|Evolution in the News - March 2010|
|by Do-While Jones|
Racism still exists in the evolutionary community.
February is Black History Month in the United States. It is based on the premise that Americans have received a biased education that excludes the contributions of the Black race to the advancement of society.
Apparently the evolutionists in Britain (Darwin’s homeland) don’t celebrate Black History Month the same way Americans do. Here are the first two sentences of the abstract for the cover story of the February 18, 2010, issue of Nature magazine. (Nature is one of the most respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world.)
The genetic structure of the indigenous hunter-gatherer peoples of southern Africa, the oldest known lineage of modern human, is important for understanding human diversity. Studies based on mitochondrial and small sets of nuclear markers have shown that these hunter-gatherers, known as Khoisan, San, or Bushmen, are genetically divergent from other humans. 1
Why would anyone think that Bushmen are “the oldest known lineage of modern human[s]?” What makes them older than Scandinavians, for example? We don’t have to tell you; but we will anyway. Evolutionists think Bushmen are less highly evolved than “other humans.” The whole notion of an “oldest lineage” is exclusively an evolutionary idea. It is based on the idea that some human lineages evolved earlier than others, and then stopped evolving. Their prejudice is evident from the introduction to the article.
As the genomes of our study participants were expected to diverge more from the human reference genome than do the publicly accessible Yoruban, European and Asian genomes, we aimed to generate a genome sequence that would provide sufficient quality for both mapping against the human reference and de novo assembly. 2
They are saying that most of the genetic research done so far has been done on the more highly evolved European and Asian races, and some more civilized blacks (Yourbans), so one would naturally expect the genome of more primitive Negroes to be less highly evolved, and therefore different.
You may (as we do) find this attitude extremely offensive. But evolutionists don’t see this as racism—they see it as science. These racial differences are important to them because it helps them understand how savages evolved into civilized men (to use Darwin’s terminology).
As the Bushmen hunter-gatherers have never adopted agricultural practices throughout their cultural history, the sequence variants found in their genomes may reflect an ancient adaptation to a foraging lifestyle. In the case of the Kalahari Bushmen, adaptation to life in arid climates must have occurred as well, as several phenotypic traits have been noted that are absent in other human groups, such as the ability to store water and lipid metabolites in body tissues. These physiological and genetic differences may guide future studies into the much debated question of whether population replacement, rather than cultural exchange, has driven the expansion of agriculture in the southern regions of Africa, as was observed for late Stone Age populations in Europe. 3
You may think that all the differences they have found in the DNA of various individuals simply reflect the normal diversity of genetic material in any given species. If so, you must just be an ignorant creationist. Once you get your mind right, you will realize that these Bushmen simply aren’t as highly evolved as the rest of us.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
Schuster, et al., Nature, 18 February 2010, “Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from southern Africa”, pages 943-947