I would think socially more “mixed race” individuals would be a good thing. It’s harder to pick out a group to discriminate against if you can’t really tell what “race” people are from. Look at how all the European “races” have basically blended into one in the U.S. Seems to work pretty well there.
Fenlander, it’s good to hear from someone with expertise in the subject. Perhaps you could point us to an introductory overview, preferably on-line?
Can you confirm that “hybrid vigor” applies to animals as well as plants?
I understood that “in-breeding” (for example, cousin marriage) may also produce genetic benefits.
csmonitor.com/2006/1226/p09s01-coop.htm claims that “The risk that cousins’ offspring will suffer genetic anomalies is somewhat mitigated by genetic benefits too complex to discuss here.” I suppose they mean that a more localized population can better adapt to their particular environment, and/or resist certain diseases.
And I dimly recall “attractiveness studies” (based on smell, I think) which found that women find men most attractive if they fall into some middle range–not too closely related, but not too distantly either. The existence of such preferences would suggest that the behavior is evolutionarily beneficial. (It might be sex-linked, though–explaining why more men than women tend to “marry out”.)
Perhaps we are like breeds of dogs (except that we breed ourselves)–in that various subspecies / races have some special niche which outbreeding would tend to ruin.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Fenlander, it’s good to hear from someone with expertise in the subject. Perhaps you could point us to an introductory overview, preferably on-line?
Can you confirm that “hybrid vigor” applies to animals as well as plants?
I understood that “in-breeding” (for example, cousin marriage) may also produce genetic benefits.
csmonitor.com/2006/1226/p09s01-coop.htm claims that “The risk that cousins’ offspring will suffer genetic anomalies is somewhat mitigated by genetic benefits too complex to discuss here.” I suppose they mean that a more localized population can better adapt to their particular environment, and/or resist certain diseases.
And I dimly recall “attractiveness studies” (based on smell, I think) which found that women find men most attractive if they fall into some middle range–not too closely related, but not too distantly either. The existence of such preferences would suggest that the behavior is evolutionarily beneficial. (It might be sex-linked, though–explaining why more men than women tend to “marry out”.)
Perhaps we are like breeds of dogs (except that we breed ourselves)–in that various subspecies / races have some special niche which outbreeding would tend to ruin.[/quote]
yes hybrid vigor also applies to animals.
Yes you are right a more localized population is better suited to a local environment. (presuming it doesn’t change too much too quickly).
Some agricultural species of plants and animals do better in the environment they were artificially selected for. Hybrids will out perform them in a foreign or difficult environment.
Dogs are always a great example.
For dogs the best example I can think of is the difference between lurchers and greyhounds.
Lurchers are half greyhound or saluki and half another breed (it varies). Lurchers are used for running after hares and Greyhounds used for running after artificial hares on a well looked after track. On the track in good conditions a Greyhound would out run a Lurcher. Running after a hare in a field the Greyhound would often damage its legs in the ruts, or hurt itself doing a quick turn chasing an evading hare. Or even die of the cold and wet, or run itself to death.
So Greyhounds (heavily inbred often to mothers sisters brothers etc to keep the line true “pure”) are excellent for that particular environment “the track” but change it a little and it they can’t handle it. The lurcher could however give a good show on the track as well as in a field or anywhere else, but not beat the greyhound in the greyhounds "perfect environment"the “track”.
I may have something about it on my pc, it is about dogs though. I wrote it years ago. If you want it send me your e-mail I will send it to you or upload it to the web. It is written in a very easy to follow style. Links are not that easy to find. Most people find it a boring subject. Personally i think it is very interesting. Anyway if you understand the difference between Greyhounds and Lurchers you are basically on the right track “excuse the pun”.
I heard on some documentary about a culture where marriage between cousins is very common that the genetic benefit is this: in this case - a man has some recessive genetic anomaly or problem (recessive, so the problem is there in the genes, but the man does not himself suffer from the effects). He marries someone closely related who also has this problem. Their children will have a high likelihood of inheriting the bad gene from both parents - so the bad gene or genetic problem will be expressed. The kid won’t survive, and so can’t pass on recessive genetic problems to his or her offspring. Therefore the genetic line is cleaned up.
If the man marries a woman who is very distant genetically, the likelihood is that ‘bad’ recessive genes will only be inherited from one parent, so the bad traits will continue to be passed on.
[quote=“bababa”][quote=“Screaming Jesus”]
I understood that “in-breeding” (for example, cousin marriage) may also produce genetic benefits.
[/quote]
I heard on some documentary about a culture where marriage between cousins is very common that the genetic benefit is this: in this case - a man has some recessive genetic anomaly or problem (recessive, so the problem is there in the genes, but the man does not himself suffer from the effects). He marries someone closely related who also has this problem. Their children will have a high likelihood of inheriting the bad gene from both parents - so the bad gene or genetic problem will be expressed. The kid won’t survive, and so can’t pass on recessive genetic problems to his or her offspring. Therefore the genetic line is cleaned up.
If the man marries a woman who is very distant genetically, the likelihood is that ‘bad’ recessive genes will only be inherited from one parent, so the bad traits will continue to be passed on.[/quote]
Thats true. However there are usually many deleterious recessive genes. But essentially what they are saying is correct.
However you may end up with lack of variation in the gene pool. Take the indigenous indians for example. Many were wiped out by the common cold as they didn’t have enough variation in their gene pool.
native americans i mean when i say indigenous indians
Here’s a biology question. Let us suppose a Mongoloid / Caucasoid intermarriage produces viable offspring. According to the discussion above, said offspring will benefit from “hybrid vigor” but may be less adapted to either set of local conditions (parents’ respective homelands).
This child then grows up. What sort of mate-selection strategy would be most beneficial, ceteris paribis? Should it submerge itself back into one of its parents’ gene-pools (presumably the local one), and inject a bit of foreign vigor into it? (Feel free to create an “inject foreign vigor” smiley!) Or should it seek out other halflings of a similar mix–in this case other Eurasians–to reproduce with? Or should it take the process still further by interbreeding with some third population group?
A few months ago there was an article about a “pizzly”–half polar bear, half grizzly–which some hunter shot. I wonder if the same basic drive that motivates us (we who are intermarried) also motivated the pizzly’s parents. Just as they may have been driven to desperation / persuaded to indulge in perversion by the destruction of the arctic environment, maybe we too are subconsciously led by the changes in our home societies?
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Here’s a biology question. Let us suppose a Mongoloid / Caucasoid intermarriage produces viable offspring. According to the discussion above, said offspring will benefit from “hybrid vigor” but may be less adapted to either set of local conditions (parents’ respective homelands).
This child then grows up. What sort of mate-selection strategy would be most beneficial, ceteris paribis? Should it submerge itself back into one of its parents’ gene-pools (presumably the local one), and inject a bit of foreign vigor into it? (Feel free to create an “inject foreign vigor” smiley!) Or should it seek out other halflings of a similar mix–in this case other Eurasians–to reproduce with? Or should it take the process still further by interbreeding with some third population group?
A few months ago there was an article about a “pizzly”–half polar bear, half grizzly–which some hunter shot. I wonder if the same basic drive that motivates us (we who are intermarried) also motivated the pizzly’s parents. Just as they may have been driven to desperation / persuaded to indulge in perversion by the destruction of the arctic environment, maybe we too are subconsciously led by the changes in our home societies?[/quote]
You are starting to sound like Francis Galton
Do you have the “pizzly” article ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”] According to the discussion above, said offspring will benefit from “hybrid vigor” but may be less adapted to either set of local conditions (parents’ respective homelands).
[/quote]
Excellent point. We are evolved for specific climates/conditions. Isn’t this why people have allergies and many health problems, because we live in an area they might not have physiological defenses against. We have become mobile to a degree our ancestors could never be.
I would think our advanced intelligence has allowed us to become quite adaptive. We have allergy medications, heaters for cold, fans for the heat, sun lotion for overly white people (or the melatonin impaired). Unless civilization fails (which it has before) and we lose knowledge, our technology allows us to survive in most any climate. Even the vacuum of space!
[quote=“Groo”][quote=“Screaming Jesus”] According to the discussion above, said offspring will benefit from “hybrid vigor” but may be less adapted to either set of local conditions (parents’ respective homelands).
[/quote]
Excellent point. We are evolved for specific climates/conditions. Isn’t this why people have allergies and many health problems, because we live in an area they might not have physiological defenses against. We have become mobile to a degree our ancestors could never be.
I would think our advanced intelligence has allowed us to become quite adaptive. We have allergy medications, heaters for cold, fans for the heat, sun lotion for overly white people (or the melatonin impaired). Unless civilization fails (which it has before) and we lose knowledge, our technology allows us to survive in most any climate. Even the vacuum of space![/quote]
Environments also change quickly.
Incidentally I here a lot of talk about overly white people etc melatonin impaired etc etc
Slightly off topic. People with very white skin red hair, blonde hair etc etc are very adapted to their native environment. This is because people of very white skin are self sufficient in vitimin D production at levels of low sunlight. Black people are not and need sunlight to produce enough vitimin D or can develop illnesses such as depression. Being very white can be a selective advantage in the right enviroment ie low sunlight intensity and being black can be a selective advantage in areas of high sunlight intensity.
every phenotype (outward appearance) generally had its advantage for its environment. Mixed race people are generally very well adapted to both environements and are better off than both parents.
However you may end up with lack of variation in the gene pool. Take the indigenous indians for example. Many were wiped out by the common cold as they didn’t have enough variation in their gene pool.[/quote]
Indigenous peoples of North and South America were wiped out by disease because they didn’t have a genetic tolerance to western diseases because they didn’t domesticate any animals except the dog. Many diseases including the common cold, came from living in close proximity to animals such as pigs, cows and chickens.
I don’t think that had anthing to do with genetic “variation” but rather that they just didn’t posess certain specific genes.
Indigenous peoples of North and South America were wiped out by disease because they didn’t have a genetic tolerance to western diseases because they didn’t domesticate any animals except the dog. Many diseases including the common cold, came from living in close proximity to animals such as pigs, cows and chickens.
I don’t think that had anthing to do with genetic “variation” but rather that they just didn’t posess certain specific genes.[/quote]
That is exactly what having variation means, having a variety of genes.
Galton? I’m struggling to figure out what aspect of him I could possibly resemble. (He was a polymath, I’m no good at even one kind of math.)
Here’s the wikipedia article on the pizzly–which actually turned out to be a grolar bear. (Grizzly father, polar bear mother.)
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzly
The thing is, grizzlies are land animals while polar bears prefer the water. What’s the hybrid supposed to do? (Besides get shot by hunters.) Since the polar ice has been disappearing, and polar bears find it difficult to hunt there, this could explain why they might be drawn to commit “species treason.”
Any idea on the most preferable mate-selection strategy for our hypothetical Mongoloid-Causasoid hybrid? (Resubmerge, specialize, or blend without end?)
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Galton? I’m struggling to figure out what aspect of him I could possibly resemble. (He was a polymath, I’m no good at even one kind of math.)
Here’s the wikipedia article on the pizzly–which actually turned out to be a grolar bear. (Grizzly father, polar bear mother.)
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzly
The thing is, grizzlies are land animals while polar bears prefer the water. What’s the hybrid supposed to do? (Besides get shot by hunters.) Since the polar ice has been disappearing, and polar bears find it difficult to hunt there, this could explain why they might be drawn to commit “species treason.”
Any idea on the most preferable mate-selection strategy for our hypothetical Mongoloid-Causasoid hybrid? (Resubmerge, specialize, or blend without end?)[/quote]
First you have to state what the purpose of the breeding progam would be ?
Athlete (which kind) ? Math boffin ? Survivor that can resist disease and produce loads of offspring like a rat ?
what are you looking for ?
What goal ?
p.s.
I am continuing in this discussion for humor, I am not a follower of eugenics lol
Well as far as human beings are concerned anyway.
The same goals as Mother Nature: To spread one’s genes far and wide, maximize the quantity/quality of offspring, or however this ought to be expressed. (I realize that some features beloved of eugenics, such as intelligence, may actually prove counterproductive in terms of this more basic biological goal.)
By the way, your Galton reference has inspired me to change my (sidebar) Location!
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]The same goals as Mother Nature: To spread one’s genes far and wide, maximize the quantity/quality of offspring, or however this ought to be expressed. (I realize that some features beloved of eugenics, such as intelligence, may actually prove counterproductive in terms of this more basic biological goal.)
By the way, your Galton reference has inspired me to change my (sidebar) Location![/quote]
Yes.
people get confused about this “survival of the fittest” idea.
A successful evolutionary organism is one that can breed viable offspring and preferably more than two. As it takes roughly more than two to carry on all of your genes. Nothing to do with who can beat the shite out of who. Just who can have the most viable offspring that is all.
However if you wanted to breed for fast runners or good swimmers etc then it could be bred for. The soviets were doing it for years.
As for the best offspring in general well artificial breeding would not be able to compete with the natural breeding and selection that is going on anyway!
[quote=“fenlander”]
Incidentally I here a lot of talk about overly white people etc melatonin impaired etc etc
Slightly off topic. People with very white skin red hair, blonde hair etc etc are very adapted to their native environment. This is because people of very white skin are self sufficient in vitimin D production at levels of low sunlight. [/quote]
Thanks for making me feel better. I make my own vitamin D!
I love the sun, but if I spend more than 20 minutes in it unprotected I turn red.
“Irish people in the sun is like a fork in the microwave.”
[quote=“fenlander”]
However if you wanted to breed for fast runners or good swimmers etc then it could be bred for. The soviets were doing it for years.
As for the best offspring in general well artificial breeding would not be able to compete with the natural breeding and selection that is going on anyway![/quote]
Yeah, I think we’re kidding ourselves if humans think they can do better at manipulating genetics that’s taken millions of years to perfect.
fenlander:
Yes, but can you speculate / theorize about which mate-selection strategy would generally prove the most biologically advantageous for such a mixed-race child, i.e. who they ought to find themselves most attracted to? (Perhaps it would be different for males and females, or for different mixes of races.) Realizing of course that evolution is not really visible at the level of individuals…
[quote=“Groo”][quote=“fenlander”]
Incidentally I here a lot of talk about overly white people etc melatonin impaired etc etc
Slightly off topic. People with very white skin red hair, blonde hair etc etc are very adapted to their native environment. This is because people of very white skin are self sufficient in vitimin D production at levels of low sunlight. [/quote]
Thanks for making me feel better. I make my own vitamin D!
I love the sun, but if I spend more than 20 minutes in it unprotected I turn red.
“Irish people in the sun is like a fork in the microwave.”
[quote=“fenlander”]
However if you wanted to breed for fast runners or good swimmers etc then it could be bred for. The soviets were doing it for years.
As for the best offspring in general well artificial breeding would not be able to compete with the natural breeding and selection that is going on anyway![/quote]
Yeah, I think we’re kidding ourselves if humans think they can do better at manipulating genetics that’s taken millions of years to perfect.[/quote]
NP Paddy
Yeah very white skin has its evolutionary advnatages (many).
Sunbathing unfortunately aint one of them lol
So if anyone ever calls you a melatonin deficient then call them a Vitimin deficeint retard.
You are Celtic! Never conquered by the Romans. Never surrended!
Feel better now ? lol
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]fenlander:
Yes, but can you speculate / theorize about which mate-selection strategy would generally prove the most biologically advantageous for such a mixed-race child, i.e. who they ought to find themselves most attracted to? (Perhaps it would be different for males and females, or for different mixes of races.) Realizing of course that evolution is not really visible at the level of individuals…[/quote]
Ah I get it. You are looking for a potential mating partner and you want to select one that can produce the best offspring. lol 
ok let me think
hmmmmm
get back to you on that.
What are your genetic racial lines ? I need to know before i recommend one for you.