Hey, dipshit. Yes, you, scamartistry.
There are these things called “paragraphs.” They help you organize your thoughts into coherent, related statements. I suggest you retake third grade. Come back to us afterwards, and we’ll see if any of your thinking has improved at all.
Of course Africans interbred to some degree but it still has the highest degree of genetic diversity in the world so it has never been a big melting pot. The main point is based on current mainstream science although, oddly, it can get you kicked off the faculty of a university if it is said in public in direct terms. The party line is that genetic differences in human populations are only skin deep and that simply isn’t true. Most people phrase the argument ass backwards as well and I don’t understand why.
The seed stock for modern humans was in Africa but then some rather small groups moved out and differentiated themselves incredibly quickly in evolutionary terms. That is where the focus should be and not the other way around. There is no value judgment associated with that. It just is and it is an example of something that everyone knows is true intuitively and then science comes along and muddies the waters, and then comes back decades later to provide details on why the popular perception was basically correct all along but the details were way off. Intelligent people were trained against that school of thought so you will still get a huge amount of pre-packaged defensive measures for suggesting such an idea in polite company.
Neither is a Howitzer, but still, there is something vaguely persuasive about it.
I can see you getting kicked off a university faculty, but not for scientific controversy.
Cite that anyone has been ‘kicked off the faculty of a university’ for studying human adaptive divergence? How do you explain the Human Genographic Project, which is aimed at the DNA level (so not skin deep), and is focused on studying human migration out of Africa. Many of the lead researchers are also professors at various universities and as far as I am aware none have lost their jobs for that involvement.
There is no problem talking about genetic differentiation or adaptive divergence, and I can’t imagine any serious scientists denying that these things exist in humans, just as in most other species. The problem comes when racists take hold of these ideas and try to fit them to their preconceived notions of the inherent superiority or inferiority of certain races. Those racist inevitably don’t understand the true process of evolution, and try to hide behind “but it’s science!” to justify their claims.
Also, in the Genographic Project, African populations have consistently shown the highest levels of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is not at all the same thing as genetic differentiation between populations and doesn’t imply the existence of discreet non-breeding sub-populations within Africa itself. If you want to discuss the implications of the Genographic Project further it would be wise to fully understand the difference between diversity, divergence, and differentiation. In a scientific sense they are not at all the same and you are currently using them as if they are the same. It makes it very hard to tell what you are trying to say sometimes.
Errm, the one doesn’t follow from the other. Are you expecting some sort of reduction in diversity because of interbreeding of diverse populations? Because on a large scale (like a whole continent), that’s not how things work. What works for island and other small-scale studies (founder effect, etc) really, really, doesn’t on a large scale. What we should expect from interbreeding is what we see - greater diversity.
Meh.
The whole premise that it’s interesting in any way to delineate racial groups and/or find/define traits where they differ from each other is a non-starter for me.
If I’m looking for a basketball player, I’ll go for the guy who is tall yet can still jump high and put the ball to the floor.
If I’m looking for a college professor I’ll go for the guy or girl who is the most intelligent and has the most knowledge in the field.
If I’m looking for a face-to-face sales representative… well, to be honest, I’m probably going to go for the best looking woman in the group of applicants… 
Notice I’m looking at individuals and not at any kind of average for some group they supposedly belong to? So what do I care if they do or don’t belong to some group or other, and what the average measure for some human trait in that group may be? I’m not looking to hire a race, I’m looking to hire an individual person…! 
**My bold. ** Why bother with science at all, if everyone already knows everything “intuitively”?
I really wanted Susanann to come back into that thread. She was, IMHO, absolutely nuts in her assessment of how Africa could just roll up its sleeves and clean up its act. I just found the line of thinking weird but fascinating … in short PLEASE post more in that thread Susanann!
Damn straight!
Because rigorous application of the scientific method just confuses everybody.
Translation: the science doesn’t actually prove what I want it too, but I feel very strongly about it, so I’ll interpret the data the way I see fit.
I am not truly racist mainly because the classical races aren’t real but we had a really good defensive debater around here several years ago who was banned because he went insane when anyone brought up the subject that there might be true differences in human populations. He was a really smart guy and extremely learned on the subject but his sole goal was to do academic shot-blocking.
Mention ‘race’ in a post in thread and this referee called you out no matter how valid every other point you made was. He had a not very related but extremely articulate rejection to it all. That was even before the latest research about the Human Genome Project and the probability that some Europeans interbred with Neanderthals was published.
Mentioning that maybe, just maybe, some Kenyans and Ethiopian populations have some some unusual traits that make them good at marathon running is enough to send a good Boston liberal into a seizure but don’t ask them to bet even odds on the next Boston Marathon next April either no matter how many other people enter from everywhere else and how hard they trained.
I grew up in Louisiana in an area roughly 50% black and was practically raised black myself but my daughters are growing up in some of the most white suburbs in America just outside of Boston. I was showing my 8 year old daughter Superbowl 2010 highlights last week and she asked me, “Daddy, why can those brown people run so fast?” I didn’t know what to say because the Saints receivers really did just blow by other talented sprinters. She noticed though just like everyone else does. It wasn’t a good time to talk about how all people are equal except for skin tone.
That is rather bright for an 8 year old. But any high school graduate should understand that correlation isn’t causation and there are any number of reasons this could be true. What an excellent teaching moment.
Thanks, that’s what I was trying to say too and you worded it more concisely. It makes me wonder how many other elements of the Genographic Project are being misinterpreted.
I know it’s difficult, but you have to explain to her the difference between an anecdote and a controlled experiment. Science is concerned only with the latter.