mad_scientist Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html Hi, Is it actually factually correct that mixed race children tend to grow up taller and smarter than more mono-racial children? Or is it simply another case of correlation and not causation necessarily? If it is undeniable fact that mixed race children tend to be taller and smarter, what is the scientific explanation exactly for this observation we see? Also, doesn't being taller mean a higher risk of getting cancer? Is it almost always preferable to procreate with someone of a different race than you for the benefits any offspring you have will reap as a direct result? If mono-racial people are inferior to mixed-raced people than why do largely mono-racial Japanese and South Korean society still have such high average IQs compared to people from a lot of other countries? Thanks, Edited February 21, 2018 by mad_scientist
Strange Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, mad_scientist said: Is it actually factually correct ... If it is in the Daily Mail, then there is a good chance it is not true. I would look for a fact-based source if I were you. You know, a newspaper or a science website.
interested Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 Good nutrition is important not just genetic mix or colour of parents. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20121011133921198 If a child is not fed as a child it is likely not to be overly bright when it grows up.
John Cuthber Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 Last time I checked, "race" wasn't a well enough defined term to be much use in science. On the other hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
Raider5678 Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Last time I checked, "race" wasn't a well enough defined term to be much use in science. It's a fairly well defined term. Race is the biological similarities and differences between one or more groups within the same species, most notably humans. Ethnicity is the difference between cultures.
Strange Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Race is the biological similarities and differences between one or more groups within the same species, most notably humans. When you quantify (you know, as in science) those differences, you find they don’t have much correlation to people’s concept of “race”. So it turns out that race isn’t often (scientifically) useful.
CharonY Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Race is the biological similarities and differences between one or more groups within the same species, most notably humans. Nope. There are many definitions used in biological or sociological and common use terms, which have very different aspects. Such a generic definition as provided here would e.g. mean that smaller people form a race vs taller ones. Especially in humans the biological concept is problematic due to large gene flows between human populations. In common use it is an extremely mixed concepts that diverges vastly from how other subspecies are described. So no, it is not trivial at all. 2
Raider5678 Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 31 minutes ago, Strange said: When you quantify (you know, as in science) those differences, you find they don’t have much correlation to people’s concept of “race”. So it turns out that race isn’t often (scientifically) useful. I didn't say they had to correlate with people's concept of race though.... 30 minutes ago, CharonY said: Nope. There are many definitions used in biological or sociological and common use terms, which have very different aspects. Such a generic definition as provided here would e.g. mean that smaller people form a race vs taller ones. Especially in humans the biological concept is problematic due to large gene flows between human populations. In common use it is an extremely mixed concepts that diverges vastly from how other subspecies are described. So no, it is not trivial at all. Ah, that makes sense. +1
Strange Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: I didn't say they had to correlate with people's concept of race though... But if they don't then it probably isn't really race, it is some other (genetic) classification.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now