All human beings can mate with one another, which is the surest way of knowing that they are related. We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee. But what of the various simian kind? Isn't there a difference between homo habilis and homo erectus? Was one considered more or less evolved than the other? Is it possible that one race is more closely related to habilis, while the other is more closely related to erectus?
You are very confused.
First. By your own definition of "species" ("can mate with each other"), habilis and erectus would not be able to mate with sapiens, of any "race", because they are different species.
Second. "Race" is a social classification, not a biological one.
Genomic Research Vol. 12, Issue 6, 844-850, June 2002
Human populations differ one from another almost entirely in the varying proportions of the allelic genes of the various sets of hereditary factors, and not in the kinds of genes they contain.
Differences in allelic frequencies show the genetic diversity of a species. One species. Capiche?
Different kinds of alleles (aka genes) distinguish between species.
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
Hi, nem.
I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion.
Fine, I won't be. But who ever came to their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution? I don't know of anyone. People come to their racist beliefs for lots of reasons -- maybe being taught to be racists by their parents, maybe by having one or two very bad experiences involving people of a particular race -- reasons that have very little to do with logical conclusions from some sort of other beliefs.
As I've said before, people start off being racist first -- then they find support for their racism in whatever explanatory framework they accept. In the case of early 20th century eugenicists it was the theory of evolution; in the case of late 20th century American white supremists, it is in the literal reading of the Bible.
I believe that blacks are morally and spiritually inferior to whites; I believe in a literal reading of the Bible; I believe that the Bible explains everything about life; therefore, the Bible must support white superiority.
I believe that blacks are biologically inferior to whites; I believe that evolution explains everything about biology; therefore, evolution must show that blacks are inferior to whites.
It's all pretty much the same, really. One cannot view evolution with suspicion because "so many" people have fit their racism into that theory while giving Christianity a pass despite "so many" people fitting their racism into a literal reading of the Old Testament.
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
Let me put it simply. Some racists abuse evolutionary theory to justify their hatreds and prejudices in the same way you are abusing the evidence you present to justify yours.
If an evolutionist says something racist then you assert that it must be because the theory of evolution implies or at least legitimises racism. If they are against racism you assert that it is because the theory is "schitzophrenic" (sic) or they are being dishonest,
But such assertions are not an honest evaluation of the evidence. They are just attempts to force the evidence to fit the conclusions. The latter in particular is a baseless smear - which shows the true nature of your arguments.
Likewise your attempt to deal with counter-arguments. Statements actually dealing with the theory are ignored or rudely dismissed. When it is pointed out that quotes you use do not support your case you appeal to the idea that there must be another quote somewhere that does. You're not trying to present a real case, you're just making excuses to try to avoid the fact that your hatred and prejudice are baseless.
So you shouldn't be surprised if racists do the same.
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
What claims have I made that are unreasonable? Quite a few people are saying that I am claiming that evolution will inherently lead to racism. I've made no such claim. What I have said is that based on the teachings, it is reasonable for racists to have come to their pitiable deductions.
This is a distinction without a difference. If it is truly reasonable to come to racist conclusions from the ToE, then racism is indeed inherent in it.
Are not these images telling of a progression?
Yes.
You cannot, of course, find a similar picture showing a progression of races, because of course biology tells us that these constitute radiation from a common ancestor rather than a line of descent.
This changed as people's personal views began to change the science behind it.
An interesting assertion. What do you claim has been changed?
Does that erase what the theory is saying?
What is the theory saying? If you are back to pretending that it really does have racist implications, something that you denied at the start of this post, then it is up to you to demonstrate this.
I'm not. What I've been arguing, from the beginning, is that the question of if evolution reasonably has ties to racism, I believe the question to be a legitimate one.
It's a legitimate question. The answer is "no" --- unless you can indeed show that there is a reasonable link.
My use of quotes is only to show that it isn't far-fetched at all. I'm not trying to demonize evolution as being inherently racist at all. I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.
There you go again. You say that the racist conclusion is "reasonable". Well, we all know what sort of thing you find reasonable, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to press you for details on this one. How can one reason from the ToE to racism?
Sure, people manipulate all sorts of things for their own ends. No sense in anyone ever denying that. But what else should they deduce after reading the theory in its context?
That the following statement is not a justification for racism:
Has there ever been a regression within evolution? Has anything gotten worse as a result of evolution? Probably not. Why? Because of natural selection. It removes the aberrant and retains the strong. So clearly, there really, truly is a sense of advancement in evolution. How can you say otherwise?
But of course this statement does not lead us to conclude that we can rank people now living on the basis of their skin color and expect the ranking to reflect completely unrelated traits such as intelligence. Because there is absolutely no connection between these propositions.
Your statement implies that we might expect to be better adapted than our ancestors, not that we should a priori expect one currrent racial group to be superior to its co-evals.
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
quote:Has there ever been a regression within evolution? Has anything gotten worse as a result of evolution?
"Worse" depends entirely upon the environmental circumstances.
Sickle Cell Disease certainly makes life "worse" for many people who have the genetic condition who are also living in non-malarial places.
However, if it wasn't for the mutation that results in Sickle Cell Disease, humans might have been wiped out in malarial places. So, in that regard, having SCD is "better", at least for being able to survive beyond childhood and live long enough to reproduce (Malaria is a big killer of children).
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
quote:There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.
I'm not going to comment on the biological nature of your point, because the study of biology doesn't dictate ethics. (Plus, it's nonsense)
I certainly agree with you that it is nonsense, but the point I'm trying to make is that it happens-- less frequently than it did 50 years ago, and even far less than it did 150 years ago. But it happens. And the only reason people came to such a faulty conclusion is the way evolution has been interpretated.
On the other hand, I can certainly see a progression in what organisms we consider moral to kill. Nobody cares if I kill a bacteria. Nobody cares if I kill a fungus or a plant (not because of the intrinsic nature of the plant, anyway. If they care, it is because of its effect on people). Very few care if I kill a worm or a sea urchin. But once we reach fish, some more people start to care. Even more care about lizards. Quite a few care about killing cats or parrots. Even more care about killing chimps. And nearly everyone cares about killing humans.
An outstanding point you make here that probably better summarizes what I've been talking about as far as progression is concerned. Would it be coincidental that all of the creatures that people don't seem to care about are viewed in evolutionary terms as being ancient? I don't think so. It seems the more intelligence an animal has, the more assured they are that it came after one of lesser intellect.
Again, if you look at any cladogram, now or from 150 years ago, there still is seen a general progression within the ToE. And if the theory says that humans descend from primates, and Ethiopians are the oldest known humans, then I don't think anyone should be surprised that some misguided racists made the deduction they have.
Yes, its messed up that they say it. And yes, I am aware that it cuts a lot of corners in the theory to come to such a pithy conclusion, but it isn't completed unfounded either. That's all I'm saying.
"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
I certainly agree with you that it is nonsense, but the point I'm trying to make is that it happens-- less frequently than it did 50 years ago, and even far less than it did 150 years ago. But it happens.
Yes, granted.
And on the other side of the ledger:
"People who are bitter and hateful about slavery are obviously bitter and hateful against God and his word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say concerning slavery." - Senator Charles Davidson, 1996
Bad arguments never quite die.
And the only reason people came to such a faulty conclusion is the way evolution has been interpretated.
I.e: by racists, wrongly.
And if the theory says that humans descend from primates, and Ethiopians are the oldest known humans ...
Dead Ethopians may possibly be the oldest known humans.
Not living ones.
And yes, I am aware that it cuts a lot of corners in the theory to come to such a pithy conclusion, but it isn't completed unfounded either. That's all I'm saying.
But if they have to cut a lot of corners, then it is unfounded. If I cut a lot of corners, I could get from "they serve bacon sandwiches on planes" to "pigs have wings", and the conclusion would be "completely unfounded", 'cos of all the corners I cut.
"In 1933 Karl Pearson retired as Galton Professor of eugenics at University College and Fisher was appointed to the chair as his successor."
Ronald Fisher, according to Richard Dawkins, was Darwin's greatest successor. But he had no degree in biology nor any graduate degree. He was also a gutter racist and, of course, the chief architect of the genetical theory of evolution that swept biology in the 1930s.
Since this topic denies the racist foundation of evolutionary theory the same is quite conducive with lying.
We know Darwin was openly racist as was Huxley. Darwin's cousin invented eugenics theory based on the Origin thesis and implications. Leonard Darwin (Darwin's son) addressed a eugenics meeting in London and told the delegates that his Father would have approved of their beliefs and goals. We also know Darwin originally based human evolution belief on certain human beings resembling primates in the London zoo (Larson 2004:66). Today, evolutionists proudly say Africans were the link to apemen, human evolution is brazen racism, this is what happens when God is scorned as Creator.
Why has Jar (an evolutionist) denied the racist origin of evolution?
Since this topic denies the racist foundation of evolutionary theory the same is quite conducive with lying.
Rather than posting irrelevant innuendo and historical tidbits about people (like nem), how about actually showing how the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism?
We are not interested in racists that use the theory of evolution to bolster their racism, but in actual derivation of racist concepts from the theory of evolution.
For clarity the "theory of evolution" is that evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) explains the observed diversity of life and its observed natural history in the fossil record.
You can also define evolution as "descent with modification" to use Darwin's formulation.
How does this necessarily result in racism?
Extra points if you stay on topic and refrain from ad hominum assertions.
"In 1933 Karl Pearson retired as Galton Professor of eugenics at University College and Fisher was appointed to the chair as his successor."
Darwin's cousin invented eugenics theory based on the Origin thesis and implications. Leonard Darwin (Darwin's son) addressed a eugenics meeting in London and told the delegates that his Father would have approved of their beliefs and goals.
For the record eugenics is not inherently racist either (although racists are likely to favor eugenics):
This is not about improving races or about one race being better than another, but about improving humans through the application of science. Breeding dogs is not necessarily "breedist" (belief one breed is superior to all other breeds). There are ethical concerns about breeding people the way we breed animals, but that has nothing necessarily to do with racism -- although racist people would be likely to favor it (provided thier concepts of "improving" were included).
Again the distinction is between people that are racist (mis)using science, and what the science actually says.
The question here concerns what science actually says.
Darwin's cousin invented eugenics theory based on the Origin thesis and implications.
I dunno. Eugenics seems to be old fashioned animal breeding applied to humans. And animal breeding has been practiced since long before Darwin. What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with animal breeding?
While I may agree with the actual, out of context statement above it warrants a warning in context. I'm not going to give you a just few hours if you continue to avoid actual reasoned debate.
and Stalin outlawed evolution - see Lysenkoism. These are things you learn in high school.
Your link says:
A persecution of genetics and geneticists began in the early 1930’s. It was fueled by the rhetoric of Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), an agronomist with little education and no scientific training, but with grand ambitions for Soviet agriculture based on his mistaken belief in a Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance and organic change.
So they outlawed/persecuted/etc. the new science which contradicted Lamarckism. They decided to stick with the older form of evolution 'theory'.
What's actually happening in the article is that evolutionism is so pervasive that genetics was outlawed because it was incompatible with the old Darwinism.
In the west, a way was later found to incorporate genetics into Darwinism.
And their stance on religion should be even more well-known, I would hope. Essentially, the U.S.S.R. outlawed anything which opposed their version of evolutionism. As do most communist governments.
I hope this was an honest mistake. It may well be so. The article itself, and others erroneously equate this with being 'anti-evolution'. 'Anti-neo-Darwinist' would be accurate. Except that neo-Darwinism hadn't yet been formulated, and genetics was (and is! but that's O.T.) anti-evolutionism at the time.
The part of the story that's received a little less attention than it deserves is the "survival of the fittest" part. As long as this is part of evolutionism, there will be plenty of compatibility with racism. This is the critical element - not the relative relatedness or any "tree" diagrams. (The old Greek tree mentioned earlier was based on evolutionism, by the way. It didn't start with Darwin.)
In order for things to evolve, must there not be competition? Must not this competition weed out the weak before they reproduce? If not, will these weaklings not produce races of inferior offspring?
But that's as far as I go. The history of the Nazis, Communists, and others is available. If one accepts Darwinism and rejects God, I don't see a handy way to dispute the philosophies of Marx or Hitler/Nietzsche. One strove for the collective (think ant) evolution of nations, while the other is based on the evolution of the individuals that make up a nation.
So far, all that's been offered against this & eugenics is that "fittest" is defined differently by the present-day evolutionist 'scientists' than it is/was by politicians. But "fittest" is always subjective.
Anyhow, I think this thread is intended to trick creationists into making pro-racist arguments. The facts are too well known and readily available to merit much serious discussion. The issue is as good as settled, and it's very easy to see that it's bound to fail as a feel-good thread for evolutionists.
I should also call "straw man" (and off-topic) on those who have maintained that creationism is inherently racist. Historically there have been such creatures, and I expect there still are; but nothing in the simple fact of creation indicates that one should be racist. Neither does any rational line of reasoning derived from this fact lead thereunto.
What's actually happening in the article is that evolutionism is so pervasive that genetics was outlawed because it was incompatible with the old Darwinism.
You know how I explained to you about making stuff up?
Don't do it, really.
In order for things to evolve, must there not be competition? Must not this competition weed out the weak before they reproduce? If not, will these weaklings not produce races of inferior offspring?
Erm ... you have just demonstrated that if there was no evolution, there would be inferior races.
If one accepts Darwinism and rejects God, I don't see a handy way to dispute the philosophies of Marx or Hitler/Nietzsche.
Well, there's always the route of pointing out that they're bollocks.
In particular, knowledge of evolution, whether or not accompanied by atheism, can only be of assistance in shooting down Hitler's childish pseudoscientific fantasies.
Anyhow, I think this thread is intended to trick creationists into making pro-racist arguments.
Then your usual foaming fundie paranoia is still serving you well.
I should also call "straw man" (and off-topic) on those who have maintained that creationism is inherently racist.
That is indeed a straw man and off-topic, since no-one has done so.
Ronald Fisher, according to Richard Dawkins, was Darwin's greatest successor. But he had no degree in biology nor any graduate degree.
Uh ... so what?
He was also a gutter racist.
Yes, well, he was a devout Christian after all.
Oh, hold on, which aspect of him were we trying to smear?
Still, I guess if he was a racist, we'd better abandon modern statistics, since it was founded on his work.
Oh, wait...
Darwin's cousin invented eugenics theory based on the Origin thesis and implications. Leonard Darwin (Darwin's son) addressed a eugenics meeting in London ...
I think it's funny that people who try to link Darwin with eugenics do so by reference to the fact that he had relatives who supported it.
There's a nice unconscious irony there.
Darwin originally based human evolution belief on certain human beings resembling primates in the London zoo.
But this isn't true, is it? Which is why you can't quote Darwin saying so.
Today, evolutionists proudly say Africans were the link to apemen.
But this is also untrue, isn't it? Which is why you can't quote any evolutionists "proudly saying" this.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
