Thursday, March 16, 2006

Biologists against Evolution

One of the foundations of evolution is that if you separate a population into two different enviroments they will get more different as time goes on. Therefore it seems strange that biologists reject as racist the idea that there are some genetic differences between the races. First of all we know that there is one large genetic difference between the races, skin color. To see that is the only difference is implausible and ridiculous. I will try to give current and an evolutionary basis for why blacks are faster than whites. The evolutionary basis is rather simple. If you don't domesticate animals there is more of an advantage for speed. Also speed has no value in a heavily agrarian economy. Okay so know we have a reason to expect added speed among blacks (and also among the Native Americans), if we find data which is significant which supports the hypothesis we should accept it (absent other data, of course). So lets take a look at the NFL. You have a significant of white players but far underrepresented. Okay the devil's advocate says that's because the blacks have more drive than whites. However that can't explain why, among those with the drive (the NFL players) the last white running back has been in the last millenium and ditto for any good wide reciever. So why are the biologists so up in arms against it. Eugenics. That movement has soured evolutionists on ever taking their ideas to their politically incorrect, logical conclusions.


At 11:40 AM, Blogger Tobie said...

I think that the other reason that they oppose this is that it can equally well reach results that they consider moral anathema- IQ differences between races or genders, maybe even genetic predispositions to certain flaws? Can you imagine what PCness would have to do to itself if it was proven that (this is just an example, not saying it's true, no proof, don't let the PC-ers hurt me) blacks are more prone to violence than whites, or that whites are on average less intelligent than Orientals?
In its own way, it's almost like those religion versus science debates, only for liberalism.

At 10:21 PM, Blogger Rachel said...

I doubt that hunting is the main reason for selection for speed. Presumably, some types of war reward speed (guerilla raids), and other's don't (heavily armored knights). So, it's likely that inventing plate armor slows down people in the long term

At 11:46 AM, Anonymous David said...

It's commonly assumed that if there is a difference in some attribute (e.g. speed) there must be some reason for it. The fact is, a lot of genetic change just happens for random reasons. For example, the hemophilia mutation, had it happened in a poor family, would have been totally wiped out because it is so dangerous. Because it happened to occur in the European royalty, it spread widely.

Another good example is earwax. Apparently, Asians have a moister type of earwax than Europeans, due to a single gene mutation. One newspaper article actually tried to prove why Asian people would benefit from moister earwax than Europeans!

At 9:47 PM, Blogger Mike said...

That is true David but I would say that the assumption has to be some reason especially for a complex mutation


Post a Comment

<< Home