Vince Sarich on Human Racial Differences.

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?

 

Here's an additional link to help stimulate conversation on the topic.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.'

 

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.'

 

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!

 

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.