Parting Genomes: UA Biologists Discover Seeds of Speciation [Happening as they observe!]

University of Arizona ^ | 07 June 2004 | Paul Muhlrad

[AntiGuv]

No, I don't. It's actually something I've been wanting to look into again when I have the chance - probably whenever I make it to a library again after I'm done with my current research. I'm curious about Pygmies and also about the Khoi-Khoi and Hottentots (Bushmen) of Namibia. I'm also curious about some of the most isolated Native Americans (particularly the Patagonians) and the Maori.

The information on the Australian aborigines was some research I stumbled across about 7-8 years ago that I found of interest, but didn't follow up on. At the time I was rather distracted with what I was actually researching (sexual customs amongst Oceanic peoples) so I just kind of read over it and noted it in the back of my mind. Then I was reminded of it on another FR thread and just now on this one, and so I've wanted to look into it again sometime when the opportunity arises.

[AntiGuv]

Hmm.. Just to clarify, when I say "read over it" I don't mean I scanned over it and skipped on. I actually found it quite interesting at the time, and read the entire journal article and examined the statistical figures and everything. In fact, I strongly suspect I made a copy of it and will find it again when I organize all my research debris in a couple months or so. I'd meant to follow up on the citations but just never got around to it what with everything else going on.

It intrigued me at the time for the very implicit reason I brought it up here: the concept that Australian aborigines may be virtually a subspecies from a purely biological standpoint, although that's a highly volatile and obviously controversial postulation.

[Right Wing Professor]

According to this Negros and Caucasians in the early 1700's were different species.

Boy, do you need to read some history.

Ever wonder why African Americans are, on average, much lighter than West Africans?

[VadeRetro]

According to this Negros and Caucasians in the early 1700's were different species. But then we became one species again in the 1960's.

Bad history, never mind the bad model.

[VadeRetro]

(Last sentence no verb, in the rain.)

"To die. In the quagmire."

[MEGoody]

"The first eyewitness to the birth of a new species may be a University of Arizona graduate student."

Huh? The first time this has been witnessed? Well, MAYBE witnessed?

Gee, I've been repeatedly told by those adhering to evolutionary theory that this has been observed countless times.

Guess they lied.

[PatrickHenry]

... highly volatile and obviously controversial ...

From a purely biological point of view, it's just a question of whether a group has been separated long enough from the original stock for the inevitable accumulation of mutations to make speciation a fact. Humans are a relatively recent species, so I suspect that interbreeding is possible, most of the time, even among the most different-looking groups, who probably haven't been isolated from the rest all that long. But I've never seen any actual research.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, it's a rarely discussed phenomenon that Australian aborigines who conceive children with non-aborigines tend to have extremely high rates of miscarriage and stillbirth. This is likely attributable to the 70,000-50,000 year genetic separation of aborigines from the rest of mankind.

There were later waves of migrations to Australia. The one that brought in the dingoes with it was much later, IIRC.

That said, sometime last year I confronted one of the "Ape! Just an Ape!" lawyers on these threads (i.e, a creo who was making apes out of most of the hominid series) with links and pictures of the prominent brow ridges and non-prominent chins to be seen on some of the aborigine tribesmen. Not saying how or by whom it happened, but somebody or other had the AdminModerator remove the post, no doubt on anti-racism grounds. It is hard to talk about this stuff, especially to people who will use any excuse at all to run from the data.

[VadeRetro]

Laura Reed Graduate Student.

I feel a psychic bond forming. Or just some kind of groupie thing.

[SirAllen]

"The clearest evidence for evolution are the creationists, for they have not evolved"

No, but we get to evolve in the afterlife.

[Dimensio]

Interesting that he suggests that evolution predicts a fly giving birth to a horse. Do they even try to understand the theory before they rail against it?

[malakhi]

Interesting that he suggests that evolution predicts a fly giving birth to a horse.

Probably some confusion with the horsefly.

[Dimensio]

I can't tell if you're really that ignorant or just lampooning the creationist position. Scary, that.

[familyofman]

"I can't tell if you're really that ignorant or just lampooning the creationist position."

I'm sometimes rude, but rarely ignorant. I prefer harpoons but will settle for the lampoon today.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Yesterdie. In Fleet Street."

[Doctor Stochastic]

I feel a psychic bond forming. Or just some kind of groupie thing.

Bond. Psychic Bond. (One hopes it's not some kind of gropey thing.)

[balrog666]

I feel a psychic bond forming. Or just some kind of groupie thing.

Perhaps you meant "grope"?

[Lysander]

I've seen a horse fly and a peanut stand....

[PatrickHenry]

I feel a psychic bond forming.

Better be careful. She's an evolutionist. That means the devil's got the first claim on her.

[John O]

Boy, do you need to read some history.

I never found that era of history to be of interest. I was using it to demonstrate the sloppiness of the article. Maybe I should have used the south in the early 1900's. I know that several states had laws against interracial marriage etc? The point is: Preference does not make a species.