brain sizes: Einstein's and women's: pop quiz

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Thu Aug 29 21:18:14 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> The number of unique pairs of 170 objects is
>> (170 * 169) / 2, or about 14,000.  You're only off by
>> three hundred orders of magnitude or so, which is not all
>> that unusual.
>
>The correct number of combinations is the factorial of 170.  Nobody said
>anything about "unique pairs of 170 objects", did they?

Have you ever seen dogs mate other than in pairs?

>We were discussing
>the total number of combinations that could exist if there weren't solid
>statistical boundaries between different breeds.

There is no such thing as a "solid statistical boundary" between
breeds.

If you want to ignore existing definitions of breeds, then every dog
in the world is a breed unto himself with a unique genome, so that if
there are 100 million different dogs, then there are 
(100 million-1)*(100 million)/2 possible different mixtures that could
arise between them.  

Unfortunately, this ignores the nature of sexual reproduction in
mammals, wherein the diploid chromosomes divide in half, and recombine
apparently randomly to for the sperm and the eggs.  But since we do
not know how many genes in a dog have variable coding, we do not have
any means of calculating how many different dog genomes are possible.

>> All of which is irrelevant, because "breed" is a purely human
>> construct, just like "good" poker hands and "bad" poker hands.
>> When two breeds mate, they do not produce a new breed, unless
>> the AKC says they did.  They produce mutts, and no one keeps
>> track of the "breeds" of mutt.
>
>Humans have almost nothing to do with the different breeds of foxes or
>wolves or tigers or lions or birds or turtles, yet exactly the same
>statistical boundaries are present, aren't they?

There aren't "breeds" of each of those.  They are either separate
species or they interbreed.

>If even ONE of these
>thousands of species could just jump from one species to another, then the
>world would be flooded with all the necessary intermediate combinations,
>wouldn't it?

If they could jump from one species to the next them they would not be
separate species.  You have yet to display half of a clue as to what
speciation is.  NO CREATURE changes species during its lifetime.
However it is plausible that your great-great-great-to the umpteenth
power-great grandkids might be divided into two or more different
species that cannot mate with each other.

>If the cross-breed between two different breeds of wolves were viable,

They are, because different breeds of wolves are all in the same
species.  If they weren't viable, they would no longer be the same
species, and speciation will have occurred.

>then
>there would be more of these cross-breeds than there are original breeds.

Which is why "breeds" make no sense unless the animals are BRED (i.e.
are not allowed to randomly mate).

>Same with dogs.  The cross-breeds don't die out because of human
>intervention.  They die out for reasons similar to why the offspring of a
>horse and a donkey [read: a mule] die out: they can't reproduce themselves.

False.  They don't die out, they end up as mutts.  And mutts can
interbreed all they want, but fewer people want mutts so such dogs
tend to get put to sleep in excess of the people who want them.

>The rate at which niggers [80% Negroid and 20% Caucasoid] murder each other
>in the US may be a good example of how cross-breeds manage to eliminate
>themselves.  Even with all the crime we hear about in Rwanda, the murder
>rate of the pure Negroids there is still one sixtieth the rate at which
>American nigger males are currently killing each other off.  No society can
>survive when it's killing off each other at 350 per 100,000 niggers.  If
>such a rate were sustainable, over the current life expectancy of American
>niggers, one quarter of them would be murdered.

And indeed, in places like DC with high murder rates, a relatively
high percentage of African-American males die as a result of being
murdered.  But as long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate (which
it does) any murder rate is sustainable.

But it is your imagination that the high murder rate is because blacks
in this country are a "mixed breed".

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list