Did the theory of evolution really lead to increased racism?

>also this

>what is global rule 3

Get fucked newfag. It's a blue board, you are obliged to keep a high level of discussion to improve the quality of the board.

so quit your qq-ing which itself is a non-contribution.

Early evolutionary theories promoted it, current ones dismiss it.

Yes until political correctness won the battle over objectivity back in the 60's

Educating people on the code of conduct is a contribution.

For a while these things rubbed me the wrong way. Now I genuinely get a kick from how retarded we can be and use it as a reminder of how lucky I am not to have been raised in such a way as to fall so hard. I hope one day you'll realize how foolish your beliefs are.

Because of DNA evidence. Morphology isn't relatedness.

Why are people who never took biology 101 the loudest on the racial issue? Don't stay dumb.

but genetic distance is. stay selective with your omissions, you equalitarian.

No, it just led to a more academic racist discourse until sophisticated research on genetics debunked racial theory. Le savages was a meme long before the theory of evolution.

Gave it up a while back. It was like, as some philosopher put it, heroin for the masses.

t. James Watson, right?
Because thing here is not about how fully understood is morphology (which is not) but how the facts show how differents are races.

Hahahahahah aw man my fucking sides. This coming from a "humanities" board that constantly talks about religious superstition fucking lol there's like 2 of them here already. we haven't had a professional standard here ever. Go fuck yourself hahah

I wanted to add, by the way, that Aristotle had been used to support the theory of natural slaves, but Aristotle only hypothesized this, he didn't say it was factual, so using him as an argument wasn't really more than speculative, even if it had a more substantial pretense.

The fuck does that have to do with anything I said. I have two science degrees, one within human biology, get fucked

social construct believers are the creationists of the left accept worse since they have influence and can blackball you.

Genetic distance shows that all humans are equally related to the other great apes. There are no humans who are closer to the other great apes than other humans, and certainly none that are close to the other great apes than to other humans.

There are only two solid classifications in biology, and even they are quite vague. One is species, every individual that can produce fertile offspring with another individual is a member of the same species. The other is genus, every individual descended from one particular individual is a member of the same genus. Every other definition is subjective in some way, especially those below the species level.

No.

Is it just me or does the guy on the right look like handsome Squidward?

So fuck them too, what are you saying?

>History I don't like should be banned.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Margaret Sanger, for those who are unaware, was a vile racist and eugenicist who dedicated her life to ridding the world of poor black babies, who she deemed the “degenerate and defective.” She was a featured guest of the Ku Klux Klan and a huge proponent of the forced sterilization program of the Nazi regime in the 1930’s. Sanger pushed for birth control not because she believed it liberated women from the burdens of motherhood, but because she saw it as the best way to get minorities and the handicapped, whom she detested, to voluntarily stop breeding.

>announcing a report
For someone with such a stick up their ass about the rules, you sure seem selective about which to follow.

Look at OP's picture and say that.

Isn't that always the case?

>everybody's replying to this bait thread with a picture that's outdated by a century

>James Watson
>"look he invented DNA and he's a racist, so racism is correct"

And the other guy who invented DNA, Francis Crick, isn't a racist.* What now you brainlet? If you studied STEM you would know that one academic accomplishment doesn't put people beyond error or scrutiny.

*99,9% of the 200,000 biologists in research worldwide aren't racists.

>because something is in a worse state than I would like, bad behavior is excused

I suggest you read some philosophy.

it was just damage control. WASPs were the first group to use contraceptives in america and once their fertility was compromised, sanger made it her missions to pluck human weeds such as papists and non-whites.

also for comparison

I was genuinely curious.
Also, this might be relevant to your picture.
purplekoolaid.typepad.com/my_weblog/homo-erectus-just-another-race.html

The annoying thing about this is the plasticity of human phenotype and the biodiversity of Africans being essentialized into one extreme form.

It'd be like stating the purest representation of Europeans is Benedict Cumberbatch and anything deviating from that is admixed.

When you say "racist" you talk about a subjective way to look at the world. (Real) Scientists do not take that kind of look at things, they'd not judge themselves as "racists" while there's evidence backing any claim that subjective fucks like you would take as "racist"

I would look at DNA before I made a subjective assessment of skull shapes.

Whites are more paedomorphic, giving them less pronounced brows and potentially influencing their light skin. Whites look like baby apes, blacks like adult apes. Whether or not paedomorphy promotes intelligence or civil behavior, while speculated, isn't confirmed. The San are exceptionally paedomorphic but other than their great genetic distance from other modern humans there is nothing exceptional about them.

forsenic anthropology is a thing, it is people's career to look at a bone and discern its ancestry, don't you think that make race a biological pattern?

Wow, that's the most retarded post I've seen in a while. You can't even formulate a thought and presume to know what "scientists think".

All humans are equally close to monkeys

maybe you should try not to make your scientific views your political ones Lysenko.

By itself the sole idea that we're all animals subject to the mechanisms of evolution gives the basis for """racism""" aka recognizing biodiversity among just another animal, homo sapiens.
The extent to which evolution has affected various separated groups of humans is debatable of course.

Yup. Evolution is the basis for racism.

Is Racist/Racism the biggest buzzword? I can't go for a day without hearing it.

lol

>evolution gives the basis for """racism"""

Racism existed since always, so it can't be related to evolution. The basis for racism, as with any other kind of bigotry is: "They are different than us" - also called ignorance, as the Stoics would say.

user was implying one of the skulls in OP's image suggested that some humans were more similar to the other great apes than other humans. They aren't, DNA has proven this.

You're talking about identifying a person's ancestry based on their skeleton, a different thing entirely.

No you're just projecting you mentally I'll cultist. There has always been ingroup selection and you have to be daft to think that had no role in shaping human development and history.

...

200 years ago nobody was running around calling people racists. The baby boomers started that shit because they were embarrassed by their parent's generation, the greatest generation, so they took a shit on their "racism" and pretended they were better people than the Greatest Generation.

Here's the answer for that in case anyone wanted it.
I have only included the parts directly dealing with evolution.

>Ashley Montagu lists "neotenous structural traits in which...Negroids [generally] differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars."

So no to your assessment

You have no rebuttal and you're not afraid to show it.

>this thread's theme
m.youtube.com/watch?v=QNlzkCO29bk

you're a cool dude

Rebuttal to what? You didn't even make an argument. I don't know why you believe your /pol/ phrases merit posting, but you should really go back there.

well change it to "gave a basis for scientific based """racism"""" then
you're right that ingroup preferences have always been a thing, rightfully so
I wouldn't call it bigotry but "survival instinct", something we've forgotten after many years of peace

>evolution doesn't have present day influence.
Nonsense you believe inf fairy tales like that lol?

The theory of evolution led to my increased racism.
If evolution happens, and it does, then it is likely that groups of humans that developed different bone structures, skin colors, even hair texture (even though that doesn't affect their reproductive chances much), also developed different cognitive abilities, in the context of different material and socio-cultural selective pressure.
And reliable IQ statistics can show some of these differences.

>yfw people read GG&S but not 10k Explosion

quoted the wrong post?

>D Vitamin intake don't affect reproductive chances
Really?

When each population stays in their own biome it would become moot

You're a dumbfuck.

There's 2 kinds of racism:
>I hate those fuckin' niggers

and

>Our best scientific theories seem to show that the races have some consequential phenotypic differences such as: intelligence, athleticism, aggression. This is a shame, but to deny reality is to be a victim of it- if we want to move forward we need to acknowledge the unfortunate truths we encounter, and work towards making the best of them. That said, no individual should be judged by a group's average- there are many intelligent blacks, and many aggressive unintelligent whites- but a country's policy should not be based on exceptions of a group, but on the common members.

Don't equivocate blind racism with the belief that science might support racial differences.

>ingroup preferences have always been a thing, rightfully so

First of all, that's not even true. Humans and Neanderthals mixed, and humans within themselves mixed so much, you won't find a single person that goes back to the same group of ancestors 10,000 years ago.

And secondly, even if we lived in a fantasy universe where humans were unmixed for the last 10,000 years up until 50 years ago:
Bottom row, "appeal to nature".

In between posting on a thousand nigger-hate-threads you should have taken the time to read the sticky on /pol/.

That's it my friend. I duty to educate you is done hereby.

>no individual should be judged by a group's average- there are many intelligent blacks, and many aggressive unintelligent whites- but a country's policy should not be based on exceptions of a group, but on the common members.
This is impossible. You wouldn't be able to know if they're the exception of the average from a glance nor should you waste time assessing them either.

You are still gonna have people who due to mutations are born with a better suited skin color.

D vitamin intake is not affected by the texture of your hair...

The arms race never ends.

I can't believe people haven't brought up the fact that creationism actually was racist for a time.
One good example being the "Curse of Ham"

>Humans and Neanderthals mixed, and humans within themselves mixed so much, you won't find a single person that goes back to the same group of ancestors 10,000 years ago.
yeah before civilization was even a thing, and we don't even know how consensual the whole thing was anyway
grasping at everything you can I see

>appeal to nature
oh the irony, the irony!

>That's it my friend. I duty to educate you is done hereby.
stop sniffing your own fart so much, I don't think it's too healthy for your cognitive capabilities

Fuck, my mistake.
Though you included the part about skin color into the "even though that doesn't affect their reproductive chances much)" part

>Wouldn't be able to know the exception from a glance

We both can assess a person at a glance man. If you see a tatted up black guy walking with swagger in baggy jeans and a do-rag, you know who he is. If you see a black guy walking in a suit, or casual clothes with a non-aggressive look on his face, you know who he is.

Its not that hard, the human mind is made to make snap generalizations based on this shit

Yes, and the IQ test studies all point to Whites being inferior to Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians.

Don't forget the many STDs we got from apes. Ex: herpes from chimps and crabs from gorillas.

I am not him, but you are basically agreeing with him now?

>Humans killed neanderthal men and raped their women.
>No ingroup preferences

kek, how do you think we got that neanderthal DNA? Meet n' Greets?

I thought the admixture was more so Neanderthal male/cromagnon female and that's where the rape fetish come from the genetic memory.

I think it's important to recognize that ethno-specific style and fashion are less connected to attitudes and more a symbol of one's culture/youth culture/environment.

I can't tell you how many people look like how you described and spend all there time playing video games and watching DBZ

Also a suit doesn't make the person.

>Our best scientific theories seem to show that races have some consequential phenotypic differences such as: intelligence, athleticism, aggression.

No current scientific theory could even show that.

If you ever had university statistics - which I know you haven't, you would know that you need a sufficient large sample size in a controlled environment to make such a claim. In other words, around 4000 white and black people who had more or less the exact same conditions from womb to maturity. Does such a study exist? I haven't heard of one.

You don't have a degree, or you go to some shitty CC. There are plenty of black people at MIT engineering. How does that make you feel?

>Whites are more paedomorphic, giving them less pronounced brows

blacks have very far spaced eyes, bulbous foreheads, lack of brow ridge higher brows, upper eyelid exposure, recessed chins

That's true. My group is intellectually inferior to others.
I'm a racist, but I have nothing against Jews and not much racial pride.

This is pretty bad desu

Tell me why, I am all ears.

>symbol of one's culture/youth culture/environment.
Doesn't that determine behavior? I mean a black person will end up more violent if raised in a ghetto enviroment and will in general conform to the stereotypes of their race but someone who dresses nice and commits to non harmful activities like the ones you mention would be the exception.

Except genteticists pretty much proved (not biologists) but rather anthropologists wrong. Even fucking dawkins agree that there are races.

The damage control for the chart and the cringey ending for example.

>In other words, around 4000 white and black people who had more or less the exact same conditions from womb to maturity.
this is simply untrue.
Do you think they do this for other heritability estimates, eg for certain diseases, for height, etc? (answer: they don't)

>eg for certain diseases, for height, etc?

They do you retard. Height is related to nutrition. Literally google you dumb fuck.

You're right, scientific theory was a poor choice of words. I should have said there is a lot of evidence for racial differences; IQ tests and the consistent inability of black nations to sustain a modern society come to mind. This obviously is not conclusive, but any objective person would acknowledge that genetic differences is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

As for the blacks at MIT, you probably won't believe me but I have no issue with that (as long as they earned their place and weren't given diversity points). I said quite clearly that this hypothesis, if true, is a *sad* reality. This doesn't make me happy, I grew up in a liberal family that firmly believed in equality, and most of my friends aren't white (grew up in California). What you can't understand is that some people are more committed to the truth than their ideology- you probably can't even recognize how blinded you are.

As for college, I'm a philosophy undergrad at a Cal State. Really irrelevant though, this is an anonymous Mongolian basket weaving board. All that should matter are my arguments

I'm a phil major at a 4 year, btw. No need to get so defensive, I know how hard it is for leftists to even think about these unfortunate possibilities.

What I still don't get is how it lead entirely to that conclusion for so many people.
Even if they are inferior, they are still human beings, with the same range of emotions, and a similar compacity for greatness. The same people who might yell that we need to get rid of inferior races are the same people who would be upset if you killed a dog or cat, despite them being MUCH more inferior than the races they hate.

Really?
As far as I see they list what the scientists are saying and explain why the faults the creatonists found aren't really good arguments as evolutionists themselves picked away those errors to find a better theory.

But it is as polygenic as IQ is modeled to be. Lots of genes of small effect thus a bell curve dispersion.