Sorry, I should have clarified these are supposed quotes and paraphrases from Darwin himself from "Descent." According to the author of this site, the inferiority issue mattered greatly to Darwin.

Read the first few paragraphs.

I am so sick of this disgusting strawman.

I've posted on this topic inumerable times, here's my standard boiler plate. If you wish me to expound, I'm happy to oblige:

There is no biological justification for race, let alone racism.

All humans are fundamentally the same. We all come from a common ancestor; we all share a common genetic history. One of the oldest and most baseless 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 – that we are all literally 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, IMHO race simply does not exist when applied to homo sapiens. 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 or traits than other “races”, even if it could be shown that genetic predispositions to behaviors like violence or intelligence 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. We are a product of nature AND nuture. Elucidating the nuances and degree of contribution between the two is next to impossible.

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" (. 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 essentially 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

( 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

Quote:

then does it not follow that today's Africans are the last to evolve

 Wouldn't they be the first?

Ophios: How? How did all the other continents get people there? The first Sapiens eventually moved out and populated other areas. The last to evolve then, would be those remaining.

Also, how does one explain this comment made by an African gov't official I met in the 80s:

"Europeans have spent their time wisely, creating technology and such. We, our people, have spent our time sharpening our spears and telling stories around the fire."

I am not a scientist, and don't know that I buy evolution. I am here to learn and hear from the more learned on this subject. From my original post, the author argues that DARWIN is not only racist but sexist. The proof? Darwin's writings. So, my question is how do you accept his theories but say, "Oh, no! I'm not a racist." Mmmmmmm.

Again, from this site, just a paragraph or two down:

"As eloquently argued by Durant, both racism and sexism were central to evolution:

‘Darwin introduced his discussion of psychology in the Descent by reasserting his commitment to the principle of continuity … [and] … Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason … were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization”’ (Descent 1871:326–327).¹³

Darwin’s personal life

Darwin’s theory may have reflected his personal attitudes toward women and non-Caucasian races. When Darwin was concerned that his son Erasmus might marry a young lady named Martineau, he wrote that if Erasmus married her he would not be:

‘… much better than her “nigger.”—Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical and energetic a lady … . Martineau had just returned from … America, and was full of married women’s property rights … . Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine … . We must pray for our poor “nigger” … Martineau didn’t become a Darwin.’¹⁴

Most certainly true. The Europeans maritime expansion around the 1400-1800s also led to many more technical advantages than before that time. Such as the rediscovery of Ptolomey's geography which showed a round, not flat, earth.  The use of the compass, astrolabe, and celestial navigation.   The development of longitude/latitude and knots.  These technical advantages were directly resulting from the need to break away from Muslim encirclement and to trade with the Indies and China.  And the main reason the Europeans were so ardent in getting out of their happy home was to christianize other areas and to encircle Islam.

When the Portuguese set out to the Kongo Kingdom to take slaves for the Sugar Islands, they considered the natives there to be subhuman and to have "no souls" since they had no organized religion.  That was the difference.  The technological advances made by the Europeans were to gain power not to be humane.  I don't think they gave a squat about humanity.  I would like to think that we have come far since those days.  While the Europeans may have had the drive and lust for power, they were barbaric in the way they attained the power.