Bones of Contentions.

I'm trying following this debate but failing. I've yet to see you show any evidence that ToE qualifies superiority of anything but the fitness of a population to survive and breed through the changing environment.In this regard, bacteria and insects prove to be far superior to humans of any 'race' or species. Homo Sapiens are considered superior to other Homos purely in the quantifiable and self-evident sense that Homo sapiens survived, and the other ones didn't. We are not more superior than pigs evolutionarily speaking, until one of us becomes extinct or endangered.It may be the case that one race has genes more adapted to surviving whatever climate change is upcoming than any other. However, we do not know which race that is, until such time as one race is extinct or near extinct. Whilst one can, at a push, describe this as racism (the belief that one race is superior to another), but it is unnecesarily emotive use of language, and is not conducive to clear communication. So in that, the language usage fails.In this case, evolutionary racism, is quantifiable and not arbitrary, it also does not cause humans to treat others poorly or violently, and does not involve prejudice or discrimination in our social affairs. And that is where the word racism really applies, to our social interactions, not to the interactions of an impersonal phenomenon we have identified. A dictionary definition might let you wangle the point, but if you pick up a book on racism, you'll find that racism means a lot more than the one or two sentence definitions the lexicographers are often limited to.If the African race was dying out, due to climate change, would an evolutionist treat an African differently than a white man? If so, the evolutionist is racist, not the theory which he accepts as the best theory to describe the diversity of life.In closing, like the Hitler used artificial selection and genocide so evolution must be wrong, is another demonstration of creationist propaganda. Instead of being able to refute the theory of evolution, instead they turn to the tried and tested method of defining and portraying evolution in such a horrifying way that any sane person that falls for it would not want to associate themselves with evolution. Instead of winning converts by cogent scientific objections, they use rhetoric and smear tactics.This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 04-August-2005 11:52 AM

Because interfertility is not the only definition of species. I'm sure prejudiced theories will discriminate humans all the time. Hardly a ground breaking idea. However, is the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution prejudiced? Wrong end of the stick I'm afraid. It doesn't matter if there was racial variety before, it doesn't matter how we classify previous species (though since you ask, we do it morphologically). What I am saying is that racism is a social phenomenon. It really makes no difference what a species or a race or a breed is, it doesn't make ToE racist. Racist people look to ToE to 'prove' why they are 'right', by fuzzing up the definitions. OK, so you agree that racism is a wider issue than you are trying to convince us of and that there are other theories regarding the human race. Ok. Indeed they aren't, and lets face it, there is a reason. Evolutionists aren't a community. It's not like they can be directly contrasted with Christianity or something...so you are going to have to actually back this up (assuming you are allowed back in the Science fora), or we shall take it as read that it is actually just something you made up in a fit of near dishonesty.Just for fun, I will point you to the scientists that are working on cures and vaccines for the people of Africa every day, geneticists concieving of crop growing tools. Given the amusing fact that there are more scientists called Steve that accept evolution than there are scientists that don't, we can assume that the vast vast vast majority of the scientists involved in helping those in need in Africa are indeed, evolutionists. Nope, I'm afraid the modern synthesis is not racist. Racism is a social issue. Neo-Darwinism does not prejudice against other races, or other species. Stating that two things are different and giving factual and observable reasons as to why is not prejudice, discrimination or racist. If I say that a black man has darker skin and so is better able to survive hot climates, is that racist, or simply an observable fact?You are going to have to do a lot of work to demonstrate how the theory that the diversity of life (diversity is good according the theory, the wider the gene pool the better, the exact opposite of racism) is the result of random mutations in the genome and directed by natural selection is in anyway racist.You're first clue for your work: So far, you've failed...badly.

Perhaps this slight correlation is more than drowned out by other factors? Such than when comparing A's with one another, there is no way to tell if the large size is due to a larger olfactory bulb or a larger memory/temperature regulation/visual perception/language/ etc node? Even perhaps general fatty tissue/water content has some impact.However, when comparing As with Bs we note that A's brain is bigger because they all have an enlarged olfactory bulb compared with the Bs. I thought the same thing as you though Ned, and after a ponder, that was the conclusion I came to.