Natural Philosophy and Racism (evolution)

[VellumCodex]

Originally Posted by St0ne

The question assumes I believe in race, which I do not, what you are trying to say is that that if you believe in evolution you must be a racist, which preculdes that to believe in evolution you must believe in race. Do I not believe in evolution?

Racism is an ideology of value. It places different value on people of different "race". While many racist ideologies may depend on some version of Darwinism, this does not mean that they are its logical consequence. Theories do not address fundamental values.

You don't believe in race? Which planet are you from? Where I live, my wife is Mongoloid, my friends are Negroid and Caucasoid, and I have met many individuals in between. My question assumes nothing. Evolution assumes change through time resulting in decendents better adapted to survive. If this is the process by which speciation also progresses, one must assume the differences in races are a result of this process as well. It is evolution, not my question that is at fault here, you just don't want to give up the baby with the bathwater, and admit it.

[VellumCodex]

Maybe we just evolved from the same ancestors. I hope we are the superior mutants.

[VellumCodex]

"what you are trying to say is that that if you believe in evolution you must be a racist"

No, I am saying the logical philosophical implications of evolutionary processes say that.

I am asking you to refute it, not disqualify the question because you say you "don't believe in race". Come on, that's a cop out.

[St0ne]

I suggest you have a look at this site and if you can watch the series.

http://www.pbs.org/race/

As a side note to consider, there is as much gentic difference between two asians as there is between an asian and I, if I'm equally similar genetically to an asain as an asian is to another asian then tell me what defines race.

[VellumCodex]

Originally Posted by St0ne

I suggest you have a look at this site and if you can watch the series.

http://www.pbs.org/race/

As a side note to consider, there is as much gentic difference between two asians as there is between an asian and I, if I'm equally similar genetically to an asain as an asian is to another asian then tell me what defines race.

Oh sure, I'll watch a PBS show. Now that's science. Target audience with a 10th grade comprehension level.

As for your second "point"....genetic difference or similarity is irrelevant to the philosophical implications of naturalistic evolution. You cite the similarity as if it were proof that there were no distinctions between races. Come on now, you know better. There are NO differences in the genetic material between different finches in the galapagos islands...yet the finches are cited as proof of evolution occurred, due to the different beak shapes, and hence "speciation". If observational differences are valid evidence in one instance (finches) why are you trying to claim it is of no consequence where humans are concerned?

I told you once, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[St0ne]

So find some info thats not from PBS, there is plenty availible, just because it's from PBS doesn't mean it's not science or that it's incorrect.

If I were to accept your points the fact remains that 'race' and 'racism' are naturally occuring and how can something naturally occuring be deemed wrong? Your race defines people as being more or less superior to another, anti-racists debate that race does not equal superiority.

Again if we accept your points it would probably be concluded that africans are superior to all other 'races', I'm anglo-saxon, does it make me racist if I define a 'race' not my own as being superior?

In the end 'race' is more of a problem of human society than of human evolution, if you had not evolved to the human level of conciousness you may very well not even have a notion of race as you describe it.

I still want you to tell me what it is that defines race.

[scitsofreaky]

Since when does evolution produce "superior" species? Random mutations create variation, and the variations that are beneficial are passed on while those that are detremental are not (this is generalized, because detremental genes can be passed on, but over time the tend to be weeded out). None of this has to do with the superiority of one species over another, just the fittness of certain genes.
I guess in theory, the geographic isolation could have created different species of humans, but that isloation no longer exists. And, as it has been pointed out to you, there is no statistically relevant difference between each "race." Also, the color of our skin is not very physiologically significant, it just seems that way to us.

BTW- I m also waiting for you to say what defines a "race," and you also need to say what makes something "superior."

[VellumCodex]

Ok, here's some... as reported in the New York Times, and Sacramento Bee on 03/07/2006... (since you accept mass media reporting as "evidence")

"Providing the strongest evidence yet that human beings are still evolving researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection- a principle force of evolution- within the past 5000 - 15,000 years. Genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the sense of taste and smell, digestion and bone structure, skin color and brain function.....Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny.....Three populations were studied: Africans, East asians, and Europeans.....The selected genes, which affect skin color, hair texture and bone structure may underlie the PRESENT- DAY DIFFERENCES IN RACIAL APPEARANCE." (Emphasis added)


So, it would seem that evolutionists do see racial traits as a product of natural selection. Logically, this implies that these traits will allow some groups to succeed while others fail.

Are you beginning to see the connection between natural philosophy and racism yet?

If these traits are due to natural selection as the researchers in the article indicated, then indeed evolutionists have a problem with post-modern culture, don't they? We, according to the 'evidence' must see these 'differences' as precursers to new directions different groups of humans are taking down the evolutionary path.

Which one will win? Which one is currently in the lead? To believe evolution is to believe in the philosophy of racism, even if one such as yourself is unwilling to declare a victor.


"If I were to accept your points the fact remains that 'race' and 'racism' are naturally occuring and how can something naturally occuring be deemed wrong? "

ROFL!!! Now you are trying to say that racism is not wrong??? I really don't need to say anything else here do I?


"does it make me racist if I define a 'race' not my own as being superior?"

YES.

"I still want you to tell me what it is that defines race."

I'll just let the researchers in the article I cited speak for themselves. (and the rest of the naturalist philosophers and their followers)

[VellumCodex]

Read closely...beneficial = superior.

And here's a hint... don't try to attack that definition.... because it belongs to natural philosophy, not me. If you DO try... you will dig a deeper hole for yourself in this debate, as you will inadvertently end up defending MY position by attacking yours.

[Opethian]

The problem is that you can't really define one species as superior to another. There is such a humongous variety in characteristics for every organism that it is impossible to say which one is "superior". You can say species A is better at X than species B and species B is better at Y than species A but you can't really say one is superior to another unless you set up an equation made up for your own idea of what is superior. Species also evolve in certain environments, which guide their evolution. Depending on the environment, a certain species can be better at a certain characteristic than another, or worse. And for races, the differences are so small that it is truly impossible to say.