[Pants-of-dog]

If you believe all humans had a common ancestor, then all you need to do is look at the world and know selective breeding is the norm. Is the ‘speed gene’ real? Are people with it more desirable mates?

Is this supposed to be a response to me?

[One Degree]

Is this supposed to be a response to me?

I @ people when it is specific, but feel free to respond.

[anasawad]

@blackjack21

I'm sure the Haitians will feel relieved to know that the Code Noir was just fake news. CNN probably just made the whole thing up

Haiti is not in France.
France did not import all Haitians into France after the empire ended.

You could read the rest of my posts before responding out of context.

The US was part of a colonial empire, in case you've never heard of the British Empire.

The US was a part of the British empire, but it is 1- not inside Britain or near it, 2- Was firstly lightly regulated under the empire and went independent when the empire tried to regulate it.



@One Degree
All humans do have a common ancestor.
However Humans, i.e homo sapiens are a -around- 200 thousand years old species.
The racial and ethnic differences seen today is not "selective breading" but rather adoption to environmental factors through out the course of human migration all across the world.

[One Degree]

All humans do have a common ancestor.
However Humans, i.e homo sapiens are a -around- 200 thousand years old species.
The racial and ethnic differences seen today is not "selective breading" but rather adoption to environmental factors through out the course of human migration all across the world.

@anasawad
I don’t know how you can separate ‘selective breeding’ from ‘environment’. They go together. I have never totally bought the strictly environment argument because it defies logic. It had to have had dominant tribal causes also.

[Pants-of-dog]

@One Degree

Please define “selective breeding”. Thanks.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
Not really.
Selective breading is a specific term used to refer to human-led breading of animals, or in the case of this discussion, slaves and other people.
Adoption to environmental factors is a natural process which takes place everywhere along the course of 10s of thousands of years.
The two are very different from each other.

And there wont be any tribal causes for it as Human tribes were very small during this process and had limited migration abilities within the lifetime of a specific population group, limiting their encounters to other human tribes who were within the same geographic region and as such the same regional climates and environmental factors, which means for any given human tribe, their encounters would be limited to those who shared the same characteristics as they did.
This is why racial and ethnic groups became a thing.

The time where different racial and ethnic groups started encountering each other was at best 10-12 thousand years ago which is a significantly long time after the initial migration and settlements around the world began and as such significantly after the adoption process was already in advanced stages that races were already noticeable and apparent.

[One Degree]

@One Degree

Please define “selective breeding”. Thanks.

The only purpose of restricting a term with my definition is to bias the argument. Feel free to argue whatever definition you want. I will currently choose the ‘alpha male produces more offspring than non alphas’.

@anasawad
That is what I mean by being illogical. To argue we all dispersed from one ancestor and then were totally isolated from one another is unrealistic. I don’t buy it.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you are redefining the term to mean something completely different from the accepted definition.

[One Degree]

So you are redefining the term to mean something completely different from the accepted definition.

Yes, I do that often. The accepted definition has a specific purpose. I don’t always agree with that purpose.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
There are cases where migration happened through prolonged periods.
To take an example 'm directly familiar with.
Persians and specifically my tribe the Hazzar tribe. We migrated from north western Ukraine east to Russia around 5000-7000 years ago(estimates by scholars)(and it happened in waves as far as told) , then south towards the Iranian plateau around 4500 years ago.
If we were to take skin color as the prime example of the adoption process, we had much lighter skin color than the Roujams who were in the southern half of the Iranian plateau and had far older presence than we did there, and we can know this from historical records firstly moving down generations orally then by writting around 3500-4000 years ago when describing the looks of our earlier kings and leaders, all refer to them as having a lighter and whiter skin color, which if you looked into our mythology, you'd note that their skin color of being much lighter than the tone during the times of the recording being used to insinuate they were divine figures who were sent by the gods to lead the nation to salvation in the noble land (Arya, i.e the Iranian plateau) and that their skin color was like that because they "Shined" with divine spirit.
And since the first integration and recorded mixing process to start between us and the Roujams started around a 1000 years after we moved there, but yet we were still getting darker according to the stories means that the adoption process was beginning to happen even before mixing over the course of the first several thousands of years. Which is due to the radical difference in climate between the regions.
(edit: even if it wasn't genetic, the sun is enough to burn you )
When the integration process really fully began ofcourse, the accelerated and now we look pretty identical to the more native population of the plateau.

[One Degree]

@One Degree
There are cases where migration happened through prolonged periods.
To take an example 'm directly familiar with.
Persians and specifically my tribe the Hazzar tribe. We migrated from north western Ukraine east to Russia around 5000-7000 years ago(estimates by scholars)(and it happened in waves as far as told) , then south towards the Iranian plateau around 4500 years ago.
If we were to take skin color as the prime example of the adoption process, we had much lighter skin color than the Roujams who were in the southern half of the Iranian plateau and had far older presence than we did there, and we can know this from historical records firstly moving down generations orally then by writting around 3500-4000 years ago when describing the looks of our earlier kings and leaders, all refer to them as having a lighter and whiter skin color, which if you looked into our mythology, you'd note that their skin color of being much lighter than the tone during the times of the recording being used to insinuate they were divine figures who were sent by the gods to lead the nation to salvation in the noble land (Arya, i.e the Iranian plateau) and that their skin color was like that because they "Shined" with divine spirit.
And since the first integration and recorded mixing process to start between us and the Roujams started around a 1000 years after we moved there, but yet we were still getting darker according to the stories means that the adoption process was beginning to happen even before mixing over the course of the first several thousands of years. Which is due to the radical difference in climate between the regions.
(edit: even if it wasn't genetic, the sun is enough to burn you )
When the integration process really fully began ofcourse, the accelerated and now we look pretty identical to the more native population of the plateau.

These arguments are normally used to explain skin color, but what about all our other physical differences? How does environment explain different height, different eye configuration, different hair, etc. We have too many differences to be explained simply by climate. We are also only recently aware of the influence of other proto human DNA.
If I decide to leave my tribe then it is highly likely those who go with me will have similarities. I was probably ostracized for being different. Also, as the leader, I am going to dominate the DNA pool. These were very small groups of people migrating to different areas. Tribalism and inbreeding seems like a more reasonable explanation than climate. Admittedly, I have zero expertise in the area. I just find the current explanations more politically correct than logical.

[Rancid]

There's also a concept called sexual selection. Which basically means, certain traits are pass down not because they were better for survival, but simply because they were sexy.

One example is there are two competing theories as to why Asians have "the asian eyes". One belief is environmental. When humans migrated to what is now East Asia it was an Ice Age. The smaller eye openings protected against snow blindness. The other theory is, people just though those type of eyes were sexier so those people procreated more.

[Albert]

Here is my theory, slave owners bred black slaves for best performance. This practice conducted for extended period of time now has created a master race. What you guys think?

[anasawad]

http://www.internetlooks.com/humandifferentiation.html
@One Degree

[One Degree]

http://www.internetlooks.com/humandifferentiation.html
@One Degree

I have read this before or one very similar. It gives all the genetic differences while claiming they are due to environment.

Sustained reproductive isolation of human populations exposed to differing environments led over time to the evolution of distinct human races.

They don’t prove this, they just say it. They even provide all the genetic differences that should lead to suspecting this conclusion. The environment did not change our genetics, breeding did. The environment may have influenced who the alpha males were (and I even doubt this being a major factor),but the climate did not cause the changes.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
Both and more factors played role.
But isolation and the low level of mixing is what made the effects possible.

[One Degree]

@One Degree
Both and more factors played role.
But isolation and the low level of mixing is what made the effects possible.

Yes, I basically agree with this. The problem is saying environment was the cause of our differences when it is more likely a different gene pool was. I don’t see any reason for this emphasis on environment rather than downplaying our differences for the sake of political correctness. Seems silly to me.
The different gene pool has the advantage of not requiring isolation, just preference. You don’t need an unlikely world event that isolated everyone. They just had different preferences and could have been in continuous contact or not.
I am not even bothering getting into the different physical differences of Africans who should not have been isolated at all from one another. They obviously separated based upon preference.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
The human gene pool already had pretty much all the different characteristics present in the various races today or atleast the precursor to them.
The environment is what determined which of those genes to become more prevelant in each region and which genes having more chances to further evolve due to adoption and natural selection.

Genetic changes are responses to the environment at their core. It is indeed a randomized process, but the inefficient or harmless genetic markers are usually removed through natural selection, i.e the ones carrying it dying off. With some ofcourse being inefficient but yet remaining as they don't have significant effects, its not a perfect process.

The environments of each region humans lived in determined which genes to pass through the selection process and which not to.

[One Degree]

@One Degree
The human gene pool already had pretty much all the different characteristics present in the various races today or atleast the precursor to them.
The environment is what determined which of those genes to become more prevelant in each region and which genes having more chances to further evolve due to adoption and natural selection.

Genetic changes are responses to the environment at their core. It is indeed a randomized process, but the inefficient or harmless genetic markers are usually removed through natural selection, i.e the ones carrying it dying off. With some ofcourse being inefficient but yet remaining as they don't have significant effects, its not a perfect process.

The environments of each region humans lived in determined which genes to pass through the selection process and which not to.

Yeah, I know that is the current thinking. I just don’t buy it. It just seems more reasonable to me that people with different dominant genes moved to different areas rather than the environment deciding who prevailed. The groups were originally so small that it would require different dominant genes in different groups become prevalent. I don’t see them having the diversity for environmental selection. I add to this the most likely reason for leaving a tribe being ostracism.
If we originated in Africa with Black skin, then lighter skin would have been reason for ostracism. This also explains the different races geographic distribution from darker to lighter. Lighter skin ostracized people would not go to an area of even darker skinned people. They would move away.
Anyway, I am just expressing a strong unsubstantiated opinion. I have no facts, just suspicious of the environment argument.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
That is pretty much anti science.
All scientific studies push towards the adoption to environment scenario.