(urth) Mystery of Ascia

[Lee Berman]

>Son Of Witz: There is a hot button issue currently about a negative-reinforcement,
>devaluing parenting philosophy ostensibly practiced by many Chinese-Americans.  
>Current issue of Time is about it.
 
I am married to a Chinese-American and know her family well.  I can testify that this is a real 
phenomenon I have been aware of for some time. A traditional Chinese family is not the place to 
be if you want compliments. Excellence is expected but not praised. Engage in the slightest
bragging and you will be pointedly ignored.
 
(I've heard it has been changing back in China, esp. on the wealthy coastal areas where
the One Child Only policy is actually followed. They tend to treat their one kid in
the pattern seen among the Japanese, Asian Indians and American Jews- little prince/princesses.)
 
 
>Gerry Quinn: The Swedes have gained and lost genes over time, and the original pattern of 
>genes and corresponding traits will never be replaced.  They may turn black, 
>but they will never be the same *shade* of black.  This is precisely Dollo's Law in action.
 
 
Since this topic is not fiction, it is appropriate to say that you are incorrect. It sounds like
you are implying that sub-saharan Africans are all the same exact *shade* of black. They aren't.
so there is no exact shade for Swedes to return to.
 
50,000 years is a very short time in evolutionary history and for you to claim that Swedes have
lost genes in that brief moment rather than had them shut off is a ridiculous statement to make 
without doing a full multi-population gene sequencing and comparison of both populations. Nobody 
would waste the time and money to do such a worthless assay but it doesn't matter. Admixture
would do the trick long before genetic adaptation would kick in.
 
>The mechanism of shutting off is completely irrelevant. If a gene is shut off over many generations 
>it is because another gene has changed, or been lost, or gained.

This is an outdated understanding of genetics and organismal development. Expressed traits are now
understood to be a function of GRNs (gene regulatory networks). A constellation of genes work in
concert and there are what might be seen as genetic on/off switches. Your argument is the same as 
saying that once a light switch has been turned off in your house it can never be turned on again.
 
Check any current website on the subject if you don't believe me. Dollo's Law is currently understood 
as relevant to only to major phylogenetic branchings like different classes of vertebrates or even 
orders of mammals. But certainly not for the minute genetic differences between geographical variants 
of the very same species (like Swedes and Africans). Anyway, as already noted, where admixture is 
possible, Dollo's Law becomes completely irrelevant.
 
>Gravity was discovered before more modern understandings of it were developed.  Does that mean we should 
>throw away the concept?

This statement really is beneath you. The same sort of blunder as "the sky is blue". But I'll address it 
anyway. Yes, gravity was discovered a long time ago but that understanding is archaic. We now know that
gravity operates at one level on earth but at very different levels on other planets and negligibly in most
parts of the universe. Let's not forget black holes. Nor string theory. Dollo's Law has been updated in its 
application just like the Law Of Gravity.
 
 
>Antonio Pedro Marques: But not applicable if congruent selection is halted to begin with.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps (based on an earlier comment) you think natural selection 
is no longer operating on human beings?
 
If so I would disagree. But I would suggest that human evolution is currently being driven more by the 
social environment we create for ourselves, rather than the natural, physical environment. Still the time
frame is too short to truly know any particular direction we might be heading it. Get back to me in 1 million
years and I'll hazard a guess then.
 
(social natural selection is still natural. Only when it comes to purposeful selective breeding [like dogs]
 and genetic engineering can we call it artificial selection)