There is less divergence between a randomly-selected human and a randomly-selected chimpanzee than between two carefully-chosen humans. No conclusions can be drawn from that.
And while it's a shocking truth that African slaves were literally bred by their owners, I doubt it was over enough gene…
There is less divergence between a randomly-selected human and a randomly-selected chimpanzee than between two carefully-chosen humans. No conclusions can be drawn from that.
And while it's a shocking truth that African slaves were literally bred by their owners, I doubt it was over enough generations and in great enough numbers to significantly change their genetics very broadly. Such breeding was mostly done in part of Virginia and Maryland and the offspring sold in the south.
"I doubt it was over enough generations and in great enough numbers to significantly change their genetics very broadly."
Yeah, I'm not claiming that it *changed* black people's genetics in any significant way, I'm just saying that certain pre-existing genetics had a better chance to thrive. It's a case of natural (or in this case, unnatural) selection.
If, for the next 200 years, we...oh, I don't know, sterilised gay people because we decided they were "born in the wrong body," we might expect to see fewer gay people in society at the end of that time (I realise that this isn't a perfect analogy because the genetic component of homosexuality is less straightforward than that of skin colour, but indulge me if you will).
We can affect populations, not by altering their genetics, but by culturally engineering the procreation of certain members of that population. And that can have a meaningful impact over just a few generations.
Dog breeders actually do cultivate genetics. Rat terriers, pointers, herding dogs have genetic traits. I once had a corgi/shepherd mix (a short-legged shepherd). She herded our cats as a natural instinct having never been around another herding dog of receiving training to do that. I know, dogs are not people, but they are sentient with emotions like fear, aggressiveness, jealousy, etc. We may have different ideas about the nature of genetics.
True. The point being that with enough time actual generic change can be induced. With the short timespan and number of people not in direct lineage during transatlantic slave trade I would think that nothing as radical as with dog breeding happened. I was not trying to make a case for that.
Didn't think you were. It's just that we've had thousands of dog generations to play with their genes, and look at the range, from chihuahuas to wolfhounds, vast diversity in size and behavior. and all from a single ancestor species.
I was reading about the breeding of slaves; of course I knew it happened but reading about it I was suddenly struck by the awesome barbarity; human being ordered, likely raped, into having child after child, not only sex but pregnancy. I almost threw up.
Beware comparisons of genetic commonality.
There is less divergence between a randomly-selected human and a randomly-selected chimpanzee than between two carefully-chosen humans. No conclusions can be drawn from that.
And while it's a shocking truth that African slaves were literally bred by their owners, I doubt it was over enough generations and in great enough numbers to significantly change their genetics very broadly. Such breeding was mostly done in part of Virginia and Maryland and the offspring sold in the south.
"I doubt it was over enough generations and in great enough numbers to significantly change their genetics very broadly."
Yeah, I'm not claiming that it *changed* black people's genetics in any significant way, I'm just saying that certain pre-existing genetics had a better chance to thrive. It's a case of natural (or in this case, unnatural) selection.
If, for the next 200 years, we...oh, I don't know, sterilised gay people because we decided they were "born in the wrong body," we might expect to see fewer gay people in society at the end of that time (I realise that this isn't a perfect analogy because the genetic component of homosexuality is less straightforward than that of skin colour, but indulge me if you will).
We can affect populations, not by altering their genetics, but by culturally engineering the procreation of certain members of that population. And that can have a meaningful impact over just a few generations.
Dog breeders actually do cultivate genetics. Rat terriers, pointers, herding dogs have genetic traits. I once had a corgi/shepherd mix (a short-legged shepherd). She herded our cats as a natural instinct having never been around another herding dog of receiving training to do that. I know, dogs are not people, but they are sentient with emotions like fear, aggressiveness, jealousy, etc. We may have different ideas about the nature of genetics.
You can go through twenty generations of dogs in the time it takes for one generation of humans.
True. The point being that with enough time actual generic change can be induced. With the short timespan and number of people not in direct lineage during transatlantic slave trade I would think that nothing as radical as with dog breeding happened. I was not trying to make a case for that.
Didn't think you were. It's just that we've had thousands of dog generations to play with their genes, and look at the range, from chihuahuas to wolfhounds, vast diversity in size and behavior. and all from a single ancestor species.
I was reading about the breeding of slaves; of course I knew it happened but reading about it I was suddenly struck by the awesome barbarity; human being ordered, likely raped, into having child after child, not only sex but pregnancy. I almost threw up.
https://youtu.be/6vy9xTS0QxM