2 1

Is racism evolutionary?

Reinforcement, also called the Wallace effect, is the process by which natural selection increases reproductive isolation.[18] It may occur after two populations of the same species are separated and then come back into contact. If their reproductive isolation was complete, then they will have already developed into two separate incompatible species. If their reproductive isolation is incomplete, then further mating between the populations will produce hybrids, which may or may not be fertile. If the hybrids are infertile, or fertile but less fit than their ancestors, then there will be further reproductive isolation and speciation has essentially occurred, as in horses and donkeys.[46] wikipedia

Its an equivocation or pun on the word race, Races of people should be looked at as their race is racing like competing runners to be the next more highly advanced species. Racism is just one mechanism of competition to keep one lineage of generations seperate from other.

We have different so called races of homo sapiens because there has been times that some generations have been seperated from other generations and then some changes have taken place giving for distinguishing differences. These differences has not seperated to the point of difference non-compatable species. But, racism is the mechanism that drives some lineages to not want be remixed back into the original gene pool.

If people through out the world keep mixing genes, perhaps racism could be eliminated. On the other hand, if a specific lineage changes (for better or worse) one lineage could show thru being a survivor and the other not. Could the continued mixing of the gene pool be the grounds for evolutionary improvement where as those not mixing get stagnant and lose the race?

Word 8 June 28

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Nope. B.S. When the original premise is flawed the rest of the argument is also flawed. Evolution has zero to do with racism. "Natural "section increases reproductive isolation" jumps to "racism is just one mechanism of competition to keep one lineage of generations separate from another," with absolutely zero justification for hate. We're separate from Icelanders do we hate them? But because we're separate from Africans we must be racist against Blacks. What about white South Africans (or other white Africans) that we are separate from? Racism is spawned by ignorance. Pretty sure Darwin didn't find out that giant tortoises despised tigers in India because they were separated. The most telling answer to your hypothesis however is the U.S., at a minimum, where all races have grown up together for centuries, leading to mixed marriages and exposure to all races despite "evolution" and what do you know, we still have racism.

lerlo Level 8 June 28, 2021

Other factors affecting reproductive success include sexual selection (now often included in natural selection) and fecundity selection. []

The concept was first articulated by Charles Darwin who wrote of a "second agency" of selection, in which competition between mate candidates could lead to speciation.[3] []

If "sexual selection "is a part of natural selection, then wouldn't racism involving of choosing to mate only within ones race be a factor as I explained?

If someone is racist towards their neighbors across the street, most likely their genetic won't get mixed. But if their offspring is not racist, then a mixture of the races might be more likely. So, you can have racism and mixture in America.

I am not saying "evolution " forces racism, but I am saying racism plays a part in evolutionary processes.

Two different races live in the same city. Very strict racism between both races. 100,000 years later,, assuming one hasn't killed off the other and populations stay closely equil, because the gene pools never mixed, there is 2 different species that can no longer mix because of racism.

Whereas, non-racist mix and 1 new species developed in 100,000 years rather than 2 seperate species.

Lastly, if you had strict racism and mixture co existing, could it evolve into 3 different species?

@Word Wrong. The species can mix whenever they choose to. I'm sure you have a convenient definition of "racism" that you're using but here's one from the oxford dictionary: "1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." There is also nothing that says that the two "different species" have to hate or discriminate against each other. You have no proof that a separate "species" guarantees hate or discrimination.

@lerlo again, you seem to have things turned around as to the point I am making. I am not saying all speciations take place because of hate and racism. I am saying, racism is a factor that can contribute to the races being kept seperate until they become incompatible genetically different species.

@lerlo and, racism does not specifically guarantee that the races would not mix. Historically, it is known that slave owners raped other races producing mixed race off spring.

So, I am NOT saying evolution forces people to be racist. I am NOT saying racism guaranteed no mixture.

So long as people are racist, and pass on their racism to their offspring and the racial groups do not mix, it could lead to them becoming different species.

I am not saying it has to be this way, but it could be a factor for seperation of species.

@lerlo you listing yourself as an attorney, you "should" know the difference when I say "racism could ..." as opposed to what I am not saying is "racism SHALL cause specation."

@Word "If their reproductive isolation was complete, then they will have already developed into two separate incompatible species." Your words not mine..."will" is pretty much past should. Nice that you backed off some but I still don't agree.

@lerlo "If their reproductive isolation was complete, then they will have already developed into two separate incompatible species."

Is not my words.

See source I referenced. Wikipedia - speciation


@lerlo IF racism were to be a very strong among people of the Earth, and no one were to mix racial genetics because of racism, could that not lead to there being more than one species?


Another explanation might be that humans (like wolves or dogs) are pack animals. For the majority of our existence (~100,000 years) modern man existed in small groups that shared very similar genetics. They were no doubt inclined to do what was necessary to protect and insure the survival of people in their own group (with shared genetics), and do less to protect and insure the survival of people outside their own group (with less similar genetics).

Once humans started traveling the world (15th century), they would have encountered people who had evolved separately from them for many thousands of years. They would have been much more worried about the welfare of people they were traveling with than those they encountered in far away places.

BD66 Level 8 June 28, 2021
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:605941
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.