geb, what you just described is exactly what the definition of a species is about : specimens of the same species can mate and have viable offspring - specimens of separate species don't (either don't mate or don't have viable offspring)
all humans are members of one and the same species (Homo sapiens) and if history has shown one thing, it's that all members of your 4 race groups have mated and produced viable offspring on repeated occasions (and still do)
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 2326
|
Hi geb. I would just like to elaborate on MarnixR's point.
One of the best ways to define a species is to determine whether or not there is exists a barrier to gene flow between them. Stopping gene flow between two populations is the key for these populations to eventually become separate species.
There are many different kinds of reproductive barriers that can achieve this. The easiest one to imagine is of course geographical separation. Let's take your bird example. We have two species of small songbird separated by the atlantic ocean, a barrier they cannot cross (we'll leave possible interruptions by man out of the conversation for now). Genes do not flow between the two species, and over long periods of time they diverge from each other.
However, what about two small songbirds species that live in the exact same place? The reproductive barrier for them may be anatomical; their genitalia just don't match up right. The barrier may be that any hybrid offspring that they do create are sterile. Or it may even be that the different species mate at different times during the year.
However, it is possible none of these barriers are in place, and that if the two species did begin to interbreed, they could have viable offspring. But - what if they never interbreed in the first place? This is highly possible and actually thought to be common in birds because of behavioral differences. Different species have hardwired into their genetic code the specific mating behaviors they expect to see from a potential partner before they're willing to mate with them. It could be a specific song, it could be a little dance, it could be preparing the right kind of nest. It could be related to something more physical, such as the females are expecting the males to flap their wings and show off their bright yellow wingspots - but males from the other species don't have those wingspots, and so will always be turned down by the females. These are behavioral barriers that prevent the two species from ever interbreeding and keeps their gene pools separate for long periods of time. If it goes on long enough, it's very likely that those other types of barriers (physical mismatching, sterile offspring) will arise as the two species continue to diverge.
It's not that the two species just "know" not to mate with each other. For the most part, they're just not getting the right signals from the other individual. There are, of course, isolated events where these barriers might break down. One songbird from each species are trapped on an island together and out of desperation, find a way to mate. But this is not enough. For the species to hybridize, many individuals need to interbreed, have fertile hybrid offspring, and have then begin to breed, etc etc, to allow true mixing.
Even during the prehistoric past, this was not the case with humans; there were not enough significant barriers to gene flow to allow the different "races" of humans to begin to seriously diverge from each other. In modern times with increased ability to travel and there being few truly inaccessible human populations left in the world, gene flow across all the subpopulations of our species is probably higher than ever.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4286
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
birds often recognise possible mates of the same species through distinctive markings that tell them they're not going waste their efforts on a fruitless liaison
especially instructive in this respect is the fact of 'character displacement' : some separate but still closely related bird species look fairly similar where their distributions don't overlap, but where they do, they exaggerate their distinctive markings so that the possibility of attempts to breed across the species barrier is minimised
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Time Lord
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 5408
Location: Scotland
|
| Jellyologist wrote: |
Geb,
I hope you are kidding and aren't serious. In your sitereferral you ask why a robin doesn't mate with a bluebird but humans mate with eachother.
|
Jelly, have you properly read Geb's linked opening post? He makes very clear that there is a world of difference between comparing different genera, or higher taxanomic groupings (robins and bluebirds) and merely variants within a single species (Norwegians and Peruvians). What he is asking for is a simple primer that would explain this succinctly to the scientifically illiterate. That seems a reasonable (and honourable and serious) request. I hope the varied responses here have provided something of what he needs.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| geb |
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 8
|
Ok,
I'm digesting some of this. It's still going to be a bit of a battle.
It's hard to convince the scientifically illiterate (lacking textbooks) that different pigments and body types of humans do not correspond to the varieties of birds (to stay with our example). But would it help to emphasize our astonishing predominance among primates?
It is as if the Robin, for instance, so completely dominated the bird scene that all other types were either pushed to extinction or existed only in small isolated groups (similar to the situation of other primates today).
People don't seem intiuitively able get a grasp on this. Like I said, I believe the ignorance of these taxonomic distinctions is much more widespread than is commonly thought. If you asked your "educated" friends, you might be amazed. And this leads to some pretty creepy presumptions.
There will continue to be highly divisive arguments on this subject even beyond remedying this enormous obstacle (tho it's certainly a great place to start). I might not be able to get much closer to answering the problem I've posed. That is, how to disabuse anyone of the belief that humans instinctively harbor ANY of the disinclinations (that we observe in nature even within species) to mate/commune with others we observe to be unlike us in some way.
Is there much hard science that deals with this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4286
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
the reason why the human species is so uniform is that :
a) H.sapiens is a fairly recent species (no more than 200,000 years old)
b) it is believed that at some point around that time H.sapiens went through what is called a 'population bottleneck' (i.e. a small population with reduced genetic variability for the duration of a few thousand years)
despite all the appearances, skin colour is, if i may use the pun, only skin deep
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 2326
|
| geb wrote: |
Ok,
I'm digesting some of this. It's still going to be a bit of a battle.
It's hard to convince the scientifically illiterate (lacking textbooks) that different pigments and body types of humans do not correspond to the varieties of birds (to stay with our example). But would it help to emphasize our astonishing predominance among primates?
It is as if the Robin, for instance, so completely dominated the bird scene that all other types were either pushed to extinction or existed only in small isolated groups (similar to the situation of other primates today). |
I don't think that saying we have no extant (living) direct sister species does much to illustrate the difference between human "race" and animal species. Maybe that's just me, though.
| Quote: |
| People don't seem intiuitively able get a grasp on this. Like I said, I believe the ignorance of these taxonomic distinctions is much more widespread than is commonly thought. If you asked your "educated" friends, you might be amazed. And this leads to some pretty creepy presumptions. |
Well, the truth is that the term species isn't all that intuitive in itself. The reproductive barrier to gene flow is the most consistent and realistic rule for defining a species; almost all other possibilities either (a) don't apply in a significant amount of cases or (b) only represent an arbitrary distinction with no functional correlate, or (c) both. And to add to the mess, human "race" divisions are themselves arbitrary to a large degree; they are not divisions so much as gradations. People native to Africa will look different than people native to China but deciding exactly where to draw the line between the two of them, genetically speaking, is basically arbitrary. A lot of perceptions of race are due much more to cultural differences than to actual biological differences.
I suppose the simplest way to put this rule to someone unfamiliar with biology would be that, for separate species, either an aspect of their environment or a genetically determined trait of some kind, prevents them from interbreeding. And at no point in human history have any of the major "races" been subject to enough of this kind of separation from each other.
| Quote: |
There will continue to be highly divisive arguments on this subject even beyond remedying this enormous obstacle (tho it's certainly a great place to start). I might not be able to get much closer to answering the problem I've posed. That is, how to disabuse anyone of the belief that humans instinctively harbor ANY of the disinclinations (that we observe in nature even within species) to mate/commune with others we observe to be unlike us in some way.
Is there much hard science that deals with this? |
Human evolution has created a trend in our behavior that leads to a high degree of cooperation within a group, but with a relatively high degree of competition with other groups. There is an article and a discussion related to human violence here, at another forum. But generally, it has long been a part of our nature to feel antipathy towards outsiders and a strong bond with members of our own group. This results in no end of difficulties in human relations that has plagued civilization for probably as long as it has existed. In our gut it feels as though it is right, and we search for ways to justify the feeling, even though it is not rationally justified. As a culture we need to learn to think differently, and obviously many people have yet to move past this.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| geb |
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 8
|
So... I have this thread going at two boards now. The results have been very interesting to me.
If there is a common tone to them it seems that among those who have had already digested a good portion of genetics and taxonomy, that being the majority of people who drop in here, there is bewilderment that so much if it isn't just common sense to the great unwashed. I'm not one who gripes about "ivory tower" mentalities. I've spent most of my effort in arguments defending against those perceptions. But where is the perspective here?
I challenge anyone to ask the next twenty people "on the street" what would happen if a Sparrow mated with a Bluebird and I'm pretty sure that far more than half of them would take a stab at some hybridization of color resulting. For the less educated, it's a simple matter of A is to X what B is to ??? Sparrow and Bluebird. Physically, almost indistinguishable but for color. Norwegian and Peruvian. Similarly so. So these sidewalk respondants are what.. just idiots? Irredeemable? If anyone has even the tiniest interest in how racism infects, wouldn't you wonder the same thing I am? How do I communicate something in any form more digestible than undergraduate coursework in biology?
I may be back where I started. Maybe there is no way to put this stuff simply. It remains, for a depressingly large number of people around us, a matter of 'you'll have to take my word on this'. And you're suprised when your neighbor's kid wants to know why he can't study creationism in his public school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 2326
|
If nothing else, this particular topic is an example of how important a solid foundation in science is for a modern person's education; what they do and do not understand can have profound effects on how they view and interact with other people on a day to day basis. And without at least a basic understanding of biological concepts, things like the definition of a species are very difficult to explain to someone who may not even want to hear it in the first place.
And, it should also show how pitiful science education is in the US right now. The vast amount of ignorance in our country never fails to depress me.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1531
Location: London
|
| paralith wrote: |
If nothing else, this particular topic is an example of how important a solid foundation in science is for a modern person's education; what they do and do not understand can have profound effects on how they view and interact with other people on a day to day basis. And without at least a basic understanding of biological concepts, things like the definition of a species are very difficult to explain to someone who may not even want to hear it in the first place.
|
Wot she said.
You can't blame this forum if "the next 20 people on the street" refuse to listen to what we say because they're sure of their incorrect opinions. That's humanity for you - caveat emptor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| geb |
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 8
|
I apologize for any lack of grace. I really do appreciate the responses.
I wonder if it really is,after all, a matter of what knowledge is available, right-at-hand, for young people in school. It's all there. Hell, I went to a middling quality public school and still managed to get through with enough skills to steer me through much of this. I was a C+ student. It's really not difficult at all to get a working grasp on basic civics and government, biology, history, etc. The trick seems to be in just walking in with any measurable respect for the importance of such things. How to you impress that?
The almost willful ignorance toward such basics that I note in my otherwise well fed, well provided for, and otherwise reasonably curious middle class niece and nephew is sometimes astonishing. It's all there in the classes they attend. It just doesn't stick. It's almost an 'attitude' problem. They bring home the grades but there's no synthesis. I would have to have had (I don't) many decades of experience in the compulsory levels of education to know if it is any worse 'today' than 'back then'. I have a hunch that it's essentially the same. But perhaps I'm wrong.
It may be my middle age coming on, but I observe a lot of young adults in this country to be 'spoiled'. There is a general incoherance of what drives their economy, provides them with jobs, protects their civil liberties, governs their communities, and amazingly, what involves them in an ongoing war.
If I tried to have this present discussion about race and species confusion with most young adults I'm afraid they'd likely say I 'think too much'.
Whew! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 2326
|
Well, I confess to not be very well versed in the workings of our economy either, but I have a respect for it and the people who do understand it. When it comes to biology, though, especially anything that relates to humans and might have impact on religious beliefs, many people have essentially already made up their minds not to believe it, no matter how well you explain or support your points. If they don't want to be convinced, then they won't be convinced. Doubtless that's how some of them feel about us scientists as well, which doesn't help matters.
_________________
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Page 1 of 3 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
