Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Racism Is Natural and Has Evolutionary Origin

fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 9:12:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Refer to the link. Skip the debate. Jump to page 7 of the Comments Section. Read Back to Front from page 7 to 1.

Please Discuss.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:51:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wrong. I'm not reading that though. The psychological inception of racism is easily perceived if you've got half a brain, and then that it is down to something semi-rational is backed up by racism receding with bringing races closer together. What? Evolution threw in an if... clause?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 12:55:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 12:51:26 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Wrong. I'm not reading that though. The psychological inception of racism is easily perceived if you've got half a brain, and then that it is down to something semi-rational is backed up by racism receding with bringing races closer together. What? Evolution threw in an if... clause?

No, evolution did not throw in an if... clause. How come we don't get erections at the beach with all the pretty girls walking around in bikinis? Was that evolution too? Another if... clause? No, it's because every inch of you is rational (or at least the whole "instinct" thing is massively oversold - granted, lots of people are completely retarded).
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 5:31:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
While he's free to define racism however he wants, his comments aren't relevant in a broader context if he doesn't use the generally accepted definition which goes beyond merely categorising peoples based on skin colour and, as someone pointed out somewhere in the comments, entails the attribution of specific traits/characteristics to specific races.

Regardless, his pre-agrarian basis for selective pressure for what he defines as racism is wrong anyway. He claims, "In a much more primitive setting, say during our hunter-gather beginnings, being able to recognize someone from a competing tribe was necessary. Indeed it was useful and important if food reserves could be fought over or stolen for instance. Recognizing a competing people that were aggressive or conquering would be beneficial for survival." Except global travel was non-existent even in early agrarian society so hunter-gatherer individuals never would have encountered individuals of another race. If the interaction between races which he claims as the basis for an evolutionary origin of racism occurred, then observable differences between races would be unexpected; interbreeding would prevent divergence in traits such as skin colour seen today. Anthropological theories which explain the origin and migration of humans are a better explanation, but they would need to be mostly incorrect for his hypothesis to have merit.
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:12:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 9:12:04 PM, fazz wrote:
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Refer to the link. Skip the debate. Jump to page 7 of the Comments Section. Read Back to Front from page 7 to 1.

Please Discuss.

of course
just like any form of tribalism it probably has an evolutionary origin
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 5:51:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 9:12:04 PM, fazz wrote:
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Refer to the link. Skip the debate. Jump to page 7 of the Comments Section. Read Back to Front from page 7 to 1.

Please Discuss.

The unforgivably sociologically naive idea that racism is an innate trait of human beings is a rather obvious pop-scientific, folk-scientific cop-out (a "My brain or genetics or evolution made me do it" cop-out) for individuals given to racialist bigotry; but moreover and more dangerously, it's a serviceable and convenient excuse for a socioeconomic form of life, viz. capitalism, that profoundly and systemically fosters racism. That is, capitalism is a system whose self-defining and self-damning features (economic, social, and largely raced-based inequities) are products of the predatory and exploitative MO of the capitalist, his/her wanton tendency to cast vulnerable groups, such as racial minorities (once upon a time this of course included primarily kidnapped & enslaved Africans, and then their sharecropping and segregated descendents, and today their redlined and relegated-to-ghettoes descendents, as well as Latin Americans and immigrants), and the poor in the absolutely objectively real (not subjectively imagined by individuals allegedly suffering from a "victim complex" [oy vey, the "victim complex" of the person of color, a bit of pop psychology used by whites to facilely dismiss those who raise their voices against racial injustice) role of downtrodden and oppressed victim, and to deeply build this victimization into the economic, social, and political structures of society.

Well, essentially, capitalist society then formulates racialist and social-Darwinian ideologies to support, justify, and uphold this structural inequality/injustice, ideologies that portray the black, brown, and poor man (and woman) as suffering from inferior talents or a deficient work ethic and therefore deserving of his/her unhappy lot in the capitalist order of things. Combine the ideology with the injustice and, voila, you have the very tangible and pathological reality of racism that so characteristically distresses and ails our body politic and body economic. Yes, alas, racism is all too real, prevalent, and in-built in our society, NOT a card that minorities keep up their sleeves and play whenever it serves them, not a fiction that they perversely cling to to evade accountability for their lack of a prosperity that our society clearly doesn't freely & fairly share with them, and most assuredly not merely a trait hard-wired into our psyches. It's in fact morally imperative that as a society we come to this realization and begin to take full and unequivocal responsibility for the social injustice and racism that stems from our fundamentally exploitative organization of life; that we cease and desist from employing the lame defense mechanism of blaming the victim, and of blaming nature, and join the growing global movement to abolish the economic roots of oppression that grow so deep in capitalist society.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 1:19:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I haven't been sufficiently politically incorrect already let me be a bit more blunt, the biological theory of racism is a form of dealing with the societal sins of the past and present in bad faith, without rising to the spiritual challenge of mustering real self-critical honesty about the vaunted American way of life.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
philosurfer
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:56:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This topic could be evaluated from all sorts of angles and disciplines equally as well, not just psychological..

We could consider cultural practices, with social dynamics.. considering the group and not just individuals within the group (the mass psychology of the collective).

We could discuss the biological remnants in terms of hard evolutionary markers for familial ties.

We could examine many historical and anthropological cases and actual examples..

So there is good reason to posit (In fact we know) our behaviors as natural - whether they are civilly acceptable in modern contexts or not - it doesn't change that - ultimately - human behavior and social interaction is natural and has natural origins.

Having said that, the discussion about the hate-laced racism is not what we are discussing when having this debate.

Would you agree that peoples of different groups, historically, have had to compete for resources? Would securing these resources benefit the survival of the group?

Would you agree that this is still evident today and that we still can see all sorts of "tribal-isms" even on the front page of news papers and news channels..?

So in a way, I feel like some of these ideas and questions answer themselves and are self-evident..

(rhetorical questions)

What country are you from? Are there people from other countries who don't like your country? Why?

What clubs, gyms, study groups, charities, social-sites do you belong to..? Can you recognize others within these groups and others who are not in these groups? How? Why?

Are there patches and flags and colors and songs and dances and food and activities involved in these specific groups that would be exclusive..?

Do we observe other animals behaving in these ways..?

Indeed we do.
philosurfer
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:08:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But this topic could be evaluated from all sorts of angles and disciplines equally as well, not just psychological..

You have to consider cultural practices, with social dynamics.. considering the group and not just individuals within the group (the mass psychology of the collective).

We could discuss the biological remnants in terms of hard evolutionary markers for familial ties.

We could examine many historical and anthropological cases and actual examples..

So there is good reason to posit (In fact we know) our behaviors as natural - whether they are civilly acceptable in modern contexts or not - it doesn't change that - ultimately - human behavior and social interaction is natural and has natural origins.

Having said that, the discussion about the hate-laced racism is not what we are discussing when having this debate.

To answer your question directly, would you agree that peoples of different groups, historically, have had to compete for resources? Would securing these resources benefit the survival of the group? Would you agree that this is still evident today and that we still can see all sorts of "tribal-isms" even on the front page of news papers and news channels..?

So in a way, I feel like your question answers itself when you consider all of these ideas..

(rhetorical question)

What country are you from? Are there people from other countries who don't like your country? Why?

What clubs, gyms, study groups, charities, social-sites do you belong to..? Can you recognize others within these groups and others who are not in these groups? How? Why?

Are there patches and flags and colors and songs and dances and food and activities involved in these specific groups that would be exclusive..?

Do we observe other animals behaving in these ways..?

Indeed we do.

The ethical and moral quandaries and mysteries on aspects of the topic are a completely different conversation entirely than that of the origins of social behaviors - which includes racism.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:34:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 9:12:04 PM, fazz wrote:
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Refer to the link. Skip the debate. Jump to page 7 of the Comments Section. Read Back to Front from page 7 to 1.

Please Discuss.

read about 3 pages (4-7), really don't see any points interesting, can you just told us what kind of topic you would like to discuss?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:36:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 5:31:25 PM, Enji wrote:

Regardless, his pre-agrarian basis for selective pressure for what he defines as racism is wrong anyway. He claims, "In a much more primitive setting, say during our hunter-gather beginnings, being able to recognize someone from a competing tribe was necessary. Indeed it was useful and important if food reserves could be fought over or stolen for instance. Recognizing a competing people that were aggressive or conquering would be beneficial for survival." Except global travel was non-existent even in early agrarian society so hunter-gatherer individuals never would have encountered individuals of another race.

Global Travel started in the early 16th century with China. The version espoused by Thomas Friedman under Flat Earth theory is under version GLobalization 2.0.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 11:34:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/15/2014 9:12:04 PM, fazz wrote:
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Refer to the link. Skip the debate. Jump to page 7 of the Comments Section. Read Back to Front from page 7 to 1.

Please Discuss.

read about 3 pages (4-7), really don't see any points interesting, can you just told us what kind of topic you would like to discuss?

Sorry, the number of comments has increased. Now you should start from page 10.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:42:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 11:34:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

read about 3 pages (4-7), really don't see any points interesting, can you just told us what kind of topic you would like to discuss?

The first question would be to ask - where are you from. and is there racism in your country of origin?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 12:50:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 11:42:51 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/23/2014 11:34:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

read about 3 pages (4-7), really don't see any points interesting, can you just told us what kind of topic you would like to discuss?

The first question would be to ask - where are you from. and is there racism in your country of origin?

Thailand, my country is quite homogeneous demographically though and there isn't much racism going on here (except a few on Indian communities but that may have to more with cultural rather than genetic differences).
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 3:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 11:36:11 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/16/2014 5:31:25 PM, Enji wrote:
Regardless, his pre-agrarian basis for selective pressure for what he defines as racism is wrong anyway. He claims, "In a much more primitive setting, say during our hunter-gather beginnings, being able to recognize someone from a competing tribe was necessary. Indeed it was useful and important if food reserves could be fought over or stolen for instance. Recognizing a competing people that were aggressive or conquering would be beneficial for survival." Except global travel was non-existent even in early agrarian society so hunter-gatherer individuals never would have encountered individuals of another race.

Global Travel started in the early 16th century with China. The version espoused by Thomas Friedman under Flat Earth theory is under version GLobalization 2.0.

And this is thousands of years after the origins or agrarian society. Philosurfer's evolutionary basis for the origins of racism is anthropologically wrong.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 7:17:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:24:52 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/23/2014 11:36:11 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/16/2014 5:31:25 PM, Enji wrote:
Regardless, his pre-agrarian basis for selective pressure for what he defines as racism is wrong anyway. He claims, "In a much more primitive setting, say during our hunter-gather beginnings, being able to recognize someone from a competing tribe was necessary. Indeed it was useful and important if food reserves could be fought over or stolen for instance. Recognizing a competing people that were aggressive or conquering would be beneficial for survival."

Global Travel started in the early 16th century with China. The version espoused by Thomas Friedman under Flat Earth theory is under version GLobalization 2.0.

And this is thousands of years after the origins or agrarian society. Philosurfer's evolutionary basis for the origins of racism is anthropologically wrong.

I don't understand why it could not have developed at a later date. People still live in pre-agrarian societies. Some tribes are literally snapshots of what they were thousands of years ago. Even though we have progressed- History is not linear.

Except global travel was non-existent even in early agrarian society so hunter-gatherer individuals never would have encountered individuals of another race.

Race does not necessarily have to be skin color. In my country, we are ethnically homogenous to 99.99th degree. However, if there are five important regions in a country smaller than Texas. The first question people will ask you: which village are you from? The stereotypes that exist, exist even within a homogenous group, i.e., that cultural traits, and small things just like the 'shape of a nose' could set-off a whole debate.

(All this may have developed after tribalism. However, I do not think customs have chaged much since the Hunter Gatherer Age. Simply because the white populations of the world are urbanized does not mean the rest of us are aware, or affected by it. I am just trying to provide some *anachronistic* gaps in your theory)

Anthropological theories which explain the origin and migration of humans are a better explanation, but they would need to be mostly incorrect for his hypothesis to have merit.

If I was not sufficiently clear, I think I started this discussion to find out what we do know. If you have evidence please cite it.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 7:21:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 12:50:25 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/23/2014 11:42:51 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/23/2014 11:34:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

read about 3 pages (4-7), really don't see any points interesting, can you just told us what kind of topic you would like to discuss?

The first question would be to ask - where are you from. and is there racism in your country of origin?

Thailand, my country is quite homogeneous demographically though and there isn't much racism going on here (except a few on Indian communities but that may have to more with cultural rather than genetic differences).

What about regional difference. If race is homogenous can there still be regional differences in culture/politicis. Think of North and South Italy. They hate each other. Even though they are the same.

My next question: Do you have regional differences in habits, customs and tradition?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 2:24:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:21:34 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/23/2014 12:50:25 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/23/2014 11:42:51 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/23/2014 11:34:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

read about 3 pages (4-7), really don't see any points interesting, can you just told us what kind of topic you would like to discuss?

The first question would be to ask - where are you from. and is there racism in your country of origin?

Thailand, my country is quite homogeneous demographically though and there isn't much racism going on here (except a few on Indian communities but that may have to more with cultural rather than genetic differences).

What about regional difference. If race is homogenous can there still be regional differences in culture/politicis. Think of North and South Italy. They hate each other. Even though they are the same.

My next question: Do you have regional differences in habits, customs and tradition?

Hmnn.. I don't think Italy can be considered homogeneous exactly though, genetically they may be but that's mean you will have to count Arab and European race as one and the same as well (which they do in genetic level but may not practically be so in social level).

There is widespread regionalism here, in the past they used to be a serious conflict especially in the north-east area (which are communist infested area). Today conflict came more from ideological differences, regionalism still play a major role but is more limited compare to personal commitment to their trusted idols.

Here
South = organized, professional, rubber planter, lot of Muslim, deeply nationalist, very protective of their southern region

North+North East = often poor, labourer, friendly and fun-loving, good artisan, deeply irresponsible, lazy, eat raw beef

Central = Kind of like the north, a bit richer

Bangkok = rich, cosmopolitan, ride monorail to work, rude (comparatively), always in a hurry, deeply nationalist, royalist

Just a stereotype though, very often it isn't true but ironically it is still the first thing coming to mind when you talk about regionalism here.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 1:31:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:17:44 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:24:52 PM, Enji wrote:
Philosurfer's evolutionary basis for the origins of racism is anthropologically wrong.
I don't understand why it could not have developed at a later date. People still live in pre-agrarian societies. Some tribes are literally snapshots of what they were thousands of years ago. Even though we have progressed- History is not linear.

From an evolutionary standpoint, a common ancestor is the preferred explanation for an alleged shared-derived trait. The alternative is to invoke widespread convergent evolution to explain why racism has an evolutionary origin, but didn't arise until well after the early dispersal of humans and so isn't the result of a common ancestor. For this reason, tribes which still live in pre-agrarian societies are irrelevant to the consideration of whether racism is an evolutionary trait or not. If they are racist, then either they've inherited that racism from a common ancestor with every other human, or that trait developed independently in every single lineage of humans in existence.

Except global travel was non-existent even in early agrarian society so hunter-gatherer individuals never would have encountered individuals of another race.
Race does not necessarily have to be skin color. In my country, we are ethnically homogenous to 99.99th degree. However, if there are five important regions in a country smaller than Texas. The first question people will ask you: which village are you from? The stereotypes that exist, exist even within a homogenous group, i.e., that cultural traits, and small things just like the 'shape of a nose' could set-off a whole debate.
(All this may have developed after tribalism. However, I do not think customs have chaged much since the Hunter Gatherer Age. Simply because the white populations of the world are urbanized does not mean the rest of us are aware, or affected by it. I am just trying to provide some *anachronistic* gaps in your theory)

If you're going to separate race from typical racial traits (including but not limited to skin colour) then you aren't reasonably identifying race any more, even with philosurfer's arbitrarily broad and generally incorrect definition of racism.

Anthropological theories which explain the origin and migration of humans are a better explanation, but they would need to be mostly incorrect for his hypothesis to have merit.
If I was not sufficiently clear, I think I started this discussion to find out what we do know. If you have evidence please cite it.

The current paradigm in anthropology for the origin of modern humans is the Recent African Origins model. Substantial support for this model comes from genetic studies of Y-chromosomal DNA (Y-DNA) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Neither Y-DNA nor mtDNA undergo recombination, so differences in Y-DNA and mtDNA between individuals only arise by chance mutations. These mutations (SNPs) are then inherited by offspring, new mutations occur, and so different organisms with different recent common ancestors will generally have different SNPs. A common approach in evolutionary science is to classify taxa by shared-derived traits (in this case, SNPs) which are shared between two groups and no other group to infer relationships (for more information, research haplogroups and cladistics). A notable result of classifying populations genetically like this, is that you end up with general, geographic populations and your typical racial subgroups (e.g. asian, white european, pacific islander, etc.) This is expected given something like the Recent African Origins model (or even the multiregional origins model, but I don't want to get into that right now) where race is explained by geographical genetics and substantial contact between different genetic subgroups is non-existent so there's minimal interbreeding.

Philosurfer claimed that substantial contact between people of different genetic subgroups forms the basis for an evolutionary origin (and selective benefit) for racism starting in pre-agrarian societies, but the evidence suggests the opposite. It's only in the past few thousand years where such interracial contact takes place in substantial amounts, but this is well after the divergence and migration of different subgroups.
philosurfer
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 11:40:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 1:31:29 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:17:44 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:24:52 PM, Enji wrote:
Philosurfer's evolutionary basis for the origins of racism is anthropologically wrong.
I don't understand why it could not have developed at a later date. People still live in pre-agrarian societies. Some tribes are literally snapshots of what they were thousands of years ago. Even though we have progressed- History is not linear.

From an evolutionary standpoint, a common ancestor is the preferred explanation for an alleged shared-derived trait. The alternative is to invoke widespread convergent evolution to explain why racism has an evolutionary origin, but didn't arise until well after the early dispersal of humans and so isn't the result of a common ancestor. For this reason, tribes which still live in pre-agrarian societies are irrelevant to the consideration of whether racism is an evolutionary trait or not. If they are racist, then either they've inherited that racism from a common ancestor with every other human, or that trait developed independently in every single lineage of humans in existence.

Except global travel was non-existent even in early agrarian society so hunter-gatherer individuals never would have encountered individuals of another race.
Race does not necessarily have to be skin color. In my country, we are ethnically homogenous to 99.99th degree. However, if there are five important regions in a country smaller than Texas. The first question people will ask you: which village are you from? The stereotypes that exist, exist even within a homogenous group, i.e., that cultural traits, and small things just like the 'shape of a nose' could set-off a whole debate.
(All this may have developed after tribalism. However, I do not think customs have chaged much since the Hunter Gatherer Age. Simply because the white populations of the world are urbanized does not mean the rest of us are aware, or affected by it. I am just trying to provide some *anachronistic* gaps in your theory)

If you're going to separate race from typical racial traits (including but not limited to skin colour) then you aren't reasonably identifying race any more, even with philosurfer's arbitrarily broad and generally incorrect definition of racism.

Anthropological theories which explain the origin and migration of humans are a better explanation, but they would need to be mostly incorrect for his hypothesis to have merit.
If I was not sufficiently clear, I think I started this discussion to find out what we do know. If you have evidence please cite it.

The current paradigm in anthropology for the origin of modern humans is the Recent African Origins model. Substantial support for this model comes from genetic studies of Y-chromosomal DNA (Y-DNA) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Neither Y-DNA nor mtDNA undergo recombination, so differences in Y-DNA and mtDNA between individuals only arise by chance mutations. These mutations (SNPs) are then inherited by offspring, new mutations occur, and so different organisms with different recent common ancestors will generally have different SNPs. A common approach in evolutionary science is to classify taxa by shared-derived traits (in this case, SNPs) which are shared between two groups and no other group to infer relationships (for more information, research haplogroups and cladistics). A notable result of classifying populations genetically like this, is that you end up with general, geographic populations and your typical racial subgroups (e.g. asian, white european, pacific islander, etc.) This is expected given something like the Recent African Origins model (or even the multiregional origins model, but I don't want to get into that right now) where race is explained by geographical genetics and substantial contact between different genetic subgroups is non-existent so there's minimal interbreeding.

Philosurfer claimed that substantial contact between people of different genetic subgroups forms the basis for an evolutionary origin (and selective benefit) for racism starting in pre-agrarian societies, but the evidence suggests the opposite. It's only in the past few thousand years where such interracial contact takes place in substantial amounts, but this is well after the divergence and migration of different subgroups.

No actually, I'm suggesting that a recognition of familial ties is where it begins. This suggests that a completely different race doesn't even have to be considered to understand the beginnings of kinship recognition and how this relates
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 12:59:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bottle nose dolphins show prejudice towards spotted dolphins. Should that be considered a form of evolutionary racism in the animal kingdom?
philosurfer
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 1:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 12:59:25 PM, pozessed wrote:
Bottle nose dolphins show prejudice towards spotted dolphins. Should that be considered a form of evolutionary racism in the animal kingdom?

Yes, I would say that is a variation of exactly what can happen naturally.. But is not exactly identical. Can Bottle nose dolphins breed with the other dolphins?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 1:29:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 1:09:30 PM, philosurfer wrote:
At 9/26/2014 12:59:25 PM, pozessed wrote:
Bottle nose dolphins show prejudice towards spotted dolphins. Should that be considered a form of evolutionary racism in the animal kingdom?

Yes, I would say that is a variation of exactly what can happen naturally.. But is not exactly identical. Can Bottle nose dolphins breed with the other dolphins?

That's not a question I can readily answer. I thought I'd add some probability to the argument. I'll see if I can find anything.
I assume they can breed but considering the high prejudice choose not to.