# Human Branching **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395 "2004-06-15T00:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/101 "2004-06-16T02:41:33Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > Hellothere, it’s not impossible for you to be able to find a white wife. In fact, most white men who want a white wife have no trouble finding one. The only thing you seem to be worrying about is the idea that somebody somewhere might disapprove of you wanting a white wife, and then wanting the same for your children. It’ll be hard to find much sympathy for that worry, since it’s so cowardly and pathetic. We all do things that somebody somewhere might disapprove of, and we just deal with it. Marry a white woman, have white children, encourage them to marry white, and be happy. Rallying others to insulate you from a single negative thought about those desires is futile - we really don’t care enough to do so. You are completely off in left field. I brought up some white examples because I’m of Northern European heritage which makes me an “expert.” The “white” examples I provide are not what this thread is about, but people ask so I provide examples as best I can. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/102 "2004-06-16T02:41:37Z")
Can we have links directly to peer-reviewed articles? Otherwise we’re all trawling through them trying to work out what’s what. As you know which have respectabel academic standing, you can easily direct us to them ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/103 "2004-06-16T02:42:14Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > The blog lists things that have been peer reviewed. Cite? The last “peer reviewed” evidence we saw was an entry into a nationally funded scientific journal, and the “peer review” almost unanimously panned the entry as scientific rubbish. So let’s see these peer reviews. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/104 "2004-06-16T02:43:07Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > The human race has been branching, combining, and rebranching since the beginning, and I don’t see that anything will change in that regard. You are very, very sane and rational. Please rub that off onto some others in here. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/105 "2004-06-16T02:44:24Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > hehe. That’s certainly a new one. > > Tell me, scientifically speaking, what is “the same or very near branch”? What % of DNA has to match? Or is it specific parts of the DNA? If you don’t understand what existing branches exist, today, I cannot help you. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/106 "2004-06-16T02:46:46Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > I am interested in teaching kids that their two fundamental reproductive choices are this: > > 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. > > 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. **hellothere,** I think children already know that they have the option of marrying somebody of their own racial or ethnic groups (which most of them will), or marrying somebody of a different racial or ethnic group, or never getting married or having children at all. What is the point of teaching them about the “unique Genetic traits” of their “branch”? Most of those “unique Genetic traits” are visible to the eye, and those that are not have not been firmly identified or evaluated, indeed, have not been proven to exist. Furthermore, whether to select within or without their racial group is not the most **fundamental** reproductive choice a young person has to make. Not even close. There are many much more important factors to consider in the choice of a mate. As for “opening genetic studies to all differences that exist between the branches - without fear of what we will find,” I have absolutely no objection to genuine scientific research along those lines; but, unless and until it reveals some hard, substantial and **relevant** scientific facts, I see no reason to cover such matters in primary or secondary education. Children do not need to be taught that whites are white and blacks are black; they can see with their own eyes whatever differences there are. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/107 "2004-06-16T02:48:27Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > You are completely off in left field. I brought up some white examples because I’m of Northern European heritage which makes me an “expert.” The “white” examples I provide are not what this thread is about, but people ask so I provide examples as best I can. I’m not in the left field, pal, I’m on the home plate. I just circumvented the little game you want to play and tried to shut you up before you miraculously drag this out over ten pages again. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/108 "2004-06-16T02:51:21Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > If you don’t understand what existing branches exist, today, I cannot help you. Hah! You can’t define branch! ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/109 "2004-06-16T02:52:06Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > If you don’t understand what existing branches exist, today, I cannot help you. There’s a _lot_ of people who don’t know what ‘branches’ exists today. Are we all non-persons as a result? Or, on the other hand, your theory should be so self-evident that you should be able to help us very easily. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/110 "2004-06-16T02:53:03Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > **Hellothere** > [Moderator Hat ON] > > Hellothere, the decision as to whether someone should be banned is up to the mods, not you; please report any banworthy comments to the mods. Also, [please read the rules of this forum](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232), paying particular attention to #3. If you do not follow the rules, you can and will get banned. Guys, let’s not hassle the guests about paying up. For the 30 days they’re here, they have the right to post as they like (within the rules of the forum). > > [Moderator Hat OFF] Fine… I thought that the Orgasm comment was reasonable given the idiocy of what that guy wrote. I guess I should not use the world idiocy either. I’m all for intelligent communication but, please do note the insane responses I get here… seriously, I think you need to have item #4 for people to get banned: 1. Writing things that are simply written to intentionally poke disrespectful fun at somebody. I think when Holmes suggested racist, bile that he was “flaming” or “insulting.” that is no doubt about that. I simply gave some back to him. I suppose I can just ignore when people act like holmes or some others given our political environment that it’s OK to openly show negative feelings towards white people - but then again, I think it’s time people stop that, right now. Please warn holmes. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/111 "2004-06-16T02:54:57Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > I suppose I can just ignore when people act like holmes or some others given our political environment that it’s OK to openly show negative feelings towards white people Cite? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/112 "2004-06-16T06:09:40Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Expressing the notion that nobody should even think about human genetic branching and population diversity, and that we should all exclude those thoughts from our minds. This then leads to direct verbal hatred expressed towards people who do enjoy, accept and understand human genetic branching. Nope. Never said you shouldn’t think about it. I said why worry about it-- ie, you think about it, realize that it simply doesn’t matter, and then get on with the important things in life. > [@](#): > > I just have to say that you are not sane. And I can assure you, I’m quite sane thank-you-very-much. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/113 "2004-06-16T07:42:17Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > I am interested in teaching kids that their two fundamental reproductive choices are this: > > 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. > 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. Lets cut to the chase; imagine two parallel Earths that start out the same as our own; - On Earth 1, people are strongly coerced to reproduce within their own ‘branch’ (leaving aside for the moment that you still haven’t actually provided any kind of sensiible definition of ‘branch’) and this coercion is (say) 99.9% successful - On Earth 2, people are allowed to do whatever they choose - a few of them, for reasons of their own, deliberately choose to reproduce within their own ‘branch’ (and they are allowed to do this), others deliberately choose to reproduce outside of it (and they are allowed to do this), but the vast majority simply don’t give a flying toss about ‘branches’ and reproduce with whoever they happen to choose as a long-term partner (and they are allowed to do this) - sometimes this will happen to be another person within their ‘branch’, sometimes it will not. Earth 2 is (in my opinion) the place that is operating more sanely and is (in my opinion) a nicer place to live; what, if any, awful doom would you prognosticate for Earth 2 that will be escaped by Earth 1? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/114 "2004-06-16T10:36:04Z")
I’d also be interested to know your opinion on ‘Hybrid Vigour’: -In plants: Cultivated vegetables are often the result of careful selection, inbreeding, backcrossing etc, resulting in quite a pure strain with uniform morphological and genetic traits. Trouble is that these strains are often susceptible to disease and disorder. Crossing with another strain (same species, different ‘branch’) often results in offspring that are superior in terms of growth characteristics, reproductive potential, disease resistance and general health. -In domestic dogs: Pedigree breeds (the result of careful selective breeding within ‘branch’) are susceptible to genetic disorders, resulting in deafness, blindness and physical deformities; they are also prone to disease and accidental injury. Mongrels/cross-breeds, on the other hand, are generally very much healthier, stronger, disease-resistant and possibly more intelligent. -In humans (and this is anecdotal, based on a dozen or so examples known personally to me, plus similar accounts from other people): It is my impression that children born to couples of mixed racial background (and not just different skin colours) tend to be strong, healthy, beautiful (OK, that’s subjective) children. So remind me again; why would we want to prevent the branches from recombining? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/115 "2004-06-16T10:46:59Z")
**hellothere** , are you proposing any kind of taxon below the level of ‘species’ which is universal to that taxonomic group and manifests itself in **more than one** genetic characteristic such as eye or hair colour or epidermal melanin level? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/116 "2004-06-16T16:03:26Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > You are very, very sane and rational. First off, thanks for calling me sane and rational. However, like I’ve said, people have, since the beginning of time, gone around having sex with each other, willy-nilly, without any sort of directed movement, and this is continuing today. So, I’m just wondering why you think some sort of educational campaign is neccesary now, to tell people they can either reproduce with someone in their “branch” or outside of it? Don’t people already know that? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/117 "2004-06-16T17:01:52Z")
It’s hard to understand what education is needed. Is some poor chump from Uganda going to be SHOCKED!! when he marries a German woman and their kids have coffee-colored skin instead of black skin like their father? Is some uninformed Swede going to have a heart attack when he marries a Japanese woman and his kids don’t have blond hair and blue eyes? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/118 "2004-06-16T19:28:34Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Hi, my name is hellothere, I like going around and making random hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence or facts, then refusing to discuss them. > > Sorry, that’s not how we do things here at GD. Actually, it seems to be pretty much par for the course 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/119 "2004-06-16T19:46:06Z")
[Moderator Hat ON] Hellothere, discussion of admin/moderator policies is properly done in the BBQ pit. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/120 "2004-06-16T22:48:05Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > I noticed your essay didn’t touch at all on con-jovial racism, and following, con-jovial multiracialism. Assuming retroracialprobagation to be a constant in the race-raque-nucleic continum, and thus making deflected racialoid properties by definition completely relative; I find that to be a glaring omission. Even more complicating to your theory is the recently discovered Rashton’s Law of cyracialtronic multi-plane rendering, which makes multi-racialism _AND_ absolute racism protonically impossible to recreate in the ultra-cognative plane (though the word is still out on the trans-cognative plane). Basically, you’re going to have to work on your theory a bit more. That’s true but did you consider the effect of Utpon’s law of reverse recombinatorial ethics in your assertion that retroracialprobagation are a constant in the race-raque-nucleic continum. Converse epi-planar field theory completely destroys any chance of Rashton’s law applying to anything but the most crude models of multi-racialism and frankly, the ultra-cognative plane is only seriously believed nowadays by kooks and cranks. You’ll find no mention of it in any peer-reviewed journal in the last 20 years. What I found personally weak about the human branching theory was that it presumes a mutualist ontological architecture of human dialectics which restricts raciocinitave abrogation to a 3 point process. More details later as I have to run. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=7)