5 ms·
On top of that it was published in Science. I'm completely stumped.
by rcpt 4y ago
On top of that it was published in Science. I'm completely stumped.
- User23 4y agoI'm not going to spell it out because it's one of those observations that's taboo even here, but it's pretty obvious why in the prevailing political climate this piece would get published in prestigious journals and a piece finding otherwise would not.
- dTal 4y agoYou should spell it out, or stay silent. This middle ground is cowardly and contributes nothing.
- bpodgursky 4y ago"It is currently politically unacceptable to make any claims that human behavior is primarily genetically influenced, and strong evidence in support of genetically-determined behavior in dogs will beg the question of why (or if) we don't see the same patterns in human populations."
- TameAntelope 4y agoThe fact that people believe this demonstrates an egregious misunderstanding of how genetics works. People have never been "bred" in any meaningful sense (e.g. for a long enough or in a consistently isolated way for selection to be relevant) in human history.
- rajin444 4y agoWhat does being bred have to do with the pattern of genetics influencing behavior? Are you saying there aren’t enough differences in human genetics to allow us to group them in a meaningful way?
- TameAntelope 4y agoI'm saying it's sad people still think eugenics has merit, despite being profoundly debunked and disproven repeatedly over the past century (and more).
- barry-cotter 4y ago> a consistently isolated way The San diverged from the rest of humanity ~200,000 years ago. Australian Aboriginals ~40,000 years ago. Amerindians ~12,000 years ago. No one’s been breeding humans but there’s been plenty of reproductive isolation. Enough that differences in selection pressures could easily lead to differences in traits. For a visible example 5,000 years ago there were no populations that looked like Swedes. Humans that pale did not exist apart from albinos.
- TameAntelope 4y agoNone of this is true, there are no known human subspecies, not to mention human subspecies differentiated by geography.
- barry-cotter 4y agoWho said anything about subspecies? All human groups can breed with no issue. Humans are clearly differentiated by geography. Swedes don’t look like Arabs. Arabs don’t look like Sub Saharan Africans. None of these groups look like Indians or East Asians. Quite visible geographic differentiation. If the specific claims I made about the length of reproductive isolation are false you will find it easy to provide sources to that effect.
- TameAntelope 4y agoAll of those people you've named can and do look like one another, depending on circumstance. Every trait you can think of that you'd list as a "characteristic" of one of the groups you've named can be found in abundance in numerous other places as well, or accounted for due to environmental factors. There is no "canonical" "Swede" or "Arab". Your reliance on stereotype is not only racist but it's factually wrong. This is well studied, and if you are actually curious, there are many, many sources of information about this topic you can find yourself. Race does not exist, genetically. Period.
- barry-cotter 4y ago