PDA

View Full Version : "Sexual selection has been the main agent in forming the races of man" (Darwin)



Moody
Monday, February 24th, 2003, 04:58 PM
The amount of 'model' types who are paraded here as examples to races/subraces leads one to think of the undeniable Wow!-Factor.

Those putting forward their perfect types for delectation can almost be heard licking their thin lips.

This reminded me of Darwin's claim;

"Sexual selection has been the main agent in forming the races of man".
[Darwin, letter to Wallace 1867]

What?

Are our precious subraces merely the result of the aesthetic/erotic taste of particular regions of Eurasia in Pre-history?

Allenson
Monday, February 24th, 2003, 08:47 PM
Indeed, to some degree they must be sexually selected for traits. One thing to consider though: Were these traits environmentally favored initially and then later became sexually selected for? In other words, traits that helped a person or population survive in a particular environment may have eventually became 'attaractive' as it was those who pocessed these traits who were the most fit, healthy and able to attract a mate and reproduce. See what I mean?

Take pale skin for example. When our ancestors lived along the southern flanks of the glaciers some 40,000 years ago and sunlight was minimal at best, dark skinned folks who couldn't produce enough vitamin D, would have been sickly and unattractive and dark skin may have been sexually selected against. Those who pocessed lighter skin, thus allowing more sunlight to be absorbed and a healthy amount of vitamin D to be produced, may have been healthier because of the proper pressence of the vitamin....and they would have been more attractive or 'sexy'. As a general rule, healthy people are better looking and thus more able to attract a mate.

So, my hunch is that it's a two-fold sort of thing.

GreenHeart
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by dalonord


So, my hunch is that it's a two-fold sort of thing.

I agree.

Moody
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 07:07 AM
Well, all Whites have light skin; I was thinking more of subracial differences.

The contemporary scientist, and neo-Darwinian, Richard Dawkins says;

"What sexual selection explains, better than natural selection, is diversity that seems arbitrary, even driven by aesthetic whim.
Especially if the variation concerned is GEOGRAPHICAL [and aren't all the Caucasoid subraces named after geographical locations?].
And also especially if some of the features concerned, for example beards and the distribution of body hair and subcutaneous fat deposits, differ between the sexes .."

It has long been thought that blondism has been sexually selected because many Whites are blond as children but become darker as they enter puberty. It is thought that those few who stayed blond, after some mutation, were sexually selected way out of proportion to their numbers.
Dawkins goes on;

"Given that cultural differences such as those of language, religion, manners and customs certainly provide resistance to interbreeding and gene flow, I think it is entirely plausible that genetic differences between peoples of different regions, at least where superficial, externally prominent features are concerned [i.e., among subraces], have evolved through sexual selection".

This explains how the various Europid subraces could be derived from the Mediterranean.

"Our species really does seem to have unusually conspicuous, even ostentatious, superficial differences between local populations, coupled within unusually low levels of overall genetic variation. This double circumstance carries, to my mind, the stamp of sexual selection".
[R.Dawkins, 'The Devils Chaplain' - my emphasis and interjections]

Therefore, the genetic difference between Mediterranean and Nordic Subraces is miniscule; their ostensible differences of appearance are mainly due to sexual selection, and not natural selection, as Meds in the North are as pale skinned as Nordics.

GreenHeart
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless

Are our precious subraces merely the result of the aesthetic/erotic taste of particular regions of Eurasia in Pre-history?

I would attribute it more to the founder effect, but you may go on rambling if you like :)

Ederico
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by NordicPower88
I would attribute it more to the founder effect, but you may go on rambling if you like :)

What is the Founder Effect?

Allenson
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 05:39 PM
Sure, all whites have light skin but there are certainly differences in this relative lightness from one place to the next. I regard pigmentation as one piece in the differetiation puzzle even between the white sub-races. I think we can agree that there is a noticeable difference between the ruddy and vascular skin tone of an Irish Brunn and the more tanned skin of Mediterranean type. Also, I was just using skin color as an example. Eye color is another that we could address. I've read that folks with fair eyes (Coon's 'The Living Races of Man') perhaps have better vision in cloudy, misty and dim conditions than do those with more pigmented eyes. He also postulates that the reverse could be so in sunnier regions. Fair eyes, as well as vascular skin cross sub-racial lines for sure but they clearly occur most often in the regions where people dwelt along side the glaciers and sunlight was something of a premium.

Interestingly enough, blondism, be it of the ashen or golden variety also is most concentrated along the old glacial lines. However, no environmentally adaptive advantage has yet to be ascribed to this condition. Again though, it crosses subracial lines from UPs to Nordics to East Baltics, Corded types, Danubians, etc. IS there any adaptive corelation between it's geographic region of prominence and the climate found there (now or historically)? Hard to say, for sure. One thing to consider though, is that there is clearly some amount of blondism found in the sub-races further south...but why hasn't it been sexually selected for more there but under this premise, much more so....ACROSS sub-racial lines......in the north?

Hard to figure for sure. As I said, I feel that as with most debates, that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Clearly some traits are considered more attractive than others and some provide some type of advantage to a particular climate and environment. My question here is: Why are these sexually selected traits considered attractive? Because they show that a person is healthy and fit in a particular climate....and therefore attractive?

Breogan
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 11:20 PM
Folks, al you say is OK, but this is the pathetic reallity

http://www.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208~12588~1169547,00.html#

All white nations are going to destruction, Kali Yuga rules...........

Breogan
Tuesday, February 25th, 2003, 11:43 PM
Folks, al you say is OK, but this is the pathetic reallity

http://www.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208~12588~1169547,00.html#

All white nations are going to destruction, Kali Yuga rules...........

Evolved
Wednesday, February 26th, 2003, 12:41 AM
http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper208/ir_dating.jpg

Who cares if some spic wants to fuck a nigger? How do you think Jennifer Lopez got her mammoth Hottentot ass? :butt

If fat, disgusting stupid white females with no self-esteem want to sleep with niggers, I think it's great. Who needs a bunch of self loathing pigs? The white guys with Asian females are losers at best, perverted Asiaphiles at worst, and they're all looking for an easy piece of ass because they're too lame to approach a white girl. :fu

Shiva kicks ass.........


Originally posted by Breogan
Folks, al you say is OK, but this is the pathetic reallity All white nations are going to destruction, Kali Yuga rules...........

Tore
Wednesday, February 26th, 2003, 04:21 AM
Who cares if some spic wants to fuck a nigger? How do you think Jennifer Lopez got her mammoth Hottentot ass?


If fat, disgusting stupid white females with no self-esteem want to sleep with niggers, I think it's great. Who needs a bunch of self loathing pigs? The white guys with Asian females are losers at best, perverted Asiaphiles at worst, and they're all looking for an easy piece of ass because they're too lame to approach a white girl.

Blunt and straightforward...

yet I must say:

Well put!:)

Moody
Wednesday, February 26th, 2003, 07:01 AM
It also illustrates sexual selection, as do the posts here which posit desirable Meds and Nords as perfected types.

Enviromentalism is exaggerated due to its popularity on the Left. Consider the radical climate changes since the Paleolithic; consider Eskimos and Lapps (who have lived in the Nordic regions for thousands of years without having light hair or light eyes); consider also Dutch settlers in South Africa (who after hundreds of years show no sign of developing negridism) etc., consider albinism (the fairest of the fair due to genetic mutation, not enviroment); consider how white some Japanese are etc., etc.,.

Subracial characteristics are hardly enviromentally determined, and a tan is just a tan. Meds living in Britain are paler than some Nordics.

Charles Darwin made the case for sexual selection, as well as coming up with Evolution via Natural Selection - his opinion carries some weight.

In a book which should be on the reading list of every Racial Nationalist he says;

"It can further be shown that the differences between the races of man, as in colour, hairiness, form of features etc., are of a kind which might have been expected to come under the influence of sexual selection".
[Darwin, 'The Descent of Man', page 199]

As to the 'founder effect', that sounds like a piece of 'golden age' wishful thinking, without scientific basis.

Allenson
Wednesday, February 26th, 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless

Enviromentalism is exaggerated due to its popularity on the Left. Consider the radical climate changes since the Paleolithic; consider Eskimos and Lapps (who have lived in the Nordic regions for thousands of years without having light hair or light eyes); consider also Dutch settlers in South Africa (who after hundreds of years show no sign of developing negridism) etc., consider albinism (the fairest of the fair due to genetic mutation, not enviroment); consider how white some Japanese are etc., etc.,.



Yes indeed and these are certainly things to consider when investigating racial traits. Again, I'll refer to Coon who basically said that each race differs in it's response to and handling of differing climates and environments. For example, the way that Mongoloids 'react' biologically, over great expanses of time to say, a glacial or sub-glacial climate will be different from the way that Caucasoids 'react' to a similar climate. In other words, there will be more than one way to cope with cold or heat or humidity, etc.

I'm not at all saying that adaptive resposes to climate/environment are the only 'things' that lead to the development of the sub-races at all. I think it would be foolish to say this. Equally so though, I would think it to be foolish to chalk every difference between the sub-races up to sexual selection.

Lastly, I'm not sure that enough evolutionary time has passed for say, the Dutch in South Africa to evolve and adapt to their new climate. A few hundred years really isn't a whole hell of a lot of time in an evolutionary scale.

Is this another attempt at the 'there's no differnce between Meds and Nords' thing?

Allenson
Thursday, February 27th, 2003, 05:08 PM
Hi....back again. Here's a pretty good article in favor of sexual selection as the mechanism behind 'human variation'....ie races.

While not perfect, it's still a pretty good read. He certainly puts more weight on sexual selection than I do but on the same hand, he is quite willing to admit at least SOME human variation to natural/adaptive selection.

The 'founder effect' theory is rather interesting to say the least.

I feel the same way about this as I do with other 'either/or' arguments like 'nature vs. nurture'; I can't undertand those who claim strictly one or the other. Not many things are that simple and the answer likely lies somewhere in between and a blend of the two....

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/Sexselection.html

Moody
Thursday, February 27th, 2003, 05:33 PM
There is no either/or - I think it comes down to whether you believe in Evolution or not.
When it comes to Evolutionary theory, Darwin is the Giant.
As an alternative to Coon, read Darwin's 'The Descent of Man'.

The only way Dutch settlers in South Africa will become like Negroes is if they CROSS-BREED with them; enviroment will have little effect - just as Lapps and Eskimoes haven't become Nordic after thousands of years in the Nordic/Artic regions.

The whole point - what gives man his evolutionary advantage -, is that humans are FLEXIBLE. So when climate changes radically, as it certainly has done in the last half a million years, man is able to survive - sexual selection brings out the variation necessary for flexibility.
It is fairly obvious that Nordics are derived from the Early Mediterranean race group, as they are only differentiated by pigmentation. And as we have seen, it is generally agreed that blondism is a sexually selected trait. It is something that still continues today in the popular form of 'blondes have more fun'.

As to Nature vs. Nurture, the Left have always placed emphasis on the latter to almost the exclusion of the former - it is was the political Left who made an either/or.
And while the science of Genetics has swung the pendulum the other way, one would never rule out the effects of enviroment or nuture of course; and while enviroment certainly has an effect at the species/subspecies level, it cannot account for subracial differences within say, the White race.
Darwin's 'Descent' gives many examples of sexual selection and makes the case fairly conclusively - it seems that we are always prone to reject that which should be most obvious to us.

Back to the beauty parade!