On 1/16/2017 11:44 AM, Mirimir wrote:
It's not even clear that there are distinct races.
Races are by definition not distinct. If they were truly distinct, they would by definition be species, not races. Races are, as Darwin explained, the origin of species. Because fertility between kinds gradually diminishes as they become more and more different, and even radically different kinds often have some limited interfertility, there is no sharp line between a species difference and a race difference. But if interfertility is definitely zero (which is less common than you would think - you can get some mighty surprising hybrids) then it is definitely a species difference. As Darwin explained, the origin of species is that different races are exposed to different selective pressures, and over time tend to become more different, resulting in gradual diminution of interbreeding and interfertility. Darwin's account of speciation - that speciation is usually and primarily sympatric - has been confirmed by studies of speciation in fish, in particular sticklebacks, and studies of speciation in foraminifera. The counter theory is Gould's punctuated equilibrium, which is the scientific justification for your pseudo scientific babble. Gould invented punctuated equilibrium in order to have a pseudo scientific theory proving that all men are created equal, since Darwin's account of speciation implies that the processes that create races create inequality. So people looked into Gould's theory, and it was disconfirmed, and Darwin's horribly racist account of speciation (that sympatric speciation is normal, gradual, common, and happening everywhere all the time) confirmed - at least for numerous non mammalian kinds.