Topic: If you actually like diversity...
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos started this discussion 13 years ago #24,765
...wouldn't you be opposed to miscegenation and syncretism?NOTE: Poll option #3 votes lacking a corresponding post containing a reason will not be counted.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, a true supporter of diversity would oppose miscegenation and syncretism. | 2 | 29% | |
| Yes, but diversity is just an excuse to replace cultures you don't like, namely European Christianity. | 1 | 14% | |
| No, a true supporter of diversity would support miscegenation and syncretism, because... | 4 | 57% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #381,037
sup walter
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #381,038
Christianity is a representation of the Jewish invasion of European culture. We should be pleasing Odin, not praising Jesus the Jew.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 32 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #381,047
What gets me is how many diversity supporters live in rich white suburbs.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #381,048
Don't give a shit about no nig nogs.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #381,051
@381,047 (D)
If they love diversity so much, they should leave Livonia forever and move 12 miles west, since they claim to love Detroit so fucking much.
If they love diversity so much, they should leave Livonia forever and move 12 miles west, since they claim to love Detroit so fucking much.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #381,054
> arg
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #381,059
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #381,062
@381,037 (B)
dumb
@381,038 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Yeah, the Jews were really smart making a religion that excluded them, and giving it to a people that persecuted them for thousands of years. They really did well out of that.
@381,047 (D)
I support diversity - I want England English, Japan Japanese, Ireland Irish, Korea Korean, &c. I want their cultural traditions to survive.
@381,048 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
So you wouldn't mind if they or at least their cultural traditions died out?
@381,054 (F)
dumb
dumb
@381,038 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Yeah, the Jews were really smart making a religion that excluded them, and giving it to a people that persecuted them for thousands of years. They really did well out of that.
@381,047 (D)
I support diversity - I want England English, Japan Japanese, Ireland Irish, Korea Korean, &c. I want their cultural traditions to survive.
@381,048 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
So you wouldn't mind if they or at least their cultural traditions died out?
@381,054 (F)
dumb
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #381,063
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 47 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,070
No, a true supporter of diversity would support miscegenation and syncretism, because true supporters of diversity aren't fat racist faggots who use words like miscegenation and syncretism.
NOTE: Race doesn't exist. HGP has proven scientifically that all humans are genetically equal.
NOTE: Race doesn't exist. HGP has proven scientifically that all humans are genetically equal.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,072
i saw that poster in a vet's office once
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,073
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,075
@381,070 (H)> No, a true supporter of diversity would support miscegenation and syncretism, because true supporters of diversity aren't fat racist faggots who use words like miscegenation and syncretism.
You are stupid and can't speak English.
> NOTE: Race doesn't exist. HGP has proven scientifically that all humans are genetically equal.
i'm crying
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,083
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Ad hominem. Who gives a fuck what a stupid Australian retard who has no idea what he's talking about thinks.
Ad hominem. Who gives a fuck what a stupid Australian retard who has no idea what he's talking about thinks.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,086
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,087
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
You're a fat retard with no prospects in life and you deal with that by blaming black people and jews for your failures, when in truth it's merely your own crippling inadequacies.
You're a fat retard with no prospects in life and you deal with that by blaming black people and jews for your failures, when in truth it's merely your own crippling inadequacies.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 14 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,088
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,090
OP how do you justify opposing so-called "race mixing" and yet also opposing the so-called "tyranny of the state"? Or are you just full of shit?
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,092
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,093
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Get your Phd. in evolutionary biology and then we'll talk, thanks.
Get your Phd. in evolutionary biology and then we'll talk, thanks.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,095
@381,092 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
How much looking into it have you actually done. I bet none. Literally nothing.
How much looking into it have you actually done. I bet none. Literally nothing.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,100
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 8 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,101
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,103
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist
Stupid fucking retard.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist
Stupid fucking retard.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,106
@previous (H)
Perhaps we might not have as much genotypical diversity as we once thought, but you can't ignore our phenotypical diversity.
Perhaps we might not have as much genotypical diversity as we once thought, but you can't ignore our phenotypical diversity.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,116
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,117
@381,090 (H)
> OP how do you justify opposing so-called "race mixing" and yet also opposing the so-called "tyranny of the state"? Or are you just full of shit?
Where's the contradiction?
> OP how do you justify opposing so-called "race mixing" and yet also opposing the so-called "tyranny of the state"? Or are you just full of shit?
Where's the contradiction?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,119
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 57 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,160
@381,117 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Because opposing so-called "race-mixing" is tantamount to denying the existence of the property rights of, for example, a black man and a white woman. Or whatever the fucking terminology is, you know what I mean.
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
What do you mean "that no one uses"? The idea that the different so-called "races" are genetically different is the entire point. You demonstrated it yourself in your OP picture by comparing them to dog breeds, you jackass.
Because opposing so-called "race-mixing" is tantamount to denying the existence of the property rights of, for example, a black man and a white woman. Or whatever the fucking terminology is, you know what I mean.
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
What do you mean "that no one uses"? The idea that the different so-called "races" are genetically different is the entire point. You demonstrated it yourself in your OP picture by comparing them to dog breeds, you jackass.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,246
@previous (H)
> Because opposing so-called "race-mixing" is tantamount to denying the existence of the property rights of, for example, a black man and a white woman. Or whatever the fucking terminology is, you know what I mean.
No, it's not. Why would you think that?
> What do you mean "that no one uses"? The idea that the different so-called "races" are genetically different is the entire point. You demonstrated it yourself in your OP picture by comparing them to dog breeds, you jackass.
I've never heard of any speak of a "racial gene". Just the idea that populations have clusters of genes represented with different frequencies. The phenotypal differences are also very important and should not be disregarded.
> Because opposing so-called "race-mixing" is tantamount to denying the existence of the property rights of, for example, a black man and a white woman. Or whatever the fucking terminology is, you know what I mean.
No, it's not. Why would you think that?
> What do you mean "that no one uses"? The idea that the different so-called "races" are genetically different is the entire point. You demonstrated it yourself in your OP picture by comparing them to dog breeds, you jackass.
I've never heard of any speak of a "racial gene". Just the idea that populations have clusters of genes represented with different frequencies. The phenotypal differences are also very important and should not be disregarded.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 39 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,252
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,267
@381,246 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Oh shit, he caught me out on being a moron and a hypocrite
> Better pretend I was talking about something else
> Oh shit, he caught me out on being a moron and a hypocrite
> Better pretend I was talking about something else
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,268
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 37 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,275
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
lolthis
@OP
Please concisely define "diversity" as you are using it. Do you mean cultural diversity? Racial diversity? Diversity of opinion?
Please concisely define "race" because there seems to be some confusion about what you mean.
You may as well concisely define "like" and "support" while you are at it because your line of reasoning seems to confuse the appreciation of diversity with the belief that it should be rigidly maintained.
lolthis
@OP
Please concisely define "diversity" as you are using it. Do you mean cultural diversity? Racial diversity? Diversity of opinion?
Please concisely define "race" because there seems to be some confusion about what you mean.
You may as well concisely define "like" and "support" while you are at it because your line of reasoning seems to confuse the appreciation of diversity with the belief that it should be rigidly maintained.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,276
@381,267 (H)
> Mountie moving goalposts
@381,268 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This. Ignore mountainman.
> Mountie moving goalposts
@381,268 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This. Ignore mountainman.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 23 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,279
lol religion hasn't stopped mountain from being a dishonest asshole.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 30 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,282
Anti-racism truly is code for anti-white.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,295
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,346
@381,267 (H)
> >Oh shit, he caught me out on being a moron and a hypocrite
> >Better pretend I was talking about something else
???
> >Oh shit, he caught me out on being a moron and a hypocrite
> >Better pretend I was talking about something else
???
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,347
@381,275 (M)
Did you even read the post? If
> miscegenation and syncretism
are the opposite of diversity as I have defined it, than I clearly mean ethnic and cultural diversity.
I didn't use the term "race" as I think that's part of the problem. I don't support the idea of a monolithic white race, or black race, I support diversity, and the survivaly of the many hundreds of ethnicities and cultures.
Like just means like, support means doing something about it (state or otherwise).
Did you even read the post? If
> miscegenation and syncretism
are the opposite of diversity as I have defined it, than I clearly mean ethnic and cultural diversity.
I didn't use the term "race" as I think that's part of the problem. I don't support the idea of a monolithic white race, or black race, I support diversity, and the survivaly of the many hundreds of ethnicities and cultures.
Like just means like, support means doing something about it (state or otherwise).
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 34 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,348
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #381,380
@381,347 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> miscegenation and syncretism are the opposite of diversity
But you didn't state that. You asked if someone who liked or supported diversity would oppose miscegenation and syncretism. Your question supposes that appreciating diversity and maintaining it have to be the same thing.
Someone who likes or supports diversity wouldn't necessarily have to oppose miscegenation and syncretism. One can appreciate differences without feeling it necessary to socially entrench those differences or actively try to bring them about.
> miscegenation and syncretism are the opposite of diversity
But you didn't state that. You asked if someone who liked or supported diversity would oppose miscegenation and syncretism. Your question supposes that appreciating diversity and maintaining it have to be the same thing.
Someone who likes or supports diversity wouldn't necessarily have to oppose miscegenation and syncretism. One can appreciate differences without feeling it necessary to socially entrench those differences or actively try to bring them about.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,418
No, because diversity does not mean segregation. Mixing genes creates more diversity, and mixing cultures creates more diversity by creating new and interesting cultural concepts.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,433
Anonymous O replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,435
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
No, there would not be less. You're assuming that all genes would be mixed homogeneously and completely, which would also never be the case, and even if it did one day become the case, it only seems like less diversity to you because you're looking at the idea through your cultural lenses and your ideas on race. There's no need to have distinct races to have lots of variation and diversity in a society.
No, there would not be less. You're assuming that all genes would be mixed homogeneously and completely, which would also never be the case, and even if it did one day become the case, it only seems like less diversity to you because you're looking at the idea through your cultural lenses and your ideas on race. There's no need to have distinct races to have lots of variation and diversity in a society.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,437
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,440
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
There wouldn't be only one kind. There simply wouldn't be any one distinct breed. Every single dog would be different. There would be way more diversity.
There wouldn't be only one kind. There simply wouldn't be any one distinct breed. Every single dog would be different. There would be way more diversity.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,442
@previous (P)
Every single dog already is unique. As well, we have distinct types. This is more diverse.
Every single dog already is unique. As well, we have distinct types. This is more diverse.
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,444
@381,433 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> If all genes were mixed, and all cultures mixed, there would be less diversity.
Are you doing this all at once in a lab or something?
Let's look at the history of language for a moment. The English language is a mixture of several different influences. Once it spread across the globe, differences in word use, spelling, pronunciation gave rise to different regional dialects. Spanish, French, and Portuguese saw much the same thing happen, and those languages can all trace major influence back to a mix of Latin and their own regional influences. We have here several instances of mixing creating distinctly new things that develop and branch off into still more different things.
Furthermore, language (much like culture or genetics) is a constantly changing and evolving process. Anyone who has ever struggled with Shakespeare in school knows that Modern English is not the same as the English of only a few centuries ago. We see much the same with cultural norms and traditions. Looking back at the history of civilation, language, culture, or religion we see the same kind of branching, mixing, and evolving behavior. The tremendous amount biological diversity on the planet is a testament to the truth of this regarding genetics.
You seem to be thinking of genetics and culture as fixed quantities that will only dilute over time rather than as changing and developing things.
> If all genes were mixed, and all cultures mixed, there would be less diversity.
Are you doing this all at once in a lab or something?
Let's look at the history of language for a moment. The English language is a mixture of several different influences. Once it spread across the globe, differences in word use, spelling, pronunciation gave rise to different regional dialects. Spanish, French, and Portuguese saw much the same thing happen, and those languages can all trace major influence back to a mix of Latin and their own regional influences. We have here several instances of mixing creating distinctly new things that develop and branch off into still more different things.
Furthermore, language (much like culture or genetics) is a constantly changing and evolving process. Anyone who has ever struggled with Shakespeare in school knows that Modern English is not the same as the English of only a few centuries ago. We see much the same with cultural norms and traditions. Looking back at the history of civilation, language, culture, or religion we see the same kind of branching, mixing, and evolving behavior. The tremendous amount biological diversity on the planet is a testament to the truth of this regarding genetics.
You seem to be thinking of genetics and culture as fixed quantities that will only dilute over time rather than as changing and developing things.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,449
@previous (M)
> Are you doing this all at once in a lab or something?
It matters not.
> Let's look at the history of language for a moment. The English language is a mixture of several different influences.
All of them extinct, replaced by one language. Real diverse...
> Once it spread across the globe, differences in word use, spelling, pronunciation gave rise to different regional dialects.
The destruction of the tens of thousands of Aboriginal Australian languages is made up for by Australians now speaking English with an accent. lol
> Spanish, French, and Portuguese saw much the same thing happen, and those languages can all trace major influence back to a mix of Latin and their own regional influences. We have here several instances of mixing creating distinctly new things that develop and branch off into still more different things.
Hundreds of native languages abandoned for Latin, several variants arise. Another net loss of diversity.
> struggled with Shakespeare
Are you serious? damlol that must make them dumb where you're from
> We see much the same with cultural norms and traditions. Looking back at the history of civilation, language, culture, or religion we see the same kind of branching,
Nothing wrong with subgroups being elevated to the status of group. That is a net increase in diversity.
> The tremendous amount biological diversity on the planet is a testament to the truth of this regarding genetics.
If the fittest had mixed their genes freely instead of only with the fittest, we would not see the diversity of life we have today.
> Are you doing this all at once in a lab or something?
It matters not.
> Let's look at the history of language for a moment. The English language is a mixture of several different influences.
All of them extinct, replaced by one language. Real diverse...
> Once it spread across the globe, differences in word use, spelling, pronunciation gave rise to different regional dialects.
The destruction of the tens of thousands of Aboriginal Australian languages is made up for by Australians now speaking English with an accent. lol
> Spanish, French, and Portuguese saw much the same thing happen, and those languages can all trace major influence back to a mix of Latin and their own regional influences. We have here several instances of mixing creating distinctly new things that develop and branch off into still more different things.
Hundreds of native languages abandoned for Latin, several variants arise. Another net loss of diversity.
> struggled with Shakespeare
Are you serious? damlol that must make them dumb where you're from
> We see much the same with cultural norms and traditions. Looking back at the history of civilation, language, culture, or religion we see the same kind of branching,
Nothing wrong with subgroups being elevated to the status of group. That is a net increase in diversity.
> The tremendous amount biological diversity on the planet is a testament to the truth of this regarding genetics.
If the fittest had mixed their genes freely instead of only with the fittest, we would not see the diversity of life we have today.
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,452
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> All of them extinct, replaced by one language. Real diverse...
Germanic languages? Extinct?
> tens of thousands of Aboriginal Australian languages
Tens of thousands, perhaps millions, right?
> Hundreds of native languages abandoned for Latin, several variants arise. Another net loss of diversity.
Right, all the Celtic languages were utterly crushed and we don't see a trace of them in the regional variants that arose. Your grasp of history is pretty poor.
> damlol that must make them dumb where you're from
Very mature...
> If the fittest had mixed their genes freely instead of only with the fittest, we would not see the diversity of life we have today.
Natural selection proceeds because the fittest survive to reproduce, not because they are specially selected for mating. Your grasp of evolution is about as poor as your grasp of history.
> All of them extinct, replaced by one language. Real diverse...
Germanic languages? Extinct?
> tens of thousands of Aboriginal Australian languages
Tens of thousands, perhaps millions, right?
> Hundreds of native languages abandoned for Latin, several variants arise. Another net loss of diversity.
Right, all the Celtic languages were utterly crushed and we don't see a trace of them in the regional variants that arose. Your grasp of history is pretty poor.
> damlol that must make them dumb where you're from
Very mature...
> If the fittest had mixed their genes freely instead of only with the fittest, we would not see the diversity of life we have today.
Natural selection proceeds because the fittest survive to reproduce, not because they are specially selected for mating. Your grasp of evolution is about as poor as your grasp of history.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,453
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,454
@381,452 (M)
> Germanic languages? Extinct?
So long as one Germanic language survives, all other variants can perish? Is this what diversity means to you?
> Tens of thousands, perhaps millions, right?
lol I have no idea where that came from. 650 languages lost in Australia, but it's alright because now we have English with a different accent. DIVERSITY!
> Right, all the Celtic languages were utterly crushed and we don't see a trace of them in the regional variants that arose. Your grasp of history is pretty poor.
So you see no difference between a completely different language and one with slightly different grammar rules?
> Natural selection proceeds because the fittest survive to reproduce, not because they are specially selected for mating.
But that's wrong...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
> Germanic languages? Extinct?
So long as one Germanic language survives, all other variants can perish? Is this what diversity means to you?
> Tens of thousands, perhaps millions, right?
lol I have no idea where that came from. 650 languages lost in Australia, but it's alright because now we have English with a different accent. DIVERSITY!
> Right, all the Celtic languages were utterly crushed and we don't see a trace of them in the regional variants that arose. Your grasp of history is pretty poor.
So you see no difference between a completely different language and one with slightly different grammar rules?
> Natural selection proceeds because the fittest survive to reproduce, not because they are specially selected for mating.
But that's wrong...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,455
@381,453 (Q)
Well I guess you just outwitted the scientists who worked on the HGP, what do they know anyway.
Well I guess you just outwitted the scientists who worked on the HGP, what do they know anyway.
Anonymous Q replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,457
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,460
@381,454 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> So long as one Germanic language survives, all other variants can perish? Is this what diversity means to you?
Dodging the point. English is not the only Germanic language to survive.
> So you see no difference between a completely different language and one with slightly different grammar rules?
You understand that the languages spoken through Gaul and the Iberian peninsula were variants of the same language group with slightly different rules too, right? Far from being wiped out, traces of these languages would survive to influence later regional branchings of Vulgar Latin.
All this seems to be nitpicking and dancing around the point though. If mixing inevitably leads to the loss in diversity that you claim it does, why are people in Europe still speaking hundreds of different languages?
> But that's wrong...
Except that it's not. Sexual selection characteristics function as indicators of reproductive and genetic fitness. We could, as you say, mix the genes freely all we like, but selection pressures would still leave the surviving members to pass on their genes. In fact, increasingly specialized sexual selection is thought to help drive speciation. (leading to greater diversity, not less as you claim it would)
> So long as one Germanic language survives, all other variants can perish? Is this what diversity means to you?
Dodging the point. English is not the only Germanic language to survive.
> So you see no difference between a completely different language and one with slightly different grammar rules?
You understand that the languages spoken through Gaul and the Iberian peninsula were variants of the same language group with slightly different rules too, right? Far from being wiped out, traces of these languages would survive to influence later regional branchings of Vulgar Latin.
All this seems to be nitpicking and dancing around the point though. If mixing inevitably leads to the loss in diversity that you claim it does, why are people in Europe still speaking hundreds of different languages?
> But that's wrong...
Except that it's not. Sexual selection characteristics function as indicators of reproductive and genetic fitness. We could, as you say, mix the genes freely all we like, but selection pressures would still leave the surviving members to pass on their genes. In fact, increasingly specialized sexual selection is thought to help drive speciation. (leading to greater diversity, not less as you claim it would)
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,466
@previous (M)
> Dodging the point. English is not the only Germanic language to survive.
YOU are dodging the point. Regardless of how many survive, if some die, there is less diversity.
> You understand that the languages spoken through Gaul and the Iberian peninsula were variants of the same language group with slightly different rules too, right? Far from being wiped out, traces of these languages would survive to influence later regional branchings of Vulgar Latin.
Part of the same "language group" ≠dialects of Latin.
> All this seems to be nitpicking and dancing around the point though. If mixing inevitably leads to the loss in diversity that you claim it does, why are people in Europe still speaking hundreds of different languages?
What? Mixing IS the loss of diversity, and the population movements (as well as deliberate state actions) of the last century have contributed to the decline of many regional European cultures, languages, and accents.
> Except that it's not. Sexual selection characteristics function as indicators of reproductive and genetic fitness.
Exactly. If the fittest females just mated with any males, the possibility of speciation is lessened.
> We could, as you say, mix the genes freely all we like, but selection pressures would still leave the surviving members to pass on their genes.
What? Mixing freely is the opposite of sexual selection. You appear very confused here. What are you having trouble with?
Unless you are talking about death before reproduction, a practically non-existant factor in contemporary human evolution.
> In fact, increasingly specialized sexual selection is thought to help drive speciation. (leading to greater diversity, not less as you claim it would)
WTF? That was my argument. You are desperately confused. How you could say this after claiming that "natural selection doesn't proceed via sexual selection" is completely beyond me.
> Dodging the point. English is not the only Germanic language to survive.
YOU are dodging the point. Regardless of how many survive, if some die, there is less diversity.
> You understand that the languages spoken through Gaul and the Iberian peninsula were variants of the same language group with slightly different rules too, right? Far from being wiped out, traces of these languages would survive to influence later regional branchings of Vulgar Latin.
Part of the same "language group" ≠dialects of Latin.
> All this seems to be nitpicking and dancing around the point though. If mixing inevitably leads to the loss in diversity that you claim it does, why are people in Europe still speaking hundreds of different languages?
What? Mixing IS the loss of diversity, and the population movements (as well as deliberate state actions) of the last century have contributed to the decline of many regional European cultures, languages, and accents.
> Except that it's not. Sexual selection characteristics function as indicators of reproductive and genetic fitness.
Exactly. If the fittest females just mated with any males, the possibility of speciation is lessened.
> We could, as you say, mix the genes freely all we like, but selection pressures would still leave the surviving members to pass on their genes.
What? Mixing freely is the opposite of sexual selection. You appear very confused here. What are you having trouble with?
Unless you are talking about death before reproduction, a practically non-existant factor in contemporary human evolution.
> In fact, increasingly specialized sexual selection is thought to help drive speciation. (leading to greater diversity, not less as you claim it would)
WTF? That was my argument. You are desperately confused. How you could say this after claiming that "natural selection doesn't proceed via sexual selection" is completely beyond me.
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,480
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Mixing IS the loss of diversity
New differences emerge. Culture and language are fluid, evolving things. Mixing and regionalism also bring about new differences over time. Today's culture is not the culture of centuries ago. Today's language is not the language of centuries ago.
You are still failing to explain how over 2,000 years after hundreds of languages were "abandoned for Latin" and so much cultural diversity was lost to conquest, Europe still has 50 nations with hundreds of distinct cultures and languages. Much of the culture and language that replaced everything 2,000 years ago is now dead and has been replaced by other new languages and cultures many times over. I don't see how this argues for the loss of diversity you seem to predict.
> How you could say this after claiming that "natural selection doesn't proceed via sexual selection" is completely beyond me.
Despite your use of quotation marks, that phrase appears in none of my replies to you. (Although, people who argue that sexual selection and natural selection are different processes would no doubt agree with the statement.) Sexual selection plays a role in some species mating practices, yes. While sexual selection characteristics are generally rough indicators of fitness, sexual selection doesn't determine fitness - that is done by environmental pressures.
> Unless you are talking about death before reproduction, a practically non-existant factor in contemporary human evolution.
Survival is the bottleneck I'm talking about in reference to natural selection. You linked to an article featuring giraffe necks and peacock tails. I thought we were talking about the diversity of life. Have we switched to just talking about humans now?
> Mixing IS the loss of diversity
New differences emerge. Culture and language are fluid, evolving things. Mixing and regionalism also bring about new differences over time. Today's culture is not the culture of centuries ago. Today's language is not the language of centuries ago.
You are still failing to explain how over 2,000 years after hundreds of languages were "abandoned for Latin" and so much cultural diversity was lost to conquest, Europe still has 50 nations with hundreds of distinct cultures and languages. Much of the culture and language that replaced everything 2,000 years ago is now dead and has been replaced by other new languages and cultures many times over. I don't see how this argues for the loss of diversity you seem to predict.
> How you could say this after claiming that "natural selection doesn't proceed via sexual selection" is completely beyond me.
Despite your use of quotation marks, that phrase appears in none of my replies to you. (Although, people who argue that sexual selection and natural selection are different processes would no doubt agree with the statement.) Sexual selection plays a role in some species mating practices, yes. While sexual selection characteristics are generally rough indicators of fitness, sexual selection doesn't determine fitness - that is done by environmental pressures.
> Unless you are talking about death before reproduction, a practically non-existant factor in contemporary human evolution.
Survival is the bottleneck I'm talking about in reference to natural selection. You linked to an article featuring giraffe necks and peacock tails. I thought we were talking about the diversity of life. Have we switched to just talking about humans now?
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #381,624
muh heritage
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,641
@381,480 (M)
> > Mixing IS the loss of diversity
> New differences emerge.
New, minor differences emerge, and the older, larger differences disappear. Net loss of diversity.
> You are still failing to explain how over 2,000 years after hundreds of languages were "abandoned for Latin" and so much cultural diversity was lost to conquest, Europe still has 50 nations with hundreds of distinct cultures and languages.
What is there to explain? These 50 nations largely separated themselves from each other, and had their own cultural and ethnic spheres. If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
> Much of the culture and language that replaced everything 2,000 years ago is now dead and has been replaced by other new languages and cultures many times over. I don't see how this argues for the loss of diversity you seem to predict.
Because 5 different cultures existing at once is not made up for by one culture changing over centuries. That is not diversity.
> Despite your use of quotation marks, that phrase appears in none of my replies to you.
No, but the concept does.
> Sexual selection plays a role in some species mating practices, yes.
Namely, humans. Dogs don't select to increase diversity, and if it wasn't for deliberate human intervention, we would not have the diversity of dogs we have now.
> While sexual selection characteristics are generally rough indicators of fitness, sexual selection doesn't determine fitness - that is done by environmental pressures.
What? Of course sexual selection doesn't "determine" fitness. What an idiotic notion. Sexual selection characteristics are indicators of fitness, and if they were ignored, an important driver of speciation would be lost. A net loss of diversity.
> > Unless you are talking about death before reproduction, a practically non-existant factor in contemporary human evolution.
> Survival is the bottleneck I'm talking about in reference to natural selection. You linked to an article featuring giraffe necks and peacock tails. I thought we were talking about the diversity of life. Have we switched to just talking about humans now?
> > Mixing IS the loss of diversity
> New differences emerge.
New, minor differences emerge, and the older, larger differences disappear. Net loss of diversity.
> You are still failing to explain how over 2,000 years after hundreds of languages were "abandoned for Latin" and so much cultural diversity was lost to conquest, Europe still has 50 nations with hundreds of distinct cultures and languages.
What is there to explain? These 50 nations largely separated themselves from each other, and had their own cultural and ethnic spheres. If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
> Much of the culture and language that replaced everything 2,000 years ago is now dead and has been replaced by other new languages and cultures many times over. I don't see how this argues for the loss of diversity you seem to predict.
Because 5 different cultures existing at once is not made up for by one culture changing over centuries. That is not diversity.
> Despite your use of quotation marks, that phrase appears in none of my replies to you.
No, but the concept does.
> Sexual selection plays a role in some species mating practices, yes.
Namely, humans. Dogs don't select to increase diversity, and if it wasn't for deliberate human intervention, we would not have the diversity of dogs we have now.
> While sexual selection characteristics are generally rough indicators of fitness, sexual selection doesn't determine fitness - that is done by environmental pressures.
What? Of course sexual selection doesn't "determine" fitness. What an idiotic notion. Sexual selection characteristics are indicators of fitness, and if they were ignored, an important driver of speciation would be lost. A net loss of diversity.
> > Unless you are talking about death before reproduction, a practically non-existant factor in contemporary human evolution.
> Survival is the bottleneck I'm talking about in reference to natural selection. You linked to an article featuring giraffe necks and peacock tails. I thought we were talking about the diversity of life. Have we switched to just talking about humans now?
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,645
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,649
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,688
@381,641 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> New, minor differences emerge
...and grow over time into regions with different traditions. Creating something that wasn't there before doesn't sound like a loss.
> These 50 nations largely separated themselves from each other, and had their own cultural and ethnic spheres.
This sounds like a net gain rather than a net loss.
> If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
???
> Because 5 different cultures existing at once is not made up for by one culture changing over centuries. That is not diversity.
Five is more than one. This sounds like more diversity.
> Sexual selection characteristics are indicators of fitness
That is what I have been saying.
> if they were ignored, an important driver of speciation would be lost. A net loss of diversity.
Ah, I see where we may have been confused earlier. Your statement made it sound as if you thought that sexual selection was the main force driving speciation. While sexual selection is a contributing factor to speciation, it is not a universal among species and probably only contributes in some situations when it is operating alongside other factors. Without it, we would certainly lose some potential for diversity, but compared with things like allopatric speciation or ecological selection, sexual selection is a relatively minor influence.
> Dogs don't select to increase diversity
There are 39 different species of Canis lupus not including domesticated dogs and dingoes.
I'm still not seeing how mixing is a loss of diversity.
If I have two ideas and mix them to create a third, I then have three ideas.
Interbreeding leads to greater genetic variation than isolated populations that only breed within themselves.
Your theory only works if you assume that things only get replaced, that everything that gets replaced is irrevocably destroyed, and that nothing new is ever created. It's like arguing that allowing corporate mergers to take place will inevitably result in one corporation dominating all the world's trade.
> New, minor differences emerge
...and grow over time into regions with different traditions. Creating something that wasn't there before doesn't sound like a loss.
> These 50 nations largely separated themselves from each other, and had their own cultural and ethnic spheres.
This sounds like a net gain rather than a net loss.
> If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
???
> Because 5 different cultures existing at once is not made up for by one culture changing over centuries. That is not diversity.
Five is more than one. This sounds like more diversity.
> Sexual selection characteristics are indicators of fitness
That is what I have been saying.
> if they were ignored, an important driver of speciation would be lost. A net loss of diversity.
Ah, I see where we may have been confused earlier. Your statement made it sound as if you thought that sexual selection was the main force driving speciation. While sexual selection is a contributing factor to speciation, it is not a universal among species and probably only contributes in some situations when it is operating alongside other factors. Without it, we would certainly lose some potential for diversity, but compared with things like allopatric speciation or ecological selection, sexual selection is a relatively minor influence.
> Dogs don't select to increase diversity
There are 39 different species of Canis lupus not including domesticated dogs and dingoes.
I'm still not seeing how mixing is a loss of diversity.
If I have two ideas and mix them to create a third, I then have three ideas.
Interbreeding leads to greater genetic variation than isolated populations that only breed within themselves.
Your theory only works if you assume that things only get replaced, that everything that gets replaced is irrevocably destroyed, and that nothing new is ever created. It's like arguing that allowing corporate mergers to take place will inevitably result in one corporation dominating all the world's trade.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,710
@previous (M)
> ...and grow over time into regions with different traditions. Creating something that wasn't there before doesn't sound like a loss.
> This sounds like a net gain rather than a net loss.
1. Hundreds of very distinct cultures.
2. They are conquered, one culture forced or adopted by all.
3. They break apart, and several new cultures form, all based upon the same culture, and quite similar.
Situation 1 is more diverse than situation 3.
> > If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
> ???
What don't you understand? Simple concept.
> Five is more than one. This sounds like more diversity.
That is my argument. Yours was the opposite, that one culture changing through time is equivalent to multiple cultures existing concurrently.
> That is what I have been saying.
> Natural selection proceeds [...] not because they are specially selected for mating.
No, it's not.
> like allopatric speciation or ecological selection, sexual selection is a relatively minor influence.
Sexual selection is the most important influence on human evolution. Geography does not bind the human.
> There are 39 different species of Canis lupus not including domesticated dogs and dingoes.
You just said that sexual selection is not the only way of speciation, so what is this meant to prove? Also Canis lupus is a species. Did you mean subspecies?
> I'm still not seeing how mixing is a loss of diversity.
> If I have two ideas and mix them to create a third, I then have three ideas.
Because ideas are not scarce...
> Interbreeding leads to greater genetic variation than isolated populations that only breed within themselves.
> Your theory only works if you assume that things only get replaced, that everything that gets replaced is irrevocably destroyed, and that nothing new is ever created.
We are dealing with scarce goods. To have on thing is to forego another.
> It's like arguing that allowing corporate mergers to take place will inevitably result in one corporation dominating all the world's trade.
???
> ...and grow over time into regions with different traditions. Creating something that wasn't there before doesn't sound like a loss.
> This sounds like a net gain rather than a net loss.
1. Hundreds of very distinct cultures.
2. They are conquered, one culture forced or adopted by all.
3. They break apart, and several new cultures form, all based upon the same culture, and quite similar.
Situation 1 is more diverse than situation 3.
> > If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
> ???
What don't you understand? Simple concept.
> Five is more than one. This sounds like more diversity.
That is my argument. Yours was the opposite, that one culture changing through time is equivalent to multiple cultures existing concurrently.
> That is what I have been saying.
> Natural selection proceeds [...] not because they are specially selected for mating.
No, it's not.
> like allopatric speciation or ecological selection, sexual selection is a relatively minor influence.
Sexual selection is the most important influence on human evolution. Geography does not bind the human.
> There are 39 different species of Canis lupus not including domesticated dogs and dingoes.
You just said that sexual selection is not the only way of speciation, so what is this meant to prove? Also Canis lupus is a species. Did you mean subspecies?
> I'm still not seeing how mixing is a loss of diversity.
> If I have two ideas and mix them to create a third, I then have three ideas.
Because ideas are not scarce...
> Interbreeding leads to greater genetic variation than isolated populations that only breed within themselves.
> Your theory only works if you assume that things only get replaced, that everything that gets replaced is irrevocably destroyed, and that nothing new is ever created.
We are dealing with scarce goods. To have on thing is to forego another.
> It's like arguing that allowing corporate mergers to take place will inevitably result in one corporation dominating all the world's trade.
???
Anonymous M replied with this 13 years ago, 15 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,923
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> 1. Hundreds of very distinct cultures.
Where? Are you seriously arguing every Gallic village Caesar claimed for Rome had a distinct culture and language independent from any other?
> > If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
> What don't you understand? Simple concept.
Do you think that's likely to occur? Is the only kind of mixing you can imagine enforced random mating of an entire population? This isn't how mixing occurs in the real world. I don't see how your conclusion follows, but I suppose it doesn't really matter since such an unlikely hypothetical isn't relevant in the first place.
> That is my argument. Yours was the opposite, that one culture changing through time is equivalent to multiple cultures existing concurrently.
No. You seem confused about what I am saying. One culture collapsing and giving rise to separate nations with different languages and traditions is a net gain. Regional influences like language and traditions that are still around influence the change and drive further differences. Creating something new is a gain.
> > > Sexual selection characteristics are indicators of fitness
> > That is what I have been saying.
> No, it's not.
Yes it is. You can look back and see me saying it here and here.
Survival within variant populations that branch off and ecological pressures which determine fitness seem to be much more of a determining factor of speciation historically.
> Sexual selection is the most important influence on human evolution.
If we're talking about speciation, then I am obviously not referring to modern human mating. This began as a point about the diversity of life.
Whether Darwinian selection pressures act on modern humans is something of an open question. I don't know that you can show your statement above to be true. We generally imagine sexual selection in animals to be sort of "hard-wired" recognition behaviors; this serves the useful function of species recognition —ensuring that a particular animal doesn't engage in an unsuccessful mating. In humans, none of these rules apply; we are not simply bower birds in search of something blue to turn us on to the idea of mating. The usual ideas about sexual selection fly out the window when you start talking about people.
> 1. Hundreds of very distinct cultures.
Where? Are you seriously arguing every Gallic village Caesar claimed for Rome had a distinct culture and language independent from any other?
> > If everybody in Europe randomly married another person from Europe there would not be 50 nations.
> What don't you understand? Simple concept.
Do you think that's likely to occur? Is the only kind of mixing you can imagine enforced random mating of an entire population? This isn't how mixing occurs in the real world. I don't see how your conclusion follows, but I suppose it doesn't really matter since such an unlikely hypothetical isn't relevant in the first place.
> That is my argument. Yours was the opposite, that one culture changing through time is equivalent to multiple cultures existing concurrently.
No. You seem confused about what I am saying. One culture collapsing and giving rise to separate nations with different languages and traditions is a net gain. Regional influences like language and traditions that are still around influence the change and drive further differences. Creating something new is a gain.
> > > Sexual selection characteristics are indicators of fitness
> > That is what I have been saying.
> No, it's not.
Yes it is. You can look back and see me saying it here and here.
Survival within variant populations that branch off and ecological pressures which determine fitness seem to be much more of a determining factor of speciation historically.
> Sexual selection is the most important influence on human evolution.
If we're talking about speciation, then I am obviously not referring to modern human mating. This began as a point about the diversity of life.
Whether Darwinian selection pressures act on modern humans is something of an open question. I don't know that you can show your statement above to be true. We generally imagine sexual selection in animals to be sort of "hard-wired" recognition behaviors; this serves the useful function of species recognition —ensuring that a particular animal doesn't engage in an unsuccessful mating. In humans, none of these rules apply; we are not simply bower birds in search of something blue to turn us on to the idea of mating. The usual ideas about sexual selection fly out the window when you start talking about people.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous M double-posted this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,926
@381,710 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos) (Continued because the board keeps eating my posts)
> Geography does not bind the human.
Really? Most people I know look for available mates near where they live. They are capable of moving to a new location, but other considerations usually keep them from selecting mates that live across the planet. I have heard this behavior is common among humans.
> > There are 39 different species of Canis lupus not including domesticated dogs and dingoes.
> You just said that sexual selection is not the only way of speciation, so what is this meant to prove? Also Canis lupus is a species. Did you mean subspecies?
Yes, thank you, I should have written subspecies rather than species. It is merely a counterpoint to your assertion about diversity within dogs. It does, in fact, happen quite a bit without human intervention.
> > If I have two ideas and mix them to create a third, I then have three ideas.
> Because ideas are not scarce...
Okay, so mixing only causes a loss of diversity when goods are scarce? If mixing ideas does not result in a loss in diversity then syncretism is not in opposition to it?
> > Your theory only works if you assume that things only get replaced, that everything that gets replaced is irrevocably destroyed, and that nothing new is ever created.
> We are dealing with scarce goods. To have on thing is to forego another.
Culture and tradition are mainly collections of commonly shared ideas. How is culture scarce? How is genetics scarce?
> Geography does not bind the human.
Really? Most people I know look for available mates near where they live. They are capable of moving to a new location, but other considerations usually keep them from selecting mates that live across the planet. I have heard this behavior is common among humans.
> > There are 39 different species of Canis lupus not including domesticated dogs and dingoes.
> You just said that sexual selection is not the only way of speciation, so what is this meant to prove? Also Canis lupus is a species. Did you mean subspecies?
Yes, thank you, I should have written subspecies rather than species. It is merely a counterpoint to your assertion about diversity within dogs. It does, in fact, happen quite a bit without human intervention.
> > If I have two ideas and mix them to create a third, I then have three ideas.
> Because ideas are not scarce...
Okay, so mixing only causes a loss of diversity when goods are scarce? If mixing ideas does not result in a loss in diversity then syncretism is not in opposition to it?
> > Your theory only works if you assume that things only get replaced, that everything that gets replaced is irrevocably destroyed, and that nothing new is ever created.
> We are dealing with scarce goods. To have on thing is to forego another.
Culture and tradition are mainly collections of commonly shared ideas. How is culture scarce? How is genetics scarce?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
★henn★ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,929
What a controversial topic. I wonder why?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,976
@381,923 (M)
> Where? Are you seriously arguing every Gallic village Caesar claimed for Rome had a distinct culture and language independent from any other?
Did I say that? Or did I merely say that the pre-Roman cultures of Europe were more diverse than the post-Roman cultures?
> Do you think that's likely to occur?
Irrelevant. This is a hypothetical.
> Is the only kind of mixing you can imagine enforced random mating of an entire population?
No, it's not. Stupid question.
> This isn't how mixing occurs in the real world.
Most people consciously choose to marry someone within their own group? Really? Most people are racist?
> hypothetical isn't relevant in the first place.
do you even read
> No. You seem confused about what I am saying. One culture collapsing and giving rise to separate nations with different languages and traditions is a net gain.
Not if that one culture destroyed many other cultures, cultures more distinct than the variants that arise from this one culture hundreds of years later. All of these other cultures would have been going through the same process as well. Your scenario is a net loss of diversity.
> Regional influences like language and traditions that are still around influence the change and drive further differences. Creating something new is a gain.
The minor vestiges of major differences is a gain? Seriously, dude...
> Survival within variant populations that branch off and ecological pressures which determine fitness seem to be much more of a determining factor of speciation historically.
Variant populations branching off is a function of sexual selection in contemporary humans. The only thing preserving phenotypic ethnic diversity is sexual selection.
> If we're talking about speciation, then I am obviously not referring to modern human mating. This began as a point about the diversity of life.
Then you were talking against me. This thread has never been about that. I don't understand how you could even get confused about that.
> Whether Darwinian selection pressures act on modern humans is something of an open question.
Sexual selection is Darwinian...
> I don't know that you can show your statement above to be true. We generally imagine sexual selection in animals to be sort of "hard-wired" recognition behaviors; this serves the useful function of species recognition —ensuring that a particular animal doesn't engage in an unsuccessful mating. In humans, none of these rules apply; we are not simply bower birds in search of something blue to turn us on to the idea of mating. The usual ideas about sexual selection fly out the window when you start talking about people.
Not at all. The principles remain valid, even assuming humans are less biologically determinant.
> Where? Are you seriously arguing every Gallic village Caesar claimed for Rome had a distinct culture and language independent from any other?
Did I say that? Or did I merely say that the pre-Roman cultures of Europe were more diverse than the post-Roman cultures?
> Do you think that's likely to occur?
Irrelevant. This is a hypothetical.
> Is the only kind of mixing you can imagine enforced random mating of an entire population?
No, it's not. Stupid question.
> This isn't how mixing occurs in the real world.
Most people consciously choose to marry someone within their own group? Really? Most people are racist?
> hypothetical isn't relevant in the first place.
do you even read
> No. You seem confused about what I am saying. One culture collapsing and giving rise to separate nations with different languages and traditions is a net gain.
Not if that one culture destroyed many other cultures, cultures more distinct than the variants that arise from this one culture hundreds of years later. All of these other cultures would have been going through the same process as well. Your scenario is a net loss of diversity.
> Regional influences like language and traditions that are still around influence the change and drive further differences. Creating something new is a gain.
The minor vestiges of major differences is a gain? Seriously, dude...
> Survival within variant populations that branch off and ecological pressures which determine fitness seem to be much more of a determining factor of speciation historically.
Variant populations branching off is a function of sexual selection in contemporary humans. The only thing preserving phenotypic ethnic diversity is sexual selection.
> If we're talking about speciation, then I am obviously not referring to modern human mating. This began as a point about the diversity of life.
Then you were talking against me. This thread has never been about that. I don't understand how you could even get confused about that.
> Whether Darwinian selection pressures act on modern humans is something of an open question.
Sexual selection is Darwinian...
> I don't know that you can show your statement above to be true. We generally imagine sexual selection in animals to be sort of "hard-wired" recognition behaviors; this serves the useful function of species recognition —ensuring that a particular animal doesn't engage in an unsuccessful mating. In humans, none of these rules apply; we are not simply bower birds in search of something blue to turn us on to the idea of mating. The usual ideas about sexual selection fly out the window when you start talking about people.
Not at all. The principles remain valid, even assuming humans are less biologically determinant.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,980
@381,926 (M)
> (Continued because the board keeps eating my posts)
arg i hate that
> Really? Most people I know look for available mates near where they live. They are capable of moving to a new location, but other considerations usually keep them from selecting mates that live across the planet. I have heard this behavior is common among humans.
And guess what? Many ethnicities live outside their native territory. An Engishwoman can marry her Pakistani next-door neighbor.
> Yes, thank you, I should have written subspecies rather than species. It is merely a counterpoint to your assertion about diversity within dogs. It does, in fact, happen quite a bit without human intervention.
Yes, due to allopatric and ecological pressures. Dogs don't sexually select for diversity. Humans can, and if they actually liked diversity, you'd think they would.
> Okay, so mixing only causes a loss of diversity when goods are scarce? If mixing ideas does not result in a loss in diversity then syncretism is not in opposition to it?
People practicing a culture are a scarce good.
> Culture and tradition are mainly collections of commonly shared ideas. How is culture scarce? How is genetics scarce?
As above. Genetics are scarce because of culture (for men, for women; biology). I take it in some African countries a man's genes may be almost non-scarce by virtue of his ability to spread them.
> (Continued because the board keeps eating my posts)
arg i hate that
> Really? Most people I know look for available mates near where they live. They are capable of moving to a new location, but other considerations usually keep them from selecting mates that live across the planet. I have heard this behavior is common among humans.
And guess what? Many ethnicities live outside their native territory. An Engishwoman can marry her Pakistani next-door neighbor.
> Yes, thank you, I should have written subspecies rather than species. It is merely a counterpoint to your assertion about diversity within dogs. It does, in fact, happen quite a bit without human intervention.
Yes, due to allopatric and ecological pressures. Dogs don't sexually select for diversity. Humans can, and if they actually liked diversity, you'd think they would.
> Okay, so mixing only causes a loss of diversity when goods are scarce? If mixing ideas does not result in a loss in diversity then syncretism is not in opposition to it?
People practicing a culture are a scarce good.
> Culture and tradition are mainly collections of commonly shared ideas. How is culture scarce? How is genetics scarce?
As above. Genetics are scarce because of culture (for men, for women; biology). I take it in some African countries a man's genes may be almost non-scarce by virtue of his ability to spread them.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,981
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
I'm not reading all of this shit obviously because mountainman, but what? Genetics are scarce? Because of culture. Okay.
I'm not reading all of this shit obviously because mountainman, but what? Genetics are scarce? Because of culture. Okay.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 58 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,982
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,983
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,985
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #381,988
★henn★ replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #382,076
Thanks