What's racist about Darwin?

[The Barbarian]

Darwin believed Africans and Australian Aborigines and those with dark skin were closer, biologically, to gorillas/apes than those with lighter skin color.

Evolutionary theory has since the 1840s, found that there are no biological human races. The final nail in the coffin of racist creationism was by the Human Genome Project, which closed any possibility of resurrecting that idea. There is more variation within any human "race" you might define, than there is between "races." Race is merely a social construct.

Today the vast majority of those involved in research on human variation would agree that biological races do not exist among humans. Among those who study the subject, who use and accept modern scientific techniques and logic, this scientific fact is as valid and true as the fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun.
There Is No Such Thing as Race

On the other hand, many creationist leaders have held on to those old racist notions.

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
...
Neither Negroes nor any other Hamitic people were intended to be forcibly subjugated on the basis of this Noah declaration. The prophecy would be inevitably fulfilled because of the innate natures of the three genetic stocks, not by virtue of any artificial constraints imposed by man.”
Institute for Creation Research Founder Henry Morris The Beginning of the World 1992

This is not true of every creationist, of course. Many creationists today have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism. But many still do accept the idea of human races and the inferiority of some. It's no coincidence that creationism is still most common where Jim Crow was law for so long.

The inference is that the more dark you are, the less intelligent you are. This assumption was just based on skin color, not character, not your accomplishments, not who you are as a person, etc. but just on skin color and a perverse reconstruction of Scripture.

IMHO, this qualifies as racism in anyone's book.

It's no coincidence that among the most enthusiastic eugenics supporters were YE creationists like Tinkle and Morris, even long after evolutionists like Punnett had shown the who idea to be foolish and unscientific. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Science differentiates from 21 different species of man. It suggests that up to 9 have walked the earth at the same time. Today there is one.
What happened? Can the principles of evolution explain this? Survival of the fittest. Natural selection?

 

[The Barbarian]

Science differentiates from 21 different species of man. It suggests that up to 9 have walked the earth at the same time. Today there is one.
What happened? Can the principles of evolution explain this? Survival of the fittest. Natural selection?

Sure. H. habilis, for example, was adapted to be more capable at climbing and less efficient at walking. These humans were so transitional to earlier hominids that it has been suggested that they be moved to the genus Australopithecus or given a genus of their own. While they did use crude stone tools, their relatively less efficient movement over the growing savanna made them less fit than other contemporary humans like H. ergaster.

It's not known for certain if Neanderthals were our own species or a very closely related human species. But for whatever reason, they did not progress toolmaking to the level that anatomically modern humans did, nor did they develop projectile weapons.

The structure of their shoulders seems to have made throwing difficult. And this put them at a disadvantage to our particular subspecies/species, who used all sorts of throwing spears, atlatls and boomerang-like throwing clubs.

So there's considerable evidence for anatomical, neurlogical differences that resulted in the survival of only one species of humans.

Our people were just better at hunting and could more efficiently use resources. It's unlikely that we exterminated them; we now know that our people interbred with Neanderthals frequently enough to have given modern humans a lot of Neanderthal genes.

It was almost certainly a matter of better utilizing food sources.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Thanks... but I am not sure that really answers the question. Why did these 8 species, after hundreds of thousands of years of parallel development, suddenly all disappear. Leaving only one.
I am not doubting or questioning... just seeking. Did evolution have a part in this? Was it maybe a "racial war" between them all? Again, I am not suggesting or implying anything. Just seeking an answer. As a TE... I think there may be some interesting developments that took place after the "gods" made "man in our image." I lean toward the idea that the "gods" as in a "council" of divine beings choose one of the afore mentioned species to "upgrade." The one they choose to upgrade may have immediately gone to war with the rest... and goodbye to them.
Next stage, God created Adam and Eve in the garden. Their children mixed with the "upgraded" humans of the old earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks... but I am not sure that really answers the question.

I guess if you think lowered fitness isn't a problem for survival. But it generally is. Being unable to move about as efficiently as other species of humans was a definite problem for H. habilis, and failing to use projectile weapons (likely because of a shoulder structure that made throwing difficult) was certainly a liability for Neandertals. Notice that it wasn't really a problem until other species of humans were in the area.

Then it mattered. Fitness counts only in terms of the environment.

Why did these 8 species, after hundreds of thousands of years of parallel development, suddenly all disappear.

Neanderthals were around for a very, very long time. And they hung on for a very long time (albeit in decreasing numbers) as anatomically modern humans began to replace them in Europe and Asia.

Was it maybe a "racial war" between them all?

As I said, probably not. It seems that they were just not as efficient at utilizing resources as other species. H. ergaster was more efficient at walking than H. habilis, and this likely explains why they replaced them over time.

The superior technology and a more efficient shoulder joint seems to have been the key to anatomically modern humans replacing Neandertals, although the warming at the end of the ice age sees to have removed whatever cold adaptations Neandertals had, as a selective issue.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I guess if you think lowered fitness isn't a problem for survival. But it generally is. Being unable to move about as efficiently as other species of humans was a definite problem for H. habilis, and failing to use projectile weapons (likely because of a shoulder structure that made throwing difficult) was certainly a liability for Neandertals. Notice that it wasn't really a problem until other species of humans were in the area.
Then it mattered. Fitness counts only in terms of the environment.
Neanderthals were around for a very, very long time. And they hung on for a very long time (albeit in decreasing numbers) as anatomically modern humans began to replace them in Europe and Asia.
As I said, probably not. It seems that they were just not as efficient at utilizing resources as other species. H. ergaster was more efficient at walking than H. habilis, and this likely explains why they replaced them over time.
The superior technology and a more efficient shoulder joint seems to have been the key to anatomically modern humans replacing Neandertals, although the warming at the end of the ice age sees to have removed whatever cold adaptations Neandertals had, as a selective issue.

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. It is just odd, that after thousands if not millions of years of development and co-habitation, 8 of the 9 just disappear.
I will continue to look.
Thanks again.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. It is just odd, that after thousands if not millions of years of development and co-habitation, 8 of the 9 just disappear.

Well, that's one of the things that one sees where a species becomes very widespread. And to some degree, it's a matter of contention as to why some groups of diverse species have most of them die out, leaving just one or several. Perissodactyls (even toed-unglates) are another example. We're just an extreme case. In another way, we might be like grizzly bears and polar bears. Like anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals, the two species diverged from a common ancestor to exploit different environments. Then, as the climate warmed up, polar bears found their habitant shrinking and began trying to make a go of it on land. Like it probably was with us and Neanderthals, grizzly bears and polar bears don't necessarily fight on sight. They often get along well. Sometimes, extremely well; we are seeing more and more examples of pizzly bears, to the point that there is some fear that increased warming might end polar bear as a species. But like Neandethals, their genes will live on in a related population.

One hint is in that anatomically modern humans were the first species of human to successfully live in all sorts of environments. By the neolithic,we were everywhere but Antarctica. So there wasn't much room for say, cold specialists or whatever. One species found the ability to adapt to everything.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Well, that's one of the things that one sees where a species becomes very widespread. And to some degree, it's a matter of contention as to why some groups of diverse species have most of them die out, leaving just one or several. Perissodactyls (even toed-unglates) are another example. We're just an extreme case. In another way, we might be like grizzly bears and polar bears. Like anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals, the two species diverged from a common ancestor to exploit different environments. Then, as the climate warmed up, polar bears found their habitant shrinking and began trying to make a go of it on land. Like it probably was with us and Neanderthals, grizzly bears and polar bears don't necessarily fight on sight. They often get along well. Sometimes, extremely well; we are seeing more and more examples of pizzly bears, to the point that there is some fear that increased warming might end polar bear as a species. But like Neandethals, their genes will live on in a related population.

One hint is in that anatomically modern humans were the first species of human to successfully live in all sorts of environments. By the neolithic,we were everywhere but Antarctica. So there wasn't much room for say, cold specialists or whatever. One species found the ability to adapt to everything.

Thanks

 

[sfs]

Why did these 8 species, after hundreds of thousands of years of parallel development, suddenly all disappear. Leaving only one.

They didn't all suddenly disappear. Some evolved into others of those species/subspecies. Those that didn't -- there's no reason to think they disappeared suddenly or at the same time. The only one we really know much about, Neanderthals, already had a small population by the time they encountered modern humans. Both they and the Denisovans interbred with H. sapiens coming out of Africa, so you could say they didn't disappear: non-Africans are all descendants of Neanderthals, and some are descendants of Denisovans.

 

[stevevw]

There's a whole field of biology that studies and explains this. Would you like to learn about it?

Yes I am interested to know.

So did Christians like St. Francis of Assisi. You don't understand. "Primitive" people are no less human or intelligent than "civilized" people. Evolution has shown that there are no biological human races. As Darwin pointed out, if you put primitive people in a modern society, they will quickly adapt and in a few generations be like everyone else in that society.

Thats the point Aboriginals have been pushed into mainstream society for many generations and it hasn't worked and in fact caused them to become disenfrnachised from their culture and therefore suffer health problems, higher rates of imprisionment and mental illness.

It is when they are allowed to go back to their ancient ways and live according to their cultures knowledge that they thrive. As they say that western science conflicts with traditional knowledge about how Aboriginals live.

"Superior" is not a concept in evolution. It's a racist notion, and as early Darwinists like Punnett demonstrated, a scientifically incorrect one.

Actualy it was a bit of tongue in cheek humour. I was making the point that the Colonilaists thought they were the superior people and the Indigenous dumb and without rights. But now it seems Indigenous knowledge is the key to living with nature and each other. The point was knowledge comes in different ways and therefore all ways of knowing are important.

And yet, as late as the 1990s, creationists like ICR founder Henry Morris was blathering nonsense about how blacks are intellectually and spiriturally inferior to other people. It's one of the big differences between evolution and creationism.

Well thats not even Biblical as all people slave or free, Jew or Greek, black or white are equal.

Many people still think Black people are sub human thus we see still see mistreatment of black people especially in western nations like the US, Britain and Australia.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes I am interested to know.

Ethology is the scientific study of animal behaviour, usually with a focus on behaviour under natural conditions, and viewing behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait.
Ethology - Wikipedia

Ethology developed in contrast to behaviorism, which attempted to put all animal behavior into a stimulus/response paradigm that reduced behavior to a sort of mechanistic determinism.

Ethology takes a more comprehensive look at the issue. A good, non-technical discussion of the field is found in Konrad Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring. The approach considers things like social transmission of behaviors.

Niko Tinbergen argued that ethology always needed to include four kinds of explanation in any instance of behaviour:

• Function – How does the behaviour affect the animal's chances of survival and reproduction? Why does the animal respond that way instead of some other way?
• Causation – What are the stimuli that elicit the response, and how has it been modified by recent learning?
• Development – How does the behaviour change with age, and what early experiences are necessary for the animal to display the behaviour?
• Evolutionary history – How does the behaviour compare with similar behaviour in related species, and how might it have begun through the process of phylogeny?

 

[The Barbarian]

Thats the point Aboriginals have been pushed into mainstream society for many generations and it hasn't worked and in fact caused them to become disenfrnachised from their culture and therefore suffer health problems, higher rates of imprisionment and mental illness.

It is when they are allowed to go back to their ancient ways and live according to their cultures knowledge that they thrive.

I suppose that Noel Pearson would take exception to that. I think the experience of the native people of Australia with civilization has more to do with social factors than any innate differences between them and people of European descent.

(earlier)
And yet, as late as the 1990s, creationists like ICR founder Henry Morris was blathering nonsense about how blacks are intellectually and spiriturally inferior to other people. It's one of the big differences between evolution and creationism.

Well thats not even Biblical as all people slave or free, Jew or Greek, black or white are equal.

Yes, but remember, this is a YE creationist writing that nonsense.

Many people still think Black people are sub human thus we see still see mistreatment of black people especially in western nations like the US, Britain and Australia.

Yes, the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president caused the sewer-dwellers a good deal of discomfort. There was a short-term burst of racism, followed by general acceptance. One good sign is that it's no longer unthinkable for a black person to be conservative.

Long way to go, but we've come a long way.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes I am interested to know.

Thats the point Aboriginals have been pushed into mainstream society for many generations and it hasn't worked and in fact caused them to become disenfrnachised from their culture and therefore suffer health problems, higher rates of imprisionment and mental illness.

Assimilating into society seems to have worked for the tribes
running the gambling casinos and resorts in Connecticut.

 

[The Barbarian]

Assimilating into society seems to have worked for the tribes
running the gambling casinos and resorts in Connecticut.

They seem to have adapted rather well to society. There is considerable resentment among some people about those casinos, precisely because of their success.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They seem to have adapted rather well to society. There is considerable resentment among some people about those casinos, precisely because of their success.

Well not so much because of their success, but because they're tax free. Although the tribe does contribute much to the local communities, some people especially the original residents of the area, dislike the influx of people from outside.

I suppose it's the same everywhere. I remember being resented when my wife and myself moved into our small town. We were often called, "GD YUPPIES," at the town meetings.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well not so much because of their success, but because they're tax free. Although the tribe does contribute much to the local communities, some people especially the original residents of the area, dislike the influx of people from outside.

They learned to play the game. In the early years of our nation, many native American tribes chose to simply become Americans. The Cherokee, for example had towns, farms, schools, and sought to fit into the new society. People wanted their land, though, and so we took it and gave them "reservations" with a sort of tribal autonomy.

That wasn't their decision. We imposed it on them. They just learned to play it as well as they could to their advantage.

No one else has any reason to complain.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They learned to play the game. In the early years of our nation, many native American tribes chose to simply become Americans. The Cherokee, for example had towns, farms, schools, and sought to fit into the new society. People wanted their land, though, and so we took it and gave them "reservations" with a sort of tribal autonomy.

That wasn't their decision. We imposed it on them. They just learned to play it as well as they could to their advantage.

No one else has any reason to complain.

Mostly it had to do with getting the tribes to stop raiding, stealing and killing others. The Comanches were the most difficult to get to stop
their previous practice of raiding and killing, and take up whiteman's farming. Raids were not only taken against white settlers, but against other tribes like the Apaches and Navaho's.

Yes, the whites abused the agreements the tribes had with the natives, but it was also the natives themselves who also saw oportunity for themselves. Quonah Parker was one of the tribal leaders who ended up siding with the whites and helped enforce their laws on his own fellow tribesmen. Of course he leased out his land to white ranchers and was making a good living from it. So, when those whites were threatened by other natives, he went to enforce the law.

Anyway, the book, "Empire of the Summer Moon," by S.C. Gwynne is the most recent book on the actual history of the plains Indians. The first chapters give the reasons why the Comanche's were so powerful and how incompetent white settlers and soldiers were in fighting against them. The book gives good reasons why the whites were helped by the enemy tribes of the Comanches.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mostly it had to do with getting the tribes to stop raiding, stealing and killing others.

Cherokees did none of those things on their lands. When whites tried the first time to grab their land, they did a very American thing; they sued the dirtbags. Won, too. But Andrew Jackson hated all of them, and ignored the court decision.

The Comanches were the most difficult to get to stop

They were just another tribe until they found horses. For whatever reason, they became the world's best light cavalry, and started doing to other tribes what white were doing to them. When Anglos first came to Texas, the Comanches were winning.

Colt revolvers ultimately put an end to that; Texas Ranger with two revolvers tipped the balance of power against the Comanches. Battle of Walker's Creek pretty much settled how it was going to go from then on. Instead of dismounting and firing muskets, the mounted Rangers charged into the fight with 12 shots before they had to reload. It ended with the Comanches fleeing in disorder.

Yes, the whites abused the agreements the tribes had with the natives, but it was also the natives themselves who also saw oportunity for themselves. Quonah Parker was one of the tribal leaders who ended up siding with the whites

He was half Anglo, you know. He was also the leader in the attack at Adobe Walls.

Anyway, the book, "Empire of the Summer Moon," by S.C. Gwynne is the most recent book on the actual history of the plains Indians. The first chapters give the reasons why the Comanche's were so powerful and how incompetent white settlers and soldiers were in fighting against them. The book gives good reasons why the whites were helped by the enemy tribes of the Comanches.

Particularly the Apaches, who took a beating from Comanche raids. I'll look for that book. Thanks.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They were just another tribe until they found horses. For whatever reason, they became the world's best light cavalry, and started doing to other tribes what white were doing to them. When Anglos first came to Texas, the Comanches were winning.

They brutalized other tribes before the white man brought horses. They took advantage once they learned to ride and spent much of their time raiding other tribes and stealing their horses. Various tribes of Comanches had over 7000 horses which made them wealthy. Their life was that of war and hunting.

Colt revolvers ultimately put an end to that; Texas Ranger with two revolvers tipped the balance of power against the Comanches.

That didn't happen until late in the 19th century and even then, the Rangers could only keep the Comanches out of parts of Texas. For the most of the plains, the Comanches ruled. They drove the Apaches down into Mexico and attacked Navaho's so often that those two tribes sided with the whites to fight the Comanches.

He was half Anglo, you know. He was also the leader in the attack at Adobe Walls.

He was half white but hated whites and attacked them often before his conversion. His mother was captured at age nine by the Comanches and became the wife of a prominent chief. When she was finally found and given the option to returned to the whites, she refused. This had to do with the fact that her children including Quanah would not be allowed to go with her. She she stayed until she was given back through a hostage situation with the whites.

Particularly the Apaches, who took a beating from Comanche raids. I'll look for that book. Thanks.

Many who start reading the book are shocked that the native tribes were so vicious and think it's racists. However, as you get through the book you get to see how they natives got a raw deal time and time again by the US government. It was the 19th century and as long as natives stayed on their reservations, the tribe was responsible for them and they weren't considered US citizens unless they left the reservation and gave up their tribal inheritance.

The other book which is earlier is "Saint Among Savages: The Life of Saint Isaac Jogues" by Francis X Talbot.

It's about the Jesuit Missionaries to the Northeast in the middle 17th Century. They were tortured to death for the most part by the Iroquois. Native tribes in that time and before attacked each other for control of territory. When they raided other tribes, they killed babies, raped and took prisoners for the sport of torture. They often adopted their favorite children who learned to grow up in the native culture.

Things were not nice as modern day history revisionists try to make it.

Life was tough back then for everyone, natives and whites.

I had an interest in Native American history in the Northeast which is why I read as much as I could about those times. I also visited the Shrine of North American Martyrs in Auriesville, NY. I stood on the hill of pain where the missionaries and their friends were tortured to death.

 

[VladTheEmailer]

Things were not nice as modern day history revisionists try to make it.

Life was tough back then for everyone, natives and whites.

That leaves us stuck reading mostly with material written prior to the 1960's.

"Counting coup and cutting horses" By Anthony McGinnis is quite interesting.