Vince Sarich on Human Racial Differences.

Discussion in 'Science' started by jcrawford, Oct 31, 2005.

  1. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vince Sarich is a famous neo-Darwinist. His new book is about the existence of human races.

    http://www.curledup.com/racereal.htm

    TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION AND DEBATE:

    Since Sarich claims that racial features are self-evident, can human races be scientifically distinguished and classified by evolutionists in the same way and to the same extent that human species are?

    If not, how are human species recognized and identified by evolutionists?
     
  2. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, races cannot be scientifically distinguished and classified in the same way that species can. This is because all races are freely interbreeding, while species are typically distinguished by not interbreeding. Species are entirely distinct from each other, races are just populations of a species that share a certain phenotype. Species are fairly static on a timescale of thousands of years, while "races" are quite prone to modification in relatively short time periods by introduction of new genes into the gene pool of that population.

    There are some groups that can be classified by certain traits, but I think classifying race just by skin color is simplistic. There are significant regional differences among the groups we would call white, black, or Asian.
     
  4. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    If there is no evidence that the original neo-Darwinist 'species' of 'primitive' human beings in Africa didn't interbreed though, what justification is there for calling them 'species' in the first place and not simply racial varieties of early African people?

    My hypothesis would be that neo-Darwinist race theorists need to reduce the original African racial groups to different and separate 'species' simply to qualify them as prime candidates for Charles Darwin's original hypotheses about the origin of 'species.'

    If the first African people on earth were just another racial varient of our own modern sapient human species, then no evolution from common ancestors of African monkeys and apes would be necessary to account for the origins of African people.

    That's why neo-Darwinist race theorists hate creationists. We expose their racial theories of human evolution out of Africa for what they really are and always have been; scientific racism; whether in the form of scientific experimentation on ethnic groups, Social Darwinism, Galton's eugenics, or modern neo-Darwinist genetics.
     
  5. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reason nonhuman apes are classified as nonhuman is because they demonstrate clear physical differences which place them drastically outside the range of physical characteristics seen in the human species. Lumping them together in one species would be leaping to a conclusion not supported by the data. Would you lump together modern chimpanzees and humans as the same species? Of course not. Why then do you want to lump together extinct apes and humans? Your only motivation for this can be your bias against common ancestry.
     
  6. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This post doesn't make any sense in terms of what I have posted since I am all for keeping human and ape species separate. Lumping human fossils (H. sapiens habilis) with those of an extinct species of australopithicine apes is what prejudiced neo-Darwinist race theorists do.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    You're 100% correct. All races are of the same species. Race is simply a variety in phenotype within the species. There are only three basic types of races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid (some will also cite Australoid, but many consider Australoids as being Negroid). A significant percentage of the earth's populationis a mix of two or more races.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    :confused: The "primative" humans you are referring to were homo sapien. Same as all the humans today. The existence of race today actually has little in anything to do with creation/evolution arguements.
     
  9. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0

    You're 100% correct. All races are of the same species. Race is simply a variety in phenotype within the species. There are only three basic types of races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid (some will also cite Australoid, but many consider Australoids as being Negroid). A significant percentage of the earth's populationis a mix of two or more races.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv seems to have done a nice job here of scientifically distinguishing and classifying 'race' in the same way that neo-Darwinist 'species' can be distinguished and classified. Such distinctions and classifications are based on the criteria of perceived physical characteristics alone.

    Since racial diversification arises by the same genetic processes of 'natural selection' in environmental isolation which neo-Darwinist 'species' do, then it stands to reason that each neo-Darwinist 'species' of human beings consisted of several racial groups within it, which subsequently competed with each other for natural resources and advantages which would biologically determine their further evolution or racial extinction.
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Whine, moan, an complain all you want, but ny comments are fact, while yours are sheer fantasy made up in your own mind. The more you post comments, the more ovious your sheer lack of understanding of the topc is.

    In other words, you really and truly have on idea what you're talking about, and what's worse, you don't realize how silly your comments sound.
     
  11. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0

    :confused: The "primative" humans you are referring to were homo sapien. Same as all the humans today. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I would agree with you that H. sapiens erectus, H. sapiens ergaster, H. sapiens rudolphensis and H. sapiens habilis in Africa were all H. sapiens like ourselves, albeit different racial variations of our one human species, but neo-Darwinists still insist on calling these fossils different and separate 'species' of African people who failed to racially reproduce themselves and eventuallly became extinct.

    Race/species distinctions are the heart of neo-Darwinist theories about human evolution in and out of Africa. You yourself scientifically showed how racial groups exist within a human 'species' and I pointed out how 'natural selection' equally applies to racially isolated populations in human history. According to neo-Darwinist theory itself, all of these racial groups within past human 'species' were subject to evolutionary processes like genetic mutation and 'natural selection' which determined their racial extinction or further evolutionist progress into a new neo-Darwinist 'species.'
     
  12. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0

    Whine, moan, an complain all you want, but ny comments are fact, while yours are sheer fantasy made up in your own mind. The more you post comments, the more ovious your sheer lack of understanding of the topc is.

    In other words, you really and truly have on idea what you're talking about, and what's worse, you don't realize how silly your comments sound.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Shucks, those are just silly ad hominem comments which utterly fail to address specific race/species issues and problems which neo-Darwinist theory regarding H. sapiens descent and origins in Africa gives rise to and occasions.

    One should be able to rationally discuss and debate the implications, ramifications and logical consequences of neo-Darwinist theory as it pertains to the 'evolution' of human racial groups and so-called neo-Darwinist human 'species.'
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Were you look in the mirror when you wrote that? Seriously, I can't hink of a more clear example of the pot calling the kettle black.
    I agree. The problem is that you have done nothing but repeat comments filled with contrivencies. One would think you make this stuff up as you go along. I'm all for rational discusion, but when you make up stuff as you go along, what can one say??
     
  14. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. The problem is that you have done nothing but repeat comments filled with contrivencies. One would think you make this stuff up as you go along. I'm all for rational discusion, but when you make up stuff as you go along, what can one say?? </font>[/QUOTE]One can always strive to be scientifically inventive and creative besides just being a literary artist. Just look at what Charles Darwin dreamed up in his imaginative writings!
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scientists have concluded that there are no biological human races, since every study has shown that there is more variation within any "race" you might define than between that and other "races."

    They are just cultural constructs, with no meaning in a biological sense.
     
  16. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, they may be useful in medicine to predict a person's likely chance of carrying a certain trait or suffering from a certain disease. However, as I said above, "subraces" would really be more useful in this application. For instance, the Ashkenazi Jews tend to suffer from Tay-Sachs, breast cancer, high cholesterol, and hemophilia at a higher rate than other groups. Those of sub-Saharan African descent may have a higher risk of carrying sickle-cell anemia. Information about genetic diseases prevalent in certain populations can be helpful for genetic counselling, diagnosis, and disease prevention.
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    That all depends on what you consider "race" to be.

    There are genetic traits passed by heredity which are concentrated or absent in given populations. Many of these traits are expressed in physical appearance - the more isolated the population, the less diversity of genes the population will contain. Certain mutations have occured in migrating populations that have not only been passed to subsequent generations, but have become dominant. These mutations are absent in the parent populations unless and until it is introduced into the gene pool by a child of the emigrant group.

    Certain genetic disorders are associated with certain populations - Tay Sachs, sicklecell anemia, alpha thalassemia, more often it seems that a predisposition to a disorder is triggered or aggravated by environment and culture - diabetes, stomach cancer, hypertension.

    Just because race typing has gotten a bad name because of gross abuse (Holocaust, intelligence tests) does not mean there is no validity whatsoever. I see it going two different ways - modern genetics makes gene tracking and trait association more reliable but at the same time, as populations mix more freely and frequently, families rather than whole populations will be distinct. My wording is not very good here - I hope that point can be understood.

    [edited to add: Petrel, you posted while I was typing - my post was in reply to Galatian's. You said a lot of what I wanted to say.)
     
  18. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    So when are "scientists" going to conclude that there are no biological human species other than the human race?

    Multiple human species are just neo-Darwinist cultural constructs, with no meaning for the human race.
     
  19. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    :confused: You confuse me so much!

    All of us people are part of one species, Homo sapiens.
     
  20. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, all of us Homo sapiens are one species, but what about the rest of them, Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc who share our genus but not our species? jcrawford says that they are also our species but separate races. He likes to play with definitions, I think.
     

Share This Page

Loading...