At 12:53 PM 5/23/97 -0500, Thom Quinn wrote:
>I wrote Luca Cavalli-Sforza and told him about the list. I asked for
>his opinion and this is the email response he sent me. Luca
>Cavalli-Sforza is the head of the Human Biodiversity Project which has
>collect the best genetic evidence to date that shows there are no
>races....the genetic differences are not statiistically significant!!!!
then quoting Luca Cavalli-Sforza,
>>The other is
>>"History and Geography of Human Genes" published by Princeton Univ. Press
>>in 1994 and also in paperback in 1996 - especially at pages 16-22. I would
>>find it difficult to add more.
>> I hope this is useful
>> Sincerely
>> Luca Cavalli-Sforza
>
here is what Cavalli-Sforza says on page 19 fo the above book. It is the
start of a section entitled, "Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races."
"The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercis for
reasons that were already clear to Darwin. Human races are still extremely
unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to
60 or more races. To some extent, this latitude depends on the personal
preference of taxonomists, who may choose to be 'lumpers' or 'spliters.'
Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are
clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of
taxonomic splitting. In fact, the analysis we carry out in chapter 2 for
purposes of evolutionary study shows that the level at which we stop our
classification is completely arbitrary. Explanations are statistical,
geographic, and historica. Statistically, genetic variation within clusters
is large compared witht hat between clusters.
All populations or population clusters overlap when single genes are
considered, and in almost all populations, all alleles are present but in
different frequencies. No single gene is therefore sufficient for
classifying human populations into systematic categories." p. 19
It would appear that whatever the 19th century scientists did with evolution
in regards to racism, modern science can't even define a race.
A final note, The point of my initial post seems to have been missed in
regards to racism. Everybody in the 19th century was a racist, both
christians, scientists, farmers everybody. This charge stretchs from the
black african chieftain who sold members of the neighboring tribe to an Arab
trader, who, in turn, sold slaves to white Europeans and the church goer in
the Southern U.S. who purchased the slave. Everyone was involved. Those of
a scientific mind used "science" to justify their actions. Those of a
religious bent used Noah's curse of Ham to justify their racism.
The point is that racism does not come from either science or religion
although both can and have been used to justify racism. Parsiis do not
believe anyone can be saved who was not born a Parsii. Christians have
often used Noah's curse on Ham. Scientists have used cranial size shape,
skin color or whatever. None of those justify racism. They are merely excuses.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm