Total Posts:139|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution has to be inherently racist

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 1:26:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

You do realize humans don't live in a homogeneous environment, right?

Different races/ethnic groups have evolved to live in their respective environments, and this is patently clear. It isn't a matter of moralistic "superiority" or anything moralistic like that.

There -is- a difference between a normative and positive proposition.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 1:55:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 1:26:07 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

You do realize humans don't live in a homogeneous environment, right?

Different races/ethnic groups have evolved to live in their respective environments, and this is patently clear. It isn't a matter of moralistic "superiority" or anything moralistic like that.

There -is- a difference between a normative and positive proposition.
As I stated before throw morality out of the window. That is what evolution does afterall. Its survival of the fittest. If you find trouble reconciling this with reality which Im sure most do, then its easy to see the idea is inherently nonsense
If it was a real thing (life forms spontaneously changing their genetic coding for no reason) one race should be superior. Thats just what the theory demands. Its fathers saw no problem with this idea. Why should it be uncomfortable now?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:15:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

How does some circus promoter have anything to do with the science?

Superior genetics is only about what is superior in a given environment. That is as simple as it gets. Whatever is the most successful will be favored by selection.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:17:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role?

That is a curious question, and not one we could answer without knowing how the environment might change to favor one over others (if that is possible without killing all races).

Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

You seem to be under the assumption that the strongest or smartest will be favored by natural selection, but that is not necessarily true. Evolution is not actually survival of the 'best', it is survival of the 'best right now'. It is possible that the "fittest" may be the only individuals not directly touched by a nuclear holocaust. These humans may not be the smartest, strongest, or sexiest, but rather the luckiest!

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

I think that's a pink elephant. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:29:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 2:15:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

How does some circus promoter have anything to do with the science?

Superior genetics is only about what is superior in a given environment. That is as simple as it gets. Whatever is the most successful will be favored by selection.
Sure, so the question remains the same...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:44:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 2:29:22 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:15:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

How does some circus promoter have anything to do with the science?

Superior genetics is only about what is superior in a given environment. That is as simple as it gets. Whatever is the most successful will be favored by selection.
Sure, so the question remains the same...

Well then. Inherently racist? No. As to other "race during off" only if the "group" is not fit for the environment.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:46:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 2:17:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role?

That is a curious question, and not one we could answer without knowing how the environment might change to favor one over others (if that is possible without killing all races).

Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

You seem to be under the assumption that the strongest or smartest will be favored by natural selection, but that is not necessarily true. Evolution is not actually survival of the 'best', it is survival of the 'best right now'. It is possible that the "fittest" may be the only individuals not directly touched by a nuclear holocaust. These humans may not be the smartest, strongest, or sexiest, but rather the luckiest!
Hm interesting point but what about human inventions that can wipe a group off the map? Natural selection means nothing when a gun or nuke enters the discussion. Intelligence IS power. We have seen this way of thinking applied as reasoning for various genocides throughout history.
Another point somewhat arises out of this, is the future from an evolutionary perspective even about genes anymore since humans with worse genetic makeup can simply have concubines to reproduce or order the sterilization of a group of people making the predictable future not predictable at all?

Again taking the emotion out of it, when an Adolf Hitler arises natural environment has no bearing on the future of births.
Then with human inventions we can simply out smart our way out of environmental problems through invention. Or make the situation worse with pollution ect. Just some f***Ed up stuff to think about
I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

I think that's a pink elephant. ;-)
Lmao nice!
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:50:25 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 2:44:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:29:22 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:15:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

How does some circus promoter have anything to do with the science?

Superior genetics is only about what is superior in a given environment. That is as simple as it gets. Whatever is the most successful will be favored by selection.
Sure, so the question remains the same...

Well then. Inherently racist? No. As to other "race during off" only if the "group" is not fit for the environment.

Yes I know the definition of evolution and how it works, I jusypt find it interesting that the Father's of evolution invested their time into this question and now it's a weird thing to talk about.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 3:03:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 2:50:25 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:44:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:29:22 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:15:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

How does some circus promoter have anything to do with the science?

Superior genetics is only about what is superior in a given environment. That is as simple as it gets. Whatever is the most successful will be favored by selection.
Sure, so the question remains the same...

Well then. Inherently racist? No. As to other "race during off" only if the "group" is not fit for the environment.

Yes I know the definition of evolution and how it works, I jusypt find it interesting that the Father's of evolution invested their time into this question and now it's a weird thing to talk about.

Yea, I don't see any issue with it. The "fathers of evolution" were not running circus freak shows.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 3:21:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 2:46:30 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:17:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role?

That is a curious question, and not one we could answer without knowing how the environment might change to favor one over others (if that is possible without killing all races).

Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

You seem to be under the assumption that the strongest or smartest will be favored by natural selection, but that is not necessarily true. Evolution is not actually survival of the 'best', it is survival of the 'best right now'. It is possible that the "fittest" may be the only individuals not directly touched by a nuclear holocaust. These humans may not be the smartest, strongest, or sexiest, but rather the luckiest!
Hm interesting point but what about human inventions that can wipe a group off the map? Natural selection means nothing when a gun or nuke enters the discussion. Intelligence IS power. We have seen this way of thinking applied as reasoning for various genocides throughout history.

Humans can do awful things with tools, but then again, tools are not required. This isn't really a question of evolution.

Another point somewhat arises out of this, is the future from an evolutionary perspective even about genes anymore since humans with worse genetic makeup can simply have concubines to reproduce or order the sterilization of a group of people making the predictable future not predictable at all?

Our technology is definitely affecting human evolution even in situations without heinous motives.

Again taking the emotion out of it, when an Adolf Hitler arises natural environment has no bearing on the future of births.
Then with human inventions we can simply out smart our way out of environmental problems through invention. Or make the situation worse with pollution ect. Just some f***Ed up stuff to think about
I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

I think that's a pink elephant. ;-)
Lmao nice!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.

Racism existed in the west long before evolution and was believed because they though cultural and technology differences were because of racial differences. They tried to use Christianity, science, and evolution to justify their assumptions and have been refuted. Evolution did not inspire racism it was only used by them.

The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.

Just because some humans migrated out of Africa does not mean that they were evolving any faster than other in Africa.

From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences. The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them showing how insignificant race is for deciding what people are like.

Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

Since race is just skin deep how is having a certain skin color going to mean you will wipe out the other skin colors? That is like saying the brown terriers will wipe out the black ones.

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

That is because you barely understand it as I have gathered from your post.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 3:43:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 3:03:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:50:25 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:44:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:29:22 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:15:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

How does some circus promoter have anything to do with the science?

Superior genetics is only about what is superior in a given environment. That is as simple as it gets. Whatever is the most successful will be favored by selection.
Sure, so the question remains the same...

Well then. Inherently racist? No. As to other "race during off" only if the "group" is not fit for the environment.

Yes I know the definition of evolution and how it works, I jusypt find it interesting that the Father's of evolution invested their time into this question and now it's a weird thing to talk about.

Yea, I don't see any issue with it. The "fathers of evolution" were not running circus freak shows.

You don't have to, it's a fact of history
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 3:48:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.

Racism existed in the west long before evolution and was believed because they though cultural and technology differences were because of racial differences. They tried to use Christianity, science, and evolution to justify their assumptions and have been refuted. Evolution did not inspire racism it was only used by them.

Of course, as I said approach this topic without emotion.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.

Just because some humans migrated out of Africa does not mean that they were evolving any faster than other in Africa.

From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences. The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them showing how insignificant race is for deciding what people are like.
Exactly, which is the same for all animals. If we were an evolved species this wouldn't be the case.

Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

Since race is just skin deep how is having a certain skin color going to mean you will wipe out the other skin colors? That is like saying the brown terriers will wipe out the black ones.

I mean again exactly my point to how ludicrous evolutionary theory is, but the topic is running with the assumption of evolutionary theory.
I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

That is because you barely understand it as I have gathered from your post.

Mmm more than you might hope. Ever flipped through the origin of species and the preservation of favored races?
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:01:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 3:48:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.

Racism existed in the west long before evolution and was believed because they though cultural and technology differences were because of racial differences. They tried to use Christianity, science, and evolution to justify their assumptions and have been refuted. Evolution did not inspire racism it was only used by them.

Of course, as I said approach this topic without emotion.

Great, we agree.

The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.

Just because some humans migrated out of Africa does not mean that they were evolving any faster than other in Africa.

From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences. The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them showing how insignificant race is for deciding what people are like.
Exactly, which is the same for all animals.

Actually many animals can be divided into subspecies which are distinct unlike humans.

If we were an evolved species this wouldn't be the case.

Why not? The races have been apart for only about 100,000 years which is not necessarily enough time for them to really evolve enough to be significantly different.

Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

Since race is just skin deep how is having a certain skin color going to mean you will wipe out the other skin colors? That is like saying the brown terriers will wipe out the black ones.

I mean again exactly my point to how ludicrous evolutionary theory is, but the topic is running with the assumption of evolutionary theory.

We see in nature that natural selection will select traits that dominate in the species and we have observed this. Hair color in dogs and skin color in humans are not traits like this. Natural selection for traits very much happens but they have nothing to do with race.

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

That is because you barely understand it as I have gathered from your post.

Mmm more than you might hope. Ever flipped through the origin of species and the preservation of favored races?

"Race" is a word with multiple definitions. You have to show that he meant race as in skin color groups of humans.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:32:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:01:03 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:48:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.

Racism existed in the west long before evolution and was believed because they though cultural and technology differences were because of racial differences. They tried to use Christianity, science, and evolution to justify their assumptions and have been refuted. Evolution did not inspire racism it was only used by them.

Of course, as I said approach this topic without emotion.

Great, we agree.

The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.

Just because some humans migrated out of Africa does not mean that they were evolving any faster than other in Africa.

From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences. The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them showing how insignificant race is for deciding what people are like.
Exactly, which is the same for all animals.

Actually many animals can be divided into subspecies which are distinct unlike humans.

Mmm not in the way you might be thinking. I guess before we go further just throw me an example of a species and it's subspecies you don't find relatable to human variation.
If we were an evolved species this wouldn't be the case.

Why not? The races have been apart for only about 100,000 years which is not necessarily enough time for them to really evolve enough to be significantly different.

I would disagree entirely with the idea all the races have been apart for 100,000 years. Are you stating that as a fact?
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

Since race is just skin deep how is having a certain skin color going to mean you will wipe out the other skin colors? That is like saying the brown terriers will wipe out the black ones.

I mean again exactly my point to how ludicrous evolutionary theory is, but the topic is running with the assumption of evolutionary theory.

We see in nature that natural selection will select traits that dominate in the species and we have observed this. Hair color in dogs and skin color in humans are not traits like this. Natural selection for traits very much happens but they have nothing to do with race.

That's the wrong view of natural selection. variences in skin color in humans and hair color in dogs very much so matter because they are conducive to the local environment. The whole point is that all species change and adapt to their environment and those that don't die. Throwing a native white person somewhere in North Africa is going to create problems for the white dude because will be more prone to skin cancer and things like this. His lineage might not really do well at all without the aid of technology.
I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

That is because you barely understand it as I have gathered from your post.

Mmm more than you might hope. Ever flipped through the origin of species and the preservation of favored races?

"Race" is a word with multiple definitions. You have to show that he meant race as in skin color groups of humans.
So I'll take that as a no. There isn't a distinction made and Darwin himself commented on the manner specifically in the descent of man. Again take the emotion out because no one is calling Darwin or anyone here racist. Just for the purpose of understanding how evolution relates to people is that it is inherently racist toward everyone except the race of humans that is supposed to mega morph into something else someday.
I more than agree that the idea of a superior race is preposterous but under an evolutionary view there has to be one.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:41:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 1:55:32 AM, bigotry wrote:
As I stated before throw morality out of the window. That is what evolution does afterall.

Evolution says nothing about morality lol

If it was a real thing (life forms spontaneously changing their genetic coding for no reason)

Mutations are a thing

one race should be superior.

Superior at something, sure. Maybe superior at rock climbing or whatever.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:46:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM, distraff wrote:
From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences.

You're just as wrong as the other guy. Yes, there are brain differences based on race. They're so significant, that you can identify someone's specific ethnic group based on their brain structure (see here: https://media.8ch.net... and here: https://www.researchgate.net...).

The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them

Lewontin's fallacy again.

That may be true if you're only looking at a tiny amount of loci... if you use any reasonable amount, you can easily and cleanly tell them apart around 99% of the time.

Here: http://infoproc.blogspot.com...
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:00:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:46:49 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM, distraff wrote:
From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences.

You're just as wrong as the other guy. Yes, there are brain differences based on race. They're so significant, that you can identify someone's specific ethnic group based on their brain structure (see here: https://media.8ch.net... and here: https://www.researchgate.net...).

The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them

Lewontin's fallacy again.

That may be true if you're only looking at a tiny amount of loci... if you use any reasonable amount, you can easily and cleanly tell them apart around 99% of the time.

Here: http://infoproc.blogspot.com...

You might be right, I guess my sociology professor might not know everything. I am asking for evidence that there are brain differences that make white people smarter than non-whites.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:00:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:41:01 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:55:32 AM, bigotry wrote:
As I stated before throw morality out of the window. That is what evolution does afterall.

Evolution says nothing about morality lol
Well duh! Morality isn't a thing if evolution is how we got here but blegh that's a whole philosophicalesque discussion

If it was a real thing (life forms spontaneously changing their genetic coding for no reason)

Mutations are a thing

IV probably asked everyone here by now this question, maybe you'll be able to settle it. Show me any experiment, study ect that shows mutations of genes gaining information. Mutations are more than a thing, generally they lead to health problems and even certain death in the form of things like cancer. But I don't think anyone would argue that's going to be beneficial for any population.
one race should be superior.

Superior at something, sure. Maybe superior at rock climbing or whatever.
Black don't crack baby!
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:08:44 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:00:31 AM, distraff wrote:
You might be right, I guess my sociology professor might not know everything. I am asking for evidence that there are brain differences that make white people smarter than non-whites.

There is a ton of indirect (and a bit of direct) evidence that suggests differences in intelligence are genetic. But that debate would be better suited for its own thread.

At 3/26/2016 5:00:59 AM, bigotry wrote:
Well duh! Morality isn't a thing if evolution is how we got here

Lol it can be.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:17:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:32:51 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:01:03 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:48:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.

Racism existed in the west long before evolution and was believed because they though cultural and technology differences were because of racial differences. They tried to use Christianity, science, and evolution to justify their assumptions and have been refuted. Evolution did not inspire racism it was only used by them.

Of course, as I said approach this topic without emotion.

Great, we agree.

The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.

Just because some humans migrated out of Africa does not mean that they were evolving any faster than other in Africa.

From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences. The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them showing how insignificant race is for deciding what people are like.
Exactly, which is the same for all animals.

Actually many animals can be divided into subspecies which are distinct unlike humans.

Mmm not in the way you might be thinking. I guess before we go further just throw me an example of a species and it's subspecies you don't find relatable to human variation.

Like tigers, we have many sub-species of tigers. The reason we don't consider different races to be sub-species is because of their clear genetic similarity. Humans are not genetically diverse to be divided into subspecies, other species are very diverse.

If we were an evolved species this wouldn't be the case.

Why not? The races have been apart for only about 100,000 years which is not necessarily enough time for them to really evolve enough to be significantly different.

I would disagree entirely with the idea all the races have been apart for 100,000 years. Are you stating that as a fact?

Actually that migration is thought to be 60,000 years ago (maybe a bit later) because we don't find human fossils outside Africa before then.

Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

Since race is just skin deep how is having a certain skin color going to mean you will wipe out the other skin colors? That is like saying the brown terriers will wipe out the black ones.

I mean again exactly my point to how ludicrous evolutionary theory is, but the topic is running with the assumption of evolutionary theory.

We see in nature that natural selection will select traits that dominate in the species and we have observed this. Hair color in dogs and skin color in humans are not traits like this. Natural selection for traits very much happens but they have nothing to do with race.

That's the wrong view of natural selection. variences in skin color in humans and hair color in dogs very much so matter because they are conducive to the local environment. The whole point is that all species change and adapt to their environment and those that don't die. Throwing a native white person somewhere in North Africa is going to create problems for the white dude because will be more prone to skin cancer and things like this. His lineage might not really do well at all without the aid of technology.

From that perspective skin color does matter. For example a grizzly bear will not survive well in the arctic because it doesn't have enough fur and its dark fur gives it away. However racists think skin color is indicative of intelligence. Evolution does not point to this.

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

That is because you barely understand it as I have gathered from your post.

Mmm more than you might hope. Ever flipped through the origin of species and the preservation of favored races?

"Race" is a word with multiple definitions. You have to show that he meant race as in skin color groups of humans.
So I'll take that as a no. There isn't a distinction made and Darwin himself commented on the manner specifically in the descent of man. Again take the emotion out because no one is calling Darwin or anyone here racist. Just for the purpose of understanding how evolution relates to people is that it is inherently racist toward everyone except the race of humans that is supposed to mega morph into something else someday.

The problem is that there is no evidence that the actual difference between the races have any natural selection advantage.

I more than agree that the idea of a superior race is preposterous but under an evolutionary view there has to be one.

I have studied evolution a lot and this is the first time I have heard that evolution says there has to be a superior race. Explain to me how you came to hear of this? Evolution only says that natural selection will select traits that better allow animals to survive in their environment. Species sometimes split into subspecies that genetically diverge into separate species, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes one species kills off another sometimes (e.g. humans and neanderthals) and sometimes they adapt to different environments and both survive (humans and apes)
distraff
Posts: 1,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:21:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:08:44 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:00:31 AM, distraff wrote:
You might be right, I guess my sociology professor might not know everything. I am asking for evidence that there are brain differences that make white people smarter than non-whites.

There is a ton of indirect (and a bit of direct) evidence that suggests differences in intelligence are genetic. But that debate would be better suited for its own thread.

I don't agree with that conclusion. You have to show that there is a genetic difference and that it is significant. We are finding that much of the developing world is catching up to the developed world now. If we don't run out of resources places like China, India, and Brazil will be first-world countries.

At 3/26/2016 5:00:59 AM, bigotry wrote:
Well duh! Morality isn't a thing if evolution is how we got here

A lot of Christians believe in the theory of evolution and in morality. Explain that. Many people of other religions believe in morality while they are evolutionist. I think the belief in absolute morality has more to do with your religiosity.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 5:39:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:17:17 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:32:51 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:01:03 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:48:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:36:35 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:


Of course, as I said approach this topic without emotion.

Great, we agree.

The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.

Just because some humans migrated out of Africa does not mean that they were evolving any faster than other in Africa.

From the evidence it looks like race is just skin deep and there is no evidence of structural brain and intelligence differences. The genetic difference within the races is far more than between them showing how insignificant race is for deciding what people are like.
Exactly, which is the same for all animals.

Actually many animals can be divided into subspecies which are distinct unlike humans.

Mmm not in the way you might be thinking. I guess before we go further just throw me an example of a species and it's subspecies you don't find relatable to human variation.

Like tigers, we have many sub-species of tigers. The reason we don't consider different races to be sub-species is because of their clear genetic similarity. Humans are not genetically diverse to be divided into subspecies, other species are very diverse.
All sub species of tigers can have sex with each other and produce offspring. Even lions and tigers can produce offspring. The reason no one calls a human a sub species is because the reality is your jaw would end up broken...also there is no "species" of human because it would be considered inclusive, racist ect. But it's the same thing. You could arguably call white people subspecies of black people. We can all intermingle and have beautiful offspring. Just as tigers and there respective subspecies can too...

If we were an evolved species this wouldn't be the case.

Why not? The races have been apart for only about 100,000 years which is not necessarily enough time for them to really evolve enough to be significantly different.

I would disagree entirely with the idea all the races have been apart for 100,000 years. Are you stating that as a fact?

Actually that migration is thought to be 60,000 years ago (maybe a bit later) because we don't find human fossils outside Africa before then.

Well your missing a whole 40,000 years right there! I don't think a lack of fossil remains means anything anyway but if that's what your going by there should be a difference. Remember there's supposed to be a magical force that mega morphs creatures into entirely different creatures making them superior. Man can't be excluded from that...
It's not consistent with reality but neither is evolution.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

Since race is just skin deep how is having a certain skin color going to mean you will wipe out the other skin colors? That is like saying the brown terriers will wipe out the black ones.

I mean again exactly my point to how ludicrous evolutionary theory is, but the topic is running with the assumption of evolutionary theory.

We see in nature that natural selection will select traits that dominate in the species and we have observed this. Hair color in dogs and skin color in humans are not traits like this. Natural selection for traits very much happens but they have nothing to do with race.

That's the wrong view of natural selection. variences in skin color in humans and hair color in dogs very much so matter because they are conducive to the local environment. The whole point is that all species change and adapt to their environment and those that don't die. Throwing a native white person somewhere in North Africa is going to create problems for the white dude because will be more prone to skin cancer and things like this. His lineage might not really do well at all without the aid of technology.

From that perspective skin color does matter. For example a grizzly bear will not survive well in the arctic because it doesn't have enough fur and its dark fur gives it away. However racists think skin color is indicative of intelligence. Evolution does not point to this.
Well that's being in error of defining correlations. But seeing how evolution is not a real thing that's why we still have bears and many variances of them that adapted to their environment and never stopped being a bear.

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

That is because you barely understand it as I have gathered from your post.

Mmm more than you might hope. Ever flipped through the origin of species and the preservation of favored races?

"Race" is a word with multiple definitions. You have to show that he meant race as in skin color groups of humans.
So I'll take that as a no. There isn't a distinction made and Darwin himself commented on the manner specifically in the descent of man. Again take the emotion out because no one is calling Darwin or anyone here racist. Just for the purpose of understanding how evolution relates to people is that it is inherently racist toward everyone except the race of humans that is supposed to mega morph into something else someday.

The problem is that there is no evidence that the actual difference between the races have any natural selection advantage.

I more than agree that the idea of a superior race is preposterous but under an evolutionary view there has to be one.

I have studied evolution a lot and this is the first time I have heard that evolution says there has to be a superior race. Explain to me how you came to hear of this? Evolution only says that natural selection will select traits that better allow animals to survive in their environment. Species sometimes split into subspecies that genetically diverge into separate species, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes one species kills off another sometimes (e.g. humans and neanderthals) and sometimes they adapt to different environments and both survive (humans and apes)

Well what else do you make of the logic used behind the slave trade? Blacks were thought to be inferior and so to slave owners there wasn't a problem assuming their dominant position. We can't pretend when discussing evolution what applies to animals just doesn't apply to humans. I'm more than thrilled to know evolution on the species to species level is not a real process but if it was there isn't an argument against race superiority. Why else is the evolutionary world view cited time and time again by creators of genocides throughout history?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 6:18:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:21:26 AM, distraff wrote:
I don't agree with that conclusion. You have to show that there is a genetic difference and that it is significant.

There is a genetic difference - enough to make racial/ethnic groups generally distinguishable.

As for significant, here: https://jaymans.wordpress.com...

At 3/26/2016 5:00:59 AM, bigotry wrote:
Show me any experiment, study ect that shows mutations of genes gaining information.

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org...
And here: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Mutations are more than a thing, generally they lead to health problems and even certain death in the form of things like cancer. But I don't think anyone would argue that's going to be beneficial for any population.

Whether they are beneficial or harmful is largely circumstantial.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 6:21:43 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 5:39:04 AM, bigotry wrote:
I'm more than thrilled to know evolution on the species to species level is not a real process but if it was there isn't an argument against race superiority. Why else is the evolutionary world view cited time and time again by creators of genocides throughout history?

You're conflating superiority in a philosophical sense to superiority in a merely pragmatic sense.

You could argue that whites are superior to blacks at surviving in cold environments. Or that African pygmies are superior to whites at surviving in the rainforest. That has nothing to do with evolution either way - racial differences exist regardless of whether an evolutionary mechanism exists to explain them.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 6:51:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 6:18:27 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:21:26 AM, distraff wrote:
I don't agree with that conclusion. You have to show that there is a genetic difference and that it is significant.

There is a genetic difference - enough to make racial/ethnic groups generally distinguishable.

As for significant, here: https://jaymans.wordpress.com...

At 3/26/2016 5:00:59 AM, bigotry wrote:
Show me any experiment, study ect that shows mutations of genes gaining information.

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org...
And here: http://www.talkorigins.org...
I checked out each one of their references and found no instance of cells genomes gaining information...obviously though you'll easily be able to find 1 lil study or experiment right? Maybe you should try a science site or study database
Maybe you don't know what mutations are? Cancer is a great example. It's just liforms that get it generally die...

Mutations are more than a thing, generally they lead to health problems and even certain death in the form of things like cancer. But I don't think anyone would argue that's going to be beneficial for any population.

Whether they are beneficial or harmful is largely circumstantial.
Well find me a study where a cells genome mutated gained information and we can debate the details. I'm starting to doubt such a thing exists at this point. Ho hum
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 7:06:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 6:21:43 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/26/2016 5:39:04 AM, bigotry wrote:
I'm more than thrilled to know evolution on the species to species level is not a real process but if it was there isn't an argument against race superiority. Why else is the evolutionary world view cited time and time again by creators of genocides throughout history?

You're conflating superiority in a philosophical sense to superiority in a merely pragmatic sense.
Lol there isn't philosophy if we are evolved life forms. Best believe all creators of genocides looked at it very pragmatically.

You could argue that whites are superior to blacks at surviving in cold environments. Or that African pygmies are superior to whites at surviving in the rainforest. That has nothing to do with evolution either way - racial differences exist regardless of whether an evolutionary mechanism exists to explain them.

Which race do you find to be genetically superior for the world we live in?
If you don't think there's a superior race then how long does it take to sort one out? It's already been 200,000 years. How much more time do you need??
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 7:35:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:06:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
Lol there isn't philosophy if we are evolved life forms.

Why not?

Which race do you find to be genetically superior for the world we live in?

Which part of the world?

If you don't think there's a superior race then how long does it take to sort one out?

Superior at what?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:16:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 3:43:36 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 3:03:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:50:25 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:44:13 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:29:22 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:15:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/26/2016 12:55:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
I like to pick and prod these various ideas that no one else seems to be willing to discuss. Now throwing all morals aside and without everyone getting their panties all bunched up AND keeping personal emotion out of it, how do evolutionist reconcile the basis it was formed on when they used to put aborigional tribesmen in cages and call them missing links or the bronx zoo for example when they would put black men on display in the same manner.
The working assumption has always been modern humans descended out of africa. This is what probably led to such thoughts and practices that white people were further evolved and on the way to becomming the next transition to some other species better than all the other humans.
Im curious what race modern evolution supports as taking that role? Obviously only one race can advance while all the others will die off from not being as fit. So which one do they view itll be? Which race has superior genetics right now?

I personally find evolution perposterous but if you truely think thats how we got there then the obvious elephant in the room is who will advance and who will stay behind due to generics and environmental adaptivity?

How does some circus promoter have anything to do with the science?

Superior genetics is only about what is superior in a given environment. That is as simple as it gets. Whatever is the most successful will be favored by selection.
Sure, so the question remains the same...

Well then. Inherently racist? No. As to other "race during off" only if the "group" is not fit for the environment.

Yes I know the definition of evolution and how it works, I jusypt find it interesting that the Father's of evolution invested their time into this question and now it's a weird thing to talk about.

Yea, I don't see any issue with it. The "fathers of evolution" were not running circus freak shows.

You don't have to, it's a fact of history

I don't have to what? The fact is some people who knew nothing of the science made outlandish and stupid statements and I should care? Sounds closer to like creationists of today to me.

Look. I know you are searching for some black eye for evolution. OK. If you must. I can't see any reason to care. The science is what it is, and I just don't know what you think is coming from this.