Race of Biology

Things are not at all what they appear to be—a fact of biology

It is a basic misunderstanding of genetics and generally inaccurate to use racial labels for DNA lineages that cut across supposed racial groups. DNA identifies us by lineage and not by race—a very distinct difference. The default mistake that most of us make, is assume that common racial characteristics will link us closer in the DNA lineage. That’s just the society we’ve grown up to “think racially”. But DNA has the best reputation in racial thinking.

Using mitochondrial DNA (tracing the mothers, mothers, mothers) “we find in every classroom that some of the students’closest maternal relatives belong to a different race than they do. These lineages do not follow common racial categories—but in fact our mitochondrial lineage tells a different story that race is not a biological reality”—Thomas Murphy, PhD. Anthropology, Bioanthropolgy, Edmonds College

Our racial concepts are biased. They are based on our politics—our ways of excluding and discriminating against each other are ways that are not supported by biology. Yet we take superficial appearances and then dump people into categories based upon those when our biology is much more complex than that.

Race is a social construct, not supported by a close look at human biology. Our physical features such as skin color, facial structure, or hair texture, typically associated with race, are inherited independently and cut across populations just like DNA lineage.

When we actually look at the biology of skin color, it has nothing to do with arguments on morality, goodness, or evil. Us and them are ridiculous in a world of DNA. Skin color evolves in response to the environment and to assume skin color is even a separate race is a social construct. Biology is clear—we are all one race. We are all one people. The habit of breaking things into categories is as destructive as it is useful.


Human Evolution—Natural Selection = Mental Regression?

Life is going in cycles. Are we smarter than ever before, or spiritually inept enough to outlast our progenitors?

If it is true (and it seems to be) that fitness outperforms advanced levels of perception (Hoffman Theory) it is quite possible the advanced, yet extinct higher civilizations of the past simply knew too much about reality. Humanity’s greatest, enduring structures built out of natural materials—still a mystery as to how it was done. Massive complex societies gone without a trace. Perhaps the present species of humans are inept enough to outlast them through belief.

Fitness does not mean smarter. “From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations–and quite often in the traits those genes influence–are by definition evolutionary changes. The notion that humans might regress or “devolve” presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function (1)

Anthropocentric thinking has us at the pinnacle of existence (in our own minds) and maybe that persistent, false sense of superiority is our best chance at survival? It certainly isn’t a true perception of reality, but is a belief that keeps us from knowing too much, which is good for longevity.

I don’t really think we’re as smart as we used to be. The world is now full of end users led by a handful of innovators. Giza, Machu Pichu, and others, were complete societies of craftsman, artisans, engineers, and genius know how, while we are a large lot of specialists.

Following the trend in common sense it appears we have evolved to luke-warm overall intelligence with a smattering of self righteous imagination, which is apparently good for fitness.