yygke

I've tried actually posting thoughts on this board in this past, only to be met with a whole bunch of stuff (stuff that is irrelevant to the topic) that I wish not revisit, so I'll let you guys start everything so I can't be blamed for anything inapropriate that may arise... So, basically, I want your guys thoughts on how evolution and racism can possibly not go hand in hand.

General Zod

Because they have nothing do do with each other.

RufusAtticus

You might want to check out my comments in this thread.

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000132" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000132</a>

Here is something I've said before on II.
---------
Peter,

You claim that evolutionary biology or "Darwinism," as you call it, can be used to support racist ideas. What does this have to do with its scientific validity? EB can also be used to show that there is no such thing as a "superior" population. Every population has both negative and positive features. They are locally adapted and the notion that one is universally superior then the others can hardly be supported by available evidence.

Ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) has shown that most populations that persist and grow do so not by killing of the competition, but by surviving events that kill of the competition and expanding into the newly opened habitats.

It has also shown that all humans are related, that no population is more blessed by a creator than any other one, and that characteristics are not the result of past curses.

On the surface, "Darwinism" can be used to support many philosophical arguments because evolution is the unifying concept of biology that explains the diversity of life. Though, in actuality, the evidence can only support some of these philosophies and racism is not one of them.

-RvFvS

tronvillain

Why don't you give us your thoughts on how evolution and racism do go hand in hand?

yygke

Well, one model of human evolution asserts that people started as african, then european, then latin, then asian.
So, that would make one race (black people), out to be less than another (asian, for instance), so it does have something to do with racism.

optimist

Evolution sometimes brings up controversial truths we don't like to think about. Differences between males and females for example. We want the sexes to be the same. But there are differences between them. To a lesser extent there are differences between races. It however is no excuse to discriminate against someone. Even if a poll showed 90% of some ethnic group was involved in criminal activity, it would not justify you not hiring someone of that ethnic group. You have to look at the actual person interviewing for the job.

Secondly, if anything, the evolutionary advantages are in the member's of the third-world nations favor. Natives to New Guinea have a higher intelligence, on average, than your average American. If there was a white guy and a black guy standing in front of me in Africa, and I had to guess who had the higher intelligence… I would pick the black. However that is only if I had no other information about the two. If I was hiring for a job I would be stupid to pick by racial percentages. I would give the two an IQ test then (not that IQ tests are very reliable). The color does not cause the higher or lower IQ, but being a native of New Guinea does. In a nation where you must be smart or die, the average IQ of the nation rose. While here in America the standard is lower thanks to great programs that help the lower end of our gene pool survive. A retarded child has a far less chance of surviving in New Guinea or any third-world nation then in America.

It is sad some racists might exploit evolution to try supporting their cause, just as it is sad to see creationist exploiting science to support theirs.

"Well, one model of human evolution asserts that people started as african, then european, then latin, then asian. So, that would make one race (black people), out to be less than another (asian, for instance), so it does have something to do with racism."

No. I don't see the connection here at all. Africans where first and so had the longest time to evolve, should that not make them better? It doesn't because evolution does not always favor those who spend the longest time in existence. Evolution favors those who have to overcome adversity, and luck plays a part in it too. As I spoke above, in nations where war, strife, and famine are rampant, evolution and natural selection are most likely to occur.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Maybe you should go back to school. Your model is completely wrong. For instance American Indian populations are descended from "Asian" (the correct term is Mongolian) peoples.

Anyways this only supports racism in your warped interpretation. Actual scientists don't see it that way. Just because Europeans are descended from Africans does not mean that Africans are less evolved or more primitive than Europeans. What ingredient are you missing? The fact that all humans, including Africans, are continously evolving. Thus since the out-of-Africa bottleneck, both African and non African populations have been evolving with considerable gene migration between most ethnic groups.

Go back underneath your bridge, troll.

-RvFvS

Chilli

yygke:

I think you may have a misinformed view of what evolution does. Just because populations change traits over time does not make the more recent ones superior. There is no such thing as one species being -more evolved- than another. Natural selection is very enviroment specific; one species may do better on one side of a mountain range while another does better on the opposite side. Neither of these two species would be better than the other, just different.

I`m not sure how this would apply to the extremely minor differences between peoples of different cultures. Our differences are caused by different social and political structures, not by anything to do with biology. Hell, I`ve heard that biologists are not even using the concept of race anymore because genetically we are essentially the same.

Can Evolutionary Theory be misused to promote racist ideas? Of course, just like nearly anything else (you could use the theory of gravity to discriminate against heavy or light people). Does that affect the validity of the Theory? Not in the slightest.

optimist

"There is no such thing as one species being -more evolved- than another. Natural selection is very enviroment specific; one species may do better on one side of a mountain range while another does better on the opposite side."

Important point, but there are "more evolved" species relative to a particular enviroment. With two species on the same side of the mountain, one is can be more adept to survive the other. But of course even on the same side of the mountain, you have not better but different species evolved to occupy different nitches.

"you could use the theory of gravity to discriminate against heavy or light people."

I love this example!

Daggah

Organisms and species do not evolve to be "better" or "worse" - only better adapted to their current environment. The actual genetic differences between the various "races" is incredibly slim - according to evolution, we are all, in fact, human, and our continued division of the various races is merely a product of continued human tradition. Under an evolutionary perspective, the difference between white and black, caucasian and asian, or what have you is so insignificant that it's hardly worth making a distinction over. We're all human.