Actually never mind my first post, here's where the problem is. Science doesn't deem any species "higher evolved." Do you mean better adapted to environments? That's not superior inherently, it's just better suited to wherever we find these races (presuming you're referring to black / white / asian). For example, certain genetic researchers have posited that as hominids migrated out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, those who settled in certain areas began to adapt accordingly and resulted in the racial features we see today. For example, the peoples that moved to higher elevation or more extreme lattitudes, where sunlight is more intense or present throughout the year, found themselves more exposed to UV rays, and the better reproductive opportunities ended up going to those with slimmer, more shielded eyes, and skin tones more suited to the level of radiation they were exposed to. It's pretty interesting research.
The subject of definition of race is very interesting. I don't mind talking about it, although it's not really pertinent to the topic of this thread. Science doesn't deem any species "higher evolved" because science is a neutral non-personality. It's human individuals that promote and perpetuate scientific racism. That being said, I need to do some deflecting here to try and avoid the inevitable misunderstandings. What this thread is not:
1. A defining of race.
As I stated, there's no need. The definition of race, if it should even exist is blurry. What has been technically classified as different races does not match our American color-coded definition of race (black, white, brown, yellow, red). For instance, peoples of India have been classified as Caucasian (white), but Americans consider Indians people of color. And there are different sub-ethnic groups in India that have different shades of skin color. Like the dark-skinned Tamils. And I question whether or not the classification of (Indian) Caucasian is a form of honorary white status due to British colonization politics. And people of Mexico have been classified as Caucasian, but our American color-code states they are brown. And Mexicans (Mestizos) in general are a mixture of white European, and Native American Indian which we call red.
2. A claim that this thread supports a scientific possibility that some races may be superior.
Again, no need. For some reason whenever a discussion comes up about scientific racism, someone feels the need to show how evidence doesn't
support racial hierarchy. Again, absolutely no need. I believe neutral scientific evidence does not support it, because science supports the bible's position that we are all one race of equals.
One of the problems is politics. When James Watson gave his relatively recent theory that blacks are less intelligent, than other races, the scientific community responded with counter-evidence to this claim. But, they also rendered him a racist. Do you see the problem there?
RIght, and understanding the evolutionary or genetic basis for what we call 'race' today means understanding different =/= inherently superior. It's simply about where your ancestors settled after leaving Africa, if they ever did.
As I stated, humans have a natural tendency to claim a right to be equal. The question is, where does that feeling of rights to equal treatment come from? What law of nature provides this human right?
I believe it's instilled by the creator.
