OrderedChaos

yygke,

I would like to know just what your defintion of "race" is. Do you consider the color of somebody's skin to deterime their race? If that is the case, do you consider an African and an Australian aborigine to be of the same race? That would be rather absurd seeing as how they come two very different places and two very different lineages. What deterimes a persons skin color is the concentration of the pigment melanin in their skin. So the difference between a person with white skin vs a person with black skin is only a matter of how much melanin they have. I don't know about you, but I don't think that is a good way to judge who is better, neither does evolutionary thinking.

If you take a closer look at the human species, you will see that we don't fit into anything as clear defined as race. Several people have tried to do such classifications, but nobody could agree on anything. Instead what is seen is a gradient of traits. There is no black and white, there is a gradual increase in darkness the closer one gets to the equater.

What nonsense. Look at a Chihuahua. Then look at a wolf. Kind of hard to believe that the little rat-dog is desended from the wolf. According to your logic, the chihuahua is superior to the wolf. Does that sound a little silly to you? If so, then you will see how silly your arguement seems to us.

Viti

To expand on this a bit...another canine the coyote which evolved either from or parallel to the wolf is a much more succesful species today due to its adaptabilty. Coyotes simply learned to live in ever changing environments and continue to thrive even though they are not a protected species. Does that make the coyote "better" or more highly evolved than the wolf?

Bialar Crais

Well, that the cradle of humanity is somewhere in Africa is one hypothesis, but how that would make africans 'less' than caucasians for instance I have a hard time to comprehened. As Optimist pointed out, having had the longest time to evolve, africans should be the 'most evolved ' no.

Of course, this is a moot point anyway. Evolution is a scientific theory, and thus does not give any more moral pointers that relativity does, or gravity. To argue that evolution breeds racism is equivalent to say chemistry tells us to become junkies ot that gravity tells us to push other people from cliffs/tall buildings.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if some moron have tried to justify their intolerance and racism with references to evolution, but that doesn't make evolution racist, as little as it makes quantum physics new age because some weirdos decides to write books about "Quantum Healing".

Arrowman

OK yygke, I've read through this thread and it seems to me that the denizens here have explained thoroughly and clearly why the assertion "evolution is linked to racism" is wrong in about 35 different ways. If you have read these posts, you should have learned something.

I can add nothing except perhaps to help you make your final response. Please choose from the following:

1. "Thanks, guys, for explaining that to me. I understand now that evolution and racism are not linked. I have learned something today."
2. "... " look, sorry, I can't bend my mind far enough to come up with the other response. You make it up.

Hint: One of the above responses comes from the open mind which is willing to learn. The other is from a YEC.

optimist

2 more things, not about evolution but how this tread was conducted.

1.) A little to much hostility. Remember, no such thing as a stupid question. I thought "Go back underneath your bridge, troll." was a little much, but Arrowman's post was rather enjoyable. Some good joking around is warranted, but vicious attacks are not.

2.) Well the hostility may have been slightly warranted in this case, because it wasn't in response to a question. At first I was going to commend yygke by phrasing his post in the form of a question and not a statement of fact. (i.e. If someone didn't know anything about the second law of thermodynamics they should not say, "Well evolution is impossible because the second law says so." If you heard something like that from someone, or from a book, but you didn't not know the reasoning behind it, the proper way to bring it up in conversation is, "well I heard something about the second law of thermodynamics denying evolution, what is its relationship with evolution? Or Why doesn't it deny evolution." You should not come off as if you’re an authority on the subject, if you’re a novice then don't be afraid to act like one. You surely know about things I don't know about, and so if I ventured into your field all my arguments would really be in the form of questions. When inside my domain of expertise I make assertions, outside of that I only ask questions)

yygke this was beautiful - "I want your guys thoughts on how evolution and racism can possibly not go hand in hand."

yygke this, I feel, was a bad way of presenting your question - "so it does have something to do with racism." The following may have been a better way of putting that, 'Does that somehow connect racism to evolution?'

yygke you don't know a lot about the workings of evolution, and that’s fine, but you need to come across more like you realize your not an expert. You will still get some hostility, but at least you will be in the right. You will have acted properly, and them wrongly. For my entire freshman year of physics all I asked was questions, "does this not deny that?" or "why does this not deny that?" but NEVER "hey, this absolutely denies that, so that has to be wrong" or "that’s wrong because of this."

yygke I look forward to your responce.

Oolon Colluphid

yygke, let me spell it out in (mostly) short words.

Evolution explains why there are races. It is about biology. It is a science.

Racism is a political position. It is about pushing a viewpoint. It is not a science.

Taking how the world is as a guide to how it should be is misguided (it’s the naturalistic fallacy). Even if Africans, say, were as ‘primitive’ as lorises or lobefinned fishes, this is not a reason to treat them any differently. That is a political decision -- and one based on a faulty understanding of evolution. Under evolution, nothing is more ‘evolved’ than anything else. If it is alive today, it is just as successful as every other living thing.

Evolution has been used to justify systems as different as communism and the free market. But the science has nothing to say about either, which is why it has to be distorted to support such differing views. That such differing views have used the same idea as their justification shows that the logic used is faulty.

Here is an <a href="http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/Bio/BIO181/BIOBK/BioBookTOC.html" target="_blank">Online Biology Textbook</a>. I suggest you read it, and see if you can spot any racism in it.

You should also note that the modern species Homo sapiens is genetically very homogeneous -- remarkably uniform. The differences, such as they are, are tiny. See for instance <a href="http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html" target="_blank"> Biological differences among races do not exist, WU research shows</a>.


I also note that despite being challenged to do so, you did not back up your claim in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000136" target="_blank">this thread</a>. It is still open; feel free to do so... or get back under your bridge.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Oh, I quite agree, in principle. But there is history here too. yygke has been here before, as he indicates, and the warm reception he received now is due to the long and thoughtful posts of many regulars previously being virtually ignored. Here are some previous threads, for you to see his performance.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001510" target="_blank">Let me break it down...</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001521&p=2" target="_blank">Domestic dog evolution</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001540" target="_blank">Just a little list...</a>

You should also know that 'yygke' is the abbreviated form of his handle, the mild and unprovocative 'Yep, you guys know everything'.

My own personal definition of a troll is a slight and subtle extension of the basic one, from 'posting simply to get angry responses', to 'posting something confrontational as if starting a discussion, but then buggering off, never replying to the objections raised... and then coming back later, apparently oblivious, and posting something different (but also confrontational etc)'. IOW, whether deliberately or not, wasting the time of everyone who goes to the effort of replying. Posts designed to provoke angry responses wash over me; people wasting my time provoke an angry response!

On previous form, Mr Yep is a troll... but we'll have to see if he’s reformed...

Oolon

RufusAtticus

I'm sorry you think we're being too hostile. But yygke has trolled here before. In case you don't know, is name means "Yep. You guys know everything," which he posted under before he got booted or lost his password. (I can't remember which.) We are aware of what yygke motives are and are not impressed.

-RvFvS

Bialar Crais

Oh, it's him. That would explain the, ehrm, intelligently posed question and the excellent follow-ups done by Mr Yygke...

Oolon Colluphid

It's definitely Mr Yep; I found those threads by a search on member number (though of course his screen name in them has changed automatically to the new version).

Oolon