Over at my other blog I have an exposition of a set of ideas which have crystallized in my mind in regards to the patterns of human physical variation that we see around us in the world today. A reconsideration of some concepts was triggered in large part by the material I covered in the post about South Asian skin color. Over the next few months I hope to flesh out a precise and clear verbal outline of what I believe to be the general trends in human evolution over the past 50,000 years. In terms of formal/mathematical representations I know of what I speak, but translating the ideas into pithy and compact analogies still escapes me. Usually that's a good sign that I need to concentrate harder and obtain a deeper understanding of what the formalisms tell us about biological reality. Stay tuned.
- Log in to post comments
And the theme so far is... "skin color varies, but hotness is universal"? Doubtless this interferes with your concentrating harder. Still, I'm looking forward to the scientific part of the series.
i wanted to represent the range of normal human variation.
Who is that stunning East Asian in the top left corner?
Is that Paz Vega?
paz vega = "iranian actress" on google images.
asian chick = "japanese actress" on google images.
;-)
Looking at your other article I wonder about the use of the term "race". What are you defining as race? It looks like you are just using a small cluster of genetic markers? Is there a reason these are special as opposed to some other set? Sure skin color is special as it has had a lot of effect on human history, but I mean in terms of explaining movements and isolation of populations in prehistory, which it looks like you are trying to do. I don't know, I am asking really. The lactase gene would definitely look important for populations and their culture, for example, but how do you pick those out, and how sure can you be that if you pick a different set (or two or three) the pictures are similar?
These are a layman in the areas questions and I hope will suggest some pithy and compact analagies.
but I mean in terms of explaining movements and isolation of populations in prehistory, which it looks like you are trying to do.
no.
The lactase gene would definitely look important for populations and their culture, for example, but how do you pick those out, and how sure can you be that if you pick a different set (or two or three) the pictures are similar?
pick out genes subject to strong recent selection. i'm making a distinction between ancestry groups and phenotypic clusters. they overlap a great deal, but the point of my posts is that adaptive evolution over the last 10,000 years has generated some specific clusters of traits overlain upon the substrate. these clusters map onto what early 20th century anthropologists categorized as "races."
Ha. It looked vaguely like her, I must've spent 15 minutes hunting for a pic of Paz Vega that would convince it was her, but I wasn't sure.
Knowing she's Persian boosts her hottitude by 2 points on a 10-point scale, as I'm sure godless will agree.