Well that will upset the racists

[vetran]

Well, the thing is in evolution that no change is just as much adaptation as a change to suit environment; if dark skin works well in a particular environment then it will remain and lighter variants will be selected out, so you really can't say that the absence of change is an absence of adaptation, because the current state is the result of many generations of selection. I don't think the software version analogy can help us here.

the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Pink was the earlier form, Brown is the evolved form. Its one property, so no need to get hung up on it. Conversely westerners are less susceptible to sickle cell anaemia presumably because it gave advantage in the past.

Evolution is the change, if there are no drivers mandating the change then you don't evolve.

[Mich the Tester]

Pink was the earlier form, Brown is the evolved form. Its one property, so no need to get hung up on it. Conversely westerners are less susceptible to sickle cell anaemia presumably because it gave advantage in the past.

Evolution is the change, if there are no drivers mandating the change then you don't evolve.

Was pink really the earlier form, I don't know.

As for sickle cell anaemia; slightly sickle shaped cells are much less susceptible to malaria; it seems to be an adaptation that's gone astray in some cases.

And no, I don't agree that 'evolution is change'. Dawkins describes it as the non-random selection of random variables; that doesn't necessarily lead to (visible) change but is still evolution.

[xoggoth]

Much too wide a rant obviously but the reputable stats, from mainly government sources, on crime, health, welfare, social housing, not to mention riots and terrorism, do not support the PC view that all major groups are an asset.

[vetran]

Was pink really the earlier form, I don't know.

As for sickle cell anaemia; slightly sickle shaped cells are much less susceptible to malaria; it seems to be an adaptation that's gone astray in some cases.

And no, I don't agree that 'evolution is change'. Dawkins describes it as the non-random selection of random variables; that doesn't necessarily lead to (visible) change but is still evolution.

Yes random changes have to happen to enable Darwin's Natural selection and definition of Evolution, all Dawkins has done is included this random soup in the definition of evolution. Most people perceive Evolution as the successful attempts to adapt not the random chance that enables it that falls in my mind under mutation.

the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form which may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.

Visible changes are the ones that upset the racists.

The word Evolution suggests that something changes to something more suitable and possibly 'better' than the predecessor.

[Zero Liability]

Unless we're talking about the very dumbest ones, who may deny the theory of evolution as it is, I doubt they limit their definition of race to skin colour.

Besides, the concept of evolutionary fitness, unless I am misunderstanding it, is relative to the environment in question, so if a given species is adapted to it already, no, I don't see why a change would be an "improvement". So basically nothing new that will upset the 'racists' who know anything about biology and anthropology, and nothing that the dumb ones who discount the theory of evolution will care about anyway.

[vetran]

Unless we're talking about the very dumbest ones, who may deny the theory of evolution as it is, I doubt they limit their definition of race to skin colour.

Besides, the concept of evolutionary fitness, unless I am misunderstanding it, is relative to the environment in question, so if a given species is adapted to it already, no, I don't see why a change would be an "improvement". So basically nothing new that will upset the 'racists' who know anything about biology and anthropology, and nothing that the dumb ones who discount the theory of evolution will care about anyway.

The out of Africa theory suggested we were evolved from a Black lady called Eve which always miffed the racists. This suggests the Brown people evolved to their environment more than whites did and the whites are the less visibly changed or evolved so it will still miff the racists.

It was intended as a bit of a thread bomb and it seems to have worked.

[Zero Liability]

Don't think there's anyone on this site that really fits the bill of a racist who is ignorant of evolutionary theory, though. If you want to see fireworks flying, try posting this on Stormfront or some of the BNP websites.

[SueEllen]

Don't think there's anyone on this site that really fits the bill of a racist who is ignorant of evolutionary theory, though. If you want to see fireworks flying, try posting this on Stormfront or some of the BNP websites.

Is that where you post when you are bored of CUK?

[doodab]

The out of Africa theory suggested we were evolved from a Black lady called Eve which always miffed the racists. This suggests the Brown people evolved to their environment more than whites did and the whites are the less visibly changed or evolved so it will still miff the racists.

It was intended as a bit of a thread bomb and it seems to have worked.

White people aren't unevolved black people that went on holiday to get out of the sun, they are brown people who moved north and evolved to become white again.

And as others have pointed out, they are equally well adapted but to different environments.

[Mich the Tester]

Don't think there's anyone on this site that really fits the bill of a racist who is ignorant of evolutionary theory, though. If you want to see fireworks flying, try posting this on Stormfront or some of the BNP websites...

..or the responses in the Daily Telegraph