I have a member of my family who is blonde and blue eyed while both of her parents have brown eyes and dark hair.Parents with brown eyes having a kid with blue eyes is very common. That's not what I was talking about. What are you talking about, then? About blue-eyed parents having kids with brown eyes. Big difference.
If a viable Humanzee could be produced, I wonder whether it would be infertile, as is a mule.Maybe, maybe not. We and chimps are genetically less different than are horse and donkey. Next question. Could a humanzee have blue eyes? I think that would be cute... or scary.
If a viable Humanzee could be produced, I wonder whether it would be infertile, as is a mule.Maybe, maybe not. We and chimps are genetically less different than are horse and donkey. Next question. Could a humanzee have blue eyes? I think that would be cute... or scary. I don't think it could have blue eyes but its sclera could perhaps be big like ours, which would probably have a very strong emotional impact on us deciding if its human. Small sclera, it's a chimp. Large sclera, he is one of us. We do spend a lot of time looking into other people's eyes.
If a viable Humanzee could be produced, I wonder whether it would be infertile, as is a mule.Maybe, maybe not. We and chimps are genetically less different than are horse and donkey. Next question. Could a humanzee have blue eyes? I think that would be cute... or scary. I don't think it could have blue eyes but its sclera could perhaps be big like ours, which would probably have a very strong emotional impact on us deciding if its human. Small sclera, it's a chimp. Large sclera, he is one of us. We do spend a lot of time looking into other people's eyes. Yes, big eyes, with white (not yellowish) sclera, and with large pupils. I would be proud to be such a monkey's uncle.
“Ape’s,” not “monkey’s.” >:-( And why an uncle? How about a dad? You knew it was coming, right? 
"Ape's," not "monkey's." >:-( And why an uncle? How about a dad? You knew it was coming, right? :-)Sorry, I was riffing off of the well known idiom: "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!" I forget that not everyone can relate to my covert verbal behavior.
I see. Never hear of it. (I just looked it up.)
I have a member of my family who is blonde and blue eyed while both of her parents have brown eyes and dark hair.Parents with brown eyes having a kid with blue eyes is very common. That's not what I was talking about. What are you talking about, then? About blue-eyed parents having kids with brown eyes. Big difference. Well. I have an example of that in my family, too. Did you think it was impossible? http://genetics.thetech.org/how-blue-eyed-parents-can-have-brown-eyed-children
You may ask the same thing when it comes to species and families. Are Neandertals different species? (Or the chimps, as there is a good reason to suspect that chimp and human could produce an offspring?) Are you my cousin?OK. I ask that. How many differences make a difference in race, in species, in families? What are their operational, scientifically based definitions? And so, based on that, what is the scientific background of your remark that "There is obviously more to race than just the colour of eyes and skin." (Yes, too obvious: different hair colour, length, form of the face etc... But if you mean that, then your remark has not so much content.)
10,000 years, or so, ago, no humans had blue eyes. Today, blue eyed humans are less than 10% of the world population. And that percentage may be decreasing. We’re a minority and I think we deserve some consideration as such. You know, like an endangered species.
Race can be identified by genes which are only shared by a certain group. For example, both whites and Asians have white skin, but in each race a different gene is responsible for this trait. The same goes for, say, lactose tolerance. Europeans and some Africans can drink milk, but again, different genes in each race made this possible. When you group all these traits together, the difference becomes obvious, just like it does with the breeds of dogs. Of course, most of dog breeds exist due to artificial selection where humans differ because of natural selection. But one think is certain: if evolution is true, then races must exist as the environmental pressures haven’t been the same for all races.
Again, take the lactose tolerance as an example. The environmental pressure responsible for lactose tolerance in Europeans was probably the lack of vitamin D, found in milk, whereas in Africa the advantage of being able to consume milk was due to the availability of an additional source of liquid. Different environmental pressures, different genes, different races.
I remember Dawkins (among many others) offered an explanation on the nature of races in his Ancestor’s Tales but it has been a while since I read it, so I’ll have to go back to look for it (tonight) if you are interested. I know Coyne also believes that races are a valuable classification of different groups of people.
The vitamin D in milk comes by adding the vitamin, otherwise known as “fortification”. I don’t believe this began until the late 1930s.
Additional (!) vitamin D is fortified. Cow’s milk still does contain vitamin D. But it doesn’t really matter. What matters to what we are discussing here is that different genes in Europeans and Africans are responsible for lactose tolerance.
Here is the passage from Dawkins’s Ancestor’s Tale on the acceptance of the usefulness of race:
The African, who was the only black person there – and he really was black, unlike many “African-Americans" – happened to be wearing a red tie. He finished his self-introduction by laughingly saying, “You can easily remember me. I am the one with the red tie." He was genially mocking the way people bend over backwards to pretend not to notice racial differences. I think there was a Monty Python sketch along the same lines. Nevertheless, we can’t write off the genetic evidence which suggests, all appearances to the contrary, we are an usually uniform species. What is the resolution to the apparent conflict between appearance and measured reality? It is genuinely true that, if you measure the total variation in the human species and then partition it into a between-race component and a within-race component, the between-race component is a very small fraction of the total. Most of the variation among humans can be found within races as well as between them. Only a small admixture of extra variation distinguishes races from each other. That is all correct. What is not correct is the inferene that race is therefore a meaningless concept. This point has been clearly made by the distinguished Cambridge geneticist A.W.F. Edwards in a recent paper “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy." R.C. Lewontin is an equally distinguished Cambridge (Mass.) geneticist, known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possibile opportunity. Lewontin’s view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. He wrote, in a famous paper of 1972: It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. This is, of course, exactly the point I accepted above, not surprisingly since what I wrote was largely based on Lewontin. But see how Lewontin goes on: Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxnomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance. We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes on forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of “virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance." This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.
I don’t believe cow’s milk naturally contains enough vitamin D for it to have been meaningful in the human diet, pre-fortification. This is why governments undertook to fortify milk in the middle of the last century.
Race can be identified by genes which are only shared by a certain group. For example, both whites and Asians have white skin, but in each race a different gene is responsible for this trait. The same goes for, say, lactose tolerance. Europeans and some Africans can drink milk, but again, different genes in each race made this possible. When you group all these traits together, the difference becomes obvious, just like it does with the breeds of dogs. Of course, most of dog breeds exist due to artificial selection where humans differ because of natural selection. But one think is certain: if evolution is true, then races must exist as the environmental pressures haven't been the same for all races. Again, take the lactose tolerance as an example. The environmental pressure responsible for lactose tolerance in Europeans was probably the lack of vitamin D, found in milk, whereas in Africa the advantage of being able to consume milk was due to the availability of an additional source of liquid. Different environmental pressures, different genes, different races. I remember Dawkins (among many others) offered an explanation on the nature of races in his Ancestor's Tales but it has been a while since I read it, so I'll have to go back to look for it (tonight) if you are interested. I know Coyne also believes that races are a valuable classification of different groups of people.Lactose intolerance has to do with the environment and evolution, not genes. There is nothing in the genes that establishes race. The idea of race is a human construct. There is nothing physical that determines race. It all depends on our perception, nothing else.
I don't believe cow's milk naturally contains enough vitamin D for it to have been meaningful in the human diet, pre-fortification. This is why governments undertook to fortify milk in the middle of the last century.It may not be meaningful now, but it could have been at one point in the past. And again, what the pressure was is a mere speculation at this point and doesn't really matter much to what we are taking about here. What does matter is that the two races differ genetically in lactose tolerance.
Lactose intolerance has to do with the environment and evolution, not genes.:question:
There is nothing in the genes that establishes race. The idea of race is a human construct. There is nothing physical that determines race. It all depends on our perception, nothing else.:question: Are you okay?
I remember Dawkins (among many others) offered an explanation on the nature of races in his Ancestor’s Tales but it has been a while since I read it, so I’ll have to go back to look for it (tonight) if you are interested. I know Coyne also believes that races are a valuable classification of different groups of people.George, have you read Ian Tattersall's book "Race, Debunking a Scientific Myth"? If so, then how does it differ from Dawkins and Coyne's findings? I just finished Coyne' book and read the "Ancestor's Tale (a fantastic journey back through genetic history) last year. For that matter have you read any of Tattersall's books? If so, what's your opinion of his research? Cap't Jack
Lactose intolerance has to do with the environment and evolution, not genes. There is nothing in the genes that establishes race. The idea of race is a human construct. There is nothing physical that determines race. It all depends on our perception, nothing else.Lois, have you read the two books that George refers to in his post? If you haven't your opinion will do a 180 when you finish them and if you have then WTH? Cap't Jack