Interesting scientific question...

[MegoSteve]

People are not dogs.

The problem with these "scientific inquiries" is that race is a largely a social construct of the most superficial physical human qualities and the kinds of people that ask these questions typically have an ulterior motive: to belittle other people, force them into subservient roles, and make themselves feel superior in the process. It has nothing to do with advancing humanity and everything to do with pitting people against each other.

[enyawd72]

Geographical separation caused different groups of people to take on different physical traits.

What a fascinating experiment it would make to relocate and isolate two different racial groups to each others geographical location and monitor how many generations it takes for the new climate to cause physical changes in their appearance. Would each group eventually become the other? That would really be something.

[enyawd72]

People are not dogs.

The problem with these "scientific inquiries" is that race is a largely a social construct of the most superficial physical human qualities and the kinds of people that ask these questions typically have an ulterior motive: to belittle other people, force them into subservient roles, and make themselves feel superior in the process. It has nothing to do with advancing humanity and everything to do with pitting people against each other.

Well, I can assure you that was not my intent, regardless of what you may think.

[Mikey]

All people are hotdogs.

The difference is what you got on ya

I'm a mustard, pickle and chopped onion guy

[Brazoo]

What a fascinating experiment it would make to relocate and isolate two different racial groups to each others geographical location and monitor how many generations it takes for the new climate to cause physical changes in their appearance. Would each group eventually become the other? That would really be something.

There is already historical evidence for this happening and people do study it. As far as studying the effects of evolution there are already TONS of interesting experiments. The Russian domesticated silver fox experiment is cool to look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox (Yeah, I know you hate Wikipedia - sorry man. If you want check out the podcast Radiolab which had an excellent segment on this.)

Basically, this scientist in Russia wanted to study the effects of evolution - but at the time in Russia evolution was politically taboo and scientists were enforced not to study it - so he set up the secret experiment in the guise of a fox farm. He gathered a bunch of wild foxes - killed the more vicious foxes and bred the tamer ones - and got fully domesticated foxes in like, 10 generations. They were not only tamer - as a side effect they also looked dramatically different.

--

Look - I believe from talking to you that you're not meaning this to be hateful, but this particular subject - phrased the way you phrased it - and now thinking about experiments on humans - no matter how innocent you meant this to be - as a thought experiment, or whatever - it conjures extremely BAD ideas. The Nazi movement was justified with a lot of this kind of thinking. So that's why it's so loaded and brings out such an emotional response in people. For me too - to be honest.

[enyawd72]

^Dude, my experiment idea is completely harmless. Drug companies experiment on humans every day to profit off their misery. THAT should upset people, not my innocuous what ifs.

[TomStrong]

I'd go with a Maine Coon breed of cat. They are very friendly, loyal, and vocal in a sweet way. We had one for about five years and he was a wonderful old fellow. They are also VERY large, beautiful, and smart. Definitely my favorite breed of cat. I like dogs but the neediness of them bothers me a little. He was very protective and watchful of our little girl when she was a baby, he slept under her crib and totally checked your business with the baby when you came in the room.

[Brazoo]

Societies, like the USA, construct racial classifications, not as units of biology, but as ways to lump together groups of people with varying historical, linguistic, ethnic, religious, or other backgrounds. These categories are not static, they change over time as societies grow and diversify and alter their social, political and historical make-ups. For example, in the USA the Irish were not always “white,” and despite our government’s legal definition, most Hispanics/Latinos are not seen as white today (by themselves or by others).

This is a difficult concept and it seems to come up again and again, so let me provide a few points to bust the myth and to clarify the reality…

There is no genetic sequence unique to blacks or whites or Asians. In fact, these categories don’t reflect biological groupings at all. There is more genetic variation in the diverse populations from the continent of Africa (who some would lump into a “black” category) than exists in ALL populations from outside of Africa (the rest of the world) combined!

From Psychology Today, Published on April 9, 2012:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think

[enyawd72]

I'd go with a Maine Coon breed of cat. They are very friendly, loyal, and vocal in a sweet way. We had one for about five years and he was a wonderful old fellow. They are also VERY large, beautiful, and smart. Definitely my favorite breed of cat. I like dogs but the neediness of them bothers me a little. He was very protective and watchful of our little girl when she was a baby, he slept under her crib and totally checked your business with the baby when you came in the room.

Actually, we already picked out our cat breed...we're going with the exotic shorthair...but we are totally hung up on which breed of dog to get. We've talked about Shiba Inus, Beagles, Dachshunds, Pugs, Puggles, Yorkies...you name it.

[Brazoo]

^Dude, my experiment idea is completely harmless. Drug companies experiment on humans every day to profit off their misery. THAT should upset people, not my innocuous what ifs.

I agree that you meant it as a harmless thought experiment. The ethics of drug company experiments is another subject - but drug companies are (at least in theory) experimenting to help people. The idea of going "lets take this group of people and do something to them to see what happens" is unethical by scientific standards today. Specifically because of all the atrocities that have happened just like that before.

Again - I agree that you don't mean it that way - I'm just saying it's the reason this kind of thinking can rattle people.

[enyawd72]

The idea of going "lets take this group of people and do something to them to see what happens"

Ironically, this has been the basis for how many reality TV shows? I guess it's okay when done in the guise of entertainment.

[SentientApe]

As has been clarified above, domestic and selective breeding of animals to is entirely different from random evolutionary change.

You do know, I assume, that there is an entire branch of legitimate science dedicated to answering/exploring the real questions/answers behind what you seem to be asking? It is called Cultural Anthropology. If you are truly curious, I recommend you pick up some books on the subject. Granted, thhis is not the same as evolutionary change, but it helps understand the differences of one geographically-isolated group of people from another -- which, unless I am mistaken, is the unoffensive basis underlying your questions.

What a fascinating experiment it would make to relocate and isolate two different racial groups to each others geographical location and monitor how many generations it takes for the new climate to cause physical changes in their appearance. Would each group eventually become the other? That would really be something.

Um... this has been done. And the results are over there: outside your window; some of it can be seen in your mirror, but it is readily apparent on your television. It is called racial diversity. It is why the indiginous peoples of Northern Asia have a specific skin tone, eyelid thickness and facial structure, and you can track some of the subtle differences from the trans-continental migrations as you examine the ancient peoples from Alaska, down through North America. Such physical differences are most notable if examining indiginous mid/southern African populations against the Briton/Viking peoples. However, we are all now one huge melting pot of DNA.

Just be sure you steer away from the scientifically-ignorant theories of Scottish surgeon John Hunter (1728–1793) [ref. Harris (2001): The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. p. 84]. You rejected my offering of the Wikipedia page on Scientific Racism (it certainly did NOT "skirt the issue"!), but your initial questions were phrased in a rather naive manner in regards to the studies that have been conducted to the detriment of Mankind.

However, on a more scientifically literate vein, Charles Darwin (The "Father of Evolutionary Science") wrote:

"There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,—as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual, faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans, who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea." -- Darwin (1871): The Descent of Man, [First edition]pp. 216–217

To quote another comment made above: "The idea of going 'lets take this group of people and do something to them to see what happens'" -- is the basis of Eugenics.

Granted, the examination and study of cultural and physical differences between people of different races forms the basis of several legitimate scientific fields. Most of your questions have been answered or at least partially addressed in legitimate scientific journals.


On the subject of rapid domestication --

As far as studying the effects of evolution there are already TONS of interesting experiments. The Russian domesticated silver fox experiment is cool to look at... (Yeah, I know you hate Wikipedia - sorry man. If you want check out the podcast Radiolab which had an excellent segment on this.)

-- This was reported at length in a most fascinating article in National Geographic -- I believe the issue was mid-2011. I still have a copy.

All people are hotdogs. The difference is what you got on ya. I'm a mustard, pickle and chopped onion guy.

Pickle, relish, mustard, tomato and LOTS of celery salt here. Alternately, dipped in cornbread batter, deep-fried and smothered in mustard. I guess that really does represent the duality of my nature.

[enyawd72]

As has been clarified above, domestic and selective breeding of animals to is entirely different from random evolutionary change.

Very true. However, one could argue that humans by their very nature engage in selective breeding by the way we choose a mate and reproduce. Science is already headed in that direction too, with couples alreading engaging in gender selection and designer babies not far behind. We will soon control evolution in the lab. Scary thought, but that's where it's heading.

[Brazoo]

Very true. However, one could argue that humans by their very nature engage in selective breeding by the way we choose a mate and reproduce. Science is already headed in that direction too, with couples alreading engaging in gender selection and designer babies not far behind. We will soon control evolution in the lab. Scary thought, but that's where it's heading.

Selecting who you mate with is called sexual selection - it's a big influence on evolution of most species, not just people.

The artificial selection of genes in a lab would be more like breeding, yeah. It's also the next generation of eugenics.

--

Your comment about reality shows made me laugh. It's true - from what I know - you could never get away with that stuff in a lab setting. I wonder if sociologists are ever jealous of reality shows?

[Brazoo]

SentientApe makes some excellent points, and did a much better job of explaining some of the thoughts I was trying to communicate.

My main point would be - it seems like you're coming at this from the perspective that science is ignoring study of race for political reasons - and I don't think that opinion is always wrong, but I think it's also far from correct. It's a messy messy subject and there's TONS of articles on this around - if you look.

--

What do you think of this? Years ago a common thought would be that the upper classes were a better stock of people then commoners. You and me would be considered inferior beings to people like British royalty, and most people would not question that. It's an absurd concept to us now. But back then people would have even had data they could use to try and prove this. Their prejudice about class would confuse them when looking at the data. So wealthy people who could afford a better education would seem smarter than commoners - and wealthier people with more access to nutritional food might seem physically more fit than commoners. The benefits of not being poor were confused with a genetic superiority of some kind.

What the research is showing us now is that we've made a lot of assumptions about the way we categorize people in terms of race. There are differences in people that could be considered racial differences - but it's all a lot less simple than the categories we commonly assume because of our social prejudice. We make a lot of assumptions that a person with X hair and X colour skin and X features is going to = X - when genetically they may belong to group Y in every single way.

So, isn't that the same thing as what happened with our old ideas of class? Doesn't that make some of the concepts you're wondering less relevant in a lot of ways?