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.
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Human evolution and inferior races
Collapse
X
-
People have differing fitnesses to different climates, but even if somebody had a greater fitness to live in some places (i.e. as somebody with rather pale skin, I would not be particularly fit for a tropical climate) this is not to say that people are inherently inferior. Most people would agree that people who have disabilities are not inferior ontologically despite their genes not providing them with the most ideal physique. In any event, 1 Samuel 16:7 shows that physical appearance is only a concern for people and not for God."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostOkay, 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.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/da...eof/index.html
The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" -- that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?"Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostPeople have differing fitnesses to different climates, but even if somebody had a greater fitness to live in some places (i.e. as somebody with rather pale skin, I would not be particularly fit for a tropical climate) this is not to say that people are inherently inferior. Most people would agree that people who have disabilities are not inferior ontologically despite their genes not providing them with the most ideal physique. In any event, 1 Samuel 16:7 shows that physical appearance is only a concern for people and not for God.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell sure KG, as Christians we believe that all men are God's image bearers, and there for ontologically equal - I don't see how that would be possible in a godless cosmos."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostOkay, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostOkay, 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.
short answer: different does not necessarily mean inferior.
Long answer: differences in genetic make-up does mean that certain people are fitter in some circumstances. I don't have the Apo-A1 Milano gene, for example, and so am not as fit as some lucky bas-, um, Italians as regards the ability to thrive on a diet mainly composed of chocolate. Many westerners are lactose intolerant, and so would be less fit in a situation where milk was plentiful and other foods scarce. Some orientals have a genetic makeup that means they don't break down alcohol in their bloodstream as fast as most people, so they get drunk easily and quickly. Genetic makeup can also lead to differences in height, build, muscularity, bone strength, disease susceptibility, allergic reactions, life expectancy, arm length, ability to whistle, etc etc etc. Those features of a person usually referred to as race (i.e. skin/hair/eye colour, hirsuteness, facial feature shape) are genetically determined, and like the above examples, can lead to advantages or disadvantages depending on the circumstances. For example, a high level of melanin in the skin protects against sunburn and makes it easier to hide during the night. Some shapes of eyes/nose fare better in sandstorms. Some Africans tend to be naturally better at long-distance running, while Europeans better swimmers. However, most racial differences are superficial, and while there are correlations between race and some physical/mental traits (sub-Saharan Africans are more likely to have sickle-cell anaemia, for instance), there don't seem to be any legitimate correlations between race and physical/mental ability, and the genetic lottery is sufficiently random that any individual member of a race could not only be far from the mean value of any measurable trait, but have potential access to the full range available across humanity. Furthermore, how physically fit or mentally proficient or musically talented some-one is usually has far more to do with how much they exercise their body and their mind than it does to their genetics. So even if there was some racial difference in, say, mean IQ - and I'll stress again that there doesn't seem to be any - that would not mean that a specific individual of one race would automatically be superior to a specific individual of a different race. Finally, international travel and consequent inter-racial reproduction has led to such intermingling that racial boundaries are more a continuum than a discrete discontinuity. Finally, it's worth noting that those of mixed race are less likely to inherit two copies of recessive detrimental mutations, so until/unless humanity becomes fully racially intermingled, half-breeds are in that sense more likely to be genetically superior.
RoyJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFrom PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/da...eof/index.html
I think it is at least possible in theory - that some races, if they were isolated, could be genetically inferior - mentally or physically.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostThe term "genetically inferior" by itself is meaningless. Superior and inferior only have meaning when referenced to reproductive fitness in a particular environment. Humans who live at 14,000' in the frigid Andes have evolved to be shorter and stouter (such a shape retains heat better), have pale skin and lungs that can extract more oxygen from the thin air. People that live on the Savannah in Africa have evolved to be tall and thin (that shape dissipates heat the best) and have retained their dark skin as protection against UV. Neither is intrinsically genetically superior or inferior to the other.
"I have occasion to do more than to allude to the amount of difference
between man and the anthropomorphous apes; for Prof. Huxley, in the
opinion of most competent judges, has conclusively shewn that in every
single visible character man differs less from the higher apes than
these do from the lower members of the same order of Primates.Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by
this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than
mine.Source.Source.
Anyone reading these men honestly, can see that racism was inherent to the system. Other conclusions that they shared are much more frightening, although Darwin was far more subtle with his words than Haeckel, he was more of a politician in this area. Saying one thing, while meaning another.
Comment
-
I don't think that citing the unconscious cultural racism of 150-200 years ago in Europe really addresses the question here. In science, one must come up with a definition of "superior" and "inferior" which can be measured in some objective way. One suggested way was suitability to the environment, and this can be measured. Citing the opinions of Europeans long long ago is a more religious approach - quoting an ancient authority rather than going out to observe direct relevant evidence.
I have read that there really isn't all that much regional variation in people - that if everyone were to be wiped out overnight except full-blooded Maoris in New Zealand, the surviving population would still retain over 80% of all human genetic variation.
So while some physiological differences are surely due to climate, I think much of the variation is simply drift and founders' effect, combined with a long period of very little intermixing. For example, I don't think that epicanthic folds are either harmful or helpful, just one aspect of variation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostAh, so just dismiss the fact that racism was inherent to the theory from the beginning. I got it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostI don't think that citing the unconscious cultural racism of 150-200 years ago in Europe really addresses the question here. In science, one must come up with a definition of "superior" and "inferior" which can be measured in some objective way. One suggested way was suitability to the environment, and this can be measured. Citing the opinions of Europeans long long ago is a more religious approach - quoting an ancient authority rather than going out to observe direct relevant evidence.
I have read that there really isn't all that much regional variation in people - that if everyone were to be wiped out overnight except full-blooded Maoris in New Zealand, the surviving population would still retain over 80% of all human genetic variation.
So while some physiological differences are surely due to climate, I think much of the variation is simply drift and founders' effect, combined with a long period of very little intermixing. For example, I don't think that epicanthic folds are either harmful or helpful, just one aspect of variation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostIf 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.
Comment
Comment