If the USA had introduced a benevolent dictatorship in the early 1950s, life today in the USA would pretty similar to the 1950s. The civil rights movement would never have happened. Feminism would not have happened. No rock and roll... And it would be a second rate power. All the smart people would have emigrated.

No worries, Faces349. Another time :-)

@ "Thing is, variation between individuals is much more pronounced than variations between "races". Therefore, attributing characteristics of a "race" to an individual is essentially stupidity personified."

1) Every single species must have arisen from an existing species, in biology this is known as speciation, do you agree?
2) Therefore we do we think that a new species will not arise from homo sapiens?
3)This will happen when a group becomes sufficiently different from another group to become independant and distinct breeders.
4) For the word group in point 3) you can, depending on your preference, substitue the word race.
5) If you care to look in The descent of Man written by Charles Darwin you will find it all there, set out in terms of superior and inferior races.

Race is a social construct which was invented in the early modern period. Yes, there are genetic differences between people, but the whole structure of race as we know it was made up recently (in historical terms). Taking race seriously is one of the great irrationalities of Western culture.

@orathaic: the fact that biologists made up a tree graph about race doesn't make it real.

Race is a social construct which was invented in the early modern period. Yes, there are genetic differences between people, but the whole structure of race as we know it was made up recently (in historical terms). Taking race seriously is one of the great irrationalities of Western culture.

That's the comfortable jargoned sociologist-type stock answer. Scientifically speaking we are still left with this -

1) Every single species must have arisen from an existing species, in biology this is known as speciation, do you agree?

Do you deny the process?

"If the USA had introduced a benevolent dictatorship in the early 1950s, life today in the USA would pretty similar to the 1950s. The civil rights movement would never have happened. Feminism would not have happened. No rock and roll... And it would be a second rate power. All the smart people would have emigrated."
How so? If they had free speech, a higher standard of living, more social freedoms, but just no right to vote, would they really move?
Also looked at most dictatorships, Russia and China kept on par with America after becoming dictatorships. So why is America any different?
Germany became the most advanced nation in the world shortly after Hitlers rise, why would America be any different?

"1) Every single species must have arisen from an existing species, in biology this is known as speciation, do you agree?
2) Therefore we do we think that a new species will not arise from homo sapiens?
3)This will happen when a group becomes sufficiently different from another group to become independant and distinct breeders.
4) For the word group in point 3) you can, depending on your preference, substitue the word race.
5) If you care to look in The descent of Man written by Charles Darwin you will find it all there, set out in terms of superior and inferior races."
The races are different, but the differences are rather minor compared to the racist thought path in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

The thing about race is this. It does provide a way of classifying people by physical characteristics, and it does appear to be geographically localized and so we tend to think, "ah look this is a real concept." But to provide a counterexample, ABO blood type also distributes geographically, but along different lines than racial characteristics. And yet we would think it absurd to describe or classify people by blood type, (except in cases where that information is relevant, ie, if you're giving them a blood transfusion, etc.) Racial divisions do exist, but are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless (from a biological standpoint) The only thing that makes race more important than blood type is our perception that it is so.

Looking at genetics, there are more differences between the races then just skin color, so from a biological standpoint its not just perception.

Simply because there's more to race than skin colour doesn't mean it is a biologically valid concept. Throughout human history interbreeding between populations has continued to a degree that makes any real differentiation between populations more or less impossible, in anyway that would be meaningful.

Wow. A neo facsist that says:

"Jews are lacking in morals. They plagued our world with the monotheistic bullshit 2/3 of society now falls under. However its just their culture, not genetics, I don't hold anything against them and don't want to exterminate them. "

You don't hold anything against them, but you make a blanket statement about an entire group of people. Obvious inconsistency is obvious.

Then you hold up Germany as an example of how good a dictatorship can be, ignoring the fact that that dictatorship committed genocide. Or that Germany was an advanced nation before Hitler and his genocidal fuckstains ever came around.

If Pinochet was so awesome, why did he overthrow a democratically elected government and then rule by fear, torture, and murder? Ask yourself about the track record of authoritarian dictatorships. They don't exactly have an awesome batting average. I'd like you to name one authoritarian dictatorship that maintains itself in power without the use of a police state apparatus?

You are literally the dumbest "smart" guy I know.

oh yeah! so I probably have neanderthal DNA =D
So are the african the only "true" sapiens?

Fasces349 says -

The races are different, but the differences are rather minor compared to the racist thought path in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

Man the elephant in the room is speciation, tackle it, if you have an argument that will deal with it. Otherwise go with Darwin and everywhere that leads, unless you can think or another alternative???

There has been no division between human populations at any point in history that would have been able to create even a fraction of the genetic differences that could cause speciation. There. Dealt with!

''monotheistic bullshit''

Jack I had thought that you agreed with this bit.

I think religion in general is rather silly, but I'm not wanting to point the finger at any particular group... there is plenty of crazy to go around. The difference being that I can hold an individual responsible for their own beliefs, but holding an entire group of people responsible? Seems a bit much to me.

But then again, I'm a contradiction occasionally... I think Conservative Man was crazy for advocating actual anarchy, but in my personal life, I have flavors of Heinlein's rational anarchy(the idea being that I personally am responsible for anything I do, regardless of any rules for or against that act.).

But no, my issue is that he seems to be rather ill-educated about history, and seems to want to write off a whole group of people with a particular judgment. Add that to his hardon for authoritarian leadership, and its rather... disturbing.

From Mafiaalligator

" But to provide a counterexample, ABO blood type also distributes geographically, but along different lines than racial characteristics. ''

I would give you sickle cell anaemia. Lets say global warming goes into overdrive (another thread any posters), so too will malaria. Lets say the world is severely depopulated but isolated malaria resistant sickle cell carriers remain and prosper. In not too many generations we will likely have speciated just as humans and chimps did. OK thats the Bob the Builder description but I hope you take the point.

Actually that's not speciation, that's a bottleneck.

Jack makes the very good and andmirable point that -

the idea being that I personally am responsible for anything I do, regardless of any rules for or against that act.

But I wonder if he has ever consider why he behaves like this? Might an explanation lie in the monotheism he so depreciates? As to the rest of his views on this matter I am with him 100 %.

Mafialligator writes-

Actually that's not speciation, that's a bottleneck.

Is that you complete view of the speciation issue (which you would wish to share with us)?

OK well if it is then would you say I would respond by what you call a bottleneck I would call The Founder Effect. They would have both a distinct genotype and phenotype, would you call that speciation? If so we mean the same thing by the word.

"You don't hold anything against them, but you make a blanket statement about an entire group of people. Obvious inconsistency is obvious. "
I don't hate the modern Jew, I hate the Jews of the past.

"Then you hold up Germany as an example of how good a dictatorship can be, ignoring the fact that that dictatorship committed genocide. Or that Germany was an advanced nation before Hitler and his genocidal fuckstains ever came around."
Bullshit,you can say a lot of bad things about Hitler, but the fact his, he got Germany out of a recession, and his concentration camp idea came from America.

"If Pinochet was so awesome, why did he overthrow a democratically elected government and then rule by fear, torture, and murder?"
He didn't overthrow a democracy, he overthrow a communist regime, at least thats what Gerald Ford thought. The Americans funded his rebellion, they wouldn't have funded him if he was rebelling against a fully functional democracy.

"But no, my issue is that he seems to be rather ill-educated about history, and seems to want to write off a whole group of people with a particular judgment. Add that to his hardon for authoritarian leadership, and its rather... disturbing.'
I know more about history then you do. And when did I say I wanted to write off a whole group of people with a particular judgement. I don't have anything against Jews, I just hate their religion.

OK then, here's a more complete view of the issue. Yes, the hypothetical case you give would be an example of speciation in a way, except in that there would not be a separate species of human without resistance to malaria, because they'd all be dead. And more relevantly, such an event has never really occurred in the past that created any real significant genetic difference between people of different racial groups. So your example is interesting, it's just never happened.

''OK then, here's a more complete view of the issue. Yes, the hypothetical case you give would be an example of speciation in a way, except in that there would not be a separate species of human without resistance to malaria,''

Maybe malaria didn't spread to arctic and the Innuit..........anyway you get my point.

To deny the concept of racial difference and possible future racial extinctsion and survival in the context of Natural Selection is wishful 'sociological' thinking and not science. Darwin said as much about the ''native Australians'', I am afraid that is where his science, taken in isolation, must lead.

its minimal, but there are still differences.

Hitlers "success" leading up to WW2 was overrated. He spent his way out of a recession and the country was on the verge of bankruptcy shortly before WW2 broke out. This is one of the reason he invaded Czechoslovakia. He wanted its resources so he could could keep the machine rolling.

The country was already bankrupt, or was the previous government over printing bills because they had a surplus? Even though I disagree with his economic policy, you can't deny that it worked.

Errrr, I wouldn't rely too heavily on the Descent of Man as a scientific text fulhamish. I believe in Darwinian evolution, don't get me wrong, but compared with the Origin of Species, the Descent of Man is an inferior work riddled with the racial prejudices of the time in which Darwin lived.
Also I fail to see how your example of the inuit not getting malaria and therefore not developing sickle cell anemia constitutes a speciation event. Any kind of physical difference can be used as a way of categorizing people. The cluster of characteristics we call "race" is no more valid a way of doing that than say, hand size, ABO blood type, rate of fingernail growth or whether or not you can roll your tongue. The fact of the matter is that throughout human history no population of humans has been isolated from gene flow going on in other parts of the world. If I marry someone from the next village over, and my kids living in that village marry someone in the village past that, and so on and so forth then we have gene flow moving across 3 villages. Just allow for enough people in each village and for plenty of intermarriage between villages, and you have gene flow running from Madrid to Hong Kong, from Moscow to Johannesburg, from Montreal to Buenos Aires all through human history. Speciation like you're referring to is irrelevant, as no population has been isolated enough for it to occur

Thank you for the considered response Mafialligator.

1) When people quote the man of class and times defence of Darwin I am reminded of another man of his class and times, his contemporary - Richard Cobden.

2) Under my scenario there would be two sub-species. One adapted to live in cold but malaria-free conditions, while the other would be adapted to live in hot conditio ns where malaria was endemic. As time went by differences would grow and they would definatively speciate. QED.

3) I was wondering when you would embark on the anthropocentric defence. I rather like this route as your are actually, albeit a little tentatively, suggesting that we are in a situation as a species where gross-scale Natural Selection no longer applies. Am I putting words in your mouth?