SCJP, SCJD, SCWCD, SCBCD
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Nominated as one of the most historically inaccurate films; the movie is fine if you understand it as a fairy tale.
SCJP, SCJD, SCWCD, SCBCD
Originally posted by Darya Akbari:
Don't forget that this film got 7 Oscars.
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
We should take this line of reasoning a step further and note that all people are of African descent.
It is quite possible that the first "native American" settlers rowed in from prehistoric Europe, but genetic research suggests that most of today's Native Americans are most closely related to Siberian nomads in Russia. (Should the European angle be proved, we'll want to learn whether a small from-Europe Native American population was absorbed into a much larger from-Siberia Native American population, or whether they were exterminated.)Originally posted by herb slocomb:
The reason Kevin bonded with the Native Americans is that recent research indicates that the original Native Americans were of European descent. As one example of this line of research : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701193203.htm
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
[QB]
... random genetic mutations seem to accumulate pretty reliably over time everywhere... Where as changing environmental pressures can cause one species to change rapidly...
[QB]
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
As easy as it is to accept a fairly universal rate of genetic mutations within a given species; its just as easy to accept that some environments change more than others. So, a simple chronological measurement of the times that different groups diverge from another doesn't provide a reliable measure of their similarity or differences based on that alone. Mutations in one group may be eliminated over and over again as they arise, yet in another group many mutations could provide some advantage in a changing environment so that each mutation spreads amongst group and becomes a permanant fixture.
In any event, there are limits as to how fast such real divergence can occur amongst isolated groups. Generally its seen as taking place very, very slowly. However, when human factors are introduced, genetic changes in an entire country can take place in a few hundred years : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060720112040.htm
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I believe the genetic changes that are counted by molecular anthropologists are mostly DNA noise -- most mutations that survive have little or no effect. These seem to build up even if a stable environment weeds out unnecessary or counterproductive genetic change. Thus, when environmental pressures cause evolution, it selects for mutations that are more meaningful in consequence, but not necessarily greater in number than those which occur in the environmentally stable population.
It's actually more complicated than that; a genetic difference might be neutral in one environment but not in a different environment. For example I live in an area where there is no malaria, so any genetic "features" I have which are related to malaria resistance are neutral. But if I move to Africa, then they aren't neutral any more.Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I agree there can be 2 sets of genetic differences between groups of humans. There are those that are neutral in survival effect and those that aren't; both can be markers to some degree to differentiate human groups.
You can certainly classify people based on genetics. And some of those classifications are certainly meaningful: for example women with defective BRCA genes are more at risk for breast cancer. But groupings at a higher level don't seem to be especially meaningful, as far as I can see. People seem to prefer to use visible characteristics as a surrogate for genetic characteristics anyway, hence the problems with "race".The only reason I bring any of this up is that I've encountered people who deny that groups of people can be classified in any meaningful way based on genetics (such as "race" to use an admittedly crude concept and term).
Originally posted by Paul Clapham:
You can certainly classify people based on genetics. And some of those classifications are certainly meaningful: for example women with defective BRCA genes are more at risk for breast cancer. But groupings at a higher level don't seem to be especially meaningful, as far as I can see. People seem to prefer to use visible characteristics as a surrogate for genetic characteristics anyway, hence the problems with "race".
Because of mixing, there is probably no single gene for which one can say, "The gene is like this in this race, and like that in that race." However, by correlating from the various distributions of various genes in various populations, geneticists are becoming able to determine from DNA a person's "socially attributed race" with almost perfect accuracy. They can also estimate with high accuracy the racial mix of a given person. For example, they might say that for the "white" American, 5% of his ancestors were living in central Africa 3,000 years ago, whereas for the average central African 95% of his ancestors 3,000 years ago were living in central Africa, and maybe 3% of his ancestors 3,000 years back were living in Europe. (For the average "black" American, about 20% of his ancestors were living in Europe 3,000 years ago.) I'm just guessing at these numbers, but you get the idea.Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I agree there can be 2 sets of genetic differences between groups of humans. There are those that are neutral in survival effect and those that aren't; both can be markers to some degree to differentiate human groups.
The only reason I bring any of this up is that I've encountered people who deny that groups of people can be classified in any meaningful way based on genetics (such as "race" to use an admittedly crude concept and term).
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I don't know what use Hitler would have made of such information.. .
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Hilter would have been too busy with MS Vista problems:
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ExeyrNZwzwQ
Did you see how Paul cut 87% off of his electric heat bill with 82 watts of micro heaters? |