Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bazza's avatar
8dEdited

Reading Peter's post my first thought was: 'to what extent is this saying something about West African females rather than African (as a whole)?'

I was pleased to see towards the end that a difference between West and East African genetics was mentioned as perhaps why results for recent African migrants are different to those of African-Americans (predominantly of West African origin?).

Expand full comment
VEL - The Contemporary Heretic's avatar

Hi Peter,

Just to reiterate and expand on a couple of suggestions that I also made on your earlier similar piece for Aporia which you may have missed since i posted them sometime after your original piece:

1) Genomic Imprinting and Offspring Growth

First, is it possible that genomic imprinting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomic_imprinting), the phenomenon whereby genes have different effects depending on whether they derive from the mother or the father, could explain the difference in birthweight reported?

A possible analogy is provided by ligers and tigons, crosses between lions and tigers fathered by lions and tigers respectively.

Ligers, with a lion father and tigress mother, tend to be very large, much larger than either of the parent species, whereas tigons, with a tiger father and a lioness mother, are smaller than either parent species.

This is apparently because paternally-expressed genes in lions promote growth of offspring in utero at the expense of the mother, whereas maternally-expressed genes counteract this effect. However, these genes are lacking in tigers, resulting in outsized growth in ligers, but the opposite effect in tigons.

This is supposedly because several different male lions are typically incumbent in a single pride of lionesses at the same time, and their tenure is often quite fleeting, meaning that the next offspring borne by a lioness is likely to be fathered by a different male. It is therefore in the interests of the male to promote maximum offspring growth even at the expense of the mother's future reproductive capacity, something mothers naturally evolve maternally-expressed genes to counteract.

In contrast, tigers are more solitary, a single male defending the territory of multipe females. Therefore, subsequent offspring are relatively more likely to be sired by the same male, until he is displaced, making it counterproductive for the father to promote offspring growth at the expense of the mother's future reproductive capacity.

There may be analogous differences in the mating systems of blacks and whites.

For example, it seems blacks in the US and UK have a somewhat higher divorce rate then whites. Divorce rates are also reportedly higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in Europe.

If relationships among blacks tended to be more fleeting, then similar paternally and maternally expressed genes may have evolved.

2) Pelvis Size, Head Size and Body-Size

Another suggestion: It seems to be generally accepted that childbirth is especially physically traumatic in humans, and results in high rates of death during childbirth as compared to most other mammalian species (at least prior to modern medical advances), because the large size of the human brain makes birthing large-brained (and hence large-headed) human infants especially traumatic.

Therefore, since race differences in brain size are also well-established, could the differnces in offspring outcomes somehow reflect a mismatch between the size of the biracial infant's head and the reproductive anatomy of the mother.

Vladimir Avdeyev, in his book 'Raciology: The Science of the Hereditary Traits of Peoples', claims:

“The form of the skull of a child is directly connected with the characteristics of the structure of the mother’s pelvis—they should correspond to each other in the goal of eliminating death in childbirth. The mixing of the races unavoidably leads to this, because the structure of the pelvis of a mother of a different race does not correspond to the shape of the head of [the] mixed infant; that leads to complications during childbirth” (Raciology: p157).

Similarly, Philippe Rushton claimed in the Preface to the Third Edition of his book, 'Race Evolution and Behavior', that the reason blacks perform better in track events in athletics is that they have narrower hips, which leads to a “a more efficient stride”, but that “the reason Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners, is because they give birth to larger brained babies” (Race, Evolution and Behavior: p11-12).

Could a mismatch between the reproductive anatomy and pelvises of black mothers and the larger-brained mixed-race offspring explain the lower birthweight of mixed-race offspring fathered by white males?

Alternatively, could it be a mismatch between the reproductive anatomy of the mother and overall offspring body-size (not head-size), that expains the differences observed.

Black neonates tend to have lower birthweight than white neonates, even after controlling for gestational age and shorter gestational period among blacks.

Could it be that there is simply less room for the developing fetus to grow inside black women's wombs? This would explain the higher prevalence of low birthweights among both full-black neonates and biracial neonates birthed by black mothers.

Similarly, I am aware that one study reported a higher rate of caesarean sections being performed among East Asian women birthing offspring sired by white fathers, but a lower rate among white women birthing offspring sired by Asian men, which presumably reflects differences in the body-size of neonates as compared to the reproductive anatomy of the mother (Nystrom et al 2008)

____________

Nystrom et al (2008) Perinatal outcomes among Asian–white interracial couples. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199(4), p382.e1-382.e6

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts