Is Evolution Racist?

[john crawford]

One must differentiate between evolution and Social Darwinism.

Social and Racial Darwinism are premised on Darwinist theories of evolution since sexual and racial selection are inherent aspects of natural selection and an intrinsic part of the theoretical role selection plays in the adaptation, survival and extinction of species.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Ok, lets say for a moment that evolution IS racist. How would that invalidate the theory scientifically? A scientific theory is an explanation based on observations. Does a scientific theory have to pass some kind of moral standard?

 

[john crawford]

Ok, lets say for a moment that evolution IS racist. How would that invalidate the theory scientifically?

The fact that theories of human evolution are inherently and intrinsically racist doesn't invalidate the general theory of evolution at all but merely points out that when applied to the origins and ancestors of various racial groups within our current 'species,' the mechanisms of natural selection include and are applied to, both sexual and racial selection. In other words, a human species can only evolve into another species by the process of raciation, (racial variation and diversity) which means that racial evolution through genetic isolation is the basis for one population within a species eventually becoming so genetically different from the rest of the species, that it can no longer breed with them, and by definition becomes another 'species.'

A scientific theory is an explanation based on observations.

Theoretically yes, but no speciation amongst humans has ever been observed. It is merely imputed or inferred in accordance with the demands of the theory when applied to humans.

Does a scientific theory have to pass some kind of moral standard?

The testing and applications of theoretical science certainly have to
be up to ethical standards imposed by Congress or some agency of government if necessary. Just like medical doctors and other professionals are.

 

[shernren]

Since the theoretical descendents of H. erectus do constitute racial groups today, claiming that today's Oriental and Caucasian races are equally descended from H. erectus in Africa alone, rather than in their own regions, is a racially bigoted perspective which may be considered racist towards Oriental and Caucasian racial groups today.

Yup, you guessed it, I'm even more confused. I hope you don't mind my insistent questioning. I know that this whole "Darwinism is racist" thing is rational to you, but it's irrational to me, and so I'm trying to understand why you find it rational in the slim hope that when I do I will also find out that it's rational to me.

So basically, you are saying that Darwinism in human evolution is racist because Orientals and Caucasians did not actually evolve in the regions they currently inhabit? In the first place, I find that what you said actually points to anti-racialism. I noticed that you used the phrase "equally descended" and it's actually important. Evolutionism claims and finds that humanity descended from one common stock, i.e. a monophyletic origin for humanity. If contrary to that, and per your expectations of a "not-racist" theory, humans had evolved separately from each other in separate different regions of the world, this polyphyletic origin would mean that different humans have a different genetic stock and therefore there might be some genuine, objectively measurable difference of superiority between races.

Right?

Is it degrading to be born somewhere different from where you are living now? Then why is it degrading to suggest that Orientals and Caucasians evolved in Africa? It's just another place on the globe, right?

 

[john crawford]

Yup, you guessed it, I'm even more confused.

That's a good sign. Being certain in an age of uncertianty is a sign of conformity. Real scientists question what others take for granted.

I hope you don't mind my insistent questioning.

Not at all. The more questions the more answers and the more answers, the more questions. At least for the scientific mind.

I know that this whole "Darwinism is racist" thing is rational to you, but it's irrational to me, and so I'm trying to understand why you find it rational in the slim hope that when I do I will also find out that it's rational to me.

I am glad that you are interested in rational analytical thought and frown upon irrationality in such a nobel enterprise as 'science.' Perhaps we can analyze Darwinist theory rationally together in regards to human evolution and origins.

So basically, you are saying that Darwinism in human evolution is racist because Orientals and Caucasians did not actually evolve in the regions they currently inhabit?

The current Out of Africa Model suggests that recent Eurasians plus their modern descendents in America and elsewhere in the world, evolved out of African Homo sapiens who replaced all former Orientials and Caucasians (like the Neanderthals and Asian Homo erectus) by racially evolving into Orientals and Caucasians themselves thousands of years ago.

In the first place, I find that what you said actually points to anti-racialism.

Not sure what you mean here. Could you expand on that idea a bit?

I noticed that you used the phrase "equally descended" and it's actually important.

Yes, equal descent would necessitate all racial groups equally evolving from African apes at the same time as opposed to the current Out of Africa theory which maintains that only the first African 'species' of humans directly evolved from African apes 2 MYA while modern Orientals and Caucasians only evolved from fully human Homo sapiens 'recently.'

Evolutionism claims and finds that humanity descended from one common stock, i.e. a monophyletic origin for humanity.

That claim is called the single common ancestor theory upon which the Out of Africa Model was based in a scientific attempt to emulate the creationist Adam and Eve or Noahic Model of common ancestry. That approach doesn't work though, since historic humanity is polyphyletic insofar as it's members may be preceived as consisting of various species, subspecies or racial varieties.

If contrary to that, and per your expectations of a "not-racist" theory, humans had evolved separately from each other in separate different regions of the world, this polyphyletic origin would mean that different humans have a different genetic stock and therefore there might be some genuine, objectively measurable difference of superiority between races. Right?

Evaluating the evolutionary differences between historic 'species' and races of humans has always been the sole profession of a variety of anthropologists and other scientific specialists in biological and 'cultural' observations. Far be it from me to say whether modern Anglo-Saxon Darwinists are superior to the people of the Bunlap Tribe of South Pentacost in Vanuatu.
http://www.vanuatu.net.vu/ntopages/outerislandswtd.html

Is it degrading to be born somewhere different from where you are living now?

Of course not.

Then why is it degrading to suggest that Orientals and Caucasians evolved in Africa?

Because, despite the fact that many people of Oriental and Caucasian origins and descent have actually been born in Africa recently, none of their original ancestors evolved into Orientals or Caucasians there.

It's just another place on the globe, right?

Africa is a special place, like every other continent on the globe, and only people of true African descent have the right to claim Africa as the place of their ancestral origin. What's wrong with Orientals and Caucasians claiming Asia as the continent of their origin alone, and leave African people alone to claim Africa as their their ancestral home? Besides having been colonial and cultural imperialists in the past, must Darwinist Anglo-Saxons also claim Africa as part of their biological and ancestral territory as well?

 

[lismore]

...

I guess I wasn't clear enough with what I was saying; I should have started with assuming evolution is true, it still isn't racist. Evolution merely asserts a particular historical order of events; what significance evolutionists want to assign to that historical order is their private business and reflects nothing good or bad about evolution itself.

.

If people come up with a theory like evolution theory and summarise of particular 'historical events' well you can confirm or reject the theory by looking at historical primary sources. As the historical primary sources, like the jewish scriptures, forcefully reject evolution theory we can say its a historical theory that is unsupported by the records. If then its an unsupported theory, unsupported by historical evidence, that states false claims in the area of race then yes it is racist. This afterall was what Hitler did with his Aryan myths.

 

[Dannager]

If people come up with a theory like evolution theory and summarise of particular 'historical events' well you can confirm or reject the theory by looking at historical primary sources. As the historical primary sources, like the jewish scriptures, forcefully reject evolution theory we can say its a historical theory that is unsupported by the records. If then its an unsupported theory, unsupported by historical evidence, that states false claims in the area of race then yes it is racist. This afterall was what Hitler did with his Aryan myths.

It is then unfortunate for your argument that evolutionary theory is not based on historical documents, but rather archaeological evidence and scientific study. In fact, no scientific theory is required to have the support of historical documents. If this were true, we would still have to hold that the sun orbits the earth, since people once wrote that it did.

 

[lismore]

It is then unfortunate for your argument that evolutionary theory is not based on historical documents, but rather archaeological evidence and scientific study. In fact, no scientific theory is required to have the support of historical documents. If this were true, we would still have to hold that the sun orbits the earth, since people once wrote that it did.

Unfortunately Archaeology and historical documentation is a massive thorn in the side of evolution theory. How can a theory say it has the answer to origins if it contradicts actual written evidence of what origins are? And also archaeological evidence?

What do I mean? If you look at Archaeology, there is no evidence that the earliest people were less clever or developed than us, we have had more time to play with technology, but humans appeared as intelligent as we are today. There is no human remains dug up that had less ability than yourself. They were created perfect.

Evolution theory says humans started in Africa, archaeology says the first humans lived in the middle east: Armenia and Iraq.

At the same time that some people chose to live in caves, others were building complex observatories for observing planetary motions. Indeed, people choose to live in caves today:o .

The bible writes about a creative act by a powerful God. The Jews say it was Moses, a man who spent 40 days with God face to face that penned these words. Jesus and Paul say nothing to suggest that Genesis is crap. If the earliest followers of YAHWEH wrote about his creation, then this is indeed the idea they wished to express.

We are stuck with the fact that the writing in the bible, inspired or directly written by God do not support the greek/ evolution theory model.

 

[shernren]

Don't quote-mine me, john, I'm not worth the trouble. I was not confused and questioning rationality towards science itself but towards your attitudes towards it.

What I see in your latest reply, especially the last part, is that you think evolutionism is racist because it is an attempt to trace humanity's origins back to Africa, instead of back to America or to Asia or wherever the races currently occupy. There is a comparison between current observations / claims that Africa is the homeland of all humans and historical actions of colonialism against Africa. ... to be frank, I find that ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as saying that I should claim Malaysia as my homeland and leave China for the Chinese mainlanders, and to do otherwise and acknowledge my Chinese ancestry is to be "racist" and to be "degrading to Chinese" and to exhibit neocolonist tendencies.

Further up in your post you seem to say that humanity indeed has a polyphyletic origin. Hopefully I read wrong. Otherwise, I await a genetic and Scriptural support of that opinion. It seems to me that a polyphyletic theory of human origin would be the perfect springboard towards racism. A racist might be able to justify his racism by saying that "Africans evolved from a more impoverished stock in a poor land, while us Anglo-Saxons evolved from rich stock in a good land". However a monophyletic origin of man prevents anyone from saying that because it claims that everyone evolved from the same place, from the same gene pool, and therefore there is no question of whether Africans "have better origins" or worse than anyone else.

Since I found my opinions to be rather misrepresented in your post, I suppose it will be no great insult to possibly misrepresent yours in what follows. This is entirely my speculation about your subconscious reasons for your perception that evolution is racist. Seriously, I am trying my utmost best to understand why you feel the way you do and I can't come up with anything better than this based on your replies. I understand that my posting this may be against forum rules and I will retract it if asked to. But I really have to say this to point out what your belief seems to signify to me and to encourage you to prove me wrong.

To me, it seems the Out-Of-Africa theory seems racist and dirty to you because it suggests that you came out of Africa. Africa, that savage and wild continent. Africa the "heart of darkness" as Conrad described it. Africa the enslaved land, Africa the land of voodoo and spiritism, Africa the land of primitive humans. It seems impossible to imagine that you came from an African. A white descended from a black? No way! Better to imagine that Africa is one branch and Anglo-Saxony another branch, than to imagine that Africa is the root and Anglo-Saxony a branch - which is itself a wrong understanding of evolution.

That is the only sensible thing I can think of behind your objection that evolution is racist. I say that because to me, the creationist idea that all mankind descended genetically from Noah and geographically from the Middle East is completely subject to the same objections you raise - that all Africans and Caucasians evolved from Mediterraneans; and in the Medit instead of in their respective homelands, representing a neocolonialist claim on the Mediterranean.

 

[lismore]

Ok, lets say for a moment that evolution IS racist. How would that invalidate the theory scientifically? A scientific theory is an explanation based on observations. Does a scientific theory have to pass some kind of moral standard?

A 'theory' that is 'racist' would be illegal under the laws of all civilised nations, except those with a vested interest in keeping the theory going.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Evolution theory says humans started in Africa, archaeology says the first humans lived in the middle east: Armenia and Iraq.

You really should pick up a history book some time. There is no contradiction between archaeology and evolution as you put it ( I think you mean to say paleontology instead of evolution).

Archaeology had shown that the first URBAN CIVILIZATIONS occured in the middle east - Turkey to be exact NOT the furst humans. If you actually pick up a history book you will plainly see that archaeologists readily accept that the humans lived on all six inhabited continents for a long long time before the first towns were built. Archaeologists also clearly claim that the earliest human tools and remains are to be found in Africa.

 

[lismore]

You really should pick up a history book some time.

.

When I was at university studying it, thats one thing I never did.

There is no contradiction between archaeology and evolution as you put it ( I think you mean to say paleontology instead of evolution).

Archaeology had shown that the first URBAN CIVILIZATIONS occured in the middle east - Turkey to be exact NOT the furst humans. If you actually pick up a history book you will plainly see that archaeologists readily accept that the humans lived on all six inhabited continents for a long long time before the first towns were built. Archaeologists also clearly claim that the earliest human tools and remains are to be found in Africa.

Actually the latest urban settlements found in Armenia and iraq have been dated before anything in Africa. The earliest remains in Africa that can be dated are in Egypt, over on and past the east bank of the Nile. These include carvings of what may be a wooden boat. These settlers left middle eastern artefacts in these Egyptian sites. Apparently the first settlers in Africa came over the Red Sea by boat then walked accross the Egyptian desert to the Nile and spead out from there.

Sorry to disillusion you- you cant always fit the world in with what you want.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

You didn't disillusion me at all. It is simply obvious that you didn't read my post. Either that you you simply don't understand the difference between an urban settlement and human remains.

For most of human history humans lived as nomadic hunters and gatherers. I clearly said in my post that the first urban settlements are in the middle east (you say Armenia, I say Turkey, specifcally Catalhoyuk, - but they are both in the middle east). Those are URBAN SETTLEMENTS. I agree that URBAN SETTLMENTS in the middle east predate those in Africa. My post does not say otherwise.

If you actually read and understand what I said it is that HUMAN REMAINS AND ARTIFACTS demonstate that humanity had its origins in Africa.

Human remains and artifacts are bones and stone tools and are not necessarily related to urban settlement and farming.

Do you understand the difference between a town of permantent dwellings and a wandering group of nomands?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]World’s oldest human remains unearthed in Ethiopia[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12 - Jun - 2003[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] ADDIS ABABA, 12 June (IRIN) - The world’s oldest human remains, unearthed in Africa, may finally solve the puzzle of the origins of man, scientists said on Wednesday.

The 160,000-year-old fossils, the oldest ever Homo sapiens and excavated in a remote region of Ethiopia, appear to prove that the continent was the cradle of humanity, the scientists said.

"This is the definitive answer to whether humans evolved from Africa," archeologist Dr Berhane Asfaw told a news conference in Addis Ababa. "We are waiting to be proved wrong," he said.

http://www.warmafrica.com/index/geo/9/cat/1/a/a/artid/244

Sorry to burst your bubble. It appears that there is indeed no conflict between achealogy and paleontology (evolution) as you claim, and also that archaeologists insist that humans - modern humans - originated in Africa, contrary to what you claim.

Exactly what history book did you read??????

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It is not only archaeologists and their close partners, paleontologists, who provide evidence for and Arican origin of Homo sapiens. Geneticists also confirm this theory.

Genetic studies of mitochondrial DNA in modern human populations demonstrates an African genesis for humanity. The colored/numberd legend indicates thousands of years.

 

[lismore]

Sorry to burst your bubble. It appears that there is indeed no conflict between achealogy and paleontology (evolution) as you claim, and also that archaeologists insist that humans - modern humans - originated in Africa, contrary to what you claim.

Exactly what history book did you read??????

I dont read books- just an ignorant country bumpkin spouting off from my religous crutch .

The oldest Archaeological remains in Africa are Wadi Hammamat In Egypt excavated by Prof Hans Winkler. These were the remains of people moving from Uruk via the Red Sea into Egypt and thence into Africa. Man did not originate in Africa.

The earliest remains of all time, dateable with certainty are from the 1987 dig in Armenia near the shore of lake Urmia you can read the article by R.A Walker from that year.

The problem if you read books filtered by rabid fanatics whose earnings depends on evolution theory is that they will leave out all evidence that does not support their world view. You would be better advised reading the journals and report of digs direct from the authors rather than filtered propaganda garbage.

 

[john crawford]

What I see in your latest reply, especially the last part, is that you think evolutionism is racist because it is an attempt to trace humanity's origins back to Africa, instead of back to America or to Asia or wherever the races currently occupy.

If evolutionists traced African ancestry back to Asia or America, I would accuse them of racism also. Who are evolutionists to tell people where their ancestors originated from, if not for the fact that they were originally a bigoted bunch of fundamentalist Anglo-Saxon Darwinists who demanded that all races confess their unholy origins from African apes and monkeys?

Further up in your post you seem to say that humanity indeed has a polyphyletic origin. Hopefully I read wrong. Otherwise, I await a genetic and Scriptural support of that opinion.

Whether humanity has polyphyletic origins or is a polytypic species may only be determined by taking into consideration the fact that humanity is currently composed of 3, 4 or 5 various subspecies commonly referred to as racial variants within the human race. Racial denial on the part of modern evolutionists is equivalent to species denial within the human race by creationists.

It seems to me that a polyphyletic theory of human origin would be the perfect springboard towards racism. A racist might be able to justify his racism by saying that "Africans evolved from a more impoverished stock in a poor land, while us Anglo-Saxons evolved from rich stock in a good land".

Yes, that's true and is also the main reason that Darwinists tried to distance themselves from the Multiregional Continuity Model of human evolution which existed up till the time that Carlton Coon wrote his "Origin of Race' which showed how racist, theories of human evolution really are.

However a monophyletic origin of man prevents anyone from saying that because it claims that everyone evolved from the same place, from the same gene pool, and therefore there is no question of whether Africans "have better origins" or worse than anyone else.

Yes, but a monophyletic origin of man is physically impossibe, scientifically, because racial subspecies need to first evolve within a human species in order for a "naturally selected" subspecies within a human species to genetically evolved into a new human 'species.'

Can you imagine one genus evolving into another genus with no intermediate species in either genus. The same evolutionist criteria exists for one species evolving into another. There have to be subspecies, and in the case of Man, racial diversity and variety.

 

[shernren]

So isn't it racist to trace all man back to Noah at Ararat?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I dont read books- just an ignorant country bumpkin spouting off from my religous crutch .

The oldest Archaeological remains in Africa are Wadi Hammamat In Egypt excavated by Prof Hans Winkler. These were the remains of people moving from Uruk via the Red Sea into Egypt and thence into Africa. Man did not originate in Africa.

The earliest remains of all time, dateable with certainty are from the 1987 dig in Armenia near the shore of lake Urmia you can read the article by R.A Walker from that year.

The problem if you read books filtered by rabid fanatics whose earnings depends on evolution theory is that they will leave out all evidence that does not support their world view. You would be better advised reading the journals and report of digs direct from the authors rather than filtered propaganda garbage.

It is very very important that the tinfoil for your hat have the shiny side in and not out.

 

[john crawford]

So isn't it racist to trace all man back to Noah at Ararat?

No, because we don't know the racial origins or background of Noah and his wife, his three sons or their wives, and it is more feasible that the genetic potential for the racial variation we observe in the world today be traced back, accounted for and attributed to 4 couples of unknown racial backgrounds than to one couple within one distinct racial group or tribe in Africa.