[Amanita]

I fail to see your point. No human race is specialized beyond a handful adaptations in regards to climate. I also do not see why we would wan't disadvantaged specialization when specialization implies evolutionary advantage. Also since stochastic event refers to a non-deterministic event I fail to see the point in saying something isn't necessarily disadvantaged by it since its randomly determined.

We wouldn't want our race to be disadvantaged, would we?

There had been very specialized human races. One case in point is the Neanderthal. How could the Neanderthal, both stronger and having a larger brain size, become extinct on his home turf in conditions he had been specialized in? They advance all sorts of puny theories (mostly involving lack of intelligence, tools on which they have no evidence whatsoever) but somehow they're missing the most obvious point; namely that gene flow from Sapiens to Neanderthal, which is known to have happened the other way round, could have anatomically and mentally weakened the Neanderthal. Nobody even considers this. That is why the "experts" are the least persons I trust. They are the most accustomed to thinking "inside the box". It is no coincidence that contemporary biological theories mirror the political reality of globalization in the same way that the biological theories of the 19th centuries mirrored the political reality of imperialism. The empirical sciences are taught centrally (because they are not things which can be arrived at by the mind alone) and are therefore very prone to political paradigmization.

Also you seem to have confused gene flow (allele migration between two populations) and genetic drift (random changes in the gene pool of a population due to bottlenecks, founder effect, and chance). They are two different evolutionary effects of five.

Well, I think you started the confusion. It is that genetic drift that actually predominates in bottlenecking events, not gene flow, as you had written in your original post.

[mikema63]

My point against ethnic nationalism does not involve bottlenecking, I merely explained the general lack of genetic diversity among the human species due to bottlenecking.

Neanderthal was not human, brain case casts have revealed less gyration in the neanderthal brain. The gyration increases the active surface area of the brain allowing it to do more. There is much evidence to be had that a good part of the power of the human brain isn't in just raw size but in efficiency, experiments where certain types of human brain cells were used to replace the same number of a similar type of brain cells in mice resulted in a very elevated level of learning ability despite the fact that a good portion of the cells did not develop and the mouse was left with less of the glial cells than normal. Neanderthal also lacked the same amount of social cohesion that homo sapiens have.

@Figlio, advantageous alleles do not "fold back" into the gene pool. all advantageous genes are acted on by natural selection. Mutation actually has a very minor effect on evolution, your cells actually remove most mutations automatically, natural selection is the only form of evolution that results in speciation. Genetic diversity only increases the number of genes available for natural selection to work on, it never removes them.

[Figlio di Moros]

Not true, mikema, most mutations are nuetral, at least immediately, and more often harmful. Yes, it does take a while for new genes to accumulate and significantly change the structure of a being, but it doesn't negate it's part of what happens.

As for "genes get folded back in", it's precisely what happens. Speciation requires seperation, textbook evolution; when you have large diversity, genes swap around more. In fact, too much miscegenation would reduce genetic diversity because 50% of genes disappear in any specific reproduction; overtime, more and more genes disappear, and new mutations are more likely to be forced out than in ethnogenation (sic?).

[mikema63]

because 50% of genes disappear in any specific reproduction; overtime, more and more genes disappear, and new mutations are more likely to be forced out than in ethnogenation (sic?).

Only if you assume that everyone has only 1 child.

Mutation is actually the weakest force behind evolution and while separate populations does make speciation possible it does not mean it is required for evolution. Natural selection is required to act on any mutation, a mutation in fact is only considered a benificial mutation if it is selected for by natural selection in the first place.

[Amanita]

Neanderthal was not human

It does not matter if they can be called human. I was discussing the extinction scenario. And why aren't they human anyway? Gene flow happened from Neanderthals to Sapiens, if we are to believe the recent findings of geneticists. Apparently, a small percentage (something like 2 or 3%) of the genetic material of all non-African humans is Neanderthal.

[Figlio di Moros]

It varies from 2% in Mongoloids to over 4% in western Europeans. They were most certainly human, hence the genus homo and the occasional reference to being h. sapien neanderthalis, us being h. sapien sapien.

[mikema63]

That reference isn't an accepted biological definition.

Dogs and wolves can breed too but they are different species, a wolf is not a dog.

Is that really all you have to talk about? Neanderthals? out of everything?

[Amanita]

Dogs and wolves belong to the same species (Canis lupus).

[mikema63]

Dogs are canis familiaris

[Amanita]

Dogs are canis lupus familiaris. Look it up.

[mikema63]

wikipedia is quite wrong on this matter, there are in fact two species of just wolves (canis lupus and canis rufus), the filing of canis familiaris as a subspeicies of canis lupus is a nonsense thing dog breeders have come up with. Dogs can also interbreed with canis rufus, canis latrans and in fact any member of the canis family which contains more than a dozen species.

Are dogs then canis lupus rufus latrans adustus ambrusteri aureus cedaenozes dirus edwardii ferox lepophagus familiaris?

Certainly the taxonomic system needs serious reform (it was invented before evolution was discovered), but if you wan't to debate me in the minutia of biological definitions of species instead of addressing my main points I will win.

Would you perhaps like to debate the actual on topic point of the thread or do you wan't to debate taxonomy?

[Amanita]

There you go - you went on the defensive again.

What is there to debate? I have already demolished the points you raised in the opening post judging by how you went into the defensive about your intents and the lack of adequate replies to my points.

Also, both sapiens and neanderthals and wolves and dogs are (were) capable of producing fertile offspring and therefore there is no reason not to consider them members of the same species unless you change the very definition of species.

[mikema63]

Thats why their in the same families.

You claim I'm on the defensive but instead of adressing my central points your trying to nitpick unimportant peripheral details.