Does evolutionary thought propagate racism?

[john crawford]

no, it isn't

[/size][/color][/font]its much more like
______________b
|
a ---|
|______________c

no, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor

europeans and africans evolved from a common human ancestor, although modern africans are likely more closely related to the common human ancestor than are europeans

What common ancestor? Adam or Australopithicus?

Take your choice.

 

[Arikay]

John, so are you saying you think blacks are a different species than whites?

 

[Jet Black]

Caucasians didn't evolve from African apes. Jet Black said that Negroes did.

negroes did evolve from apes, and SO DID WE.

monkenstick is technically more accurate than me, since apes are generally regarded as the branch of the primate line that split off to form the Pongidae. Nevertheless we do have a common ancestor that for all intents and purposes was similar to an ape. not that this says and awful lot, because we are pretty much neotenic apes too.

 

[monkenstick]

the most recent common ancestor of modern day europeans and africans was of course a homo sapiens

the most recent common ancestor of humans and "apes" depends on how many apes you want to include

if you're just talking about humans chimps then the common ancestor is likely most closely related to sahelanthropus tchadensis

 

[Jet Black]

What common ancestor? Adam or Australopithicus?

our common ancestors with negroes and mongoloids (I am assuming you are a caucasian) would have been human. all humans would in turn share a common ancestor with chimps that was a primate. The homonid line itself is pretty old, so any common ancestor with anything outside the homonid line would have been a long time ago.

 

[Jet Black]

the most recent common ancestor of modern day europeans and africans was of course a homo sapiens

the most recent common ancestor of humans and "apes" depends on how many apes you want to include

if you're just talking about humans chimps then the common ancestor is likely most closely related to sahelanthropus tchadensis

what would our common ancestor with the other great apes be though? primate is too early I think, and ape is too late, since we split off from the pongidae.

 

[Jet Black]

natural (sexual) selection.

what do you mean by this? specifically putting sexual in brackets like that.

 

[Jet Black]

John, so are you saying you think blacks are a different species than whites?

I am not entirely sure what he thinks, but since he started mentioning Noah, it all seems rather confusing now. He doesn't seem to grasp that the common ancestor of all humanity was a homo sapiens, and these evolved from the earlier homonids and so on. Quite how this is racist I am not too sure, and I cannot seem to do the kind of logical distortion in my head required, since it seems to be something along the lines of "we share a grandfather, therefore I am superior to you" which is odd to say the least.

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, right now it seems like he thinks that blacks and whites are different species, and even that whites are better than blacks, but I may be reading it wrong.

I am not entirely sure what he thinks, but since he started mentioning Noah, it all seems rather confusing now. He doesn't seem to grasp that the common ancestor of all humanity was a homo sapiens, and these evolved from the earlier homonids and so on. Quite how this is racist I am not too sure, and I cannot seem to do the kind of logical distortion in my head required, since it seems to be something along the lines of "we share a grandfather, therefore I am superior to you" which is odd to say the least.

 

[USincognito]

Caucasians didn't evolve from African apes. Jet Black said that Negroes did.

Caucasians are descendents of Shem, who in turn was descended from Noah.

You need to check your Bible commentaries. Caucausians (or Indo-Europeans if you prefer) are descended from Japheth according to Genesis.

Check out who Strongs considers the sons of Japheth to be:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1079431077-4653.html#2

 

[USincognito]

One more thought for John. I realize "back in the day" the usual parlance was "negro" (or worse), but these days "black" or "of African descent" makes you sound less like Orville Faubus in my head when I read your posts.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yeah, right now it seems like he thinks that blacks and whites are different species, and even that whites are better than blacks, but I may be reading it wrong.

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

 

[Data]

Yeah, right now it seems like he thinks that blacks and whites are different species, and even that whites are better than blacks, but I may be reading it wrong.

That's what I think, I was going to post it, but I didn't want to embarrass myself.

IIRC, research shows that there is no genetic difference between races, 'race' is only a prevalence of certain alleles in a population, when in reality those alleles occur everywhere.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since the completion of the human genome project, it's settled. There are no biological humans races now. Since there is more variation within any sort of "race" you can define, than there is between "races", it's clear that race is merely a cultural construct, and where you draw the lines (and how many lines you draw) depends on the culture.

 

[Split Rock]

Since the completion of the human genome project, it's settled. There are no biological humans races now. Since there is more variation within any sort of "race" you can define, than there is between "races", it's clear that race is merely a cultural construct, and where you draw the lines (and how many lines you draw) depends on the culture.

IT LIVES!!!!!!!!!

IT EATS THE BRAINS OF THE LIVING!!!!!!!!!

IT IS THE UNDEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Aggie]

Since the completion of the human genome project, it's settled. There are no biological humans races now. Since there is more variation within any sort of "race" you can define, than there is between "races", it's clear that race is merely a cultural construct, and where you draw the lines (and how many lines you draw) depends on the culture.

Not exactly: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html. (If you don’t have access to the New York Times, you can also read the article here, since it won a Pulitzer.)

For closely-related species such as chimpanzees and humans, there is also more variation within each species than there is between species. According to your argument, this means we should view species as a cultural construct also. Do you think we should?

This doesn’t mean the boundaries between races are always well-defined, just as the boundaries between species aren’t always well-defined (as in the case of ring species). And sometimes where the line gets drawn is somewhat arbitrary. But to conclude from this that no such distinctions exist at all is rather silly.

 

[USincognito]

Brains!

(though I will admit this is one of the most topically appropriate resurrections I've seen in a long time )

 

[Split Rock]

Not exactly: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html. (If you don’t have access to the New York Times, you can also read the article here, since it won a Pulitzer.)

For closely-related species such as chimpanzees and humans, there is also more variation within each species than there is between species. According to your argument, this means we should view species as a cultural construct also. Do you think we should?

This doesn’t mean the boundaries between races are always well-defined, just as the boundaries between species aren’t always well-defined (as in the case of ring species). And sometimes where the line gets drawn is somewhat arbitrary. But to conclude from this that no such distinctions exist at all is rather silly.

Where do you get this from the article you cited? It says individual humans are at least 99% identical in their DNA. The similarities between humans and chimpanzees are more like 95-96%, though it does depend on whether you include indels, etc.

 

[Aggie]

Where do you get this from the article you cited? It says individual humans are at least 99% identical in their DNA. The differences between humans and chimpanzees are more like 95-96%, though it does depend on whether you include indels, etc.

The part about human/chimp differences is from a different source; the article I linked to is just talking about differences between races existing on the genetic level in general. An article that talks about individual differences in human DNA is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6174510.stm . I’ll quote the most relevant part of the article:

It would seem the assumption that the DNA of any two humans is 99.9% similar in content and identity no longer holds.

The researchers were astonished to locate 1,447 CNVs in nearly 2,900 genes, the starting "templates" written in the DNA that are used by cells to make the proteins which drive our bodies.

This is a huge, hitherto unrecognised, level of variation between one individual and the next.

"Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA," said Matthew Hurles, of the UK's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.

"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome.

"The copy number variation that researchers had seen before was simply the tip of the iceberg, while the bulk lay submerged, undetected. We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals."

Also, the most current estimates of the difference between human and chimp DNA that I’ve seen place the number at around 99%. Where are you getting the 95-96% number?

EDIT: here’s an article that compares genetic differences between species and within species specifically: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html

Not only are the genetic differences within any one dog breed greater than the differences between any of them, the differences within a single dog breed, such as Chihuahuas, is actually greater than the genetic difference between two different recognized SPECIES of animals - wolves (Canis Lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans). To quote James Serpell’s The Domestic Dog:

Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings. (pp. 32-33)

So contrary to Wise there are larger genetic differences between a West African, a Northwest European, and an Northeast Asian, then there is between two separate species, a wolf and a coyote, or between a Shih Tzu and a German Shepherd. So if you think that that meaningless Lewontin 85-15 statistic about “within-between” is some sort of “scientific” debunking of functional genetic differentiation between humans (which is his whole fallacious point for making and disseminating it) I urge you to be consistent and make the same claim about the behavioral uniformity of wolves, coyotes, and Jack Russell Terriers, because the same fallacious logic should apply. Let’s see what happens in the Lewontin logic world when a coyote tries to hunt large prey, or a wolf tries to hunt solo for some small prey, or when Paris Hilton’s dog joins the police on a drug raid.

Heh, I just noticed that this information (which I found using Google) is from Jason Malloy again. It looks like he’s one of the best sources about these sorts of topics in genetics.

 

[Split Rock]

Also, the most current estimates of the difference between human and chimp DNA that I’ve seen place the number at around 99%. Where are you getting the 95-96% number?

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.

EDIT: here’s an article that compares genetic differences between species and within species specifically: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html

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.