Correct answer to evolution/ists=racism?

Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Correct answer to evolution/ists=racism?

So what is the correct or best answer to the claim that evolution/ists is/are racist? This arguement seems to be based on saying that evolution implies the natives of Africa and Australia are less evolved than European counterparts, as they were far more advanced when they discovered the Aborgines and Africans.

I know the answer is something along the lines of resource distribution, could anyone expand on this?

Funnily, this argument was presented to me by a xtian who had hours before been telling incredibly racist jokes. Oh those silly xtians and their irony.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
NO is the answer

Technologically advanced does not equate to being evolutionarily advanced, that is the comparison of two separate criteria. If Europeans could not interbreed and create fertile offspring with their Australian and African counterparts, then he might have a point, but this is not the case. If he is looking for something(evolution) to validate racism, tell him to read the bible again.

4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark(mark=turning them black) upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

markofcain

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
The best answer is “NO

The best answer is “NO YOU !!!!” simple in the evolution model we don’t have  a will or motive and in the words of Christians “Every thing is randomness and chance” however in creationism you must believe god made blacks different and you must be a racist for more information’s look at Mormonism.  

 

You can twist the argument around saying “YES we are racist we believe the weight race is genetically inferior to the glorious blacks “ since our  bodies  are scared buy dysgenics and  can’t stand intensive sun and get easily burned buy it.

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


OccamsChainsaw
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Since all of our ancestors

Since all of our ancestors came from Africa in the not too distant past (40 - 80 kya) it would be silly for anyone who accepts evolution to be a racist.  Not that humans aren't silly at times but the assumed superiority of one descendant of a common ancestor over another descendant of the same common ancestor because of skin color or the shape of their nose or eyes or technological advancement is willfull ignorance.

There are some fine books by a fellow named Jared Diamond; Guns, Germs and Steele and Collapse which deal with the accident of geography that  allowed one group to become more technologically advanced than others.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This arguement seems

Quote:
This arguement seems to be based on saying that evolution implies the natives of Africa and Australia are less evolved than European counterparts, as they were far more advanced when they discovered the Aborgines and Africans.

If this is the argument, then the correct answer is, "Learn about evolution before saying any more stupid shit, ok?"

Humans have evolved precious little since the discovery of agriculture.  We've had a few hundred generations.  Any natural selection event that would make one race significantly better than another in any meaningful way would take thousands of generations.  Skin pigment is something that can change in a few generations, and is superficial, as is hair texture, height, etc...  A fundamental change in the brain across a whole race would take thousands of generations of genetic isolation.  Note that the races are not genetically isolated.

If one were to say that the races are older than agriculture, there's still not much to it.  First, before agriculture, we were a very small population in a very small geographic area, so there's no reason to suppose there would be enough selective pressure to create races, or enough social organization to create a barrier.  Second, unless you go back to pre-human ancestors, you still don't get enough generations for anything significant.

It's a stupid argument.

Oh, and technical advancement has nothing to do with the ability of the brain to advance technically.  As you have said, if there are resources and sufficient free time, people will advance.  If it's all about surviving day to day, you're not going to advance as much.  Plain and simple, all humans have had the same brain for at least 10,000 years.  Period.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Whites are not

Whites are not evolutionarily superior. Only racists make claims like this. We are each evolved to be suited to our environment.

The only time you could claim that one variety, race or species is evolutionarily inferior is if becomes extinct.

Sharks and crocodiles have been around for much longer than humans. You go into their environment with no tools and tell them they are evolutionarily inferior just coz they have been around longer.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:So what is the

Loc wrote:
So what is the correct or best answer to the claim that evolution/ists is/are racist? This arguement seems to be based on saying that evolution implies the natives of Africa and Australia are less evolved than European counterparts, as they were far more advanced when they discovered the Aborgines and Africans.

That's more social Darwinism, a kind of bastard child of Darwinian theory. The idea goes that whatever "race" of people (ie those with similar characteristics or historical geographical origin) is doing the best at conquering right now is the race that should be conquering. I'm sure you see the circular nature of the argument, and the reason it was so popular. Conquering "races" or nations have always wanted intellectual justification - social Darwinism was just a pseudo-scientific way to express the same thing the Romans thought they were doing.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I often wear blue shirts too.

I often wear blue shirts too.


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
This is a touchy subject

First of all, I'm half Nahuatl amerindian and half European white. My mother born of Nahuatl amerindians in Mexico and my father, born in Mexico, of white parents from Spain.

I've read a little on this subject and people fail to realize that science is no racist, sexist, or prejudicial. However, there is a lot of debate of whether some "races" of humans are differently adapted. For instance, we all can see the different skin pigmentations, height, etc. But there exist even deeper, less obvious, physiological differences between us; from muscle/fat ratio, propensity to disease, and the most forbidden and taboo of all this: intelligence. The issue is touchy for obvious reasons, however, it is somewhat illogical to think that even though we differ between races in so many physical and physiological ways, that somehow, intelligence would be the one property that has been spared any discrepancy or difference. Having said that, the differences in tested intellect are minor and subjective in that there is no true, objective way to test intelligence, yet. While some people are great with numbers, they might have terrible spatial awareness. Others excel at arts but cannot remember what they had for lunch.

So, while there may me some differences in intelligence, people have to understand that most scientists do not have a racist agenda and that they simply want to know more. Also, now with more and more interbreeding between the "races" (like myself), I think the "racial" differences are blurring more and more each day.

I kept using quotation marks when using the word "races" because biologically we are not different races or species.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:So what is the

Loc wrote:

So what is the correct or best answer to the claim that evolution/ists is/are racist? This arguement seems to be based on saying that evolution implies the natives of Africa and Australia are less evolved than European counterparts, as they were far more advanced when they discovered the Aborgines and Africans.

I know the answer is something along the lines of resource distribution, could anyone expand on this?

Funnily, this argument was presented to me by a xtian who had hours before been telling incredibly racist jokes. Oh those silly xtians and their irony.

You might check out Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man." It's a pretty good book, I think. There have been some criticisms of it, especially by psychologists, but other psychologists have praised it. It's a little dated, written 25 years ago, but I think it'd provide a good foundation about why your racist friend is wrong.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2388
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
evolution

 Evolution deals with and explains, 'survival of the fittest'  NOT  I repeat NOT who has the best Cadilac, evolution is to survive by sending your genes onto the next generation.  NOT repeat NOT who has the best clothes, who has the biggest house!!!!!!!! ADAPT to your enviroment, and pass the adaptation onto the next generation.  i.e. Holding your breath untill daddy gives in and buys you a car may work in Beverly Hills but is completely useless on the Serengetti Plain. ADAPT  to your surroundings  and  you  can survive, Season tickets to the Blue Jays (very expensive) are worthless to raindeer hearders in Finland,  exploiting nearby resources for survival is EVOLUTION, driving to Mac D's is CULTURE! Does this help?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Plain and

Hambydammit wrote:

Plain and simple, all humans have had the same brain for at least 10,000 years.  Period. 

100%. Couldn't agree more.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
*human evolution enthusiast

*human evolution enthusiast slips through the door*

What're you guys talking about?

Ooooh, human evolution?

Ok, first and foremost.  The idea that evolution says anything about one ethnic group of humans being "more evolved" than the other is utter nonsense.  Nothing is more evolved that anything else.  That's a retarded idea.  A bacterium is just as evolved as a human.  It just evolved in different directions.  Nonsense.  Irks me as bad as the ID creation of macro versus micro evolution.  No such thing.  It's just evolution.  Period.  Anyways, there is more genetic diversity within ethnic groups than between them.  Humans are all one very closely related species.

However, we are not at an evolutionary standstill right now.  We used to believe that until quite recently.  New studies now suggest the exact opposite is occuring.

When people start talking about transitionary creatures things get all muddled.  Now it's true if one species eventually will evolve into another species then technically that was a transitional creature.  However, there are two different types of "transitional" animals.  One kind stays stable for a long period of time.  This occurs when no big change is going on.  However the much more rare type of transitional animal is the kind that is going through a rapid evolutionary change to adapt to changing evolutionary pressures.  These creatures don't hang around for very long.  They transition rapidly into a new species that then becomes stable.  And guess what?

We are actively going through a rapid evolutionary change right now.  Super fast.

Until very recently it seemed that nothing much was going on with us humans on an evolutionary perspective.  Everything very cut and dry, and well...frankly boring.  Thankfully, that ain't so.  We used to think that we weren't evolving for tens of thousands of years.  However, think about this for a few moments.  Our world has changed a lot since we started agriculture.  Logically it would make sense that we would be evolving to adapt to higher densities of humans and cities and whatnot.  And it's true.

Quote:

"We're more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals," said study co-author and University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending.

Neat huh?  Also the idea that our brains have been the same for the past 10,000 years or so is also untrue.  In the past 8,000 years the brain of the Homo Sapiens has increased around 10%.

Quote:

If human beings had always evolved at such a rapid clip, said the researchers, genetic differences between people and chimpanzees would be 160 times greater than they are.

Now while there currently is very little difference in genetics between ethnic groups today, who knows if it will stay that way.  Are we interbreeding enough?  Maybe instead of people looking bad at interracial families, we should instead encourage it so we all stay together as one species.

Quote:

 

 

  • "Human races are evolving away from each other," Harpending says. "Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity." He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, "and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then." 

     

  • Quote:

    "Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups."
     
    The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because "we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt," Harpending adds. "And with a larger population, more mutations occurred."

    Fascinating stuff.  I love studying it.

    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187203,00.html

    http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=120607-1

     

     

     

     

    "I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


    Loc
    Superfan
    Loc's picture
    Posts: 1130
    Joined: 2007-11-06
    User is offlineOffline
    Thanks for the input

    Thanks for the input everyone..

     

    Watcher wrote:

    Fascinating stuff.  I love studying it.

    Indeed, in my infant knowledge of evolution I'm finding it fascinating. In a moment of weakness and agaisnt my bank accounts advice, I bought Richard Dawkin's Climbing Mount Improbable. I haven't gotten far yet, but almost every page bring a sense of wonder and 'oh that's so interesting!' The creationist viewpoint is so dissatisfying. Man was made like this,that's it.

    Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

    dudeofthemoment wrote:
    This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

    Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


    Hambydammit
    High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
    Hambydammit's picture
    Posts: 8657
    Joined: 2006-10-22
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:We are actively going

    Quote:
    We are actively going through a rapid evolutionary change right now.  Super fast.

    Interesting stuff.  It raises some questions that are going to give sociobiologists fits.  It's also going to make for some really silly coffee shop philosophy debates.  What comes to mind immediately, of course, is the assertion that our moral sense is ancient and instinctual.  How much of our sense is ancient, and how much has been learned recently?  Since our moral sense is primarily tied to interactions with other individuals and the group as a whole, has there been much selection pressure in that direction?  I mean, we still live in societies and still have basically the same needs -- don't kill me and don't take my shit, including my mate.  Hopefully we'll have something more than news articles to read soon.  [EDIT: pfft... found the link to the study.  Use brain... open mouth...  not the other way...]

    My first impression is that the most selective pressure would be exerted on instincts dealing with close tribal unity.  Since we haven't lived in groups of 20 to 100 in quite a while, we encounter people with different sets of smells and pheromones all the time.  I'm just talking out of my ass here, but it wouldn't be hard to speculate that if anything, evolution was making racism less natural to humans.  Practically everybody lives in close proximity (relatively speaking) to someone who is a long way away on the family tree.  This would have only happened in the last few thousand years.  Have people in particularly integrated and populated areas experienced a genetic change based on the selection pressure of living among 'others' their whole life?

     

    Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

    http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
    Books about atheism


    Watcher
    atheist
    Posts: 2326
    Joined: 2007-07-10
    User is offlineOffline
    Hambydammit wrote:Have

    Hambydammit wrote:

    Have people in particularly integrated and populated areas experienced a genetic change based on the selection pressure of living among 'others' their whole life?

    The only thing I've ever read about human evolution that touches on this is our immune system.  It's rapidly evolving to help protect us from all the germs we pass around so easily now that we live in such large numbers.  I don't have a clue about anything else along that specific line.  I just read shit.  lol

    "I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


    Hambydammit
    High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
    Hambydammit's picture
    Posts: 8657
    Joined: 2006-10-22
    User is offlineOffline
    I just read the Hawkes,

    I just read the Hawkes, Wang, et al, paper ( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/52/20753 ).  That's pretty convincing stuff.  Of course, this is me, not deludedgod or someone who specializes in this kind of thing.

    What strikes me immediately is that it's going to be very hard for social scientists to weed through behavior patterns historically.  Should the relative distribution of racist authority structures be considered evidence of an evolutionary tendency towards or away from racism?  In other words, since there are far less racist governments, organizations, etc, than say, five hundred years ago, can we say that human evolution has altered our brains slightly, or was the adaptive ability to cope with integration already there, having evolved from some other selection pressure?

    Before we can even begin to address questions like that, I suppose we need to know more about how our instincts drive our morality.  There's some really interesting MRI stuff about what parts of the brain fire when we experience certain stimuli.  For instance, the same region of the brain fires for OCD and infatuation.  It's my opinion that this kind of research can tell us a lot about what our sense of morality actually is.  You can't lie to the MRI.  (Oooh... that's a good line.  I need to use that somewhere.)

    I keep returning to morality because it seems to me that racism is ultimately a question of morality.  What I suspect is that most middle class non-racist white Americans are non-racist in practice, not feeling.  In other words, if you hook them up to the MRI and show them pictures, including mixed-marriage couples, images of black sports stars, and other racially charged images, they would show a different set of brain activity than when they are shown all white group photos, Steve Garvey, and good looking WASP families.  These are the same people who would answer surveys as if they are not racist.  The question then becomes, if they feel differently to other races, but strive to act equally, are they racist?  A corollary question:  If someone thinks about having an affair all the time, but never does, is he faithful, or is he a cheater?

    In other words, I suspect that the most a lot of people can do is not act racist.  The question is whether these reactions are evolutionary or cultural.  Identical twin studies would be a good measure of that.  Surely there are enough separated twins to do a study of all white areas vs. integrated areas.


     

     

    Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

    http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
    Books about atheism


    Yellow_Number_Five
    atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
    Yellow_Number_Five's picture
    Posts: 1390
    Joined: 2006-02-12
    User is offlineOffline
    No, if anything, biology and

    No, if anything, biology and evolution ought to CONNECT you with your fellow human. As I've written, years ago:

    All humans are fundamentally the same. We all come from a common ancestor; we all share a common genetic history. One of the oldest criticisms of evolutionary theory has always been that such a theory is racist, or could be used to justify racism; however to the contrary evolution tells us that we all come from the same place, from the same ancestor – we are all very distant cousins of one another (1) and have been interbreeding with one another since the dawn of the species (and even before that if you want to get really technical). What’s more, the related field of genetics has shown that at our very core, our DNA, is fundamentally the same across our entire species and that we all came from the same place – Africa around 60,000 years ago (2).


    Even more importantly, genetic studies have shown that human genetic diversity is more pronounced between individuals of the same population than between different populations or even continents (4), (5). In fact, it has been known for quite some time that human genetic variation lies largely between individuals within populations, rather than between populations or even between continents. Genetic studies have confirmed this using classical genetic makers to the point that we know that the apportionment of genetic diversity lies 88 to 90% among individuals within populations and 10 to 12% among different populations (6). I use the term population here rather than race, because biologically speaking, race simply does not exist. In other words, genetically speaking, Africans and Asians are more similar to one another as groups than any two individual Asians are to one another or any two Africans are to on another.


    The reasons for this lack of genetic variance between populations, races and continents are many; DNA bottlenecks and near extinctions of our species (7), the fact that we are a relatively young species, the fact that we are historically nomadic and intermixing species, but the empirical evidence speaks for itself – we are much more similar to one another than most would imagine and most of our differences really are only skin deep. It is clear that the “races” do not differ genetically in any significant way. Thus it is unreasonable to assume that certain “races” of people would be more genetically predisposed to certain behaviors than other “races”, even if it could be shown that genetic predispositions to behaviors like violence even exist in a conclusive demonstrable capacity – no conclusive evidence exists, that I am aware of, that determinant genetic specific behaviors exist, let alone that they are quantifiable or measurable.

    When one uses the term race in a biological sense, they are implying subspecies categorization – there is absolutely no basis for such categorization in humans.

    To understand what a subspecies is, one must first understand what a species is. Famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (RIP )put it succinctly enough that his explanation is still quoted frequently by other biologists to this day: species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (8 ). A subspecies is a taxonomic group that is a division of a species and is distinguished by (9):

    1) Members of one subspecies must be reliably distinguishable from members of other subspecies.

    2) The exchange of genetic material between subspecies must be minimal, and expected to remain minimal even if the two groups were placed in close proximity to one another.

    3) In order to be regarded as subspecies, rather than a single varied species, the difference between subspecies must be distinct and NOT simply a difference of CONTINUOUSLY VARYING DEGREE. (For example skin color in humans).

    Differences of continuously varying degree are called clines, and they are clear evidence of gene flow between populations and thus cause to question subspecies categorization. It is also important to note that the biological definition of subspecies and race are interchangeable; however the biological and colloquial definitions of race are VERY different. To qualify as a biological subspecies or race, a group must meet the above requirements. Examples of human subspecies (two of which are now extinct) are homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens (no, the extra sapiens is not a typo) and possibly homo neanderthalis


    So there you have it; we are all the same genetically speaking, yet we remain individuals - for it is within individuals and not races that the genetic spice of life really lies.



    (1) Dawkins, Richard. “River out of Eden” ch.2

    (2) Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.(1998). The DNA revolution in population genetics. Trends in Genetics. 14(Feb.), p. 60-65.

    (3) Wise, C., Sraml, M., Rubinsztein, D., Easteal. S. 1997. Comparative Nuclear and Mitochondrial Genome Diversity in Humans and Chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14:707-716.

    (4) Jorde, L., Rogers, A., Bamshad, M., Watkins, W.S., Krakowiak, P., Sung, S., Kere, J., Harpending, H. April 1997. Microsatellite Diversity and the Demographic History of Modern Humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:3100-3103.

    (5) Bowcock. A.M., Ruiz-Linares, A., Tomfohrde, J., Minch, E., Kidd, J.R., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1994. High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368:455-457.

    (6) Lewontin, R. C. 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology 6:381-398. Cited in Ref. 35.

    (7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

    (8 ) Mayr, E. 1940. Speciation phenomena in birds. Am. Nat. 74: 249–278.

    (9) Subspecies and Classification, Smith, H., Chiszar, D., and Montanucci, R. 1997. Herpetological Review 28(1):13-16

    http://www.goodrumj.com/Smith.html

    I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

    Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


    Theia
    Theia's picture
    Posts: 207
    Joined: 2008-04-13
    User is offlineOffline
    Hambydammit wrote:Humans

    Hambydammit wrote:

    Humans have evolved precious little since the discovery of agriculture.  We've had a few hundred generations.  Any natural selection event that would make one race significantly better than another in any meaningful way would take thousands of generations. 

    And remember that natural selection does not necessarily lead to a superior trait. It could be argued that the pudgy, soft, Europeans whose pale skin is more prone to cancer and wrinkles, whose blue eyes are more prone to macular degeneration, are actually inferior to the more athletically built dark-skinned, dark-eyed races.

    "The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


    Conor Wilson
    Posts: 451
    Joined: 2008-01-07
    User is offlineOffline
    A slightly different approach to the issue...

    Let's see, now...evolution leading to racism.

     

    Oh, yes...of course...why didn't we see this before?

     

    Everbody remembers George McGovern standing on the steps of his state's capitol building saying, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

     

    ...while, of course, clutching his copy of "On The Origin Of Species."

     

    Right.

     

    Conor


    Conor Wilson
    Posts: 451
    Joined: 2008-01-07
    User is offlineOffline
    Heh, heh...oops..

    ...I, of course, meant to write "George Wallace," and not "George McGovern."

     

    That's what I get for trying to do everything from memory....

     

    Conor