Comments on: Higher Rates of C-Section Deliveries For Asian Mothers & White Fathers

By: What Should Human Evolution Be? « Anthropology.net

What Should Human Evolution Be? « Anthropology.net — Sat, 26 May 2012 13:57:10 +0000

[...] Ridley weakened his argument on relaxed selection, because he failed to discuss the details of what sperm immobility is and means. Furthermore, in an example of true spermatic immobility, surviving to reproductive age when respiratory complications hit is low. Why didn’t he address the relaxation on selection with the increase use of C-sections? [...]

By: kaori

kaori — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:09:20 +0000

the average height for japanese females was 158cm in 2008.

now in 2011 it is 159cm.

not 153cm.

By: Old Photos | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page 23

Old Photos | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page 23 — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 05:40:23 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Truth Speaker

Truth Speaker — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:30:40 +0000

A few notes: Inupiat and Northeast Asians are (essentially) the same race, and “East Asian” is ambiguous (as it includes Ainu, Austronesian, North Chinese and Northeast Asians).

Likewise Japanese women are around 157 CM, not 153 CM.

By: Mjx Bergen

Mjx Bergen — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:23:47 +0000

An increased incidence of 3% is of questionable significance, particularly as such couples as you describe tend to belong to upper socio-economic groups, in which c-sections are more common (regrettably, not all c-sections in this group are due to pressing need; vanity/expedience are alarmingly prominent reasons for electing to avoid vaginal delivery).

By: eva2

eva2 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:03:13 +0000

sorry had to cut and paste it due to internet troubles.

By: eva2

eva2 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:57:45 +0000

how is the article racist? how is the article tendencing on race issues? there’s no harm in comparing
different bodies geographically nor locally, all have some variations and that is beautiful , we’re also very alike. I’m a painter ( yes shouldnt be on this site, just stumbled upon
it, sorry for my english and lacking of insight) and find the human body fascinating and the beauty of it is that we all come in different shapes and sizes but still have
the genetical body codes that we share. personally i’m a Swede, woman, 5´6, 128 pounds and have a biiliac width of 34 cm. :) me as an individual is much more
unlike the average number provided while the report vary very little among populations.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:00:44 +0000

Sorry got interrupted there. By ‘easier to resolve’ I meant it is easier to agree on those arbitrary, but meaningful statistical conventions because of the steepness of the falloff in ‘my’ density – I might for example simplify my model and rely on the Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, boundaries used by Particle Physicists. The problem with Racial differences is of a much greater order – conventional measures like fixation indices do not show values approaching anything like what we see in other non-human species for example, being well under the (also arbitrary) conventions used by wildlife biologists when they define non-human races. Which I guess is the crux of the matter.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:21:41 +0000

Razib: let’s say we subscribe to a quantum field theory and agree that I am just a probability distribution – how would I report this? Well I might report ‘me’ to 2 standard deviations and say the rest is too uncertain. This is of course arbitrary, but it is not equivalent to “drawing a line” (which I did not mention by the way): it is a statistically accurate descriptive convention. So no I wouldn’t draw a line.

By: razib

razib — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:32:07 +0000

Although I have no problem with your characterisation of my body, I would point out that statistically the problem of its boundaries is a lot easier to resolve than the boundaries of human variation. What’s the Fst?

so what if it’s *easier* how do you draw a line. it’s arbitrary and subjective.