Evolution and Racism

no. The heirachichal interpretation you are putting on it is a mistake. As I understand it, evolution adapts life forms for the environment. Just because humans changed because they adapted to different environmental challenges does not mean on is superior to the other. In addition; they are not seperate species and may never become seperate species; since the adaptations are quite small; comparable say with different dog breeds: they are still all dogs; they were just rapidly bred through selection for different purposes. In certain environments europeans are less well equipped both physically and culturally to deal with say extremes of heat or cold; or specific local diets; and vice versa. This was one of many mistakes made by Nazi science. In theory if germans were the master race, and they were extremely heathy and physically fit, how come a black american two pack a day smoker annihilated them at the Berlin olympics in 1938? Of course the reason is that while certain races are more physically and culturally adapted to certain things, it doesn't mean that one is always going to excel over another at sports, intelligence etc...because we are all the same species; we really are not all that different. This can easily be seen when a white british Jew is able to pretend to be an Asian/black hip hop youth without even wearing skin make up: Ali G (Sasha Baron Cohen). Apes are a different species altogther; and we did not evolve from them; but rather we both evolved from a common ancestor. Maybe. Can we breed humans selectively? well only to a certain lvel. If we bred sportsman with sportswoman for a few generations they would get a littl faster yes: but then they'd reach a platau. Racehorses are a case in point. They can never go any faster now by breeding with established bloodlines. nd thy will never evolve into a new species despite having an extra rib. To throw up a freak that will be faster will require using other bloodlines and especially the base blood arabian: though it is difficult to do this. So its one in the eye for genetic selection and health fascism because in the end it is not perfection that creates adaptation and evolution, but mutation...deviance. now as I said its mistake to regard adaptation within a species or intoo a new spcies as hierarchical. Some of the most sucesful animals on the planet are ones we regard as primitive; sharks; cockroaches. They have survived many many climatic disasters and changed little over millions of years. If there was nuclear annihilation at an incredible level, the cockroach would be one of only a hnadful of species to survive. So who is superior?

Believing in evolution need not lead us to racism. People who argue for such logical conclusion, I think, are wrong headed. I am a Christian and I have no problem in believing in evolution as well as creation of the Bible. After God is the author of the world as well as the Word.

"Evolution that is taught in public schools goes something like this: After the Big Bang" No, wrong. The Big Bang doesn't have a thing to do with evolution. "a small single cell organism and evolved over hundreds of millions of years into every living organism that is living today." The first life was a lot simpler than a single-celled organism, or a cell to begin with. "The politically incorrect theory that is left out is how the races evolved." The existence of racial variation is well-explained by the Theory of Evolution. "The African races would be the first modard humans, then Arabs, then Asian, then Europeans. If you want to you could say that Europeans are more evolved than all other races." You could say that, except you'd be lying. Just because skin color doesn't change (because the population stays put) doesn't mean evolution stops. Evolution is a constant process, and all humans are equally evolved. Nowhere in the Theory of Evolution is it stated anything CLOSE to the statement that certain 'races' of humans are more or less evolved than others. We are all the same species; in fact, we're all the same subspecies. Therefore, all humans are equal in an evolutionary context.

Did you know that African Blacks have the most complex (i.e. most highly evolved) genetic make-up of any of the so-called "races"? The current socio-economic position in the world of the various ethnic groups, is based entirely on environmental and cultural factors. The genetic make-up of the "races" has nothing to do with how well developed any specific ethnic group is.

That does make sense. However I don't think that the different races are meant to be considered to be higher evolution than the other, but more that they adapted to their specific regions a certain way which then made them different from the "original". Each one is "fit" for their region. This does not necessarily mean they are better than any other race. It only means that another race would not be so suited to live in that particular area. Humans today in ALL regions and races, continually "trick" evolution and the "survival of the fittest theory" due to new medicines and lifestyles that extend life even when the body is sick or malformed. This in turn is also causing a major overpopulation problem. But that could be discussed another time.

The reason it is not taught like that is because it isn't true. Each race has adopted to the different environments they live in. None are any better than others, but genetically they are better adapted to where they live. People from colder regions tend to be shorter and stronger built, but people from warmer regions tend to be tal and a bit gangly. Why is that? Shorter=less heat loss Vs. taller=more heat loss. Neither is necessarily better than the other. Also the whole theory or idea that people have about things that have evolved later being better is completely incorrect. They are not better because of when they evolved, just better equipped to deal with different circumstances. Also, they may deal with circumstances in a different way than other species, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Dan