Does evolutionary thought propagate racism?

[ranmaonehalf]

..By pointing this out I am not calling evolutionists racists. What I am suggesting is that evolution is a basis for many racists beliefs. Is it not?

racists can find a basis for anything so theres realy no point.
racists mainly find whatever excuse they want to back their claim.
the bible is often used , the mark of the beasts ect...

but realy hate can use any excuse they want.

 

[Aggie]

95%-96% is a more accurate because it takes into account insertions and deletions. The article you quoted from, seems to do the same for humans (it mentions "gains and loses of DNA"). You have to be very careful with these genetic comparisons, as they do not all measure % similarities the same.

If both articles are measuring the same thing, isn’t it accurate to say that the genetic variation within humans is greater than it is between humans and chimps? The article I quoted places the percentage of the human genome which has portions added or removed from it at 12%, around twice the size of the difference between humans and chimps that you gave.

I thought we were comparing differences between races within H. sapiens to differences between humans and chimpanzees? Also, I am not certain that you should base comparisons between canines solely on mtDNA. If indeed, there is more variation between dog breeds than between dogs and wolves, then the classification scheme should be changed to reflect this.

The problem is that all breeds of dogs can and do interbreed with one another, whereas wolves and coyotes never interbreed. (As far as I know, they can’t even be coerced into it in captivity.) Even if they’re genetically capable of interbreeding, this kind of behavioral reproductive barrier, along with the differences in behavior and anatomy, is considered enough to constitute a separate species.

The reason I brought this up isn’t because it’s relevant to what I said about humans and chimps, but because it supports my original point that having there be greater variation within ethnic groups of humans than between them is not a reason to say ethnic groups don’t exist. That is, unless you’re going to also say that wolves, dogs and coyotes also shouldn’t be considered separate species, despite the genetic differences being enough for there to be a reproductive barrier. This might be a better example of the problem with The Barbarian’s claim than humans and chimps are.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

dont u read the posts??? when u mean African negroes do u actually mean all of mankind??? And we did not descend from apes though we are closely related. I said this in another post but apes diverged from humans ancestral line about 5-8 million years ago. And the people who wrote the bible were probably racists in todays standards-but that doesnt mean all Christians are racists.

um... we did descend from other apes and we are apes....

 

[Split Rock]

If both articles are measuring the same thing, isn’t it accurate to say that the genetic variation within humans is greater than it is between humans and chimps? The article I quoted places the percentage of the human genome which has portions added or removed from it at 12%, around twice the size of the difference between humans and chimps that you gave.

OK, the article is saying that we used to say humans were 99.9% similar, but now we know it is more than that, because of indels and different levels of gene duplication. They said the same about humans and chimps, which is where the original 99% similarity came from, which has now been raised to 95-96%. It is not clear from the article what the equivalent is for intra-human comparisons. Just because 12% of the DNA has these indels, does not translate into a 12% difference over the entire genome.

The problem is that all breeds of dogs can and do interbreed with one another, whereas wolves and coyotes never interbreed. (As far as I know, they can’t even be coerced into it in captivity.) Even if they’re genetically capable of interbreeding, this kind of behavioral reproductive barrier, along with the differences in behavior and anatomy, is considered enough to constitute a separate species.

Well it all goers in to the definition of what a "species" is. For me, If two breeding populations cannot or will not interbreed, then they should be considered seperate species. This does not mean that wolves and dogs should necessarily be considered separate species, since they can interbreed. The genetic data just adds another rerason to think of them as the same species.

The reason I brought this up isn’t because it’s relevant to what I said about humans and chimps, but because it supports my original point that having there be greater variation within ethnic groups of humans than between them is not a reason to say ethnic groups don’t exist. That is, unless you’re going to also say that wolves, dogs and coyotes also shouldn’t be considered separate species, despite the genetic differences being enough for there to be a reproductive barrier. This might be a better example of the problem with The Barbarian’s claim than humans and chimps are.

Well, ethnic groups certainly exist. There is some use in considering ethnic groups, for example, some have higher risks for certain illnesses than others, etc. Nevertheless, these ethnic groups are not separate entities, especially nowadays, with our global civilization. While in the past, there were many human populations that formed truly isolated breeding groups (such as Japan, certain tribes in Africa, etc.) this is now rare. One can look for certain genetic markers, but it can becomes arbitrary which are to be associated with which ethnic group, and which should not. An individual can have markers for muliple ethnic groups.. what do you do with them? Also, I would emphasize that if such groups interbreed with others, and individuals within a group vary more genetically than the groups themselves do, then the importance of such groups becomes questionable.

 

[Aggie]

Well, ethnic groups certainly exist. There is some use in considering ethnic groups, for example, some have higher risks for certain illnesses than others, etc. Nevertheless, these ethnic groups are not separate entities, especially nowadays, with our global civilization. While in the past, there were many human populations that formed truly isolated breeding groups (such as Japan, certain tribes in Africa, etc.) this is now rare. One can look for certain genetic markers, but it can becomes arbitrary which are to be associated with which ethnic group, and which should not. An individual can have markers for muliple ethnic groups.. what do you do with them? Also, I would emphasize that if such groups interbreed with others, and individuals within a group vary more genetically than the groups themselves do, then the importance of such groups becomes questionable.

I pretty much agree with this, with the qualification that because of the unique genetic traits associated with each ethnic group, it’s sometimes necessary to pay attention to a person’s ethnicity. This post from Gene Expression provides a kind of amusing example from the warning label on the drug Crestor:

People of Asian descent may absorb Crestor at a higher rate than other people. Make sure your doctor knows if you are Asian. You may need a lower than normal starting dose.

In any case, I was mostly responding to The Barbarian’s assertion that we should claim ethnic groups don’t exist at all. I think of the distinction between ethnic groups as being kind of like the distinction between colors: is turquoise a shade of blue or of green? It’s got a little of each of them in it. But the fact that the boundaries between colors are sometimes poorly-defined isn’t a reason to say that colors don’t exist.

 

[Split Rock]

I pretty much agree with this, with the qualification that because of the unique genetic traits associated with each ethnic group, it’s sometimes necessary to pay attention to a person’s ethnicity. This post from Gene Expression provides a kind of amusing example from the warning label on the drug Crestor:

This is a good example of what I was referring to with some health risks being greater for certain ethnicities.

In any case, I was mostly responding to The Barbarian’s assertion that we should claim ethnic groups don’t exist at all. I think of the distinction between ethnic groups as being kind of like the distinction between colors: is turquoise a shade of blue or of green? It’s got a little of each of them in it. But the fact that the boundaries between colors are sometimes poorly-defined isn’t a reason to say that colors don’t exist.

I agree. Though, in the future, I would predict that ethnic groups will become harder and harder to differentiate either morphologically, or genetically.

 

[USincognito]

racists can find a basis for anything so theres realy no point.
racists mainly find whatever excuse they want to back their claim.
the bible is often used , the mark of the beasts ect...

but realy hate can use any excuse they want.

That post was dated 17th April 2003, 05:05 PM and Crusader's last activity was in Sept 2007.

And Ben is Dead's last activity was in 2004.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

and its a resurrection spell level 7.. i failed my thread check and responded.. In all fairness there were several modifiers to the save, mainly including a +1 per reply after the resurrection.
I also failed my spot check on the first posts. (rolled a 1 for that check)

got to roll higher next time and do a standard spot check.

 

[BananaSlug]

I'm from South Carolina, located in the "Bible Belt." Believe me when I say that most of the people I know are vehemently against evolution but many of them are extremely racist. I know more Christians that are racist than Athiests that are racist. What does this say about Christianity? Nothing really.

 

[The Barbarian]

In any case, I was mostly responding to The Barbarian’s assertion that we should claim ethnic groups don’t exist at all.

The Barbarian never made such a claim. What I said is there are no biological human races. There are lots of ethnic groups. Jews, for example, are an ethnic group, but they share most of their genes with whatever people they live among. The Human Genome project has clearly shown that there is more genetic variation within any particular "race" you might define than there is between any such "races." Race is a cultural construct in humans. It has no biological basis. There are certainly some differences in genes between all populations, but you are as likely to be a close genetic match with a Tibetan as you are with someone in your own area.

That being so, any talk of biological human races is nonsense.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

<staff edit>

Evolution was used to justify the genocide of the American Indians.

The Darwinist fallacy is this: the white man has guns and the American Indian is a creationist savage, therefore On the Origin of Species morally justifies their extermination.

"If the tribal peoples actually represented Western origins at a much earlier time, it was exceedingly valuable that they should be studied intensely for clues about the nature and origin of human society. Consequently it was an injury to science and human knowledge to allow the [Darwinist] military to simply exterminate them." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

Today, evolution is used to say that only white Anglo-Saxon atheists are qualified to make scientific claims.

"Some efforts have already been made in a number of fields to investigate the knowledge of tribal peoples and incorporate it into modern scientific explanations. Thor Heyerdahl was one of the first people to show, by repeating the event, that ancient peoples could well have traveled by sea to various parts of the globe. I think partially as a result of his voyages a small group of anthropologists have now allowed that Indians, instead of marching four abreast over the mythical Bering land bridge, might have come by boat on a bay and inlet basis from the Asian continent to North America. Recognizing that Indians may have been capable of building boats seems a minor step forward until we remember that for almost two centuries scientific doctrine required that Indians come by land because they were incapable of building rafts. Polynesian voyages of considerable distances have now been duplicated, giving credence to the idea that Hawaiian tales of sea voyages were not superstitious ways of discussing ocean currents. Critical in this respect is the fact that Hawaiians would not be believed until a white man had duplicated the feat." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

"The bottom line about the information possessed by non-Western peoples is that the information becomes valid only when offered by a white scholar recognized by the academic establishment; in effect, the color of the skin guarantees scientific objectivity." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

"But even labeling a site as astronomical is an improvement, since it partially sidesteps the old stereotype of Indians being primitive and ignorant savages." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

"At the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Chicago in 1992, there was a panel presentation of a new field called 'zoopharmacognosy,' which is a term describing the use of medicinal plants by animals. The panel got a laudatory review in a Newsweek article, which described fearless scientists spying on sick animals and observing them using certain plants to cure themselves. A Duke University primatologist was quoted as saying, 'If these work for primates, then they are potential treatments for humans,' this insight apparently being a startling departure from ordinary scientific logic. The article quoted Harvard ethnobotanist Shawn Sigstedt suggesting that bears may have taught the Navajos to use a species of the Ligusticum plant, just as they had claimed! For Western peoples, the announcement of zoopharmacognosy may be an exciting breakthrough on the frontiers of science, but getting information from birds and animals regarding plants is an absurdly self-evident propostion for American Indians. It gives substance to the idea that all things are related, and it is the basis for many tribal traditions regarding medicinal uses of plants. The excitement illustrates a point made above: Why didn't people take Indians seriously when we said that animals and birds give us information on medicinal plants? Why is such knowledge only valid and valuable when white scientists document and articulate it?" -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

 

[The Barbarian]

<staff edit>

Evolution was used to justify the genocide of the American Indians.

That would be odd, because most of them were killed or displaced long before Darwin wrote his book.

The Darwinist fallacy is this: the white man has guns and the American Indian is a creationist savage, therefore On the Origin of Species morally justifies their extermination.

Darwin objected to such things. Indeed, in The Descent of Man he wrote:

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

"If the tribal peoples actually represented Western origins at a much earlier time, it was exceedingly valuable that they should be studied intensely for clues about the nature and origin of human society. Consequently it was an injury to science and human knowledge to allow the [Darwinist] military to simply exterminate them." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

As you see, Vinny was stuffed with prunes. Darwin was opposed to slavery, and decried what he saw as the extermination of primitive peoples.

Today, evolution is used to say that only white Anglo-Saxon atheists are qualified to make scientific claims.

Sounds interesting. I've been studying the theory for about 45 years now. Could you show me where evolutionary theory says that?

Some efforts have already been made in a number of fields to investigate the knowledge of tribal peoples and incorporate it into modern scientific explanations. Thor Heyerdahl was one of the first people to show, by repeating the event, that ancient peoples could well have traveled by sea to various parts of the globe.

Heyerdahl's adventures were remarkable, but investigators have since shown his theory was wrong. Pacific navigators made it to South America, not the other way around.

I think partially as a result of his voyages a small group of anthropologists have now allowed that Indians, instead of marching four abreast over the mythical Bering land bridge,

The evidence seems to indicate a very small group initially, with a few Pacific voyagers coming in from time to time.

Deloria had a lot of non-Christian religious baggage:

Deloria has been criticized for his embrace of American Indian creationism. Deloria often cited Christian creationist authors in support of his views relating to science. Deloria also relied on Hindu creationists such as Michael Cremo.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine_Deloria,_Jr.

 

[Tenka]

Evolution was used to justify the genocide of the American Indians.

The Darwinist fallacy is this: the white man has guns and the American Indian is a creationist savage, therefore On the Origin of Species morally justifies their extermination.

The figure in white robes is Darwin, I assume.

 

[TangledUpInGlue]

<staff edit>

What we refer to as races in human society, however, are not races in the biological sense. Humanity is too genetically homogeneous to be divided into separate biological races.

 

[BananaSlug]

<staff edit>

Evolution was used to justify the genocide of the American Indians.

Hardly. Manifest Destiny. Plus many Christians thought Native Americans did not have souls.

The Christian fallacy was this: the white man had guns and the American Indian is a non-Christian savage, therefore the Bible morally justifies their extermination.

I changed it to more accurately reflect what was actually happening.

"If the tribal peoples actually represented Western origins at a much earlier time, it was exceedingly valuable that they should be studied intensely for clues about the nature and origin of human society. Consequently it was an injury to science and human knowledge to allow the military to simply exterminate them." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

Again, I took out the brackets you put in to show what Vine Deloria actually said. If you read the bolded sentence, it shows he actually favored evolution.

Today, evolution is used to say that only white Anglo-Saxon atheists are qualified to make scientific claims.

What about Dr. Neil Degrasse-Tyson? Or Michio Kaku? Or the other non-European scientists?

"Some efforts have already been made in a number of fields to investigate the knowledge of tribal peoples and incorporate it into modern scientific explanations. Thor Heyerdahl was one of the first people to show, by repeating the event, that ancient peoples could well have traveled by sea to various parts of the globe. I think partially as a result of his voyages a small group of anthropologists have now allowed that Indians, instead of marching four abreast over the mythical Bering land bridge, might have come by boat on a bay and inlet basis from the Asian continent to North America. Recognizing that Indians may have been capable of building boats seems a minor step forward until we remember that for almost two centuries scientific doctrine required that Indians come by land because they were incapable of building rafts. Polynesian voyages of considerable distances have now been duplicated, giving credence to the idea that Hawaiian tales of sea voyages were not superstitious ways of discussing ocean currents. Critical in this respect is the fact that Hawaiians would not be believed until a white man had duplicated the feat." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

That does not disprove evolution. He is making the argument that it might have been possible for Native Americans to have arrived by boat rather than by the Bering land bridge.

"The bottom line about the information possessed by non-Western peoples is that the information becomes valid only when offered by a white scholar recognized by the academic establishment; in effect, the color of the skin guarantees scientific objectivity." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

"But even labeling a site as astronomical is an improvement, since it partially sidesteps the old stereotype of Indians being primitive and ignorant savages." -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

Yes I realize that Dr. Deloria was discussing the problems of scientific thought a long time ago. What does this have to do with evolution?

"At the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Chicago in 1992, there was a panel presentation of a new field called 'zoopharmacognosy,' which is a term describing the use of medicinal plants by animals. The panel got a laudatory review in a Newsweek article, which described fearless scientists spying on sick animals and observing them using certain plants to cure themselves. A Duke University primatologist was quoted as saying, 'If these work for primates, then they are potential treatments for humans,' this insight apparently being a startling departure from ordinary scientific logic. The article quoted Harvard ethnobotanist Shawn Sigstedt suggesting that bears may have taught the Navajos to use a species of the Ligusticum plant, just as they had claimed! For Western peoples, the announcement of zoopharmacognosy may be an exciting breakthrough on the frontiers of science, but getting information from birds and animals regarding plants is an absurdly self-evident propostion for American Indians. It gives substance to the idea that all things are related, and it is the basis for many tribal traditions regarding medicinal uses of plants. The excitement illustrates a point made above: Why didn't people take Indians seriously when we said that animals and birds give us information on medicinal plants? Why is such knowledge only valid and valuable when white scientists document and articulate it?" -- Vine Deloria Jr., historian, 1997

Maybe because many "white scientists" had done the same thing with the folklore of their country of origins. Maybe because the "white scientists" actually did the study to verify what the natives were doing. I still do not see any correlation between this and evolution. You are either a great poe or a horrible Christian.