Is There A Sound Basis For Racial Profiling?

[rainbow]

I thought my 99% the same comment was obviously sarcastic.

The only obvious thing about it was its utter stupidity.

[Robert_S]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Plus, Brits eat jellied eels. Only another fucking species would eat jellied eels. My dogs won't even eat jellied eels, and they'll eat raccoon shit.

I've never eaten jellied eels, but I'd like to.

We gotta get you some gator next month.

[Galaxian]

There are many unique genetic traits that distinguish one 'race' from another (I'll call it subspecies from now). There are several human subspecies. Some are widely separated, some less so. And there are intermediate mixes of the subspecies. We might call them varieties.

There are some human subspecies that have incompatible genes & are thus cross-sterile (my spouse & I for example), that we could justifiably claim that they are different species, but I'm happy to restrict them to subspecies.

The systematists/taxonomists definition of subspecies is: They rarely choose to interbreed, but are able to have viable fertile offspring should they do so. There are MANY human societies that fit that criterion.

The systematists/taxonomists definition of species is: They can NOT interbreed, rarely try to do so, & If they try to cross-breed they are mostly cross-sterile. And if they have an occasional offspring from that union, it is sterile.

Now, humans fit both categories. There are societies that prefer not to mix. There are also classes who are to a greater or lesser extent cross-sterile; that is, cannot have viable babies.

So, it is absolutely certain that humans are divided into subspecies & variants thereof.

Galaxian, unless your wife is a chimpanzee, your cross-sterile thing is bollocks.

I was referring to my marriage, not Galaxian's. And how do you know whether either Galaxian or me is male or female?

As for us we're Rh- & Rh+. In other words the likelihood of a dead/dying infant is very high

Can you repost that in English please?

In biology species are defined as those organisms that preferentially try to procreate with those of the same species. In other words; if they, as a society, refuse or are reluctant to mate with the society of some other organism, then that other organism is defined as a different species EVEN IF IT IS IDENTICAL. So, species do NOT have to be organically different, they could be cross fertile, but the refusal to cross breed is a definition of difference in species. You can find many examples of this cultural speciation if you do a search.

Now, Galaxian does NOT accept that. I say that the taxonomists are wrong. I say that there is no such thing as cultural species. That it is a leftover of a previous era when we could not ascertain if the organisms were different or merely pretended to be. For example Muslims & Jews, are they different species? They generally refuse to intermarry. So, according to a strict interpretation of the biological rules, they are different species. But Galaxian sticks to a purely genetic law for the distinction of species & subspecies, & I've been fighting for this for many years.

Now, in human societies there are populations that have great difficulty in having offspring. Viability of the infant is a definition of success/failure at procreation. There are several biological markers between different human populations that make it more or less likely that they can mate successfully.

The best known of these is Rhesus (Rh) incompatibility of the blood. When an Rh+ person procreates with an Rh- person, the fetus can be either type. If the mother is Rh- & the fetus is Rh+ , there is mother/baby (like donor/host) conflict, & the antibodies of the mother attack the blood & cells (such as the liver) of the baby: Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn.

With the first baby we can often get away with it, since the mother's immune system has only recently recognized the foreign organism & attacks it quite late. But even then the rate of survival is below normal, with prenatal or post natal death or morbidity. But with subsequent pregnancies, if there is a difference between the mother's Rh & the baby's, the baby will certainly not make it, since it is attacked from very early in the pregnancy.

So, Rh+ & Rh- populations remain separate, & continue to develop as different species, accumulating more & more differences, until they even look different & are not even cross fertile...such as humans & chimps.

Here's the distribution of Rh- frequency in the Old World: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkTfk0jM-J4/T ... roups.jpeg


The process of speciation is a profound & irrepressible phenomenon. To the extent that if the Earth were to be populated by clones; exact duplicates of just one human in male & female form, within a few hundred generations there would be distinct varieties or even subspecies

[pinkharrier]

I thought my 99% the same comment was obviously sarcastic.

The only obvious thing about it was its utter stupidity.

Naturally. Sarcastically matching the stupidity of those who use that dumb or disingenuous reasoning.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The process of speciation is a profound & irrepressible phenomenon. To the extent that if the Earth were to be populated by clones; exact duplicates of just one human in male & female form, within a few hundred generations there would be distinct varieties or even subspecies

Robert Bakker says that speciation needs isolation. We get around too much to speciate. And, of course, we haven't had that much time. Come back in a million years, we'll see who's right, shall we?

[Pappa]

There are many unique genetic traits that distinguish one 'race' from another (I'll call it subspecies from now). There are several human subspecies. Some are widely separated, some less so. And there are intermediate mixes of the subspecies. We might call them varieties.

There are some human subspecies that have incompatible genes & are thus cross-sterile (my spouse & I for example), that we could justifiably claim that they are different species, but I'm happy to restrict them to subspecies.

The systematists/taxonomists definition of subspecies is: They rarely choose to interbreed, but are able to have viable fertile offspring should they do so. There are MANY human societies that fit that criterion.

The systematists/taxonomists definition of species is: They can NOT interbreed, rarely try to do so, & If they try to cross-breed they are mostly cross-sterile. And if they have an occasional offspring from that union, it is sterile.

Now, humans fit both categories. There are societies that prefer not to mix. There are also classes who are to a greater or lesser extent cross-sterile; that is, cannot have viable babies.

So, it is absolutely certain that humans are divided into subspecies & variants thereof.

Galaxian, unless your wife is a chimpanzee, your cross-sterile thing is bollocks.

I was referring to my marriage, not Galaxian's. And how do you know whether either Galaxian or me is male or female?

As for us we're Rh- & Rh+. In other words the likelihood of a dead/dying infant is very high

Can you repost that in English please?

In biology species are defined as those organisms that preferentially try to procreate with those of the same species. In other words; if they, as a society, refuse or are reluctant to mate with the society of some other organism, then that other organism is defined as a different species EVEN IF IT IS IDENTICAL. So, species do NOT have to be organically different, they could be cross fertile, but the refusal to cross breed is a definition of difference in species. You can find many examples of this cultural speciation if you do a search.

Now, Galaxian does NOT accept that. I say that the taxonomists are wrong. I say that there is no such thing as cultural species. That it is a leftover of a previous era when we could not ascertain if the organisms were different or merely pretended to be. For example Muslims & Jews, are they different species? They generally refuse to intermarry. So, according to a strict interpretation of the biological rules, they are different species. But Galaxian sticks to a purely genetic law for the distinction of species & subspecies, & I've been fighting for this for many years.

Now, in human societies there are populations that have great difficulty in having offspring. Viability of the infant is a definition of success/failure at procreation. There are several biological markers between different human populations that make it more or less likely that they can mate successfully.

The best known of these is Rhesus (Rh) incompatibility of the blood. When an Rh+ person procreates with an Rh- person, the fetus can be either type. If the mother is Rh- & the fetus is Rh+ , there is mother/baby (like donor/host) conflict, & the antibodies of the mother attack the blood & cells (such as the liver) of the baby: Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn.

With the first baby we can often get away with it, since the mother's immune system has only recently recognized the foreign organism & attacks it quite late. But even then the rate of survival is below normal, with prenatal or post natal death or morbidity. But with subsequent pregnancies, if there is a difference between the mother's Rh & the baby's, the baby will certainly not make it, since it is attacked from very early in the pregnancy.

So, Rh+ & Rh- populations remain separate, & continue to develop as different species, accumulating more & more differences, until they even look different & are not even cross fertile...such as humans & chimps.

Here's the distribution of Rh- frequency in the Old World: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkTfk0jM-J4/T ... roups.jpeg


The process of speciation is a profound & irrepressible phenomenon. To the extent that if the Earth were to be populated by clones; exact duplicates of just one human in male & female form, within a few hundred generations there would be distinct varieties or even subspecies

So, I was correct. You're not cross-sterile at all. There would just be complications relating to the mother becoming pregnant (though less likely for the first pregnancy).

[JimC]

Galaxian is The Mule!

Someone tell the Foundation!

[rainbow]

The frequency map of Rh- shows clearly that the distribution doesn't follow the mythical divisions of 'race' classification.

[pinkharrier]

The frequency map of Rh- shows clearly that the distribution doesn't follow the mythical divisions of 'race' classification.

Well you could always offer evidence that race doesn,t exist and not that 99% stuff. It is not as if I am asking for proof so you could hide behind Papa Popper. Just evidence.

[rainbow]

The frequency map of Rh- shows clearly that the distribution doesn't follow the mythical divisions of 'race' classification.

Well you could always offer evidence that race doesn,t exist and not that 99% stuff. It is not as if I am asking for proof so you could hide behind Papa Popper. Just evidence.

How about you prove that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist?

[Galaxian]

So, I was correct. You're not cross-sterile at all. There would just be complications relating to the mother becoming pregnant (though less likely for the first pregnancy).

Sterility is the condition of not being able to procreate. It matters not whether the couple are unable to have a baby due to inability to fertilize, or inability to carry a fetus to term, or inability of the newborn to survive.

The long & short of it is that the two populations are gradually driven apart by accumulating mutations that are not shared between them, due to lack of descendents. You then get to a point where they can not or do not want to cross breed. After sufficient generations of population drift they find that they are infact cross sterile even at the conception level.

There's some evidence that early populations of proto-humans & proto-chimps often cross mated, and because at that time they were still very close, there were fertile offspring. But eventually this cross mating stopped & the populations drifted even further apart, to the point that now we even have different numbers of chromosomes (humans have 23 pairs, chips have 24 pairs).

Generally as the partners are from increasingly separate populations the fecundity diminishes, but we get hybrid vigor (fitter than the parents). But when the couple are from vastly different subspecies we don't get hybrid vigor, we get hybrid depression (less fit than the parents), which is sickly offspring due to worse compatibility.

Research, in both animals & humans, indicates that the optimum fertility is at the 3rd cousin distance. In other words; brother & sister unions are not too fertile, or the offspring have a higher tendency to die. Then less so with 1st cousins. By the time we get to 2nd cousins we're doing well. 3rd cousins have the highest fertility & survival rate.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Reproducti ... a4C-0ROX5s
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5908/1634.2.full

^^Mean number of children for different intervals of marital radius observed in the Danish cohort of all women born in 1954 (and a Lowess nonparametric regression curve adjusted to the points with weights proportional to the number of observations of each interval).^^
Let's keep going: Once we get past 3rd cousins, it gets worse again. 4th cousins do a bit less well. 5th less again. When we marry very distant relatives the fecundity & survival are quite mediocre again.
The difference is significant. At the 3rd we could, eg, have a family of 6 kids. But with brother/sister or marrying across distinct races we're down to less that, eg 3 kids, in fecundity or surviving or viable offspring

[Galaxian]

The process of speciation is a profound & irrepressible phenomenon. To the extent that if the Earth were to be populated by clones; exact duplicates of just one human in male & female form, within a few hundred generations there would be distinct varieties or even subspecies

Robert Bakker says that speciation needs isolation. We get around too much to speciate. And, of course, we haven't had that much time. Come back in a million years, we'll see who's right, shall we?

Yes, at a first order or superficial analysis, that is so. But isolation happens in more than one way, and even within one person there is constant spontaneous mutation as well as an evolutionary trend of survival & proliferation of the fittest or most fecund genes ... hence cancer.

If we start with a perfectly uniform population, as we're supposed to have done at the birth of life on Earth, there is a natural slight variation between the individual organisms. The natural variation is caused by several things, but one inevitable one is the 'expression' of genes due to variations in environment. This can happen in both the individual & also their offspring by virtue of (eg) Hox genes. The population is in a state of unstable equilibrium. You can see this even in large Petri dishes, where the bacteria will evolve distinct properties, across the dish, after many generations.

Statistical or probabilistic mixing among local groups will make it more likely that individuals of one clan or suburb will more likely couple with those of the same suburb. For example the royal families of Europe married amongst themselves. European Jews of Khazar descent stayed within their own society. So we get each group drifting apart from other groups, until the differences are stark & pronounced to the extent that new subspecies & then species develop.

Notice that there are very few natural barriers in Africa, yet it has the most diverse range of human subspecies on the planet. Not the most widely separated, but the most number of subspecies. (The most widely separated are from Australia & the Kalahari, N.E China & Scandinavia.) But back to Africa; there are no insurmountable geographical barriers; even the Sahara was fertile not long ago. The people simply stayed put due to territoriality, & developed rapidly in different directions (see the Pygmies & Masai for example).

Also, acting to some extent in the other direction; once populations of strangers came face to face, one or other tended to be wiped out. So, for example, the early European settlers of North America from 15,000 years ago, were wiped out or the remnants merged into the newly arrived Mongol settlers of 10,000 years ago. Then the situation was reversed, when the new European settlers of 500 years ago wiped out or merged into themselves the remnants of the Amerindians (Mongols). This process is not complete due to it being so recent & modern political influences.

Uniformity can only be guaranteed by severe coercive measures, as in a Police State; killing outliers & having forced inter-breeding of any organisms showing tendencies to diverge, back into the main population.

The gist of it being that there are deeper orders of analysis, & uniform populations DO fragment over time

[pinkharrier]

Rainbow, I asked you to provide EVIDENCE not proof. You can duck behind the impossibility of providing a PROOF for the non existence of unicorns but that is not what I am asking for. Merely evidence from your side of the debate. Darwin assumed that race (aka varieties) existed in humans and pigeons and just about everything else. If it was good enough for him...

Just some evidence from your side.

[NineBerry]

With the concept of species, you have clearly defined criteria what a species is and what isn't (Do they mate). With "races", there is no such clear definition. In fact, the separation of races in humans is as meaningless as a border defined by the position of flowery plants. When autumn comes, the border is gone. With fast means of international travel and streams of migration across the globe, the very idea there could be something like humans races will be impossible in some generations.