genetic benifits to incest and interracial breeding?

[stevie]

ive heard arguments proposing the benifits of both...

hmm, i would like to discuss this, randomly.

[chopiabin]

Why are you so weird beahhh?

[stevie]

ahhaha what?

[Siberian Husky]

IM PREGNANT!!

[rimv2]

Why are you so weird beahhh?

Better question would be, why are you not?

[stevie]

guys, this is a serious topic

ive read and seen on tv, that certain universities in arkansas say that incest can be a good thing and bring forth genetically superior offspring in some cases.

[rob47]

possibly.

[pianohopper]

It's all relative in South Carolina.

Did you hear about this Cambodian couple who married with four children?  didn't find out until recently that they were brother & sister.  Of course, the benefits being NO MOTHER-IN-LAW!!!!   

[stevie]

hahaha, well i guess this topic is a bit wierd, but seriously, i heard that inbreeding actually purifies genes and randomly somehow produces genetically superior offspring in some cases.

[prometheus]

Inter-'racial' breeding gives more beautiful and healthy children, with stronger immune-systems and of course much less genetic disorders and diseases, generally.

I never ever heard that incest is good for the genes. There are several ethnic groups that 'keep to themselves' and they all have their own genetic disease. Everyone knows it is bad for the genes of the children, at least that is what I thought.

You need to find a partner that complimates you genes. Actually, you are already doing that. Your sexual preferenced are highly influenced by the search for signs of complimentary genes.

One big research area here is feromones. It seems that feromones contain data of the immune system of that person. If you have opposite immune system genes then that person will generally smell better to you.

[rimv2]

ive heard arguments proposing the benifits of both...

hmm, i would like to discuss this, randomly.

Interracial is a misnomer. The proper term would be intercultural as we are all one race. And breeding between cultures usually makes us stronger.

Incest makes us weaker. Instead of 60 and 40 or 50/50 when it comes to genes received, incest leaves the child with something like 40 59 or 31 68. The number are larger than what actually happens but these small holes produce a large number of genetic illnesses and deformities.

[stevie]

then how do you explain CPE bach?

[rimv2]

Are you insisting that CPE Bach is better than Bach, and that CPE in the result of an incestuous relationship?

If so, there are those who play and compose with missing limbs, joints and massive mental instabilities.

[lombardian]

.

[bernhard]

Interracial is a misnomer. The proper term would be intercultural as we are all one race.

Actually it is not a misnomer. We all belong to the same species, but we belong to different races (although large scale miscigenation may put a stop to that). And culture has nothing to do with genetics.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

then how do you explain CPE bach?

On the other hand, how do you explain PQD Bach?

[bernhard]

Historically openly incestuous relationships were quite common: the pharaohs of Egypt for an extreme example and most European Monarchies. The results have not been good.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[stevie]

is it illegal to have a consented incestuous relationship?

if so, why?

[leahcim]

is it illegal to have a consented incestuous relationship?

Yes. In the UK they were talking about extending it for "modern contexts" - i.e to include things like adoption / foster / step- relationships and any adult in a position of responsibility.

Which partly answers the "If so, why?" question - clearly the law considers abuse / power relationships as well as genetics or moral issues.

[stevie]

well, i dont see whats so wrong with having a relationship with a step sister or something like that.

[leahcim]

well, i dont see whats so wrong with having a relationship with a step sister or something like that.

I've got a step ladder, it's not my real ladder, just my step ladder. Thank you Harry Hill.

Well I guess it's a case of, once a law exists there's no point worrying about why or whether it really is "wrong" or not. You're either going to do nothing about it, change it or break it.

If you want to change it you need lots and lots of people who care about it. I'd say in this case there simply aren't many, if any, that do. How many have been convicted?

OTOH, if you want to break it, at least you're aware of the potential risk.

I'd suspect, aside from cases that would probably hit other legislation w.r.t abuse, the chances are it'd attract more social workery / psychobabble approaches - much like statutory rape does if both people are young, depending on the circumstances.

[Dazzer]

I'd suspect, aside from cases that would probably hit other legislation w.r.t abuse, the chances are it'd attract more social workery / psychobabble approaches - much like statutory rape does if both people are young, depending on the circumstances.

that is a good question...

what happens if there're two minors who engage in consentual intercourse?

well, i dont see whats so wrong with having a relationship with a step sister or something like that.

well, putting the LAW aside.

if two step-siblings share the same parent, then it could possibly present a problem. However, if these two step-siblings are not related by blood, and only by marriage of their respective parents, then there would be a lower chance of a problem.

--------------------------------------------
intercultural /racial/whatever breeding

The only thing i can put forward for the "creating healthier people" side is that

since everyone is in some other place in the world, the kinds of diseases that appear there are different. so each so-called "race" has adapted differently over the years to their respective diseases.

When, for examples, the Americas were colonised, the colonists brought along with them vast amounts of diseases, which caused great damage to the natives. the colonists would also have had to adapt to the new diseases faced in the new environment.

So, if these differnet "races' were to breed together, they'd possibly pass on the "resistance" genes to both set of diseases, thus, a stronger immune system.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Short science lesson, with my limited knowledge.

We've possibly all seen pictures/ graphical representations of DNA. DNA is in the form of a Double Helix, somewhat like a twisted ladder. Now, when the male's sperm is created, it only has HALF of this DNA information (random- each sperm is different), and likewise for the egg.

So when a sperm and egg combine, they form a new template of DNA, and each set from father and mother contains information regarding the formation of the child. There're millions of aspects of the child that is decided in the genes, from eye colour, to hair colour, to what not. 

However, it is not a combination of each set that decides a particular factor, but whether  which gene is dominant or recessive. Hence, a father with blonde hair and a mother with red hair will not give a orange haired child. Rather, it'll either be a Blonde child or a redhead.

A gene that is dominant only has to be present ONCE in a pair for it to take control, whilest a gene that is recessive has to be paired with one similar to itself. However, in the case where a pair comprises of both dominant and recessive gene, it is possible for the person to pass down the recessive gene (even if the dominant is still in effect), as he still has it in him.

Okay now that we've got that out of the way, let us see why incest is seen as "bad"

We have two perfectly healthy people who are siblings.  They share the same parents, and hence it is likely that some of their genes are similar. Now there happens to be a very very bad pair that causes problems, but its recessive. Hence, neither of them seems to be affected by it.

Law, morals and "power relationships",aside, say they mate. And both pass down their recessive genes. The poor offsping will be afflicted with said condition.

SO why is incest considered bad? because it is likely that since they share the same source of genes, it's most likely that recessive genes will be replicated in each person.

- now i'm not a pro-incest by saying this , but i think its a silly concept. You could EASILY get the same recessive gene from someone else. its only because you're probably looking for trouble by mating with your sibling. that's all -

Now the other side, why would anyone consider it good?
Anyone who's played the first Metal Gear Solid might have an idea.

Just as bad genes are recessive, so can good genes be recessive too.

So it IS possible, not highly, but possible, that a child be blessed with these good genes.

But imagine, bad genes are recessive for a reason. If there were many dominant bad genes, the human race would probably have been wiped out. Its probably how we've evolved and survived (or if you want to be a religious fanatic, god made it this way).

Anyway. that's my rant for today. Sorry for boring you. Especially with my amatuerish take on the matter.

EDIT: reading abit on the Wiki, okay it is possible for Codominance, and incomplete Dominance. me bad

[leahcim]

what happens if there're two minors who engage in consentual intercourse?

Well, technically the "legal age of consent" defines that as not possible - but without pedantry it's clear what you mean - usually nothing happens w.r.t someone getting convicted. It depends where you are perhaps - in the same way that  teenagers convicted of hacking in the UK tend to face relatively minor consequences compared with the US, at least in the past. No doubt some places would have more severe consequences.

So it IS possible, not highly, but possible, that a child be blessed with these good genes.

Possibly. But there's a degree of moral / political subjectivity about what is "good" and "bad" - some might be more clear cut than others, but the advantage a hypothetical genetically built / bred race might have in terms of speed of development would probably lose over the highly diverse slow, random chance mutations in the long run.

As you note genes affect a lot of aspects. Maybe moreso than some want to admit -  maybe because of the racist crap that is attracted to some flawed ideas about it, and because even if we know eventually that no matter how much we scratch our beards or run around we're not going to be as good as someone else it's a scary thought that it might have been a high %age certain before we were even on the delivery table.

Of course there are multiple other factors and it's highly complex, but nevertheless you don't get much fur flying if you talk about hair colour as you would if you'd said intelligence.

That's one of the flaws with the final solution things - they assume that certain characteristics are good which given a changing environment isn't necessarily the case.

Similarly, there are people who have disabilities who might not like the idea that they would be classified as being bad or flawed. Nevertheless, I guess most of the terms show that society has that opinion, so it could be argued [not that I necessarily am] that it's easier to show some specific, largely uncontroversial things related to genetics are "bad" and if incest gives a higher probability of them occuring there's a scientific basis for preventing it to stop closely related folk having children - whereas I think the "good" side is going to be far more subjective - even though both probably are.

[prometheus]

Human races do not exist biologically or genetically. All humans are so similar, the gene pool is so tight, because homo sapiens is so young a species. So using races for humans is a misnomer. The fact that all humans are the same species doesn't have anything to do with there being races or not. Though this is highly argued and probably unlikely, Neanderthal has been classified as a homo sapiens by some. So then we have two sub-species of homo sapiens: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens.
Note this is a sub-species and not a race, biology doesn't really use the word 'races'.


But incest almost killed off the English Monarchy because of a genetic disease. I don't remember the details.

Remember, Bernard doesn't know much biology.

[rimv2]

There seems to be a contradiction here. First you claim that "races" don't exist, replacing it with the more politically correct term "cultures". However, if breeding between these "cultures" is more advantageous, according to you, then wouldn't that imply that there indeed ARE genetic differences between them? Call it what you like, race, culture, or whatever, but differences do exist.

The is no contridiction as ah never said there were no differences. Genetic differences dont imply a different race. If you were to use genetic difference to classify race, where would you begin. Most would start at skin color or the region a person is from. But an Afrikan American could be more genetically similar to an Asian or or Pacific Islander than he/she is to the Afrikan American standing right next to him/her. That is why ah say there are cultures.

Actually it is not a misnomer. We all belong to the same species, but we belong to different races (although large scale miscigenation may put a stop to that).

Yes, actually, it is a misnomer as simply breeding with some one of a different skin color does not mean you are actually breeding with someone of a different race -unless there are different level of humanity associated with a given color; this beeing the thought that has lead to centuries of unjust treatment. Fortunately these level dont exist.

And culture has nothing to do with genetics.

Which is why ah say usually. Also see above

Also, on a side note, I read somewhere that your natural sexual preference tries to reach a balance between breeding with you own relatives, and breeding with someone with a vastly different genotype/phenotype than you; i.e a balance between dangerous inbreeding and reckless outbreeding.

Ah've only heard of this in females. Its assumed they tend to seek mates who are more similar to their father's. This doesnt meant that they want to bone their fathers but more likely they are more comfortable with such men or see them a possible father figures. So then its likely that this theory is about the desire to create a comfortable or familiar family dynamic than wanting to bang your sister.

[rimv2]

Remember, Bernard doesn't know much biology.

That would explain much.

Juss Kidding

[gilad]

Sort of random, but i have a difficult time finding women of my ethnicity (jewish) attractive, i have a thing for non jewish looking ladies and even when i lived in israel i somehow landed up with a christian girlfriend.
I've often wondered if that isn't natural selection seeking out genes that are not to like my own in order to increase my offspings chances of survival.
I mean attraction isn't random at all, women tend to look for tall strong looking men i've noticed, thats why i've decided not hang around with tall guys, women flock to them, bastards, .
I'm sure it's better to spread the gene pool then to keep mixing the same ones up.

[bernhard]

Human races do not exist biologically or genetically. All humans are so similar, the gene pool is so tight, because homo sapiens is so young a species. So using races for humans is a misnomer. The fact that all humans are the same species doesn't have anything to do with there being races or not. Though this is highly argued and probably unlikely, Neanderthal has been classified as a homo sapiens by some. So then we have two sub-species of homo sapiens: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens.
Note this is a sub-species and not a race, biology doesn't really use the word 'races'.


But incest almost killed off the English Monarchy because of a genetic disease. I don't remember the details.

Remember, Bernard doesn't know much biology.

Race is both a biological and anthropological concept.

In fact sub-species is just the taxonomical jargon for race.

But if you want to be pedantic, then you can talk about human “clines” instead of human races.

The whole story starts in 1758 with Swedish Botanist Carolus Linnaeus, who invented the system of classification of biological organisms still in use today. He used morphological characteristics to define a species, which was identified by two names: the genus and the species name. So man is homo sapiens, it belongs to the genus Homo and to the species Homo sapiens. At that point, two assumptions were made: that there were no new species on Earth (or extinct ones for that matter). God had created everything, and nothing had since been destroyed. This assumption, known as “fixism” was to be disproven in Linnaeus lifetime by the discovery of fossils. And this was to have a devastating effect on the system of biological classification, since if organisms change over time, how can we possibly classify them? This basic flaw still exists and it is the basic source of discussions like the one in this thread. Shamefully, Linnaeus in a paradigmatic case of intellectual dishonesty, kept very quiet about fossils, event though after his death a box of them was found under his bed.

The second assumption was that the concept of “species” was held to be self evident and morphologically based. So the taxonomical identification of organisms was (and still is) made by the exam of external, morphological, characteristics – or to use the jargon, the phenotype.

Over the past 250 years, both of Linnaeus assumptions have been challenged and ultimately proven to be untenable as the classification and identification of living organism moved from morphological (phenotypical) to genetic (genotypical) description. In pragmatic terms however – as every botanist and zoologist knows – until genetic kits become cheap and universally available, one must rely on morphology to identify species and to describe new ones.

By the way, Prometheus, I know very well what I am talking about, since for a number of years I worked with the taxonomy of a family of crabs (Porcelanidae) and with the classification of snakes of the Bothrops genus (more about that later on).

As genetic theory (Mendel) and evolution (Darwin) met at the beginning of the 20th century (mostly through the work of Morgan and De Vries), taxonomical procedure became more and more of a philosophical problem that no taxonomist really liked to discuss. At least a proper definition of species was provided: “Two organisms belong to the same species if they can produce viable and fertile progeny”. In other words, morphologically a Horse and a donkey look very similar and by looking at their phenotype we may believe that they belong to the same species, but if they engage in sexual behaviour, their progeny – the mule – although viable is sterile, therefore by the definition above is not the same “species” of animal. The problem with such a definition is that it is not practical. It would require that we observed the reproduction and first generation of every species. So the old “fixist” procedure of detailing the morphological details of an organism and sending an exemplary sample to a museum where it will be preserved for comparison with new findings for the purposes of comparison and identification continues.

Observation of sexual behaviour however did have an impact, since in many cases it has shown that many species thought to be distinct were producing viable and fertile offspring. In some cases whole genii have disappeared and reclassified. Perhaps the most hilarious (and embarrassing) incident pertained to a whole family of Squid parasites. This parasite, a sort of long worm, was often found dead and putrefying within the body of captured female squids. Males never had them. Much scientific literature was produced theorising about this phenomena. Until in the 1950s, French oceanographer Jean Jacques Cousteau filmed the sexual behaviour of the giant squid and showed that the male used one of his long arms to deposit the spermatophore inside the female, who contracted and cut the male arm, which remained inside her body. As a result a whole branch of parasitology ceased to exist.

Similarly, when working with snake taxonomy at one point of my life, I realised that many snakes which were believed to be of different species were freely engaging in intercourse and producing viable and fertile offspring.

So, the inference is obvious: Many species described over the past 250 years are probably not different species at all. But the observation of sexual behaviour – especially in rarer organisms – may not be feasible.

What about organisms which are clearly of the same species and yet so different morphologically as to lead us to believe we are dealing with different species? Since this is a phenotypical (external morphological characteristics) observation, and since phenotype is not determinant of genotype, being mostly determined by environmental interaction, taxonomists came up with the concept of sub-species – or race – organisms that – usually  - due to geographical isolation – have a very different appearance and yet are able to reproduce and produce viable, fertile offspring. If the geographical barrier is suppressed, and free mingling allowed, hybridisation will occur and the observed phenotypical variation will disappear.

This was the case with the snakes. Because of isolation there were two kinds of snakes (mistakenly identified as two different species), that once isolation was suppressed, produced a number of strikingly different snakes – initially thought to be new, different species (nothing excites more a taxonomist than the discovery of a new species). As it turned out they were all of the same species and as generations succeeded, external differences proved to be illusory. A continuous gradation of physical characteristics took place. In such a case, taxonomists talk about “clines”, rather than “races” (or “subspecies”).

The whole point here, is that it is very unlikely that one will find a genetical way to differentiate between races. Such genetic differences will probably be shown between species, since the definition involves a reproductive criteria. Humans and Chimpanzees have 99.4% of common genes, and yet that little difference is enough for humans to be unable to produce a viable, fertile offspring with chimpanzees. IN fact these recent genetic findings have suggested that the classification of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) should be changed to include them in the genus “Homo” (instead of “Pan”). But races have no such genetical definition – although in the past most racists trying to imply it. The perception of race is ultimately one of external, morphological differences.  Population geneticist Cavalier Sforza, in his book “Genes, People and Languages” shows that there is more genetic variation within a population of the same race, than within different races of the same species. Laudable as that may be to confront mistaken and misguided racist policies, the conclusion that human races do not exist does not follow. (We would have to conclude that races of dogs do not exist, that races of cats do not exist, that races of horses do not exist – and indeed they may cease to exist if free intercourse is made available between these races – as has been the case with humans over the past 500 years).

In past times, due to geographical isolation, one could easily talk about human races (e.g. Blacks in Africa, Aborigenes in Australia, etc.). Sure, there may be more genetical variation within a black community than between an aboriginal and black community, and certainly sexual intercourse between both races will produce viable, fertile offspring. So they both belong to the same species (contrary to what many 19th and early 20th century scientists believed). However, they are of distinct races, genetic similarities apart, because ultimately the sub-species or race concept is not a genetic one, but a morphologic one. Moreover in the past 500 years, geographical barriers between humans (starting with the great discoveries) all but crumbled, so hybridisation occurred to great extent, so that – just with the snakes above – one should talk of clines rather than races.

Now drop the political correctness, you end up making ridiculous claims. (e.g.: “Race is not a biological concept”)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[rimv2]

Sort of random, but i have a difficult time finding women of my ethnicity (jewish) attractive, i have a thing for non jewish looking ladies and even when i lived in israel i somehow landed up with a christian girlfriend.
I've often wondered if that isn't natural selection seeking out genes that are not to like my own in order to increase my offspings chances of survival.
I mean attraction isn't random at all, women tend to look for tall strong looking men i've noticed, thats why i've decided not hang around with tall guys, women flock to them, bastards, .
I'm sure it's better to spread the gene pool then to keep mixing the same ones up.

Diversité. We want whats different.

Race is both a biological and anthropological concept.

In fact sub-species is just the taxonomical jargon for race.

But if you want to be pedantic, then you can talk about human “clines” instead of human races.

The whole story starts in 1758 with Swedish Botanist Carolus Linnaeus, who invented the system of classification of biological organisms still in use today. He used morphological characteristics to define a species, which was identified by two names: the genus and the species name. So man is homo sapiens, it belongs to the genus Homo and to the species Homo sapiens. At that point, two assumptions were made: that there were no new species on Earth (or extinct ones for that matter). God had created everything, and nothing had since been destroyed. This assumption, known as “fixism” was to be disproven in Linnaeus lifetime by the discovery of fossils. And this was to have a devastating effect on the system of biological classification, since if organisms change over time, how can we possibly classify them? This basic flaw still exists and it is the basic source of discussions like the one in this thread. Shamefully, Linnaeus in a paradigmatic case of intellectual dishonesty, kept very quiet about fossils, event though after his death a box of them was found under his bed.

The second assumption was that the concept of “species” was held to be self evident and morphologically based. So the taxonomical identification of organisms was (and still is) made by the exam of external, morphological, characteristics – or to use the jargon, the phenotype.

Over the past 250 years, both of Linnaeus assumptions have been challenged and ultimately proven to be untenable as the classification and identification of living organism moved from morphological (phenotypical) to genetic (genotypical) description. In pragmatic terms however – as every botanist and zoologist knows – until genetic kits become cheap and universally available, one must rely on morphology to identify species and to describe new ones.

By the way, Prometheus, I know very well what I am talking about, since for a number of years I worked with the taxonomy of a family of crabs (Porcelanidae) and with the classification of snakes of the Bothrops genus (more about that later on).

As genetic theory (Mendel) and evolution (Darwin) met at the beginning of the 20th century (mostly through the work of Morgan and De Vries), taxonomical procedure became more and more of a philosophical problem that no taxonomist really liked to discuss. At least a proper definition of species was provided: “Two organisms belong to the same species if they can produce viable and fertile progeny”. In other words, morphologically a Horse and a donkey look very similar and by looking at their phenotype we may believe that they belong to the same species, but if they engage in sexual behaviour, their progeny – the mule – although viable is sterile, therefore by the definition above is not the same “species” of animal. The problem with such a definition is that it is not practical. It would require that we observed the reproduction and first generation of every species. So the old “fixist” procedure of detailing the morphological details of an organism and sending an exemplary sample to a museum where it will be preserved for comparison with new findings for the purposes of comparison and identification continues.

Observation of sexual behaviour however did have an impact, since in many cases it has shown that many species thought to be distinct were producing viable and fertile offspring. In some cases whole genii have disappeared and reclassified. Perhaps the most hilarious (and embarrassing) incident pertained to a whole family of Squid parasites. This parasite, a sort of long worm, was often found dead and putrefying within the body of captured female squids. Males never had them. Much scientific literature was produced theorising about this phenomena. Until in the 1950s, French oceanographer Jean Jacques Cousteau filmed the sexual behaviour of the giant squid and showed that the male used one of his long arms to deposit the spermatophore inside the female, who contracted and cut the male arm, which remained inside her body. As a result a whole branch of parasitology ceased to exist.

Similarly, when working with snake taxonomy at one point of my life, I realised that many snakes which were believed to be of different species were freely engaging in intercourse and producing viable and fertile offspring.

So, the inference is obvious: Many species described over the past 250 years are probably not different species at all. But the observation of sexual behaviour – especially in rarer organisms – may not be feasible.

What about organisms which are clearly of the same species and yet so different morphologically as to lead us to believe we are dealing with different species? Since this is a phenotypical (external morphological characteristics) observation, and since phenotype is not determinant of genotype, being mostly determined by environmental interaction, taxonomists came up with the concept of sub-species – or race – organisms that – usually  - due to geographical isolation – have a very different appearance and yet are able to reproduce and produce viable, fertile offspring. If the geographical barrier is suppressed, and free mingling allowed, hybridisation will occur and the observed phenotypical variation will disappear.

This was the case with the snakes. Because of isolation there were two kinds of snakes (mistakenly identified as two different species), that once isolation was suppressed, produced a number of strikingly different snakes – initially thought to be new, different species (nothing excites more a taxonomist than the discovery of a new species). As it turned out they were all of the same species and as generations succeeded, external differences proved to be illusory. A continuous gradation of physical characteristics took place. In such a case, taxonomists talk about “clines”, rather than “races” (or “subspecies”).

The whole point here, is that it is very unlikely that one will find a genetical way to differentiate between races. Such genetic differences will probably be shown between species, since the definition involves a reproductive criteria. Humans and Chimpanzees have 99.4% of common genes, and yet that little difference is enough for humans to be unable to produce a viable, fertile offspring with chimpanzees. IN fact these recent genetic findings have suggested that the classification of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) should be changed to include them in the genus “Homo” (instead of “Pan”). But races have no such genetical definition – although in the past most racists trying to imply it. The perception of race is ultimately one of external, morphological differences.  Population geneticist Cavalier Sforza, in his book “Genes, People and Languages” shows that there is more genetic variation within a population of the same race, than within different races of the same species. Laudable as that may be to confront mistaken and misguided racist policies, the conclusion that human races do not exist does not follow. (We would have to conclude that races of dogs do not exist, that races of cats do not exist, that races of horses do not exist – and indeed they may cease to exist if free intercourse is made available between these races – as has been the case with humans over the past 500 years).

In past times, due to geographical isolation, one could easily talk about human races (e.g. Blacks in Africa, Aborigenes in Australia, etc.). Sure, there may be more genetical variation within a black community than between an aboriginal and black community, and certainly sexual intercourse between both races will produce viable, fertile offspring. So they both belong to the same species (contrary to what many 19th and early 20th century scientists believed). However, they are of distinct races, genetic similarities apart, because ultimately the sub-species or race concept is not a genetic one, but a morphologic one. Moreover in the past 500 years, geographical barriers between humans (starting with the great discoveries) all but crumbled, so hybridisation occurred to great extent, so that – just with the snakes above – one should talk of clines rather than races.

Now drop the political correctness, you end up making ridiculous claims. (e.g.: “Race is not a biological concept”)

Yo B,

Chill.

There is no need for a treatise on race being a biological concept. Race does exist, but there's is no real definition of it when pertaining to man. You might be talking to one person or us all but...

Ah dont use culture to be politically correct. I use to be more sensical.

It's understandable you not wanting to be discredited but that's a bit much, and ah must say that if you make another post of that length just to prove a point ah might have to online b!tch smack you

Best wishes,
Karim

[bernhard]

ah must say that if you make another post of that length just to prove a point ah might have to online b!tch smack you

Best wishes,
Karim

Clearly you are not familiar with my posts. That was a short one.

[rimv2]

Clearly you are not familiar with my posts. That was a short one.

Guess ah'll have to crack out the online bengay and ice

[stevie]

Clearly you are not familiar with my posts. That was a short one.

bernhard is known for his insane length 

but i have to admit, even though i created this topic, i havent read a single post in it, other than those which appeal to my lack of attention spa

[rimv2]

bernhard is known for his insane length 

but i have to admit, even though i created this topic, i havent read a single post in it, other than those which appeal to my lack of attention spa

AHAHAAHH

GFYS

You'll figure it out

[stevie]

go **** my sister?

randomly.

[prometheus]

I find it pretty strange that someone who thinks that mushrooms are plants is an expert in races.

There was been research. The SNP in the human genome is just very very small compared to other species. On average, humans share 99% of their DNA. It is even possible that your caucasian neighbour has a more different genome than a randop person from another continent, though it is of course a bit unlikely it is still very much possible. Because humans are so young all humans are way too similar to speak about genetic differences. The differences in 'races' are largely in apperence, and our brains are very sensitive for faces and apperences. Or still culture is used to define them.

I have seen this discussion on biology forums and there wasn't a person that thought there were human races. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

[leahcim]

The SNP in the human genome is just very very small compared to other species.

They've got Sean Connery though.

[gorbee natcase]

Inbread mutants and villiage idiots were rife a few hundred years ago because of insestious behaviour

[bernhard]

I find it pretty strange that someone who thinks that mushrooms are plants is an expert in races.

And why is it that what you find is so important? For the record, I don’t think mushrooms are plants. Vegetarians do. Have a look here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,1449.msg138034.html#msg138034

You seem to have two very serious problems and I would friendly advise you to tackle them, since they seem to repeat and have now become a pattern:

1.   You do not read what people write.

2.   You are a believer in authority. Let me remind you that ideas stand by themselves, not because some authority holds them to be true. Therefore what is the relevance of what a person said or did not say on a biology forum? Hence, it is equally irrelevant if I am an expert in race or not. Maybe I am, maybe I am not. When a finger points to the moon, derisory remarks about the finger are not going to help you in the long run.

And yes, it is all about political correctness. One now talks about “ethnicity” (see a few posts above) rather than race, because race has become a politically incorrect word.

But as I said several times, I will not repeat myself.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.