There are clear iq and physical differences between races

[PerciFlage]

I specified "Darwinian" evolution. The type of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin.

That's an enormous straw man, then. I don't know neo and Daniel, but I'd be willing to bet an awful lot that they don't believe in a completely unmodified version of the theory as put forward by Darwin more than 150 years ago.

I'm talking about evolution where humans evolved from some distant non-human ancestor. The kind of evolution where certain people (black Africans, native Australians) are less evolved.

The idea that two species can be compared in terms of whether they are more or less evolved than one another doesn't form a part of modern evolutionary thinking. The closest you'll find in the mainstream is comparisons of genetic diversion between two species from a common ancestor, which doesn't entail any value judgement stating that the species which has diverged the most is somehow better.

[neo-x]

Rick there are no types of evolution, period. T.E and evolution science don't have two different evolution theories as far as evolution is concerned, only its origins are contested, thats all.

Second, what makes you think that me, dan and percy are promoting racism with "DARWINIAN" evolution? I don't see evolution in darwinian lens, whatever that means...no sane person defines it like you are saying we do.

And what do you mean by, T.E's and evolution, when you specifically said that me and dan are promoting darwinian (by your own definition) evolution, when you know from our past convo's that we don't.

You are mixing things up. On one hand you say we are promoting racism through darwinian evolution, on the other hand you say you don't mean T.E or evolution in general, when you know I used to be T.E and DAN is. Do you see the problem? I think to you all evolution is the same, you just think its darwinian evolution all the way down.

The kind of evolution where certain people (black Africans, native Australians) are less evolved.

There is no evolution of that kind. Evolution tells us that there are no true biological RACES. In simple words you have 6.7 billion relatives living on this planet rick. Hows that? By evolution only 2-5% difference is among chimps and humans, does that mean we are two races, one less evolved, other more? not at all. They are a separate species but biologically similar. There are no natural-evolutionary divisions in racism, only cultural or social.

Evolution is just that, evolution. Nothing more nothing less. All living things carry the same DNA. SAME! The difference you see are forced by external agents not internal.

Darwin's view on ethics with respect to evolution, good or bad are his and his alone, they do not form evolution anymore than the pope's personal views on christianity forms your christian faith.

[RickD]

Neo, I'm pressed for time now, but I wasn't saying you guys are racists.

I'm just saying evolution, taken to its logical conclusion, promotes racism. I think I jumped the gun in specifying Darwinian evolution. The more I look into it, the more I see evolution(as in all humans descended from another creature) as promoting racism. I'm going to look into this more to see where it leads me.

Again, I'm not calling anyone here racist. I'm not saying anyone here is intentionally promoting racism by believing in macro-evolution.

[PerciFlage]

I'm just saying evolution, taken to its logical conclusion, promotes racism.

I don't think the conclusion you are drawing is logical. It's a conclusion, certainly, but it's far from the only conclusion one could draw and it's further still from logical.

[RickD]

I'm just saying evolution, taken to its logical conclusion, promotes racism.

I don't think the conclusion you are drawing is logical. It's a conclusion, certainly, but it's far from the only conclusion one could draw and it's further still from logical.

Perci,

You may be correct. I'm going to look into this more.

My statement is more like a theory. I'm going to research my "theory". In the mean time, anyone can try to show why macro-evolution does not promote racism. Or, anyone here that thinks it does promote racism, please chime in too.

[PerciFlage]

In the mean time, anyone can try to show why macro-evolution does not promote racism. Or, anyone here that thinks it does promote racism, please chime in too.

The concepts of evolution and genetic differences can be used to highlight the differences between the human races if you wish. If you're of a different bent then they can be used to highlight the similarities between human races and even between species.

But the process of evolution promotes neither racism nor racial harmony - it's just something that happens to genes. If someone wants to base an entire system of ethics on a certain interpretation of the process of evolution then, well, good luck to them; but the process of evolution doesn't demand a system of ethics any more than the theory of gravity does.

[Thadeyus]

I'm just saying evolution, taken to its logical conclusion, promotes racism.

I don't think the conclusion you are drawing is logical. It's a conclusion, certainly, but it's far from the only conclusion one could draw and it's further still from logical.

Perci,

You may be correct. I'm going to look into this more.

My statement is more like a theory. I'm going to research my "theory". In the mean time, anyone can try to show why macro-evolution does not promote racism. Or, anyone here that thinks it does promote racism, please chime in too.

Um..I think a previous poster has already mentioned that there's actually no such thing as 'Racism' any way? Since, y'know, genetically we're all 'Homo-sapien-sapien'....

[RickD]

I'm just saying evolution, taken to its logical conclusion, promotes racism.

I don't think the conclusion you are drawing is logical. It's a conclusion, certainly, but it's far from the only conclusion one could draw and it's further still from logical.

Perci,

You may be correct. I'm going to look into this more.

My statement is more like a theory. I'm going to research my "theory". In the mean time, anyone can try to show why macro-evolution does not promote racism. Or, anyone here that thinks it does promote racism, please chime in too.

Um..I think a previous poster has already mentioned that there's actually no such thing as 'Racism' any way? Since, y'know, genetically we're all 'Homo-sapien-sapien'....

I agree completely with the second part. But that doesn't change the fact that there are people who are racist, by this definition:

1.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't know of anyone that isn't a little "racist", although maybe the more correct term is "elitist" or "tribal".
According to Ricks quote:

1.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

I know that I am because I believe that blacks are superiour sprinters than asians because of their (typical) genetics and the simple observable fact that the vast majority of elite level sprinters are black ( as an example).

[RickD]

I don't know of anyone that isn't a little "racist", although maybe the more correct term is "elitist" or "tribal".
According to Ricks quote:

1.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

I know that I am because I believe that blacks are superiour sprinters than asians because of their (typical) genetics and the simple observable fact that the vast majority of elite level sprinters are black ( as an example).

Oy vey!
Paul, blacks(in general) are not superior sprinters. Only blacks from a specific west African ancestry. East African "blacks" are not superior sprinters.

I really hope you're not racist. It's bad enough that you're Canadian!

[PerciFlage]

I know that I am because I believe that blacks are superiour sprinters than asians because of their (typical) genetics and the simple observable fact that the vast majority of elite level sprinters are black ( as an example).

I'll echo what Rick said, and add that just believing that different races have different physical characteristics isn't racism per se, especially not if the belief is well founded.

What is problematic is when people start to use physical characteristics that are true of a race as a whole to guide their treatment of individual members of that race. It's no big deal if you think that Jamaicans are on average better sprinters than Taiwanese people, but it would be a huge injustice if you excluded someone from a sprint contest based solely on their Taiwanese ancestry. Stereotypes are sometimes broadly true and other times not true in the slightest, but they're never an acceptable means for drawing up an opinion about an individual.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't know of anyone that isn't a little "racist", although maybe the more correct term is "elitist" or "tribal".
According to Ricks quote:

1.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

I know that I am because I believe that blacks are superiour sprinters than asians because of their (typical) genetics and the simple observable fact that the vast majority of elite level sprinters are black ( as an example).

Oy vey!
Paul, blacks(in general) are not superior sprinters. Only blacks from a specific west African ancestry. East African "blacks" are not superior sprinters.

I really hope you're not racist. It's bad enough that you're Canadian!

LOL !
Yes I know that, I was just making a point that we all can be racist to a point, depending on how one defines it.
That said, we all also so tend to make "snap judgments" based on race as well.
Its a social conditioning thing.

[PaulSacramento]

I know that I am because I believe that blacks are superiour sprinters than asians because of their (typical) genetics and the simple observable fact that the vast majority of elite level sprinters are black ( as an example).

I'll echo what Rick said, and add that just believing that different races have different physical characteristics isn't racism per se, especially not if the belief is well founded.

What is problematic is when people start to use physical characteristics that are true of a race as a whole to guide their treatment of individual members of that race. It's no big deal if you think that Jamaicans are on average better sprinters than Taiwanese people, but it would be a huge injustice if you excluded someone from a sprint contest based solely on their Taiwanese ancestry. Stereotypes are sometimes broadly true and other times not true in the slightest, but they're never an acceptable means for drawing up an opinion about an individual.

Yes I agree.

I don't think we can eliminate racism per say, though I have found that "tribalism" is more the issue than race ( an Us against Them view) per say.

[PerciFlage]

Yup, people are always going to use dubious proxies to decide at-a-glance whether or not to involve themselves with other people. Whether it's race, nationality, home town, taste in music, choice of car, income...it's quicker and easier than having to go through all the hassle of actually getting to know someone.

[Philip]

Yes, certain races with entrenched genetic characteristics will have differing physical abilities - but intelligence? Point to men peer-reviewed research that establishes that as fact. Can't do it! And environment and cultural factors always play a HUGE role - one that necessarily creates enormous difficulty in drawing conclusions involving race and intelligence.

Equating skin color and corresponding genetics? How uninformed is that? Look at the U.S. president - he looks like millions of those of African heritage - but he is the product of African and European genes - he's (like all of us) a genetic jumble, if you will. But his features and skin color would, superficially, suggest otherwise - and that's a person of only one generation between parents and their son.

Here is the other thing, at least in America: Slaves brought to America were typically the hardiest, strongest and brawniest that slave buyers could purchase, capture or otherwise obtain. And such slaves typically had genetics that allowed their parents/grandparents/etc to survive the rigors of long sea passages and conditions that others (of less hardy stock) did not survive. So, in America, we have many of African descent who have ancestors deliberately bought and long bred as one would thoroughbred horses - the biggest, strongest, most hardy, most healthy, were bred to the same. Yes, racism caused this, but the resulting genetics and coalescing in a specific population are a resulting fact.