Evolution Fuels Racism

[Hellbender]

LOL Nice, Gnieus.

[PhDP]

That Racism is an evolved trait is probably false. From a purely strategic point, it is a nonsense. I totally agree that we all give more energy to protect those who are genetically closer to us, because of kin selection, however it doesn't mean we have to breed with them. Anyone with elementary knowledge in genetics and population genetics know how inbreeding reduce fitness. A racist will not breed with some people because of their "race", it's a deviant strategy, he could miss extremely fertile woman/men, extremely fit mates because of a prejudice, how could that help ? Or could racism raise fitness ?

 

It seems to me racism is very hard to justify using evolutionary biology, sociobiology or game theory, the fact that my children would be healthier if their mother isn't genetically close to me should be enough to refute that racism is consequence of natural selection.

[Kleptin]

Racism isn't an evolutinary step forward, Racism is because of inherent flaws in human understanding because we do more than eat sleep and ****.

[Big D]

Ya sure, it's got to be "racism".

 

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

 

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people.

 

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

 

 

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3874.php

[PhDP]

It's out of the subject... This topic is about "Evolution" and "Racism".

 

And such primitive biological concept as the "white race" are not worth a capital letter.

[Ophiolite]

Phil,

I wholeheartedly endorse your last post, but find myself at odds with your former.

It seems to me racism is very hard to justify using evolutionary biology, sociobiology or game theory,

Briefly, we are tribal animals attuned to living in small communities of around 100 individuals. It is an effective defense mechanism to be highly suspicious of any one who is different. This worked well enough when we lived in tribes; it is almost wholly counterproductive in cities populated by millions. The sooner it is suppressed, countered, de-evolved, the better.

[Mokele]

"Big D", try actually reading the thread. You'll find that much of what you've stated has already been covered. If it hasn't been covered in this thread, do a search for posts by "Asian guy"; you'll find ample posts dealing with this in those threads.

 

Mokele

[Big D]

Is not the fact that blacks are less evolved the source of so called "racism"?

[PhDP]

Briefly, we are tribal animals attuned to living in small communities of around 100 individuals. It is an effective defense mechanism to be highly suspicious of any one who is different. This worked well enough when we lived in tribes; it is almost wholly counterproductive in cities populated by millions. The sooner it is suppressed, countered, de-evolved, the better.

 

You are right, I will reformulate. It is possible racism is the consequence of evolution (kin selection or other selection-based mechanism) but in our context it's a bad strategy. What I'm trying to explain is that kin selection can make us protect our "tribe", but it doesn't make us "breed" with our "tribe". Racism supports homozygotes and reduce fitness.

 

Is not the fact that blacks are less evolved the source of so called "racism"?

 

There no such thing as "less evolved" in biology. And the biological differences between "black" and "white" are so thin, that by applying to humans the same rules as we use on other animal, we cannot distinguish any races. There's no human races, at least biologically.

[Mokele]

Is not the fact that blacks are less evolved the source of so called "racism"?

 

You make several huge errors here.

 

1) The assumtion that "black" is a valid race category. This is wrong. The difference between, various local tribes in africa would be much greater than the difference between the English and Australian Aborigines, on account of much earlier diversification.

 

2) Note that I said "would be". "Race" doesn't technically apply to humans; there are no populations of humans which have been geneticly isolated for sufficient time to accumulate sufficient distinctions. There's just plain too much gene flow in our species. There are local variations in all sorts of gene frequencies, such as skin color, blood type, etc, but rarely if ever in any consistent manner. Humans are one big race, with some environmental heterogeneity.

 

3) The mere idea of "less evolved" shows you lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. When a population splits into two species, *both* species continue to evolve. Similarly, if we ignore the massive gene flow and treat humans as "races" (factually inaccurate as that may be), when two "races" separate and go their separate ways, *both* will continue to evolve. If one remains in the ancestral region while the other migrates into new habitat, the accumulating genetic differences will cause them to diverge in appearance. However, to claim that any organism is "less evolved" than any other is simply wrong; they simply retain ancestral traits in some aspects, but evolve in others (such as parasite resistance or tumor supression, both of which have evolved very rapidly in humans, as a recent article in Nature, iirc, shows).

 

Mokele

[Big D]

the accumulating genetic differences will cause them to diverge in appearance. However' date=' to claim that any organism is "less evolved" than any other is simply wrong; they simply retain ancestral traits in some aspects, but evolve in others

Mokele[/quote']

 

Do you really think that the only differences is "appearance"?

 

How about the fact that blacks have much higher testosterone levels then any other groups of people?

[Mokele]

Do you really think that the only differences is "appearance"?

 

Of course not, and I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth. I said that appearance diverges, not that it was the only thing.

 

How about the fact that blacks have much higher testosterone levels then any other groups of people?

 

Bullshit. Cite your source, and it'd better be a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or it's worthless tripe.

 

First, we don't know that this is the product of genes rather than environment.

 

Second, as I pointed out earlier, "blacks" is an invalid grouping for both phylogenetic and gene-flow reasons, ergo I am highly suspicious of such conclusions, as they run counter to evolutionary logic.

 

Third, this does not in any way support that "blacks" are "less evolved".

 

How about the fact that "blacks" (of some tribes) have a genetic resistance to malaria which "whites" lack? Given that malaria has caused more human deaths than wars, crime and murder combined, I guess that makes "blacks" superior, doesn't it?

 

Mokele

[Big D]

There are numerous articles and study's on this subject, here is just a couple.

 

The news is worse for men in the District. Prostate cancer is the No. 1 health concern among men in Washington, according to the National Prostate Cancer Coalition. Black men are 60 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer and 2.4 times more likely to die from it than men of other races, according to the coalition. Researchers don't fully know why this is, though they know blacks metabolize testosterone in a speedier fashion, which contributes to accelerated tumor growth.

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050502-101052-3372r.htm

 

It is my hypothesis that increased testosterone increases HIV infection rates and AIDS . This will explain why AIDS is so high in Africa. Blacks produce more testosterone than whites, and the infection rate of blacks far exceeds the rate in whites. Blacks males produce significantly more testosterone than while males.

http://www.anthropogeny.com/Why%20HIV%20is%20so%20Prevalent%20in%20Africa.htm

 

Blacks in the USA have the highest prostatic cancer rates in the world. Their two-fold increased risk, compared to US whites, is evident at the earliest age at which prostatic cancer occurs. Ross et al. [ref: 24] showed that young US blacks have a 15% higher mean testosterone serum level than young US whites, and argued that this difference could readily explain the two-fold difference in rates.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/suppl7/androgenicsteroids.html

 

I don't believe one group of people is "superior" to another as you suggest, I just believe they are different.

 

Here is another difference:

Most people often discount I.Q. test results with the excuse that they are culturally biased. Nonetheless, NO ONE, not the NAACP nor the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.

[PhDP]

You make several huge errors here [...]

 

Well, Mokele, maybe you are the "biology expert", but I was faster than you on this one

 

Most people often discount I.Q. test results with the excuse that they are culturally biased. Nonetheless, NO ONE, not the NAACP nor the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.

 

Agreed. But you don't need a PhD in genetics to know the difference between phenotype and genotype. The fact "blacks" (not a valid group but anyway...) have a lower average IQ doesn't mean it's biological. In fact, studies show that adopted child, wheter black or white, have the same IQ (Scarr & Weinberg, 1983), it's a very strong refutation of the claim blacks are genetically bound to have lower IQ.

 

I don't believe one group of people is "superior" to another as you suggest, I just believe they are different.

 

Then why did you said blacks were "less evolved". And I agree that there is genetical differences among many human groups, I would certainly not use deceptive and superficial terms like "blacks" or "whites", but the fact is most of the genetical diversity is within and not between groups (Lewontin, 1973). And by the way, I'm not supporting biological egalitarism, but racist, à la Lynn and Rushton, are really fallacious in their use of biology and evolution to support their ideology.

 

 

Lewontin, R. C. 1973. The Apportionment of Human Diversity. Evolutionary Biology, 6, 381-397

 

Scarr, S. et Weinberg, R. 1983. The Minnesota adoption studies: Genetic differences and malleability. Child Development, 54, 260-267.

[Mokele]

Black men are 60 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer and 2.4 times more likely to die from it than men of other races, according to the coalition. Researchers don't fully know why this is, though they know blacks metabolize testosterone in a speedier fashion, which contributes to accelerated tumor growth.

 

Blacks in the USA have the highest prostatic cancer rates in the world. Their two-fold increased risk, compared to US whites, is evident at the earliest age at which prostatic cancer occurs. Ross et al. [ref: 24] showed that young US blacks have a 15% higher mean testosterone serum level than young US whites, and argued that this difference could readily explain the two-fold difference in rates.

 

Whoop-de-freakin-do. And it doesn't occur to you that this could easily be environmental and cultural, rather than genetic?

 

It is my hypothesis that increased testosterone increases HIV infection rates and AIDS . This will explain why AIDS is so high in Africa. Blacks produce more testosterone than whites, and the infection rate of blacks far exceeds the rate in whites. Blacks males produce significantly more testosterone than while males.

 

No, it does not explain the HIV rates in Africa, mostly because, while we do know that testosterone is an immunoinhibitor, I'm thinking that maybe, just *maybe* the African HIV rate has more to do with, oh, maybe the lack of condom use? Or the conditions of poverty that force women to work in the sex trade, therby becoming major vectors for the disease? Or maybe condoms? Or maybe that HIV originated in Africa and therefore has has more time to spread? Or maybe condoms? Are we seeing a pattern here?

 

Correlation =/= causation.

 

Most people often discount I.Q. test results with the excuse that they are culturally biased. Nonetheless, NO ONE, not the NAACP nor the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.

 

Here's a fact that'll cast that into the proper context:

In America, Koreans score much higher than the average on all standardized tests, even when provided the same education.

In Japan, where Koreans have long been an underclass, they score much more poorly, both in relative and absolute scales.

 

How about another study:

Black students and white students were <u>matched for SAT score</u> and given an SAT-like test. In one condition, they were told the test measured nothing, and, since they were matched for score to begin with, they scored equally well. But in the other condition, they were told the test measured innate academic capacity, and the black students scored lower *than the students with whom they were matched for SAT scores*. Clearly the social perception of black inferiority which you're peddling (all the while claiming not to be racist) actually affects performance of the race being subtly told that they're "less evolved" to use your own word.

 

I don't believe one group of people is "superior" to another as you suggest, I just believe they are different.

 

Nice backpeddaling there. It'd almost be believable if you didn't explictly call those of african descent "less evolved".

 

Well, Mokele, maybe you are the "biology expert", but I was faster than you on this one

 

::shakes a metal-clad fist and fakes a deep raspy voice:: I'll get you next time, Gadget!

 

Mokele

[Big D]

In my opinion to be superior is different then to be less evolved.

 

Here are just some of the reasons why I believe blacks are "less evolved".

 

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.

The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.

The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.

The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.

The Negro has a shorter trunk the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.

The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.

Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.

The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.

The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.

The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.

The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.

The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.

The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.

The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.

The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.

The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.

The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.

The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.

The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.

[Phi for All]

Are you the "Rev. White" I find the above copy/paste job attributed to? If not, you are a plagiarist, among your other "talents".

[Guest infoterror]

The problem with this topic is how to face the truth - different evolutionary paths - without passing moral judgment over it. Politically, it's a huge problem, because we cannot face the truth. This would not be an issue if people were not also proclaiming insane political ideas as truth, but in my view, the solution is not to dwell on a linear view of the situation.

[PhDP]

Here are just some of the reasons why I believe blacks are "less evolved"

 

The thing you do not seem to understand, even if you are highly evolved, is that there's no such thing as "less evolved", gorillas and ants aren't "less evolved" than us. You may describe for a thousand years differences among "blacks" and "whites", it won't change the fact that there's no such thing as "less evolved".

 

You really lack the knowledge in evolution, biology and genetics to have any credibility and your argumentation is incredibly similar to the racist "scientists" of the late 19th century. You even use skin color like it was the ultimate tool to biological division among humans, which is factually false. Ultimately your argument are probably drawn from racist group with little credibility, Pagan Front, Resistance or maybe other Zundel-like paranos.

 

Can you prove that "blacks" is a valid division, a "race" ? With peer-reviewed articles ?

 

Can you prove they have a lower I.Q. due to biological reason ? (How could you explain the minnesota adoption studies?) With peer-reviewed articles ?

 

Not just Lynn or Rushton lousy opinion, real science, real articles (although Rushton do have a extraordinary given name)...

[Big D]

Phil,

I just gave a whole list of just some of the differences between blacks and whites. (None that have been disputed)

 

If not for the people like yourself trying to just be politicaly correct instead of scientific, blacks and whites and Asians would be considered different species.

 

But, we don't want to hurt anyone's feeling's.

[Skye]

We're the one species for obvious reasons.

[PhDP]

Phil,

I just gave a whole list of just some of the differences between blacks and whites. (None that have been disputed)

 

If not for the people like yourself trying to just be politicaly correct instead of scientific, blacks and whites and Asians would be considered different species.

 

I knew it would come to the "it's not scientific it's just politically correct" crap. It's an excuse for the lack of evidences and your poor understanding. Just try to give SERIOUS articles. About the differences between blacks and whites I know that they exist, however I know enough of genetics to understand they are thin and it does'nt even mean we are from a different race. By applying the rigor of modern classification to humans we cannot distinguish any races (Templeton, 1998), how it that "politically correct", it's a rigorous application of science. A difference in phenotype (like your list) doesn't mean anything, it's just... phenotype. I don't even try to dispute the "differences", but I want the sources.

 

About "species", it's the most ignorant and stupid thing I've never heard about "blacks", "white", and "asians". How can you say I'm not scientific while you obviously don't even know what a species is. 2 individuals are of the same species if they can breed and have a fertile child ! Are you saying it's impossible between blacks, white and asians ?

 

Templeton, A. R. 1998. Human races: A genetic and evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist, 100(3), 632-650.

[Big D]

Maybe i'm taking it a little to far by saying different species, but it is obvious that is the direction that the different races are and were heading. Without all contact being made between all the different "races" the gap would have grown much greater.

 

The point about you being "politically correct" is that I have pointed out some of the differences between the different races of people, you know that these differences are true, you just don't like what they are.

 

People like to say "celebrate diversity", you know celebrate our differences, but once any one points out what our differences are, well then the celebration is over.

[Big D]

Whoop-de-freakin-do. And it doesn't occur to you that this could easily be environmental and cultural' date=' rather than genetic?

Mokele[/quote']

I told you that blacks have much higher testosterone levels then all other groups of humans. You told me that fact was "bullshit" and to prove it. I then provided you with many links to prove that indeed blacks do have higher levels of testosterone, proving that to be true.

 

Now you say:

"Whoop-de-freakin-do. And it doesn't occur to you that this could easily be environmental and cultural, rather than genetic"?

 

So who cares how or why blacks have higher testosterone levels?, the point is that they do.

 

Do you know what kind of behaviour happens on the average with people who have high testosterone levels?

[Ophiolite]

No one is disputing that certain differences exist. Please explain in what way any of the unsubtantiated differences quoted in your post #41 demonstrate that 'blacks' are less evolved?