Slashdot Mirror
Humanity's Genetic Diversity on the Decline
jd writes "In a study covering five different periods of history, from 300 AD to the present day, and geographically spread across much of Europe, scientists have extracted the mitochondrial DNA from a sizable number of individuals in an effort to examine changes in diversity. The results, published in the Royal Society journal is intriguing to say the least. 1700 years ago, three out of every four individuals belonged to a different haplotype. In modern Europe, the number is only one in three. The researchers blame a combination of plague, selection of dominant lineages and culturally-inflicted distortions. The researchers say more work needs to be done, but are unclear if this involves archaeology or experiments involving skewing the data in the local female population."
Their conclusions are not valid for all of humanity anyway. How does Western Europe equal humanity? It is already known that there is less genetic diversity in two Europeans from different countries than there is in two Africans from the same village. What a Eurocentric point of view.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Most importantly, it is the correct combination of genes that makes a successful organism as well as individual genes. 'Mixing' of groups of people is hugely advantageous for this reason.
Secondly, genes do not become lost when they combine with genes from another person to make a child. There is just a new combination of genes which can contribute to the whole genetic diversity of mankind. For example, we could take the idea that races should not interbreed a little further and say that people should not breed outside of their immediate family. The problem with this would be that genetic diversity could hardly ever increase, and by attrition mankind would be doomed. By separating races one creates several smaller separate gene-pools each of which is smaller than the original whole and hence more vulnerable.
Thirdly, by separating the societies it would become genetically/evolutionarily advantageous for one race to think of or treat the others as subhumans. By this argument I claim that you have implicitly invoked Godwin's law.
Also, I wish you luck procreating with your sister...
Not at all. Me thinks you do not understand the concept of scientific reasoning as well as one might hope. It is a theory 'not based on the existence of a creator', which is a far cry from 'a theory based on the NON-existence of a creator'. Not assuming the existence of a 'creator' (whatever one may choose to mean with that) one does ones best to understand and explain observed phenomenon in a rational manner. While one cannot yet prove that the flying spaghetti monster does or does not exist through repeatable experimentation (and people should feel free to contribute their research in this area to the scientific community as a whole), one can make a very good description of the functioning of the world around us without having to tackle the issue of the influence of his omnipotent noodly appendages.
When you have a theory that explains the natural world as perfectly as evolution does, invoking a creator just because not having one makes you uncomfortable is a terrible unparsimonious thing to do. If there's a bias here, it's that science tends to favor the simplest explanation that can explain the observed facts.
(And that's without even going into the massive amount of questions invoking a creator invokes in the first place.)
Keep in mind, though, that evolution is not a theory about the origin of the universe, just about life. If you really want a gap for your god to hide in, have him hide "before the Big Bang".
How is it any less complex than a "part" of the universe suddenly appearing and spontaneously creating the rest? Neither has a cause. Linguistic complexity doesn't really determine causal complexity. Case in point: note that the "God theory" can be summarized as "a part of the universe, called God, appeared and spontaneously created the rest." The Big Bang can be summarized as "a part of the universe, called a singularity, appeared and spontaneously created the rest."
After all, I am strangely colored.
Ok, I'm the AC that wrote the GP. I have to say... I agree with you in part. Depending on the theological views of various Christian groups, they might also have the same hope resulting in the same conclusions on how to bring the result about. I assume you were suggesting Christianity, since it's really the only evangelical religion. Evangelical meaning to "preach the gospel(good news)." Which is a means that emphasizes the personal volition as necessary for true salvation and compulsory conversion by military or social means insufficient for salvation and therefor an undesirable means.
I would point out that there were a couple of distinctions I made concerning the author. One was the issue of them being a Fundamentalist Islamic. Perhaps I should have said supporter/believer in militant Islam. My mistake, I should have been more careful since I know the sensitivity of the subject. Second, I said, "This is one of the fundamental hopes of Islam, that it would cover the Earth
- by any means possible eliminating all who oppose."
I know there have been quite a few Christians in the past that have used compulsory means to convert individuals and populations, but it's a difficult position to argue for if one believes the Christians scriptures are from God and infallible. For example:"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
I wasn't exactly calling Muslims crazy, but rather, I believe many Muslims are mean people who highly regard revenge as a responsibility and a virtue. I'll be kind to any Muslim I meet, but at the same time I realize there are a great deal of Muslims(especially Arab Muslims) who want all Christians dead or converted. So there is some in-equity. Americans, Europeans and Christians generally do not wish for Arabs or Africans or Muslims to be dead, but Muslims wish for their death. Why is this? That is the sad reality I wanted to help uncover. I simply will not pretend there is peace where there is no peace.