Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism

[jcrawford]

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes the nature of religious discrimination and scientific racism, I thought it advisable to start a thread on the matter which might not become too discursive.

I'll open the conversation with the fact that most neo-Darwinist 'scientists' seem to believe, if not assert, that such topics as race, racism, religion and discrimination based on such categories are beyond the purvue of scientific enquiry.

The first question I would pose to supporters of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is whether you agree with the above presumptions and propositions. If so, why, and if not, why not?

[Jose]

I can only disagree because there are issues related to evolution and pre-evolution which are either unknowable or based on assumptions...

I hasten to offer the idea that my comments concerning misrepresentation, etc, refer primarily to the claim that evolutionary theory is racist. There are, indeed, issues that are as yet uncertain. As you say, we can merely state that this theory is the best explanation thus far. I suggest that we can also state that certain other theories are not best, and that many of them can be ruled out. This suggests a potentially productive line of discussion--what alternative ideas might be, and how the data either rule them out, or support them less than they do evolution. For pre-evolution, of course, far less is known, and the alternative ideas more diverse.

In answer to your above question about "fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction," there is none.

To date, the DNA sequences of a great many humans have been examined. They are all linked to one another. They all derive from a common ancestor or were specially created so that they look like they do. Had the ancient Asians whose fossils have been found left descendents in our species, their DNA sequences would form a distinct group from the others. There are two interpretations possible here. One is that all humans are related to each other as descendents from one original population. You may call this original population Adam and Eve if you like, because this is the exact pattern predicted by that model.

The other interpretation is that we haven't looked at enough people yet, and that there may be an isolated group somewhere who are descendents of this other lineage. This possibility will remain viable until we have looked at the DNA of everyone on earth. However, the more people who are studied, the lower the statistical likelihood that this explanation is correct, and the greater the confidence in the first interpretation.

[jcrawford]

In answer to your above question about "fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction," there is none.

Had the ancient Asians whose fossils have been found left descendents in our species, their DNA sequences would form a distinct group from the others.

That biased hypothesis is obviously based on genetic racial theories about the ancestors and descendents of Asians since the fossils of Asian people are obviously all human and any genetic theory or system of classification which considers Asian ancestors to be another 'species' than we are, if not obviously racist, is intrinsically and inherently racist.

[Jose]

In answer to your above question about "fossil or genetic evidence of Asian and European people's entire extinction," there is none.

Had the ancient Asians whose fossils have been found left descendents in our species, their DNA sequences would form a distinct group from the others.

That biased hypothesis is obviously based on genetic racial theories about the ancestors and descendents of Asians since the fossils of Asian people are obviously all human and any genetic theory or system of classification which considers Asian ancestors to be another 'species' than we are, if not obviously racist, is intrinsically and inherently racist.

Ooooh. Lots of good qualifiers.

No, the prediction is based on genetics, and the facts that are well known. In particular, it is Truth that mutations happen. They happen more-or-less at random. Therefore, if you put two populations on two different continents, they will not acquire the same changes in their DNA. Sequence analysis will show this clearly as two different lineages. That's all there is to it. But feel free to call it racist if it makes you feel better.

[jcrawford]

Had the ancient Asians whose fossils have been found left descendents in our species, their DNA sequences would form a distinct group from the others.

That biased hypothesis is obviously based on genetic racial theories about the ancestors and descendents of Asians since the fossils of Asian people are obviously all human and any genetic theory or system of classification which considers Asian ancestors to be another 'species' than we are, if not obviously racist, is intrinsically and inherently racist.

Ooooh. Lots of good qualifiers.

No, the prediction is based on genetics, and the facts that are well known.

That's what I said, Jose, with the added qualifier that the hypotheses, theories and predictions of geneticists in this case are inherenty racist.

In particular, it is Truth that mutations happen. They happen more-or-less at random.

No one is disputing "random" genetic mutations, Jose. That point is irrelevent.

Therefore, if you put two populations on two different continents, they will not acquire the same changes in their DNA.

Jose, one can't put two populations of human beings on two different continents just like that, even theoretically, without running the risk of inherent racism in the theory.

Sequence analysis will show this clearly as two different lineages. That's all there is to it. But feel free to call it racist if it makes you feel better.

Thanks, Jose. It is indeed a racist hypothesis if not a racist theory.

[Jose]

That's what I said, Jose, with the added qualifier that the hypotheses, theories and predictions of geneticists in this case are inherenty racist.

You have said over and over that this stuff is inherently racist, but you have never convinced anyone that this is true.

In particular, it is Truth that mutations happen. They happen more-or-less at random.

No one is disputing "random" genetic mutations, Jose. That point is irrelevent.

You declare it to be irrelevant because it is one of the facts that underlie the reasoning that shows you are wrong.

Therefore, if you put two populations on two different continents, they will not acquire the same changes in their DNA.

Jose, one can't put two populations of human beings on two different continents just like that, even theoretically, without running the risk of inherent racism in the theory.

Your precious model that you have been arguing for, in contrast to what the data actually show, requires that one way or another, human populations ended up on different continents. I agree that you didn't put them there. They would probably have walked. Since you do not dispute the fact that mutations happen at random, then you must agree that what I said must be true: the different populations would acquire different sets of mutations. All you have to do is look at the DNA sequences and figure out who is more closely related to whom.

If your model is right, we expect that your lineage of modern humans whom you claim descended from neanderthals and more ancient hominids in Europe, should show significant differences from the lineage of people from Africa. Your model predicts that you and your fellows should be a different race from Africans.

It turns out that the sequence analysis shows that everyone now living is part of The Human Race. We seem to be the same species. We can't find any hint of ancient lineages in Europe or Asia that are separate from the lineage of Africans and their relatives.

In short, the data show, as we have said to you before, that we are all one big happy family.

But feel free to call it racist if it makes you feel better.

Thanks, Jose. It is indeed a racist hypothesis if not a racist theory.

Weird. The conclusion that we are all one family, descended from a relatively recent great-great-great... grandmother and grandfather is, to you, inherently racist.

This has been an interesting conversation. I wish you luck if you ever have to take one of those SAT-type tests of English.

Cheers.

[jcrawford]

That's what I said, Jose, with the added qualifier that the hypotheses, theories and predictions of geneticists in this case are inherenty racist.

You have said over and over that this stuff is inherently racist, but you have never convinced anyone that this is true.

Posting decorum prohibits my comparing current neo-Darwinist race theories with those of past generations, but in any event, all social Darwinists tend to deny the inherent racism in their favorite theories of human evolution in and out of Africa.

As far as convincing anyone of anything, I might point out that Lubenow convinced me of the inherent racism in all theories of human evolution in and out of Africa and may convince a few other people too. I just enjoy arguing with neo-Darwinists from Lubenow's POV, since neo-Darwinists don't seem any more able to convince me of anything about evolution any more than I am able to convince them of the inherent religion and racism in all theories of human evolution in and out of Africa.

In particular, it is Truth that mutations happen. They happen more-or-less at random.

No one is disputing "random" genetic mutations, Jose. That point is irrelevent.

You declare it to be irrelevant because it is one of the facts that underlie the reasoning that shows you are wrong.

Not really, Jose, since human mutations are usually medically associated with human diseases and other abnormalities in the human condition.

[jcrawford]

Therefore, if you put two populations on two different continents, they will not acquire the same changes in their DNA.

Jose, one can't put two populations of human beings on two different continents just like that, even theoretically, without running the risk of inherent racism in the theory.

Since you do not dispute the fact that mutations happen at random, then you must agree that what I said must be true: the different populations would acquire different sets of mutations. All you have to do is look at the DNA sequences and figure out who is more closely related to whom.

Genetic mutations occur in individuals, Jose, and are usually detrimental to that individual's health and social benefits or advantages. They are not always inheritable and don't account for the evolution of any human populations. Devolution maybe, but that may lead to the extinction of that individual's lineage.

If your model is right, we expect that your lineage of modern humans whom you claim descended from neanderthals and more ancient hominids in Europe, should show significant differences from the lineage of people from Africa. Your model predicts that you and your fellows should be a different race from Africans.

Only according to neo-Darwinist theories of racial origins, Jose. What makes you assume that racial groups in Africa didn't originally descend from the Middle East or Eurasia? Genetic theories?

It turns out that the sequence analysis shows that everyone now living is part of The Human Race. We seem to be the same species.

Yes, Jose. That is wonderful news. Creationists have been claiming that for two thousand years.

We can't find any hint of ancient lineages in Europe or Asia that are separate from the lineage of Africans and their relatives.

That also good news, Jose. So what makes you think that the ancestors of all people of Eurasian and Middle Eastern descent originated in Africa?

In short, the data show, as we have said to you before, that we are all one big happy family.

Yes, Jose, we are all one big happy family. Why don't neo-Darwinst race theorists taxonomically classify us as such instead of subsuming our unique human family into the Homindae family of African primates?

Trying to make monkeys out us?

[jcrawford]

But feel free to call it racist if it makes you feel better.

Thanks, Jose. It is indeed a racist hypothesis if not a racist theory.

Weird. The conclusion that we are all one family, descended from a relatively recent great-great-great... grandmother and grandfather is, to you, inherently racist.

Yes, Jose, since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them.

This has been an interesting conversation. I wish you luck if you ever have to take one of those SAT-type tests of English.

Cheers.

Jose, I'm just 6 months from turning 65 and have aready graduated college.

[McCulloch]

Yes, Jose, since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them.

Is there any statistical evidence of this belief? I would think that most Christians of African descent would either think that neo-Darwinist theories of all human origins from African ape ancestors is either scientific denial of biblical truth or theistic evolution. I don't believe that most of them would think that it is racism and discrimination.

[jcrawford]

Yes, Jose, since most Christians of African descent tend to think that all neo-Darwinist theories about their origins from African ape ancestors are just another form of scientific racism and discrimination against them.

Is there any statistical evidence of this belief? I would think that most Christians of African descent would either think that neo-Darwinist theories of all human origins from African ape ancestors is either scientific denial of biblical truth or theistic evolution. I don't believe that most of them would think that it is racism and discrimination.

Scientific denial of African biblical origins is only possible with alternative neo-Darwinst race theories of original African descent from common ancestors of African apes.