That assumes that the parents have four children and that their genetic mix is distributed just so. It may also be the case that they have two children (AD, DA) or three children (AA, AD, AD), etc. Statistically speaking, American women have an average of 2 children, meaning that AA and DD probably won't make it.
However, this is really beside the point. Crossover cannot introduce new genetic material into the population. It can only combine existing genetic material. It's a sort of "averaging" that eventually results in genetic homogeneity. New material (like DE) only comes through mutation which accrues over time in populations that are isolated from one another (usually by geography).
The upshot is that if we tried to solve racism by systematically interbreeding to make everyone look the same, we'd be setting ourselves up for extinction.
If it's "I'd prefer people not do that, because I think races should be distinct and unmixed", that's a whole lot more problematic.
Believe it or not, "distinct races," when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, is a good thing. Genetic diversity within a population is critical to that population's ability to adapt to a new conditions. A homogeneous species would be especially vulnerable to a plague.
Racism may abate when we begin to view our genetic differences as a Good Thing for mankind.
A raving lunatic doesn't need to have every utterance individually refuted in order for someone to know that such ravings aren't likely to be of much value.
This particular utterance made/. Whether or not that indicates "value" is neither here nor there, but it may make it worth refuting.
Taking every possible point of view solely on its own merits is fine if you have nothing but time, and don't value it.
In other words, "I don't have time to refute him, I'll just call him a hypocrite and move on." Why bother? Seriously, I dislike Bill O'Reilly as much as the next guy because of his penchant for logical fallacies. Those fallacies stink, no matter which way they're pointed.
For everyone else, it's reasonable to require some level of positive reputation behind a point before investing any time into considering it.
Ad hominem attacks are every bit as fallacious as appeals to authority. His authority, or (obvious) lack of it, is completely irrevelant. His point is what needs refuting, not his character.
I know it's tempting to dismiss serial abusers of logic out-of-hand, but doing so just lowers us to the same level.
I guess there are two discussions. One, as you mentioned, is about Bill O'Reilly. The other is about technology and its effect on the social fabric. One of these discussions is a pointless ad hominem attack on an easy target. The other discussion is actually worth having.
In other words, it is not a defense against the original charge, but a claim that the accuser is hypocritical.
Which is essentially changing the subject. Bill O'Reilly may be nuttier than a Snickers and yet still have a point. The discussion is about technology damaging social networks, not about Mr. O'Reilly.
Slashdot Mirror
That assumes that the parents have four children and that their genetic mix is distributed just so. It may also be the case that they have two children (AD, DA) or three children (AA, AD, AD), etc. Statistically speaking, American women have an average of 2 children, meaning that AA and DD probably won't make it.
However, this is really beside the point. Crossover cannot introduce new genetic material into the population. It can only combine existing genetic material. It's a sort of "averaging" that eventually results in genetic homogeneity. New material (like DE) only comes through mutation which accrues over time in populations that are isolated from one another (usually by geography).
The upshot is that if we tried to solve racism by systematically interbreeding to make everyone look the same, we'd be setting ourselves up for extinction.
Believe it or not, "distinct races," when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, is a good thing. Genetic diversity within a population is critical to that population's ability to adapt to a new conditions. A homogeneous species would be especially vulnerable to a plague.
Racism may abate when we begin to view our genetic differences as a Good Thing for mankind.
This particular utterance made /. Whether or not that indicates "value" is neither here nor there, but it may make it worth refuting.
In other words, "I don't have time to refute him, I'll just call him a hypocrite and move on." Why bother? Seriously, I dislike Bill O'Reilly as much as the next guy because of his penchant for logical fallacies. Those fallacies stink, no matter which way they're pointed.
That sounds like a familiar system...
Discussing O'Reilly makes the thread a troll.
Ad hominem attacks are every bit as fallacious as appeals to authority. His authority, or (obvious) lack of it, is completely irrevelant. His point is what needs refuting, not his character.
I know it's tempting to dismiss serial abusers of logic out-of-hand, but doing so just lowers us to the same level.I guess there are two discussions. One, as you mentioned, is about Bill O'Reilly. The other is about technology and its effect on the social fabric. One of these discussions is a pointless ad hominem attack on an easy target. The other discussion is actually worth having.
The color of the pot has no bearing on that of the kettle.