Are Some Races Genetically Superior At Some Things?

Quote from: "Hardhead"

A lot of people say no.  I say yes.  

Evolution means that organisms adapt to their enviornment.  Wouldn't that mean that, if Evolution exists (and I believe it does), that the races must have diverged a little bit.  Specialized here and there?

Discuss.

The concept of evolution is "survival of the fittest", not straight adaptation.

That's called Natural Selection my friend...

without reading the thread (muhahah), I say, yes; some races are superior at things.

However, these things are only that some people can withstand more solar radiation due to their skin color.  Then,  I guess you could say some tribes of Africans that pretty much every memebr of the tribe has the sickle-cell anemia gene are a race,  and if they are a  race they are superior at fighting off malaria infections.

Apart from that,  I cannot think of any regional adapations.  I also mention that every human alive is of the subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens, so any genetic differences between 'races' are negligable, thus the difficulty thinking of ways that one ethnicity is slightly better suited to an environment than another

the

and whats it about

the

A lot of people say no.  I say yes.  

Evolution means that organisms adapt to their enviornment.  Wouldn't that mean that, if Evolution exists (and I believe it does), that the races must have diverged a little bit.  Specialized here and there?

Discuss.

People with that kind of thinking killed native americans, aborigenies in Australia, pigmies and a lot more other people just because they thought they were inferior. Not to mention the soul reason for world wars.
Congrats Hardhead you have the same thinking as Adolf Hitler!

There are no races! There is just one race - human race, and a lot of variations within it.

the

the

the

the

People with that kind of thinking killed native americans, aborigenies in Australia, pigmies and a lot more other people just because they thought they were inferior. Not to mention the soul reason for world wars.
Congrats Hardhead you have the same thinking as Adolf Hitler!

There are no races! There is just one race - human race, and a lot of variations within it.

I thought the world wars were caused by the assasination of Franz Ferdinand and by Hitler invading Poland, but whatever.

'Social darwinism' is an idea that Hitler supports but it's nonsense. Evolution requires that the members of the species best adapted to their environment survive while the weaker ones die out. By killing off the apprently weaker ones you are creating an artificial environement and therefore going against evolution.

To the earlier comment about different races changing slightly: Everyone's DNA is different, but as long as it's within about 1% the same you are regarded as a member of the species.

Quote from: "googleSearch"

Not to mention the soul reason for world wars.

I thought the world wars were caused by the assasination of Franz Ferdinand and by Hitler invading Poland, but whatever.

Cheesejoff, pay attention.  He clearly said "soul reasons" and was thus obviously referring to the widespread spiritual corruption that underpinned the two wars.

Everyone's DNA is different, but as long as it's within about 1% the same you are regarded as a member of the species.

Not for multicellular organisms.  For us, a population is a single species if its members can and do breed to produce viable offspring.  Thus dogs are a single species because you can breed them; dogs and cats are not because they cannot interbreed.  I think.

-Erasmus

Cheesejoff, pay attention.  He clearly said "soul reasons" and was thus obviously referring to the widespread spiritual corruption that underpinned the two wars.

-Erasmus

Exactly right, and this spiritual corruption was based of darwinism and ugenics movements.
With improving medicine in those years, they were able to cure much more people from illneses they would normally die from if left alone. This fact completely cancelled "natural selection". So, people who belived in darwinism decided to promote wheir own "natural selection" - ugenics. They thought that all those "inferior races" are in the way of the evolution process and started to elliminate them by force.

Evolution is a religion of death. History proved it over and over again, and yet there are still people who follow it.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Cheesejoff, pay attention.  He clearly said "soul reasons" and was thus obviously referring to the widespread spiritual corruption that underpinned the two wars.

-Erasmus

Exactly right, and this spiritual corruption was based of darwinism and ugenics movements.
With improving medicine in those years, they were able to cure much more people from illneses they would normally die from if left alone. This fact completely cancelled "natural selection". So, people who belived in darwinism decided to promote wheir own "natural selection" - ugenics. They thought that all those "inferior races" are in the way of the evolution process and started to elliminate them by force.

Evolution is a religion of death. History proved it over and over again, and yet there are still people who follow it.

Hey what about Christianity and the Crusades? That wasn't about death?

Hey what about Christianity and the Crusades? That wasn't about death?

Sure was. There are some people that corrupt and misinterprite the teaching and do some crazy things in it's name. BUT evolution IS the teaching of death, Hitler didn't misinterprited or corrupted it, he just followed it. And that's the difference.

Quote from: "troubadour"

Hey what about Christianity and the Crusades? That wasn't about death?

Sure was. There are some people that corrupt and misinterprite the teaching and do some crazy things in it's name. BUT evolution IS the teaching of death, Hitler didn't misinterprited or corrupted it, he just followed it. And that's the difference.

Hooray double standards.
When Christianity is used to justify evil misinterpretation (so far I agree)
When evolution used to justify evil that is the correct interpretation of it .
Hmmmm that seems suspiciously like a statment without any justification except personal bias.
So justify it or retract it
An enraged
Cinlef

Hooray double standards.
When Christianity is used to justify evil misinterpretation (so far I agree)
When evolution used to justify evil that is the correct interpretation of it .
Hmmmm that seems suspiciously like a statment without any justification except personal bias.
So justify it or retract it
An enraged
Cinlef

I think I did.

Crusades and inquisition were done in the name of Christianity, but it had nothing to do with actual teachings other than the name. Crusaders and inquisitors misinterpreted and twisted the teaching to justify their deeds.

Nazis followed the "natural selection" as written without twisting and misinterpreting: Weak and less fitted were killed (not Arians), strong and more fitted (Arians) were encouraged to reproduce.

Quote from: "Cinlef"

Hooray double standards.
When Christianity is used to justify evil misinterpretation (so far I agree)
When evolution used to justify evil that is the correct interpretation of it .
Hmmmm that seems suspiciously like a statment without any justification except personal bias.
So justify it or retract it
An enraged
Cinlef

I think I did.

Crusades and inquisition were done in the name of Christianity, but it had nothing to do with actual teachings other than the name. Crusaders and inquisitors misinterpreted and twisted the teaching to justify their deeds.

Nazis followed the "natural selection" as written without twisting and misinterpreting: Weak and less fitted were killed (not Arians), strong and more fitted (Arians) were encouraged to reproduce.

Misunderstanding natural selection is fun,
Natural selection is that species most adapted to the enviroment survive. The strongest creatures do not nessecarily survive the best adapted to the enviroment do.
What the Nazis did was misinterpret the Theory of Evolution so as to justify  their eugenics program. Nazis horrific genocide came from their belief in the (fictional) Aryan race. It was based entirely on Hitlers personal prejudices and dressed up in scientific jargon to create an aura of respectability. Much as the Crusades were wrapped in Christianity t garner more support than the social/political motives.
An enraged
Cinlef

BUT evolution IS the teaching of death

Big deal; I can do that too: religion IS the teaching of death.

Good job furthering your argument in a useful fashion.

-Erasmus

Misunderstanding natural selection is fun,
Natural selection is that species most adapted to the enviroment survive. The strongest creatures do not nessecarily survive the best adapted to the enviroment do.
What the Nazis did was misinterpret the Theory of Evolution so as to justify  their eugenics program. Nazis horrific genocide came from their belief in the (fictional) Aryan race. It was based entirely on Hitlers personal prejudices and dressed up in scientific jargon to create an aura of respectability. Much as the Crusades were wrapped in Christianity t garner more support than the social/political motives.
An enraged
Cinlef

You think eugenics program was misinterpritation of evolution? They killed people with mental illnesses and genetic diorders, people who were only alive because they were taken care of by other people. They would probably die if left to themselves anyway. Isn't that natural selection?

Quote from: "googleSearch"

BUT evolution IS the teaching of death

Big deal; I can do that too: religion IS the teaching of death.

Good job furthering your argument in a useful fashion.

-Erasmus

You know, You sholdn't say things you don't understand if you don't want to look stupid in front of other people.

You think eugenics program was misinterpritation of evolution? They killed people with mental illnesses and genetic diorders, people who were only alive because they were taken care of by other people. They would probably die if left to themselves anyway. Isn't that natural selection?

No, it's not. Take a good look at the name "natural selection", pay close attention to the first part. The eugenics program was "forced selection". There was nothing "natural" about it.

I know you don't want people to answer questions directed at other people, so I want to apologise in advance.

No, it's not. Take a good look at the name "natural selection", pay close attention to the first part. The eugenics program was "forced selection". There was nothing "natural" about it.

I know you don't want people to answer questions directed at other people, so I want to apologise in advance.

You must realize that with modern medicine and helth care system there is no "natural" selection anymore. The only selection you get is forced. Eugenics realized this as well, so the only way to continue the process of evolution - the selection had to be forced.

However belief natural selection does not logically lead to state controlled eugenics.
Evolution is all about adaption. The species that adpats the most to its environment is the one that survives. This is a natural phenomenon.
Since it progress is incredibly slow I cannot know what effect modern society is having on it. Yes people with genetic disorders and handicaps are living and breeding more often that in a primitive human state. This is because the conditions of the human race have changed drastically since its beinnings.
To continue a scientific eugenics program (as opposed to Nazis prejudice lead one) is foolish because we'd be replicating conditions in the "wild" (ie an enviroment in which the human race now longer lives) It would ultimatly produce a creature that would be the greatest hunter gatherer possible (which in the modern human socitety is worthless)
Saying belief in evolution leads logically to belief in eugenics is foolsih.
It is like saying belief in volcanos would lead to state run programs to create city destroying volcanos
Just because a phenomenon occurs naturally doesn't mean we should try and replicate it in socitey.
An enraged
Cinlef

Isn't that natural selection?

No.  Natural selection is merely an observation about the dynamics of populations which depend on finite resources.  It is not a policy enacted and enforced by any mechanism; certainly by no sentient mechanism.

You know, You sholdn't say things you don't understand if you don't want to look stupid in front of other people.

First off, I don't consider you a person whose view of... anything could possibly be of any merit.  You have illustrated yourself to be almost totally morally against the application of reason in all endeavors.

Secondly, I understand the statement I made all too well: religious teachings are quite concerned with the subject of death, both in terms of what happens after it and in terms of when and upon which mortals it should be meted out by other mortals.

If you wish to place yourself on a pedestal, be sure it is made of some more substantial stuff.  You are up on a Pedestal of Poo.

-Erasmus

the

Dear Erasmus,

 Since you obviously do not understand religion as a teaching, I'll try to briefly explain it to you on the example of Christianity.
Christianity is a teaching of eternal life in hell or heaven. Death as we understand it is just a phase, a doorway between this world and the world beyond. It also teaches us to avoid entering this doorway for as long as possible, but if we do, the life beyond it will be eternal. So you see, religion is definitely is NOT the teaching of death, it is the opposite the teaching of life, eternal life to be exact.

 Evolution on the other hand put all it's emphasis on death. Without death there is no evolution. Death is the driving force of natural selection. And natural selection is driving force of evolution. Hence, evolution is a teaching of death.

I completely agree with Harun Yahya on the subject.
I also would like to add Columbine High School shooting in 1999 to the list.
Shooting was done by 2 students deep believers in evolution. One of them had a t-shirt with words "natural selection". "He didn't deserve the jaw evolution gave him" - said one of the shooter as a justification for the murder. It was also done on the day of Hitler's birth.
That's what happens if you teach kids that they are nothing but animals, and some of them are better than others based on color of skin or physical features.

Evolution on the other hand put all it's emphasis on death. Without death there is no evolution. Death is the driving force of natural selection. And natural selection is driving force of evolution. Hence, evolution is a teaching of death.

So, clearly if nobody ever died, nobody would ever go to heaven or hell.  Without death, there is no resurrection.  Thus death is the driving force of at least that aspect of religion.

Point is that the label "a teaching of death" carries no purpose other than to be inflammatory.

Even if natural selection did not occur (notwithstanding any moral judgements you wish to pass on it), death would still occur.  So then something else would be the teaching of death; namely, whatever process has death as a necessary component.  Economics, for example: that's a teaching of death.  If people didn't die, we'd run out of resources pretty quickly.  

What's the point of referring to some body of knowledge as "the teaching of death"?  I claim, simply to make an irrational moral judgement about it.

Lastly, I can just say, "No, evolution is the teaching of survival: that's where the emphasis is, not death."

Anyway I suggest that we stick to rational characterizations of evolution and religion, as opposed to purely rhetorical ones.  Evolution is not the teaching of death.  If you or Dionysios wish to form a causal link between evolution and instability in society, you had better point out something more convincing than a mere correlation; otherwise, I would urge you to take note that the decline in the number of pirates in the world is strongly correlated with global warming.

-Erasmus

Googlesearch, evolution does not teach death any more than religion does. People simply use evolution to justify killing, in exactly the same way people use religion to justify killing.