Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Human evolution and inferior races

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Human evolution and inferior races

    Okay, this is an honest question. In my admitted ignorance of the subject of human evolution, I'd like the experts in here to school me on how human evolution doesn't lead to the conclusion of superior and inferior ethnicities. IOW, I'm totally ignorant of how science explains the origin of ethnicities, so explain to me in layman's terms how certain races of people being genetically inferior (intellectually, physically, etc.) to other races is scientifically erroneous in the context of human evolution.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  • #2
    People have differing fitnesses to different climates, but even if somebody had a greater fitness to live in some places (i.e. as somebody with rather pale skin, I would not be particularly fit for a tropical climate) this is not to say that people are inherently inferior. Most people would agree that people who have disabilities are not inferior ontologically despite their genes not providing them with the most ideal physique. In any event, 1 Samuel 16:7 shows that physical appearance is only a concern for people and not for God.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      Okay, this is an honest question. In my admitted ignorance of the subject of human evolution, I'd like the experts in here to school me on how human evolution doesn't lead to the conclusion of superior and inferior ethnicities. IOW, I'm totally ignorant of how science explains the origin of ethnicities, so explain to me in layman's terms how certain races of people being genetically inferior (intellectually, physically, etc.) to other races is scientifically erroneous in the context of human evolution.
      From PBS:
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/da...eof/index.html

      The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" -- that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?"
      I think it is at least possible in theory - that some races, if they were isolated, could be genetically inferior - mentally or physically.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        People have differing fitnesses to different climates, but even if somebody had a greater fitness to live in some places (i.e. as somebody with rather pale skin, I would not be particularly fit for a tropical climate) this is not to say that people are inherently inferior. Most people would agree that people who have disabilities are not inferior ontologically despite their genes not providing them with the most ideal physique. In any event, 1 Samuel 16:7 shows that physical appearance is only a concern for people and not for God.
        Well sure KG, as Christians we believe that all men are God's image bearers, and there for ontologically equal - I don't see how that would be possible in a godless cosmos.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Well sure KG, as Christians we believe that all men are God's image bearers, and there for ontologically equal - I don't see how that would be possible in a godless cosmos.
          There would be no grounds for making any such judgments without God, of course. Bare scientific facts/observations cannot carry moral weight.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            Okay, this is an honest question. In my admitted ignorance of the subject of human evolution, I'd like the experts in here to school me on how human evolution doesn't lead to the conclusion of superior and inferior ethnicities. IOW, I'm totally ignorant of how science explains the origin of ethnicities, so explain to me in layman's terms how certain races of people being genetically inferior (intellectually, physically, etc.) to other races is scientifically erroneous in the context of human evolution.
            The term "genetically inferior" by itself is meaningless. Superior and inferior only have meaning when referenced to reproductive fitness in a particular environment. Humans who live at 14,000' in the frigid Andes have evolved to be shorter and stouter (such a shape retains heat better), have pale skin and lungs that can extract more oxygen from the thin air. People that live on the Savannah in Africa have evolved to be tall and thin (that shape dissipates heat the best) and have retained their dark skin as protection against UV. Neither is intrinsically genetically superior or inferior to the other.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              Okay, this is an honest question. In my admitted ignorance of the subject of human evolution, I'd like the experts in here to school me on how human evolution doesn't lead to the conclusion of superior and inferior ethnicities. IOW, I'm totally ignorant of how science explains the origin of ethnicities, so explain to me in layman's terms how certain races of people being genetically inferior (intellectually, physically, etc.) to other races is scientifically erroneous in the context of human evolution.
              Sean,
              short answer: different does not necessarily mean inferior.

              Long answer: differences in genetic make-up does mean that certain people are fitter in some circumstances. I don't have the Apo-A1 Milano gene, for example, and so am not as fit as some lucky bas-, um, Italians as regards the ability to thrive on a diet mainly composed of chocolate. Many westerners are lactose intolerant, and so would be less fit in a situation where milk was plentiful and other foods scarce. Some orientals have a genetic makeup that means they don't break down alcohol in their bloodstream as fast as most people, so they get drunk easily and quickly. Genetic makeup can also lead to differences in height, build, muscularity, bone strength, disease susceptibility, allergic reactions, life expectancy, arm length, ability to whistle, etc etc etc. Those features of a person usually referred to as race (i.e. skin/hair/eye colour, hirsuteness, facial feature shape) are genetically determined, and like the above examples, can lead to advantages or disadvantages depending on the circumstances. For example, a high level of melanin in the skin protects against sunburn and makes it easier to hide during the night. Some shapes of eyes/nose fare better in sandstorms. Some Africans tend to be naturally better at long-distance running, while Europeans better swimmers. However, most racial differences are superficial, and while there are correlations between race and some physical/mental traits (sub-Saharan Africans are more likely to have sickle-cell anaemia, for instance), there don't seem to be any legitimate correlations between race and physical/mental ability, and the genetic lottery is sufficiently random that any individual member of a race could not only be far from the mean value of any measurable trait, but have potential access to the full range available across humanity. Furthermore, how physically fit or mentally proficient or musically talented some-one is usually has far more to do with how much they exercise their body and their mind than it does to their genetics. So even if there was some racial difference in, say, mean IQ - and I'll stress again that there doesn't seem to be any - that would not mean that a specific individual of one race would automatically be superior to a specific individual of a different race. Finally, international travel and consequent inter-racial reproduction has led to such intermingling that racial boundaries are more a continuum than a discrete discontinuity. Finally, it's worth noting that those of mixed race are less likely to inherit two copies of recessive detrimental mutations, so until/unless humanity becomes fully racially intermingled, half-breeds are in that sense more likely to be genetically superior.

              Roy
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

              Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                From PBS:
                http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/da...eof/index.html



                I think it is at least possible in theory - that some races, if they were isolated, could be genetically inferior - mentally or physically.
                First, Eugenics and any related judgment as to who could be considered genetically inferior - mentally or physically would have no relationship to evolution. Eugenics and related criteria would be human determinations and not natural criteria.The natural process of evolution would determine the survival of individuals and populations due to 'Natural' environmental conditions, and competition for resources within a species and with other species. For example: cooperation and social structures are important to the survival of humans. Those individuals that cooperate more and are more compatable with social structures like families and communities would have more potential of surviving then do individuals and communities which do not.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  The term "genetically inferior" by itself is meaningless. Superior and inferior only have meaning when referenced to reproductive fitness in a particular environment. Humans who live at 14,000' in the frigid Andes have evolved to be shorter and stouter (such a shape retains heat better), have pale skin and lungs that can extract more oxygen from the thin air. People that live on the Savannah in Africa have evolved to be tall and thin (that shape dissipates heat the best) and have retained their dark skin as protection against UV. Neither is intrinsically genetically superior or inferior to the other.
                  That wasn't the conclusion of Charles Darwin, nor Ernst Haeckel who came to nearly every single conclusion Darwin did.



                  "I have occasion to do more than to allude to the amount of difference
                  between man and the anthropomorphous apes; for Prof. Huxley, in the
                  opinion of most competent judges, has conclusively shewn that in every
                  single visible character man differs less from the higher apes than
                  these do from the lower members of the same order of Primates.
                  "

                  "The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species
                  of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new.
                  Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been
                  maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers; for instance
                  by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Büchner, Rolle, &c.,[1] and
                  especially by Häckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work,
                  ‘Generelle Morphologie’ (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edit.
                  in 1870), published his ‘Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,’ in which he
                  fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before
                  my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it.
                  Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by
                  this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than
                  mine.
                  Wherever I have added any fact or view from Prof. Häckel’s
                  writings, I give his authority in the text, other statements I leave as
                  they originally stood in my manuscript, occasionally giving in the
                  foot-notes references to his works, as a confirmation of the more
                  doubtful or interesting points."

                  Source.

                  Let's see the kind of conclusions Haeckel came to in "History of Creation", which Darwin said confirmed his own views.

                  "The difficulties met with in classifying the different races or species of men are quite the same as those which we discover in classifying animal and vegetable species. In both cases forms apparently quite different are connected with one another by a chain of intermediate forms of transition. In both cases the dispute as to what is a kind or a species, what a race or a variety, can never be determined. Since Blumenbach’s time, as is well known, it has been thought that mankind may be divided into five races or varieties, namely: (1) the Ethiopian, or black race (African negro); (2) the Malayan, or brown race (Malays, Polynesians, and Australians); (3) the Mongolian, or yellow race (the principal inhabitants of Asia and the Esquimaux of North America); (4) the Americans, or red race (the aborigines of America); and (5) the Caucasian, or white race (Europeans, north Africans, and south-western Asiatics). All of these five races of men, according to the Jewish legend of creation, are said to have been descended from “a single pair”—Adam and Eve,—and in accordance with this are said to be varieties of one kind or species. If, however, we compare them without prejudice, there can be no doubt that the differences of these five races are as great and even greater than the “specific differences” by which zoologists and botanists distinguish recognised “good” animal and vegetable species (“bonæ species”). The excellent palæontologist Quenstedt is right in maintaining that, “if Negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would universally agree 306 that they represented two very excellent species, which could never have originated from one pair by gradual divergence.”

                  When talking about the "lower races" he had this to say.

                  "All Ulotrichi, or woolly-haired men, have slanting teeth and long heads, and the colour of their skin, hair, and eyes is always very dark. All are inhabitants of the Southern Hemisphere; it is only in Africa that they come north of the equator. They are on the whole at a much lower stage of development, and more like apes, than most of the Lissotrichi, or straight-haired men. The Ulotrichi are incapable of a true inner culture and of a higher mental development, even under the favourable conditions of adaptation now offered to them in the United States of308 North America. No woolly-haired nation has ever had an important “history.

                  Source.

                  Anyone reading these men honestly, can see that racism was inherent to the system. Other conclusions that they shared are much more frightening, although Darwin was far more subtle with his words than Haeckel, he was more of a politician in this area. Saying one thing, while meaning another.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    That wasn't the conclusion of Charles Darwin, nor Ernst Haeckel who came to nearly every single conclusion Darwin did.
                    Old flawed sources. They do not reflect the contemporary scientific view of evolution.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't think that citing the unconscious cultural racism of 150-200 years ago in Europe really addresses the question here. In science, one must come up with a definition of "superior" and "inferior" which can be measured in some objective way. One suggested way was suitability to the environment, and this can be measured. Citing the opinions of Europeans long long ago is a more religious approach - quoting an ancient authority rather than going out to observe direct relevant evidence.

                      I have read that there really isn't all that much regional variation in people - that if everyone were to be wiped out overnight except full-blooded Maoris in New Zealand, the surviving population would still retain over 80% of all human genetic variation.

                      So while some physiological differences are surely due to climate, I think much of the variation is simply drift and founders' effect, combined with a long period of very little intermixing. For example, I don't think that epicanthic folds are either harmful or helpful, just one aspect of variation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Old flawed sources. They do not reflect the contemporary scientific view of evolution.
                        Ah, so just dismiss the fact that racism was inherent to the theory from the beginning. I got it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          Ah, so just dismiss the fact that racism was inherent to the theory from the beginning. I got it.
                          No. Racism may have been cultural baggage for the theorist, but it's not inherent in the theory. And even if it were, it would not be retained in the theory if the exponentially growing body of subsequent evidence didn't support it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by phank View Post
                            I don't think that citing the unconscious cultural racism of 150-200 years ago in Europe really addresses the question here. In science, one must come up with a definition of "superior" and "inferior" which can be measured in some objective way. One suggested way was suitability to the environment, and this can be measured. Citing the opinions of Europeans long long ago is a more religious approach - quoting an ancient authority rather than going out to observe direct relevant evidence.

                            I have read that there really isn't all that much regional variation in people - that if everyone were to be wiped out overnight except full-blooded Maoris in New Zealand, the surviving population would still retain over 80% of all human genetic variation.

                            So while some physiological differences are surely due to climate, I think much of the variation is simply drift and founders' effect, combined with a long period of very little intermixing. For example, I don't think that epicanthic folds are either harmful or helpful, just one aspect of variation.
                            If you had actually read the sources you would see that they base their conclusions on their science. Darwin, who is practically idolized by many today, gave Haeckel the higher authority in the scientific matters, and confirmed them with his citations, of both Haeckel and others, and explains the science behind his conclusions.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              If you had actually read the sources you would see that they base their conclusions on their science. Darwin, who is practically idolized by many today, gave Haeckel the higher authority in the scientific matters, and confirmed them with his citations, of both Haeckel and others, and explains the science behind his conclusions.
                              Are you saying that the theory of evolution is inherently racist because some Europeans over 100 years ago had racial cultural assumptions? Science does not work by quoting and interpreting past authority figures. It works by going out and doing the legwork. And that legwork has shown that the theory has no racism. How can I communicate that science is a continuous process of correction, improvement, and refinement? If Darwin was wrong, then he was wrong. And in many ways, he WAS wrong. Science need not wallow in ancient error, because science has reality as a yardstick.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              2 responses
                              25 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post lee_merrill  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              57 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              28 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X