Interesting Places Folks Have Visited

[NJHAWK]

OOF! That is a sensitive question. I will give my best BRIEF answer, but there is still some debate. First off, you have to define race. If you mean race as a sub-species, then there are no seperate human races. If you mean race as "breed" then sure. Where breed means there are differences in shapes, coloring, and other markings. Note that humans have a wide variety of morphological features that can be interchanged.

When I taught, I had a slide show that put up head shots of people from various places in the world and the students had to guess where people were from. I was careful not to include cultural markings like clothing styles. Students would on average get about 3 of 20 pictures close to correct. So, things like dark tightly curled hair is not just an "African" trait but can be seen in other populations. Blonde hair is not just N. Europe either. There are blonde Austrialian aborigenees as well.

My take is that most "racial" traits we see are the result of sexual selection. People have kids with people that they find attractive. Once a trait gets started as "attractive" in a local population, it becomes more and more frequent. Of course some variations such as skin pigmentation may have had some benefit at some point in time, but over time those traits loose out to the sexual attractiveness factor.

That's the brief story. There are holes that anyone could drive a truck through, but I don't want to write an long essay.

As dumb and half ayss as this ? sounds Im gonna let it rip anyhow. I understand how skin hair and even eye color can be effected over years and years depending on the part of the world which folks live. What I dont get is why Asians have slanted eyes and most other parts of the world do not. How did that happen?

Edited August 12, 2008 by NJHAWK

[DJlaysitup]

As dumb and half ayss as this ? sounds Im gonna let it rip anyhow. I understand how skin hair and even eye color can be effected over years and years depending on the part of the world which folks live. What I dont get is why Asians have slanted eyes and most other parts of the world do not. How did that happen?

Good point NJ...I don't understand that either. Plus, from most current scientific knowledge the native americans were from asia...no slanted eyes on them....and the sun isn't different in asia...wtf?

I would again emphasize that this is not a racially motivated discussion - purely academic.

[Swish]

if it was female and had two legs - I was chasing it

That can be interpreted many ways DJ.... :snowballfight:

[frosgrim]

As dumb and half ayss as this ? sounds Im gonna let it rip anyhow. I understand how skin hair and even eye color can be effected over years and years depending on the part of the world which folks live. What I dont get is why Asians have slanted eyes and most other parts of the world do not. How did that happen?

Eye shape is the best one to point out sexual selection actually.

Say you have a group of people. Some man finds slanted eyes attractive. He has sex and kids with slant eyed girls (isn't that in a Rod Stewart song?). His kids are slant eyed. Now, let's say that the guy was a very powerful man-however you want to measure that. So, his kids inheret some of that power. His sons may seek out slant eyed girls as well. Pretty soon, you have a population of slant eyed people just as an artifact of some guys preference. I know that seems a little far fetched, so let me add in another factor.

That second factor is group identification. People like to be parts of groups and people like to show their group identity (like Hawks fans wearing Hawks gear). There all sorts of reasons for this. If interested I can PM you an academic paper that I have on group identification. Nonetheless, any marker that sets you off as being part of a given group can and usually does grant you certain advantages within that group. Say that you have several populations that all live near each other. One group has a random mutation that gives them slightly slanted eyes. Now say that mutation occurs in that guy I mention above and is carried along in his offspring. Now you have a perminant, non-varying mark of group identification. This group ID can act as a very strong selection factor over time. Combine that with run away sexual selection (looking for more and more slanted eyes) and you could end up with the eye shape variation we see in East Asian populations. Note that I see a lot of variation in eye shape amongst Asian populations.

The squenty eye theory just doesn't carry water for me.

Again, this is the brief story folks, so don't take this as an academic argument. For me to make that would take 20 pages in a journal. A good source for all of this stuff is Jared Diamond.

[DJlaysitup]

OK let's take sexual selection. Now I wasn't the Captain of the football team so I didn't get #1 girl....but I got a girl....maybe even better over the long haul. So - guess what - my boy is considerably more athletic than the 1-1s....does it just take time or is it random?

[Swatguy]

Lived a couple years in Lake Tahoe. Incredible. No words. Beauty, skiiing, back packing.

And a couple year in SF. Also remarkable. The cultural diversity and creativity broadened my horizons.

SF is my favorite place to visit (as well as Manhatten).

[Swatguy]

Good point NJ...I don't understand that either. Plus, from most current scientific knowledge the native americans were from asia...no slanted eyes on them....and the sun isn't different in asia...wtf?

I would again emphasize that this is not a racially motivated discussion - purely academic.

Eskimos do have slanted eyes.

[Seano]

I was an anthropology major for a brief period in college, and I loved it. As far as racial characteristics between dark and light-skinned people, I always found the Vitamin D theory to make a great deal of sense, especially assuming that humankind originated in Africa and then spread outward. This theory maintains that these most ancient people were all dark-skinned, because evolution demanded they had to be. Their dark skin acted as a protection and a reflective element against the intense heat and intense sunlight found in sub-equatorial Africa. But as they migrated northward, especially to the climes of Scandinavian and northern Europe, the sunlight became much, much less intense, and the sun rode at a much lower angle in the sky. And so in this type of environment, their dark skin became a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Their bodies and reflective coloration were unable to soak in enough of the limited sunlight available, with extremely negative health consequences as a result- primarily a chronic and severe lack of Vitamin D, which the result of that particular shortage is not pretty and can be often fatal. So this theory maintains that they evolutionary adapted to this new environment and this problem by developing lighter and lighter skin over a great period of time, so as to aid in their absorption of Vitamin D found in sunlight and be better able to utilize the limited sunlight available in northern Europe and other northern climes.

[DrReality]

LOL - you may very well be right.

San Fran felt like a different galaxy.

[Seano]

Thanks for the insight on Iran Seano...I would love to go there if our world can fix itself from hatred and differences (not likely gonna happen in my lifetime).

As far as the rainforrest situation goes - it has to be approached smartly IMO. I'll always remember a sports interview from some L.A. baseball pitcher who had just signed a 20million dollar contract and he went off on how the rainforrest had to be saved for the sake of the planet and his kids futures and the oxygen and all. I thought...sure...you got yours pal. What about the guy in Brasil who is still trying to feed his family and maybe get a better life for HIS kids?

You're welcome, dude. Glad to share it. It was definitely one of the more amazing experiences of my lifetime. Isn't it stupid how things can get so buggered up simply due to politics? I mean realistically....there is NO logical reason on the freaking earth for there to be such hate and fear between the United States and Iran. There's so much propaganda flowing out from both sides about the other, so much white noise....that it becomes natural that the people of both countries are going to become filled with all these misunderstandings and outright lies about the other. Our rhetoric paints them as being part of some 'Axis of Evil', while their propaganda labels us as being the 'Great Satan'...but it's all just a bunch of BS. That hate is not natural, it was engineered, and it is all because of politics.

RE: the rain-forests, I agree. You can't fault impoverished people for doing what they feel they need to do in order to better their circumstances. So in that situation- yes, you're going to be shortsighted. You're not going to be worrying about the future of the planet when you're worrying about trying to keep your family fed. But IMO that's where the governments, the private foundations, and the universities and academics need to step in...and give these people assistance, education, and alternatives better than burning down the rain-forest. And this is something that's totally do-able. It just needs to be done.

[frosgrim]

I was an anthropology major for a brief period in college, and I loved it. As far as racial characteristics between dark and light-skinned people, I always found the Vitamin D theory to make a great deal of sense, especially assuming that humankind originated in Africa and then spread outward. This theory maintains that these most ancient people were all dark-skinned, because evolution demanded they had to be. Their dark skin acted as a protection and a reflective element against the intense heat and intense sunlight found in sub-equatorial Africa. But as they migrated northward, especially to the climes of Scandinavian and northern Europe, the sunlight became much, much less intense, and the sun rode at a much lower angle in the sky. And so in this type of environment, their dark skin became a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Their bodies and reflective coloration were unable to soak in enough of the limited sunlight available, with extremely negative health consequences as a result- primarily a chronic and severe lack of Vitamin D, which the result of that particular shortage is not pretty and can be often fatal. So this theory maintains that they evolutionary adapted to this new environment and this problem by developing lighter and lighter skin over a great period of time, so as to aid in their absorption of Vitamin D found in sunlight and be better able to utilize the limited sunlight available in northern Europe and other northern climes.

The Vit D argument has strong theoretical backing, but falls short on evidence. I don't recall all the issues right now, but one that I do is that there are dark skinned people living in low sunlight areas (e.g. the deep African rainforests).

My take is that some of the morphological variations may have had some advantage at some point, but then run away sexual selection kicks in and ampliphies the effect.

The best characteristic that has good evidence is the sycle cell trait that does provide good protection vs. malaria.

[frosgrim]

OK let's take sexual selection. Now I wasn't the Captain of the football team so I didn't get #1 girl....but I got a girl....maybe even better over the long haul. So - guess what - my boy is considerably more athletic than the 1-1s....does it just take time or is it random?

This is inherentence, but the problem is how does one isolate genes from the environment? It is really hard to run studies that show one the effect of one over the other. In humans its almost impossible since you really can't do the sort of experiments that are needed to show the differnce between genetic structure and environmental influence.

In the long run, and given phenotype (how a body appears/acts/structured) is a result of genes interacting with the environment during development.

In your sons case, you had athletic propensities (genetic + cultural + psychological + familial?) that had you playing football and other sports. Since you enjoy sports, it is likely that your son would enjoy sports. Your wife's genes also play a significant role, but she also might support your son being an athlete.

I tend to chalk up much of this to environment, but recognizing there are genetic differnces. I think it would probably be reasonable to say that pro athletes have a genetic propensity to be highly athletic. Same as folks who are really smart have a genetic propensity to be smart in some given area(s). The environment in which the person grows up, however, shapes those propensities.

In terms of sexual selection, its hard to show in a society as big as the U.S. This sort of selection is much easier to show in smaller scale societies where you can see what choices are being made from a relatively limited pool of mates.

[Swatguy]

San Fran felt like a different galaxy.

Dont start me. San Fran is the Bomb.

Curious thing is we never encounter the famed alternative lifestyle groups in our to and fro.

[Diesel]

Dont start me. San Fran is the Bomb.

Curious thing is we never encounter the famed alternative lifestyle groups in our to and fro.

I liked San Diego alot. It's #3 on my top favorite places in the nation.