Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Subduction Zone]

well now, that is interesting.

That is what happens when a population is isolated. The same thing can be seen with sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell anemia mutation shows how complex that evolution can be. Though sickle cell anemia, a disease that presents itself when a person has two parents with the recessive gene and a child gets two of the genes, one from each parent, is actually a positive mutation. One has to remember that evolution has not goals except for maximizing the odds of reproduction and passing on of genes. The sickle cell anemia mutation arose in areas where malaria is endemic. Children that get the disease have very high odds of dying from it. But if a child has just one gene the odds are that it will survive the disease. Having that gene in a population means that fewer children will die than if that gene is not in a population. Again, that is true only where malaria is traditionally out of control. Nature finds a way for the fewest children to die. Nature's "solutions" are not always pretty ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

poor terminology you say I use. ok I'm not as educated as you are using proper terminology.
Humans are humans. Men (scientists perhaps?) categorize men (and women) into races. As an addendum, these racial categories are not barriers to interbreeding, are they? No, they're not.

I am not quite getting your meaning here, but yes , you are correct that different "races" do not present any problems to "interbreeding". Oh, that feels so much like "miscegenation".

 

[Secret Chief]

Wha??

Shut up and go do the cooking.

 

[Secret Chief]

miscegenation

Oooh, every day's a school day.

 

[Secret Chief]

I am not quite getting your meaning here, but yes , you are correct that different "races" do not present any problems to "interbreeding". Oh, that feels so much like "miscegenation".

@ChristineM gonna luv this.

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM gonna luv this.

Im not even going to answer it

 

[Secret Chief]

Im not even going to answer it

Prolly for the best. Some of these mods are sticklers.

 

[Kenny]

Again: my topic is not about the human races, but about how that characteristic originates from the apes that later supposedly became humans.

It seems that I am not explaining myself well, someone tell me if the question is not understood... or is it that the acolytes of the doctrine do not have an answer and are only filling the void with curtains of smoke.

For now I'm leaving the topic open until there are more interesting answers.

I think your second sentence is correct.

 

[Kenny]

My thread is based on a real issue related to the doctrine of evolution.

There is obviously a serious contradiction in some of these evolutionary theorists: did the human race originate in a single geographical location and from a single race of apes, or in several geographic locations from different races of apes?

PS: There are brown bears, gray bears, white bears,... It depends a lot on where you see them. To what extent can it be credible that the apes that evolutionists say gave rise to humans were of a single race?

Good question.

 

[Kenny]

@Eli G

First, evolutionary theories aren't "doctrine" and can't be fundamentally "racist" in and of themselves (though they can certainly be (ab)used for racist purposes).

The differences between geographic human groups that we use to define "races" will have largely developed after Homo Sapiens evolved rather than from characteristics of the preceding species. Otherwise we would likely have multiple different human species rather than just minor variations within the one.

Homo Sapiens likely evolved in one region (probably North Africa) and the successful species then spread to other parts of the world. As different groups continued to evolve in different environments, they each developed some different characteristics, either in direct response to those environments (e.g. darker skin in sunnier climes, more body fat in colder ones) or random mutations that (initially at least) compounded in closely related groups (e.g. red hair).

In general, the concept of "race" isn't really defined in biology, and even collieries like "sub-species" don't have definitive definitions or fixed measures. Because modern humans travelled and interbred so much more than most other animals, it makes defining any human sub-species even more difficult. Even most "standard" racial groupings are much fuzzier and difficult to distinguish when you really look in to them, and will likely continue to become more so.

That’s good… thank you.

I’ve always wondered… if the oldest human remains in Australia is about 40,000 years, what is your theory on how they got there from Africa? Do you think that the earth was all together at one point and then divided after? Or do you have an alternative theory?

 

[ChristineM]

Prolly for the best. Some of these mods are sticklers.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Polymath257]

That’s good… thank you.

I’ve always wondered… if the oldest human remains in Australia is about 40,000 years, what is your theory on how they got there from Africa? Do you think that the earth was all together at one point and then divided after? Or do you have an alternative theory?

First, 40,000 years is quite recent on geological terms. So the continents would have been where they are now, although the sea level may have been different. I believe the usual assumption is that the Australian migration primarily happened from southeast Asia. Remember that the first migration out of Africa was *at least* 100,000 years ago.

On a side note: yes the Earth's continents were 'all together' at one point, but the break up of the supercontinent was about 250 *million* years ago: far, far before humans were around.

 

[Pogo]

Good question.

One race, from one population in Africa that has migrated around the world with noticeable effect but with so little genetic variation that the differences internal to an historically described "race" are as great as the genetic differences between "races".

With modern genetic sampling and analysis even at the consumer level (23 and me etc.) It is not even a question anymore.

Further the idea that the races came from multiple species of apes was only ever a racist fringe idea and Linnaeus who started the whole classification in the 1700s didn't even think that.

 

[Polymath257]

PS: There are brown bears, gray bears, white bears,... It depends a lot on where you see them. To what extent can it be credible that the apes that evolutionists say gave rise to humans were of a single race?

You are confusing different *species* from different *races*. Those bears you mention are different *species*: like humans, chimps, and gorillas, not different 'races'.

The original population of humans was small enough to have only been one race. The racial characteristics we see today are *very* recent.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not quite getting your meaning here, but yes , you are correct that different "races" do not present any problems to "interbreeding". Oh, that feels so much like "miscegenation".

On some government or medical forms there are boxes to be checked off that inquire about race.

 

[Polymath257]

On some government or medical forms there are boxes to be checked off that inquire about race.

That race is a social and political thing to be dealt with is a separate matter from the biology. There are no marked distinctions between races biologically. The amount of melanin in the skin is a minor characteristic.

 

[YoursTrue]

That race is a social and political thing to be dealt with is a separate matter from the biology. There are no marked distinctions between races biologically. The amount of melanin in the skin is a minor characteristic.

So are there races or are there not human races, in your opinion of course. Because seems that according to you, if I understand your post, those categories of government classification are not based on biology, is that right?

 

[Pogo]

Yes there are archaic check boxes on lots of forms,

On some government or medical forms there are boxes to be checked off that inquire about race.

called institutional inertia. some forms only have Mr. Mrs. and Miss which leaves out about half the women in the country. Some forms have both gender and sex, some don't and some use the wrong term.

Race as a term should not be used.

 

[Pogo]

So are there races or are there not human races, in your opinion of course. Because seems that according to you, if I understand your post, those categories of government classification are not based on biology, is that right?

Darwin's original use of race and as it was used at the time was in terms of things like cabbages ie broccoli vs Brussels sprouts.

 

[Polymath257]

So are there races or are there not human races, in your opinion of course. Because seems that according to you, if I understand your post, those categories of government classification are not based on biology, is that right?

That is correct. They are based on politics and not biology.

The variations within any political 'race' are greater than the variations *between* the 'races'. That shows the whole concept is bogus.