>> > I expect that our concepts of "race" will conform to some real diversity
in
> the human gene pool and perhaps reflect some historic regional themes in
> physical appearance. It is important to note however, that there is as yet
no
> reason to believe that these obvious physical themes should conform in any
> appreciable manner to any further underlying genetic themes beyond the
obvious
> physical features. Unless there are reproductively discreet genetic races
> there is no reason to believe that these would be anything more than
>physical themes with no further underlying genetic basis.
>
This is conjectuere, I would say that the differences run the gambit effects,
from the physical, to the intellectual.<<
Yes, it is conjecture, but there is reason behind it. For the purposes of
cultural superorganisms, it is necessary that individuals (say a newborn
infant) look like "us". It doesn't matter as much whether the individual have
the same mental aptitudes as us because culture can be taught. Example: A
Chinese child can be taught English and can learn to speak like fluent British
person. All ranges and types of mental aptitudes can be assimilated within a
superorganism like a tribe. The same cannot be said for all physical
appearances.
Depending on how the genetic deck gets shuffled, the offspring of the same
illicit sexual union could either look a lot like "us" or nothing like "us".
That would make all the difference in the world as to whether the infant is
accepted within the tribe, or is expelled. Intellectual aptitude would have
nothing to do with that.
If accepted, this infant has effectively breached the intended genetic
boundaries of the tribe, probably without the knowlege of most tribal members.
Over the approximately 500,000 years (lowest est) that our species has
existed, if on average only one such breach happened in every tribe in every
generation, it would probably be enough to effectively shuffle genetic
material unrelated to obvious physical appearance completely beyond any
ability to make genetically distinguishible "races".
I am just guessing on that. I haven't done the actual math, but I would be
interested to know the result if anyone has. I would guess that the actual
average would probably be considerably more than just one occassion every
generation. Other variables would be tribe size (?), average time between
generations (probably less than 20 years). These aren't all of them, but it
is the begining of the making of a mathematical model.
Another point to consider, from the gene's point of view (if I may adopt the
intentional stance for the sake of simplicity), genes WANT to breach cultural
barriers of race. Cultural barriers like "race" hamper the unbridled
replication of any given gene. Penetrating a cultural barrier is like moving
to greener pastures and hitting the genetic jackpot!
My guess is that genes would evolve ways to defeat any cultural efforts at
racial "purity". While culture (without the aid of DNA testing) may have
succeeded in confining genes related to obvious physical appearances to
various regional themes, it would shock me if culture has succeeded in
confining genes unrelated to obvious physical appearances.
-Jake