I would agree; relief workers, cnn, modern health care, foreign aid, tax relief, quality housing, steady access to food, and many other things help to contribute to humans being less affected by natural selection. This however is a 'modern' event.
There's precious little 'natural selection' among humans, if any at all.
Given that in the past most (or all) of the factors where absent, humans ability to survive would be very dependant on whether or not they could survive harsh conditions. In the absence of eye glasses, for example, its very likely that serious vision problems where selected against as blind or near blind people would not live long enough to breed. How could they keep up with a wandering tribe of hunter/gatherers?
Today however people are dependant on many factors and in the absence of all of these modern conveniences it is easy to see that many people would simply not survive. 'Modern' man has is little affected by natural selection, but this was not always the case.
This does not suggest that one 'race' is more advanced than another. I cannot imagine how one could suggest that one race is superior when all had to survive for each race to be represented today.
Volcanoes and other such natural disasters can take out the most fit and least fit in any given population, if the impact is great enough such things have also resulted in extinctions. Nature isn't always fair, but it does not mean natural selection isn't at work in the absence of an extinction event.
Reading back on the thread it seems you are just repeating the same claims that you have done already - and you have recieved replies that make your victory appear quite hollow. At this point in the thread it seems that you cannot present new claims to be shot down and must repeat old ones. Why bother then to write out another explaination why your wrong. Your "strike outs" have already been answered. If you repeat something enough do you then think it becomes true?
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
Crashfrog in message 137 writes:
See, that's why it's nonsense. Evolution isn't something you apply; it's a description of what naturally happens in populations of living organisms.
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
RAZD in message 91 writes:
Racists can (and have) misuse religion and science to bolster their position, but that does not mean that either religion or science necessarily results in racist views.
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
Chiroptera in message 138 writes:
Where's the theory of evolution in all of this? This is pretty much mundane animal breeding as it has been practiced for thousands of years, well before Darwin or the discovery of evolution. Animal and plant breeders already knew that systematic extirpation of the superfluous will result in improving the breed. What is the theory of evolution adding to this?
You stinking eugenecists are the racists.
You have yet to show it, but feel free to keep making the claims.
You're less respectable because you try to hide your racism rather than having the guts to say what you are and face your enemies. You're smaller men than skinheads.
And yet each and every person here has shown that they do not believe in racial views regardless of how many times you insist that they do. I find this comment to be disgusting, how dare you compare the people in this thread to be "smaller than skinheads" when they have done nothing but show how racial views are incorrect.
If I ever want to be insulted by cowards again, I sure know where to find them.