Scientific Racism and Supremacy.

There are two threads in your provocative post.

One, what is the evidence for Neanderthals being or not being involved in our ancestry? We've all heard that the dna analysis of Neanderthals seems to place them outside the species barrier for Homo Sapiens. Why do you disagree with that analysis?

Two, trying to find the truth about our past will involve tracing what lines survived and what lines did not survive and where the lines were found in space and in time. Racism in our language is a crime, a sin. Seeking the nature of our past and trying to find out what really happened is neither a crime nor a sin. It is like calling somebody who goes back and studies the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden a sin lover. The very idea, being morbidly fascinated by that sordid episode . . .

 

The theory is that people and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor. But then, so are the Neanderthals descended from the same one. The current theory is that the split between pre-chimp and pre-man came way before the split between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.

Not at all as no particular "race" is singled out in the theory; contrariwise, the theory is applied equally to all - the opposite of racism.

Again, "racist" is the wrong word as a theory that applies equally to all cannot be said to be racist by definition (of "racist").

 

You are conflating race with species so that you can maintain that to distinguish between species is the same as distinguishing between races. The problem is that they are not the same thing, race and species; there are, or can be, races within the larger category of species.

You also want to confuse the original meaning of "racist" (ie. to categorize by race) with the modern, current meaning "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and "prejudice or discrimination" (from Miriam-Webster (linkie)). The one meaning does not assign relative value to one race over another while the second, pejorative meaning does exactly that. It would help if you would tell me exactly what definition of "racist" you are using since there is more than one.

What does Africa have to do with it?

Humans are apes, according to most evolutionary classifications, but are non-human apes "people"? Precisely what group of "people" is the theory of evolution "singling" out?

Since the theory of evolution is all about the change in populations over time, changes are definitely studied - why do you consider that "racist"?

That's a contradiction - if nothing is predicted to have evolved from either one of them, how is the theory being applied differently to each? Nothing is not different from nothing.

I'm a bit confused here on your definitions. You say "racism is dependent", but you don't say what "racism" is or what you mean by it. That is germane to the discussion.

Are you defining "humankind" to extend beyond the species Homo sapiens? If so, how far beyond are you willing to go? I thought that "human" and "Homo sapiens" were synonymous, so if they are not I'm curious as to who all is included.

Finally, what does "supremacy" have to do with the theory of evolution?

 

Chimp-like is your own characterization. Our ancestors are also Human-like.

First, there is no racism involved here because the theory is that ALL people from ALL continents evolved from the SAME ancestors. You are the one emphasizing "Middle East and Europe" as distinguished from "African" -- why?

Second, the theory places Neandertal people much closer to Sapiens that it does chimpanzees.

 

Has anyone here ever actually read "origin of species and the preservation of favored races"? Did you all know that was the full title of Darwin's "origin of species" book?

His theories are agressively racist and extremely sexist as well. Darwin thought that evolution had worked much faster on men than it did women. His theories also advocated that women were far less evolved (as were minorities). Darwin basically suggested that women were beautiful so that they could attrack a stong male who would protect and care for them. You can see the influence of this thinking in modern day advertising. One might even be able to attribute the rise of feminism to the influence of Darwininian thought. Women feel they have to be more attractive all the time - doing things like strange diets, cosmetics, and plastic surgery to enhance their appearance. Of course feminists rebel against this sterotyping arguing that they are MORE capable than men (from one ditch to the other). If they had the proper Biblical view, men and women would realize that - while differences exist, those differences are complimentary. They would realize that Eve was taken out of Adam - therefore she was physiologically his equal. Under a proper Biblical perspective all human beings came from one man - Adam - and are therefore equal. In 6000 years there is not an overabundance of opportunity for one 'race' to depreciate more than another. As a matter of fact, the differences genetically that make up the different factors we have been programmed (perhaps by darwininian thinking) make up about 0.1% of our genome. In actuality the Bible advocates that we are all one blood - the same race - having come from one man, Adam.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

 

I've read some of it. Have you read it? The full title is actually "On The Origin Of Species By Means OF Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life."

Link to online text

What exactly, in his words, leads you to believe this? Are you sure you understand what he means by "race"? For instance:

Is that what you mean by "racist"? Do you understand he is talking about races of cabbages, guinea fowl and dogs?

That sounds very unlikely as Darwin knew full well that men and women are the same species. The theory is about species and populations, not about individuals.

But if you can provide the citation, I'll certainly reconsider.

And your citation for this is...?

Suggested or stated? Do you dispute that the beauty of young women attracts men? If so, why?

Huh? Um, you attribute modern advertising to Darwin? How do you explain the advertising, strange diets, toxic makeup and disfiguring surgery prior to 1859?

Racism was rampant before, during and after Darwin's time even among stout Christians. What was the "curse of Cain" and who were the Hammites? One blood, one species - sounds like a distinction without a difference.

 

I saw the movie.

Sure - read Darwin's "Decent of Man".

As eloquently argued by Durant, both racism and sexism were central to evolution:

‘Darwin introduced his discussion of psychology in the Descent by reasserting his commitment to the principle of continuity … [and] … Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason … were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization”’ (Descent 1871:326–327).

Darwin’s theory may have reflected his personal attitudes toward women and non-Caucasian races. When Darwin was concerned that his son Erasmus might marry a young lady named Martineau, he wrote that if Erasmus married her he would not be:

‘… much better than her “nigger.”—Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical and energetic a lady … . Martineau had just returned from … America, and was full of married women’s property rights … . Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine … . We must pray for our poor “nigger” … Martineau didn’t become a Darwin.’

Among the more telling indications of Darwin’s attitudes toward women were the statements he penned as a young man, which listed what he saw as the advantages of marriage, including children and a

‘… constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and female chit-chat. These things good for one’s health (emphasis mine).’

The major intellectual justification Darwin offered for his conclusions about female inferiority was found in The Descent of Man. In this work, Darwin argued that the ‘adult female’ in most species resembled the young of both sexes, and also that ‘males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.’ Since female evolution progressed slower then male evolution, a woman was ‘in essence, a stunted man.’ This view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries.

Darwin taught that the differences between men and women were due partly, or even largely, to sexual selection. A male must prove himself physically and intellectually superior to other males in the competition for females to pass his genes on, whereas a woman must only be superior in sexual attraction. Darwin also concluded that ‘sexual selection depended on two different intraspecific activities: the male struggle with males for possession of females; and female choice of a mate.’26 In Darwin’s words, evolution depended on ‘a struggle of individuals of one sex, generally males, for the possession of the other sex.’27

To support this conclusion, Darwin used the example of Australian ‘savage’ women who were the ‘constant cause of war both between members of the same tribe and distinct tribes,’ producing sexual selection due to sexual competition. Darwin also cited the North American Indian custom, which required the men to wrestle male competitors in order to retain their wives, to support his conclusion that ‘the strongest party always carries off the prize.’ Darwin concluded that as a result, a weaker man was ‘seldom permitted to keep a wife that a stronger man thinks worth his notice.’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp

I do not dispute that. However, I believe that it is - in part - a result of cultural programming rather than biological function.

"A male must prove himself physically and intellectually superior to other males in the competition for females to pass his genes on, whereas a woman must only be superior in sexual attraction."

That seems the definition of sexism today. Women are objectified sexually (pornagraphy, swim suit competitions, beauty pagents) and men must prove themselves physically (sports) and intellectually (business). How often do we see the cliche of a really ugly guy with a really great looking woman and think "he must be rich".

Indeed... and I am not claiming that Darwin is the cause of Racism. However, I think that evoution was the primary catalyst to the kind of racism we have today. It certainly served to magnify racism a great deal.

Often called "the curse of Ham" many think this refers to black people. However it was not even Ham who was cursed, but Caanan. The curse of Canaan has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color, but is in fact an example warning fathers to train their children in godly principles. If this is not done in one generation, then generations to come will express their rebellious nature as seen in the wickedness of Canaan’s descendants.

 

Oh.

So you're commenting on a book you've never read. Ok, but there's not much credibility in that.

I have, as I've said, read some of it and what I have read does not support your contention, so could you please be more specific and supply the actual passage? For your convenience, I've supplied the online text so you can surely find what you are referring to. If you can't, I see no reason to acccept it as fact when a lot of the other stuff you've quoted is misleading at best.

This is a different text altogether. Since I only have the online text (<-linkie), which doesn't have page numbers, could you tell me what chapter Durant is citing? The only reference to "characteristic of the lower races" that I could find was attributed to Professor Schaaffhausen and I could not find the phrase " and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization” at all.

Or may not have - but you haven't given me his actual words concerning women and the citation you gave towards "the lower races" is vague and incomplete. You'll have to do better than this.

What is interesting is first that your source changes brother for son and second changes the meaning of a humorous criticism into a vile slur by selectively quoting even within the paragraph he uses. Compare what you've quoted with the complete passage from the book (thanks Amazon.com for allowing searches within the book):

'Eras was smitten, but Charles wondered about such a threatingingly assertive lady. 'Our only protection from so admirable a sister-in-law is in her working [Eras][sic] too hard. He begins to perceive ... he shall not be much better than her "nigger". - Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical & energetic a lady...She already takes him to task about his idleness...She is going some day to explain to him her notions about marriage - Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine. I much doubt whether it will be equality in practice. We must pray for our poor "nigger".'

That was the word used in that era and was not considered to be offensive at that time. Can you tell me who were most often enslaved at that time?

It is painfully obvious that it was his brother and not his son that Darwin and the authors of Darwin were referring to: "...In London [Charles Darwin] did have Eras for company. Or at least some of the time, for his brother was taken with that literary lioness Harriet Martineau. ...It might have been a meeting of minds, but neither expected much more. With her ear trumpet and his cleft palate, it was a surprise anything transpired, but they transcended their impediments and made perfect contact. She heard every word without her trumpet, and gratifying words they were: he praised her poor-law tales as the very epitiome of his views."

Why did your source lie?

What is misogynistic about wanting a friend and a companion? I think it's nice.

Except that isn't what he wrote, which was: "I was first led to infer that a relation of this kind exists, from the fact that whenever and in whatever manner the adult male differs from the adult female, he differs in the same manner from the young of both sexes. The generality of this fact is quite remarkable: it holds good with almost all mammals, birds, amphibians, and fishes; also with many crustaceans, spiders, and some few insects, such as certain Orthoptera and Libellulae. In all these cases the variations, through the accumulation of which the male acquired his proper masculine characters, must have occurred at a somewhat late period of life; otherwise the young males would have been similarly characterised; and conformably with our rule, the variations are transmitted to and developed in the adult males alone. When, on the other hand, the adult male closely resembles the young of both sexes (these, with rare exceptions, being alike), he generally resembles the adult female; and in most of these cases the variations through which the young and old acquired their present characters, probably occurred, according to our rule, during youth. But there is here room for doubt, for characters are sometimes transferred to the offspring at an earlier age than that at which they first appeared in the parents, so that the parents may have varied when adult, and have transferred their characters to their offspring whilst young."

That the trouble with quote-mining - it is too often used to distort the actual meaning of the original text.

Neither of those phrases seem to occur in Darwin's Descent of Man. Perhaps your source is, um, mistaken again.

Well, yeah, sexual reproduction is how genes are passed from one generation to the next and those who are not selected, don't get their genes passed. This is still a basic tenet of evolutionary theory.

See, Darwin supports his conclusions with examples! Nice.

[/qb]Are those Darwin's actual words or your source's? How do you account for who is selected by whom and who is not selected for sexual reproduction?

Why blame Darwin for human nature? You haven't shown that Darwin judged a person's intrinsic worth by his or her sexual attractiveness, only that sexual attractiveness is a factor in sexual selection for reproduction - do you really think it is not?

How is the racism today different from that of previous centuries? How has the theory of evolution served to magnify the kind of racism we have today?

 

Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has
a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger, but whether
or not proportionately to his larger body, has not, I believe, been
fully ascertained. In woman the face is rounder; the jaws and the base
of the skull smaller; the outlines of the body rounder, in parts
more prominent; and her pelvis is broader than in man;* but this
latter character may perhaps be considered rather as a primary than
a secondary sexual character.

The female, however, ultimately assumes certain
distinctive characters, and in the formation of her skull, is said
to be intermediate between the child and the man.

There are a number of such passages that make his prejudices clear. If you read that document you will see continuous racial comments with continuous assertion that each ethnic group is a separately evolved race.

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is
shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes
up, than can woman- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or
imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists
were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting,
sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance),
history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each
subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer,
from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by
Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are
capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the
average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.
...
These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. ... Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman.

We see much racial prejudice as well. In the section labeled "CHAPTER II ON THE MANNER OF DEVELOPMENT OF MAN FROM SOME LOWER FORM" we see the following:


It is, nevertheless, an error to speak of man, even if we look only to the conditions to which he has been exposed, as "far
more domesticated"*(2) than any other animal. Some savage races, such as the Australians, are not exposed to more diversified conditions than are many species which have a wide range. In another and much more important respect, man differs widely from any strictly domesticated animal; for his breeding has never long been
controlled, either by methodical or unconscious selection.

Let me ask you a brief question. Can selection add anything to the genome? Isn't selection choosing which existing items gets transferred? Interesting how selection is conferred with this supernatural power to add information and move the creature from a lower form to a higher form. Things that are not selected are not passed on and are lost, aren't they? How does this mechanism of loss move the creature from a bacteria to a boxer? Wouldn't the genome have to gain things rather than have them selected out?

Do you think that men are superior to women?

Darwin legitimized bigotry as having just cause. Furthermore, his objectification of women as sexual objects who were inferior to men is an idea who's results are still rampant in our society and culture. Again, Darwin didn't start it... he just gave it legitimacy and made it the order of the day. Additionally, to the Christian, he turned the truth of God into a lie - he gave the creation the power formerly reserved for God alone... thereby blaming the justification for their bigotry on God.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

This makes perfect sense as Darwin blamed God for the death of his daughter.

 

"Let me ask you a brief question. Can selection add anything to the genome? "

Strawman.

Mutation adds variety to the genome. Selection tends to remove the harmful and preserve the beneficial. You cannot separate them.

BTW, when can we expect from you a qunatifiable definition of information that allows us to judge whether certain processes add to the information of the genome or not?

I keep asking ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67.html#000009 , http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000015 ) and you keep dodging.

Maybe you can answer my criticism of how even your favorite information hobby horse, Gitt, uses "information" in such a way that mutations are new information.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000016

[ July 12, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

The racial aspect seems to be yours and not part of the actual theory which generally classifies race as a variant within a species.

"Merely an evolutionist hypothesis" - it's not a hypothesis; it's a definition. And since we are, more or less, speaking of the theory of evolution, then it's fatuous to dismiss the distinctions and definitions evolutionists make as "merely ...evolutionist".

You say the evolutionists divide the human race into species and you maintain to do that is racist - that dividing a race into species is racist. It seems speciesist to me, but you say you are using Oxford's definition of "racist". What is Oxford's definition? Please spell it out, preferably in its own words.

The evolutionists themselves maintain that they are dividing the order into genera, genus into species. Within species may be race, but race is not a solid division as that line may be freely crossed whereas the uncrossibility of species is what makes a species a species.

Ok, when is the first entry of 'race' in Oxford? Please give the definition of 'race' and 'racist' according to Oxford. If you don't supply it, then it is useless to refer to it.

Ok, what IS Oxford's definition of 'racism'? What IS "their profound definition of race". I'm beginning to believe that you don't actually have it.

Why Africa? Would it cease to be "racist" if the theory used Europe or Asia instead of Africa? It's looking more and more like it isn't the theory that is racist.

According to Columbia Encyclopedia (<--linkie):
"Estimates of the amount of identical genetic material (DNA) in chimpanzees and humans range from 94.6% to 99.4%. This marked similarity, and additional evidence, have led primatologists to suggest that the taxonomy of the apes should include three groups: hylobatidae (gibbons and siamangs); pongidae (orangutangs); and hominidae (gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans). Apes are classified in the phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Mammalia, order Primates."

Quite easily. My question is, do you?

Then that would be none, by definition.

Only if the "human populations" are categorized by race. I can't say that that has never happened, but it was an evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, who debunked that in his "The Mismeasurement of Man". Can you demonstrate that current evolutionary theory divides human populations by race and theorizes on their respective intelligence? Mere assertion won't do.

So share it already.

What IS the definition?

Thus the appellation "homonid". "Even evolutionist theorists" -- and who first posited the similarity? So you are saying that any human-like creature is human? And that anyone who says otherwise is a racist?

I don't know. If 94% of chimp and human genes are identical, does that make them 94% human? Or us 94% chimp? I really don't know how you would consider a percentage.

Well, yeah, that's because evolution is a gradual continum rather than distinct steps. It is difficult to determine where to draw the line in many cases. However, the current line, when it can be determined, for a species is whether members can freely cross-fertilize.

You don't understand the theory at all if you really believe that.

 

Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger, but whether or not proportionately to his larger body, has not, I believe, been fully ascertained. In woman the face is rounder; the jaws and the base of the skull smaller; the outlines of the body rounder, in parts more prominent; and her pelvis is broader than in man;* but this latter character may perhaps be considered rather as a primary than a secondary sexual character.

The female, however, ultimately assumes certain distinctive characters, and in the formation of her skull, is said to be intermediate between the child and the man.</font>[/QUOTE]That is descriptive, not sexist. Physical and tempermental differences do exist. Men in their prime generally are bigger and more aggressive than women in their prime. Do you think it is sexist to acknowledge those differences and to try to determine the causes?

Considering the times in which he lived, I do not find him egregious at all.

Race is tied to ethnicity, is it not? "Race" is still considered to be inherited while "ethnicity" is cultural. More is known now than was known then about both race and culture.

What do you mean by "separately evolved"? How do you think differences in populations occur?

Considering that women were not educated with anything approaching the rigor that men were, and, again, considering the times, I still don't think he was bad. There were great differences in wordly acheivement; Darwin was questioning why.

You object to the word "savage"?

UTEOTW already answered that quite nicely.

That's a lot like asking which is superior, Winesap or Granny Smith, Mandarin or Clementine? In some ways and for some things, men are superior.

He did not treat women as "sexual objects", but as "sexual beings". He wrote of their attraction for men, but also of men's attraction for women. You are wrong to say that he made the objectification of women the order of the day.

But that's not true either. Darwin didn't give "the creation" anything; he made observations concerning "the creation" and theories - some of which have held up over time and some which have not - based on his observations.

Half a quote is better than none, eh?

The whole sentence changes the meaning just a bit.

Source?

 

Thank you.

 

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is
shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes
up, than can woman- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or
imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.

You don't find this sexist? Darwin's point was that a bigger brain = higher intelligence, reason, and cognitive abilities. He states that a man can - or is able - to be more intelligent than a woman can - or is able - to be. If you don't find that sexist, then you do so because of your faith in evolution rather than the obvious evidence here.

The section label refers to lower forms of life. Darwin then lists the Australians as an example of a lower form of life and compares them to a domesticated animal rather than a human being. Darwin claims these animals are not as evolved as the higher form of life - the white European.

So you conceed that sexual selection and natural selection have no ability whatsoever to add new information to the genome - and are responsible only for selecting existing information. Yet this is the only mechanism Darwin can give for his hypothesis.

So you agree with Darwin that men are intellectually superior to women?

Actually, my quote is in context. Your use of this scripture is not.

Rom 1:17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

You can see clearly the context for this scripture is all about perverting one's faith in God with man's opinions. It's all about men attributing God's authority and role as Creator to the creation itself rather than to God. This is exactly what evolution has done. This is exactly what Darwin attempted to do.

Article 1
Darwin’s biographer James Moore makes it clear that this tragedy destroyed the truth of Christianity in Darwin’s mind. How could there be a good God if He allowed this to happen? Instead, Darwin decided that Annie was an unfortunate victim of the laws of nature, i.e. she lost the struggle for existence.

Annie’s death raised serious questions about God’s goodness, but the prevailing view of Darwin’s day—that the earth was old and had long been filled with death and violence—provided no adequate answers.
Article2
Article3