What ecology can tell us about racial cohabitation

In ecology, the competitive exclusion principle states that two species competing for the same resources cannot coexist. This principle also applies to sexually isolated subspecies. When one species has even the slightest advantage or edge over another, then the one with the advantage will dominate in the long term. One of the two competitors will always overcome the other, leading to either the extinction of this competitor or an evolutionary or behavioral shift towards a different ecological niche.

True coexistence is very rare, and such instances are only possible through a combination of non-limiting food and habitat resources and high rates of predation and parasitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_differentiation

These ecological phenomena may have implications in human society. If human subspecies actually exist, then in the long term they will either completely mix, or they will be unable to coexist in the same region while occupying identical places within the economic structure. The different subspecies would either have to speciate into different occupational niches, or go extinct.

Five different subspecies of warblers inhabit the same spruce tree, but differ in what part of a spruce tree they frequent, and whether they capture insects on needles, under bark, or flying in the air. The subspecies are reproductively isolated from eachother by differences in feather coloration and mating calls. In the wild the different subspecies generally do not interbreed, but the different subspecies can be induced to mate in the lab, to produce hybrid offspring. Even superficially similar subspecies actually have important differences, upon close inspection.



Perhaps we should be asking how the competitive exclusion principle may apply to different human subspecies?



There exist different subspecies of dogs. Even though the different subspecies can interbreed, they still have obvious physical and behavioral differences. http://www.ao.net/~holmanh/CoppBioBases/CoppBioBases.htm

There certainly are important differences between boys and girls, not only their bodies, but also in behavior, needs, way of playing, way of thinking, etc.
The differences are not all merely superficial, as so many idealists would have us believe. It should be obvious that different people are different, and such group differences are not merely confined to gender.

 

Human beings of different races mate freely, inside or outside labs. In fact, unless prevented by force, they mate freely. Not a good analogy at all.

Dog subspecies were created by selective breeding by humans. Again, not an apt analogy.

True, but that has nothing to do with race, it has to do with basic human survival and hormonal influences.

The differences between races are superficial. Yes, statistically there are differences, but the intraracial variation in traits is much higher than the interracial variation. In other words, white people vary more inside their race than the difference between whites and blacks. The genetic variatiion inside the Xhosa people (bushmen) is enough to repopulate the world in the colors/combinations we are in today.

 

"Human beings of different races mate freely, inside or outside labs. In fact, unless prevented by force, they mate freely. Not a good analogy at all."

Although there is much interbreeding now, the different human races tend to keep to themselves for the most part.

There is also the phenomena of whites/asians mixing together, while blacks/hispanics mix together separately in different neigborhoods. The fact there is racial mixing, and the possibility that none of the current races may survive intact, does not necessarily mean that all the different races will mix together. There tends to be economic segregation into low/high income areas.


"Dog subspecies were created by selective breeding by humans. Again, not an apt analogy."

But it does demonstrate that significant behavioral differences are quite possible within different subgroups in the same species.


"The differences between races are superficial. Yes, statistically there are differences, but the intraracial variation in traits is much higher than the interracial variation. In other words, white people vary more inside their race than the difference between whites and blacks."

One of the overlooked reasons for the high intraracial genetic variation is simply the fact that each continental "race" is really a collection of many smaller subspecies. For example, the concept of a "white" race is somewhat misleading. We can be more specific, and divide the white race into germanic, celtic, slavic, brythonic, sothern european, greek, and semetic. Many european peoples are hybrids of two of these ethnicities. For example, the irish are generally a mix of celtic, germanic, and brythonic. Many russians are a mix between slavic and germanic. There are several other smaller ethnic groups also, such as basque (regions of Spain) and altaic (hungary and finland). Such mixing between ethnicities in europe has really mostly only happened relatively recently, in the last millenia. Even in the USA, where there has been much mixing among the different "white" ethnicities, many subgroups still tend to remain separate. Those that are ethnically northern european are much more likely to have children with other ethnic northern europeans than those of southern european ethnicity. From what I have seen, even the slavic peoples (ethnically poles and russians) seem to be much more likely to chose partners within their own group. If we actually tried to look at the more specific ethnicities in the USA, we would find much less "racial diversity" than trying to compare all the different ethnicities in the whole white race to those of asians.

Another thing that should be considered is that some forms of genetic variation are much more important than others. That is to say that even if two white people have as much genetic differences between eachother than their differences with a black person, it could still be possible that the actual expressed inherited traits would still be significantly similar in comparison to the black person.

The African continent is known to have the highest genetic diversity of any of the "races". For example, western africans are often lactose intolerant, where as eastern africans are easily able to digest milk. Interestingly, the forest pygmies of Africa inhabit the jungle immediately adjacent to some of the tallest people in the world.




Differences in enviroroment and evolutionary forces have driven these different African peoples to speciation.

http://www.africanholocaust.net/peopleofafrica.htm

 

Hate to break it to ya....all humans are the same species.

 

Yes, but the different ethnicities are different subspecies, with important physical and behavioral differences.

Unfortunately, the facts and science are being politicised by the ideology of "multiculturalism", which claims that different ethnicities are all nearly identical besides for the obvious superficial differences. Multiculturalists tend to attribute any racial differences entirely to cultural differences.

It should be obvious that different people are as different on the inside as they look on the outside.

 

Don't think so...If you take a person of any race the difference will be in the environment in which they are raised not because they are "different" on the inside.

If so, tell me who the dominate race is. Tell me which "subspecies" of man in inferior.

 

Actually you are wrong. The human race is under one species. The differences and conflicts purely lie in culture....

It is only when a racial group is stubbernly focused on making their whole identity a race.... to the point of separating themselves from other human beings....that you have conflict between races. Otherwise...its purely culture.

Human beings aren't animals by the way. We may have a human nature---but our actions and futures are dictated by choices.

 

That is what students are being taught in public school, but it is simply not true! Environment certainly does play an important role of course, but it should also be remembered that the genetics of the parents will have some bearing on the environment the child grows up in. It is often difficult to draw a distinction between genetics and culture.

Black culture, for example, tends to be loud and boisterous, whereas asian culture tends to be quiet and reserved. It can often be uncomfortable for asian families to live in an apartment adjacent to black families, because of the noise and loud music.

This thread has nothing to do with which race is better. The races have many differences, there is no single measure that could be used to gauge which race is "superior". Each race is best adapted to the conditions it has historically found itself in. White people do not survive very well in tropical disease-infested climates, for example. Blacks are more vulnerable to vitamin D defficiencies in the northern latitudes. Greenlanders have evolved metabolisms that help them be able to obtain nearly all of their calories from seal blubber rather than carbohydrates.

In terms of "intelligence" testing, jews and asians (at least from Japan, Korea, and China) have consistently out performed the other races, even when attempts are made to account for factors such as culture and family incomes.

 

Yes, but blacks aren't human. They're Homo Erectus.

Hate to break it to ya...

 

The obvious refutation of your argument is in watching the adopted children from other cultures raised by parents here in the states. The kids are raised and become products of the culture and environment they are brought up in, and are not prisoners of these absurd preconceptions that you attribute to race (blacks are loud, asians quiet, etc.)
The adaptations you are enumerating are just that - adaptations. They are not inherent attributes of the race, but ways that the human species adapts to environment.
I am fascinated by how carefully you are crafting an ancient racism and trying to make it pallatable. Fascinating.

 

And your post clearly identifies you as a Neanderthal.

 

Hispanics are mixed race, for the most part.
Human interbreeding is a fact. It's not rare, and occurs wherever two different groups meet.

That's because the behaviors are specifically being bred for--outliers are killed. No evidence for that in humans.

Your own examples show how much humans interbreed. After all, if "whites" are composed of these combinations (Irish being a combination of three different white groups), then people as a whole are combinations.

Humans are all pretty much mutts.We interbreed with whatever will interbreed with us.

 

Because the world shows that. Nurture is more important than nature.

It's not.

 

You don't know many Filipinos, and you haven't been to the Phillipines. They are as loud and boisterous as anybody else.

Proof of the above.

 

Clearly not. Neanderthals couldn't type.

Your post clearly identifies you as ignorant.

 

Alright, show us your advanced state of insight. Share any peer reviewed source that states blacks are not human.

Do so, or simply state you are a racist throwback to a time in our history we are dilligently trying to leave in our past.

Typing is good evidence you are not a Neanderthal. Many blacks type and I don't think Homo Erectus could, so you have identified us both as ignorant.

Let's just agree that you are a modern day cretin. Better?

 

Okay, I'll agree to that if you agree to being a modern day village idiot. Deal?

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/

 

Monolithic centered communities of human subspecies does promote cohesion and presents a strong mathmatical argument towards such a community for advancement as opposed to a more diverse community where the stronger subspecies is forced to compensate for the inadequacies of the weaker subspecies.

 

Wow...

I don't even know how to respond to this stupidity...

And this kind of nonsense is all you've posted here...

It saddens me to know that morons like you still exist...

 

It saddens me to know that you blacks exist in civilized society...

Homo Erectus' do not belong with Homo Sapiens...

 

Blacks belong to a race created before Adam and from among whom the biblical villain Cain found his wife. Cain, by marrying one of these pre-Adamic peoples, became the progenitor of all black people. Therefore, black people, especially "Negroes," are not actually human, because they did not descend from Adam but from some pre-Adamic creation, having entered the human race only by intermarriage, and that with a notorious sinner. As non-humans, therefore, they did not have souls, but were merely beasts like any other beast of the field. And since the Bible says God gave humans dominion over the beasts, it was concluded that these soulless creatures exist to do work for the humans......

 

B.S...if you study your Old Testament, all of Cains decendents were killed during the flood. The black race comes from the decendents of Noah.

If you want to use that as an example.

 

I'll wait until the cretin posts a peer reviewed support of his theory about blacks. If you can do that, you'll have a deal.

 

I'm not Black...

You fail again...

I hope you haven't already polluted the gene pool...

 

Humans have intermixed for as long as there have been different "races" on the planet. Look at how racially mixed the ancient Egyptians were. Look at Solomon and Sheba. Moses' wife Zipporah was from Cush, and he was adopted by the Egyptian pharohs. Alexander the Great encouraged his soldiers to intermarry the Africans and Asians they conquered, as did the Romans. Many crusaders and Islamic conquerors took women of different ethnic groups and races.

In the modern era, European men (and women) had sex with and married Native American and African people in Latin and South America to such an extent that mixed race people are the majority in almost every country south of the rio grande. After WW2, American GIs brought home thousands of Korean and Japanese women, and that caused a huge amount of mixed race births in Hawaii and the west coast.

In other words, the OP has no idea what he's talking about.