Human evolution and inferior races

[shunyadragon]

Ah, so just dismiss the fact that racism was inherent to the theory from the beginning. I got it.

No, racism is not inherent in evolution in this context. Races are a Natural result of adaptation to environment, and in the human evolution did not compete against each other until modern history. Again lets work with recent academic sources on the academics of evolution.

[Roy]

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.

Dang. Maybe I should just turn the lights off and lie down under a blanket, since I obviously don't have much time left.

Unless - does TWeb qualify as a community? If so, the reboot may have saved my life...

Roy

[Cerebrum123]

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.

You can only get to your conclusion by ignoring the history, and ignoring the original source material. Science is just as driven by ideology of it's adherents as any other field. It always has been, and it always will be.

[shunyadragon]

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.

False, in science today is not 'idealized by many.' Unfortunately he is vilified, abused and misquoted by many today like you.

[shunyadragon]

Dang. Maybe I should just turn the lights off and lie down under a blanket, since I obviously don't have much time left.

Unless - does TWeb qualify as a community? If so, the reboot may have saved my life...

Roy

In terms of evolution no. I need a more coherent response in terms of the 'scientific evolution.' This is needed to respond. In particular recent references on how science does view 'natural selection,' 'race,' and superiority and inferiority in terms of survival of a species and evolution into varieties, subspecies, races, and species.

[phank]

You can only get to your conclusion by ignoring the history, and ignoring the original source material. Science is just as driven by ideology of it's adherents as any other field. It always has been, and it always will be.

No. In science conclusions are tentative, and based on the best fit to the CURRENT evidence. I know you have a vested interest in thinking science is ideological, but perhaps every now and then the fact that it WORKS might penetrate. If it were pure ideology, or unchangeable despite evidence, it might fit your desires better but it wouldn't be science.

You might reflect that science is actually done by people of all faiths, all political parties, all understandings of history. And ALL of these people are hostage to evidence and logic. Which is why there is only one science, on every aspect of which there is eventual convergence, and within which all disciplines are consilient.

Once again, science does NOT work by identifying and worshiping ancient authorities who knew very little. We can admire them as pioneers without being tied to their considerable ignorance and frequent errors. That's a religious approach, and it's completely different.

[seer]

Even if it is not based on race, in a godless universe there could not be ontological equality. Some are smarter, some are more athletic, some are more cunning or ambitious, some more lazy, more emotional, less emotional, etc... And I would think that these genetic traits could spread through isolated races. Nevertheless, even if they do not breakdown on racial lines, they would breakdown individually.

[Cerebrum123]

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.

No, I'm saying that evolutionary theory is inherently racist, because it's built on assumptions that lead to racism. You may not accept the conclusions, but you accept the assumptions. Like I said, you have to ignore history, and the source material to get to the position you are taking. There are very specific arguments as to why the different "races" should be said to be different "species", and if they were applied the same way as scientists currently* do to animals, and fossils, then you would get the same result as Darwin concluded.

No, racism is not inherent in evolution in this context. Races are a Natural result of adaptation to environment, and in the human evolution did not compete against each other until modern history. Again lets work with recent academic sources on the academics of evolution.

None of that refutes the scientific justification used by Darwin and Haeckel, and numerous other scientists through history to justify their racist conclusions. Even Stephen Jay Gould was able to admit that acceptance of the theory of evolution led to a vast increase in the scientific justification of racism.

Competition between groups is not needed for speciation, only separation, and adaption for a long enough period.

*Bone structure, geographic location, etc.

[Cerebrum123]

False, in science today is not 'idealized by many.' Unfortunately he is vilified, abused and misquoted by many today like you.

I am not "vilifying" him, I am showing who he actually was. You apparently are ignorant of his conclusions, and yourself are idolizing him, by protecting him from his own record. Perhaps not consciously, but that's what you are doing.

[phank]

Even if it is not based on race, in a godless universe there could not be ontological equality. Some are smarter, some are more athletic, some are more cunning or ambitious, some more lazy, more emotional, less emotional, etc... And I would think that these genetic traits could spread through isolated races. Nevertheless, even if they do not breakdown on racial lines, they would breakdown individually.

Measurements, to the extent that they are valid, are of course applied along all of these lines, and many others. And the findings are always that each group measures slightly differently on average, but that the amount of overlap is very large. There is no particular trait among these which is anywhere close to the exclusive property of any of these groups - all groups vary widely along all of them.

Ontological equality is a convention, not an observation. Societies find it convenient and workable to apply the same rules of behavior to everyone. Regardless of the individual religious beliefs of the members of those societies. The golden rule is universal across human societies, because given human nature generally, it's an excellent rule of thumb. It works because people are sufficiently similar to one another. And those similarities permit the convention of ontological equality, regardless of individual physical or mental variation.

[phank]

No, I'm saying that evolutionary theory is inherently racist, because it's built on assumptions that lead to racism.

Then I guess I don't know what you mean by racisim.

You may not accept the conclusions, but you accept the assumptions. Like I said, you have to ignore history, and the source material to get to the position you are taking.

??? What position do you think I'm taking then?

There are very specific arguments as to why the different "races" should be said to be different "species", and if they were applied the same way as scientists currently* do to animals, and fossils, then you would get the same result as Darwin concluded.

Can you be more specific. I know that there are physical variations more common in one group than another. Doctors are well aware of difference that have medical implications. Is that what you mean?

None of that refutes the scientific justification used by Darwin and Haeckel, and numerous other scientists through history to justify their racist conclusions. Even Stephen Jay Gould was able to admit that acceptance of the theory of evolution led to a vast increase in the scientific justification of racism.

I have read probably everything Gould ever wrote, and I don't recall anything like this. I recall him saying the opposite pretty regularly.

Competition between groups is not needed for speciation, only separation, and adaption for a long enough period.

Generally speaking, speciation has happened when populations no longer interbreed, even when presented with the opportunity to do so. This has apparently never been true of humans.

[seer]

Measurements, to the extent that they are valid, are of course applied along all of these lines, and many others. And the findings are always that each group measures slightly differently on average, but that the amount of overlap is very large. There is no particular trait among these which is anywhere close to the exclusive property of any of these groups - all groups vary widely along all of them.

This is all true, that is why the distinctions more likely runs on individual lines as opposed to racial lines.

Ontological equality is a convention, not an observation. Societies find it convenient and workable to apply the same rules of behavior to everyone. Regardless of the individual religious beliefs of the members of those societies. The golden rule is universal across human societies, because given human nature generally, it's an excellent rule of thumb. It works because people are sufficiently similar to one another. And those similarities permit the convention of ontological equality, regardless of individual physical or mental variation.

But ontological equality, in a godless universe, would be a legal fiction. No basis in the reality of our nature.

[Cerebrum123]

No. In science conclusions are tentative, and based on the best fit to the CURRENT evidence. I know you have a vested interest in thinking science is ideological, but perhaps every now and then the fact that it WORKS might penetrate. If it were pure ideology, or unchangeable despite evidence, it might fit your desires better but it wouldn't be science.

You might reflect that science is actually done by people of all faiths, all political parties, all understandings of history. And ALL of these people are hostage to evidence and logic. Which is why there is only one science, on every aspect of which there is eventual convergence, and within which all disciplines are consilient.

Once again, science does NOT work by identifying and worshiping ancient authorities who knew very little. We can admire them as pioneers without being tied to their considerable ignorance and frequent errors. That's a religious approach, and it's completely different.

Scientists are just as biased as anyone, and are just as subject to protecting their interests as anyone. They are just into politics as any other field. I have seen it for myself. Your little screed comes off as condescending, and naive at the same time. Which seems to be an unusual combination.

[Cerebrum123]

Then I guess I don't know what you mean by racisim.

That due to natural selection some races are superior, mentally, and often physically.

??? What position do you think I'm taking then?

One that denies the fact that racism, sexism, and other bad ideas were at the core of evolutionary theory, and expounded on in Darwin's own works.

Can you be more specific. I know that there are physical variations more common in one group than another. Doctors are well aware of difference that have medical implications. Is that what you mean?

Not only that, but due to certain practices* some races had extraordinary advantages over other races, especially in matters of intellect.

I have read probably everything Gould ever wrote, and I don't recall anything like this. I recall him saying the opposite pretty regularly.

In Ontogeny and Phylogeny he said "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory".

Generally speaking, speciation has happened when populations no longer interbreed, even when presented with the opportunity to do so. This has apparently never been true of humans.

I regularly see you claiming how "species" is necessarily a blurry term. When interbreeding has been brought up before, you usually point exactly to that same argument. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[rwatts]

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.

Every organism is inferior in some way to every other organism in the sense that, given a very specific environment, an organism is better adapted and thus likely to out reproduce every other organism that comes into that specific environment.

So perhaps the same could be said for humans. Thus, put me into the middle of a desert and my ability to survive will be far, far less than that of those who dwell in the desert and have for generations.