Politically/Religously Correct Constraint on Academia

[Norsemaiden]

THE CONSEQUENCES OF RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT CONSTRAINT ON ACADEMIA - PARTICULARLY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

I have to write quite a lot to explain myself and to get this thread going in a helpful direction - so I wrote this short article.

From a philosophical perspective, if society will not allow research into certain areas that may contradict political or religious doctrines society is going to be very limited in its ability to perceive the world and realities accurately. The solving of basic problems can even become impossible.
This is beyond the issue of freedom of speech. It is one thing to suggest that advocating certain violent and perverse practices should be not permitted in public, but we should fully allow scientists to research such issues and have no “moral” constraints on their intellectual enquiry, if they feel they can unearth something of value to our understanding. Scientists should remain open to consider any aspects of, for example, behavior relating to individuals or to society, to discover to what extent this behavior is a genetic trait, how common it is or whatever else. The results of this, whatever they are, should be able to be reported without any scientist being intimidated or persecuted for his honesty, just as science can also give us a verdict on the health effects of eating a diet purely consisting of sugar and white flour. Whether the result confirms our belief that it is a bad thing or not - the scientist should speak without fear.
Yet when have scientists ever had this freedom?

Many great scientists, Hypatia, Copernicus, Darwin (and many others who may have been executed without having their contributions ever realized) have been persecuted for their discoveries to do with the universe - various discoveries that were vital additions to human knowledge. Can anyone argue that philosophy does not owe much to science? Can one philosophize if born and raised in an empty room? Surely the more one knows about what exists, the more meaningful one’s philosophizing must be. Some people seem to consider science as if it were distasteful and in some way entirely removable from philosophical understanding - in fact much of science is indispensable to a genuine philosopher as opposed to a pseudo-philosopher who is nothing more than a creative writer or religious fanatic who thinks his writings contain more profundity than does the light shone onto reality by science.

The constraints of secular “Political Correctness“, a term invented by Lenin, are every bit as restrictive as religious intolerance has been, and perhaps even more-so when you add the fact that the result of these restrictions has pushed science itself away from a pursuit of curiosity and discovery of truth, and into a materialist desire to invent products for profit as well as for state power and the social status of the scientist. Science was severely limited by religion, but has become incredibly corrupted by secular materialism. Within a century or so science has been plagued by increasing numbers of individuals who lack the objectivity and genuine curiosity which are hallmarks of good science, people who steal other scientist’s ideas, are nasty and ruthless, attempt to smear and discredit each other, ruin each others’ careers, are jealous and are catty in their rivalry. However jealousy and rivalry amongst scientists has existed as a problem before this. Galileo suffered from just such spite and vindictiveness from scientists and philosophers. Rivalry can be a good thing if it results in some helpful competition and not in one scientist trying to ruin another.

One of the worst examples of the politically correct constraints on science in the Soviet Union was Lysenkoism. Lysenko was the leading proponent of the Lamarckist theory of evolution, which was discredited by Darwinism and Mendelian genetics. Darwinism was highly threatening to the Soviets because of its implications refuting the idea that everyone could be made equal. Scientists who disagreed and advocated natural selection were sent to the Gulags or “disappeared”.

Things are not as bad as that for non-politically correct scientists in the west, but are getting progressively worse, with the punishments of having work ignored/suppressed, careers ruined by association with the wrong ideas, funding withdrawn, or losing their job. Only those scientists or historians that attempt to show findings that are at odds with the orthodoxy on the Jewish Holocaust actually face immediate prison sentences for publicizing their data. Those who dare publish findings related to ethnic differences or homosexuality are not yet imprisoned as scientific papers are not likely to be taken to court as examples of “hate”. If they were it might be a little too bewildering to the general public. Given time, it would be no great surprise if even scientific papers on this did incur legal sanctions.

Officially, there is no censorship at our universities; every researcher is free to choose the content and method of his investigation within the domain of his expertise. In addition, every researcher is free to submit his papers and write what he considers appropriate wherever he chooses. Censorship does exist, however, in two forms: indirect censorship and self-censorship.

http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Opinions&articleID=1099

This article raises the issues I have discussed here.

The science that is being suppressed now is only science that is concerned with biology, from genetics, to the effects of chemicals on health (although this has more to do with corporate interests) and even the most basic terminology for classifying life. The most obvious example of this is how, in this supposedly advanced age, there is still no agreement on what constitutes a “species”. I would like to discuss the idea of “species” on this thread, even though there is unlikely to be anyone here who is especially qualified to pronounce on the subject. But we could try to discuss it in a scientific matter and see how sensitive it becomes from a PC point of view - while at the same time being vital to our understanding and categorization of living organisms. In doing so, we can see how there are many who feel that political correctness is necessary to adhere to and that science should be shackled.

 

[MetalBooger]

I am not quite sure what you find ambiguous about the term “species”. I only studied biology in highschool, yet I did not find anything wrong with the definition provided in the text, and similar to the one found on this site.

http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/lemurs-4.cfm

The organization of living things can be seen like a pyramid or tree with seven major levels or categories: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

A species is the primary unit of biological classification or taxonomy. Species members share a basic genetic similarity and can interbreed and produce viable or fertile offspring.

And i noticed how you mentioned corporate interests, perhaps capitalism is also responsible for determingin what is being studied and done in the scientific community, and also what is being constrained? One could say the earth's population is fairly content with what we know about certain scientific notions, and therefore demand/funding for further research into these fields is nonexistent. Sort of like the recycling of metal, or even the threat of climate change, even infanticide, until there is an incentive or demand for these things, they may be cast aside and labeled as useless.

 

[Russell]

I must apologise for the brevity of this reply, as I have an exam tomorrow and really should be revising. Nevertheless, a couple of things I wanted to add:

Within a century or so science has been plagued by increasing numbers of individuals who lack the objectivity and genuine curiosity which are hallmarks of good science, people who steal other scientist’s ideas, are nasty and ruthless, attempt to smear and discredit each other, ruin each others’ careers, are jealous and are catty in their rivalry. However jealousy and rivalry amongst scientists has existed as a problem before this. Galileo suffered from just such spite and vindictiveness from scientists and philosophers. Rivalry can be a good thing if it results in some helpful competition and not in one scientist trying to ruin another.

As you have rightly said this kind of rivalry has a long history. "Within a century or so science has been plagued by increasing numbers..." suggests it has somehow become more prolific, and whether this is the case or not is very open to debate. Due to modern funding procedures it can be argued that now the stakes are higher than ever before when it comes to scientific research, but if you look back to the Victorian era scientists were just as petty and jealous towards each other as they are today, if not more so. For example just look at the rivalry between Sir Richard Owen and TH Huxley. Whether such behaviour extends further back in time is harder to tell, but I think it is unlikely this is becoming more of an issue nowadays than it was before the last century.

The most obvious example of this is how, in this supposedly advanced age, there is still no agreement on what constitutes a “species”. I would like to discuss the idea of “species” on this thread, even though there is unlikely to be anyone here who is especially qualified to pronounce on the subject. But we could try to discuss it in a scientific matter and see how sensitive it becomes from a PC point of view - while at the same time being vital to our understanding and categorization of living organisms. In doing so, we can see how there are many who feel that political correctness is necessary to adhere to and that science should be shackled.

I have a background in palaeontology, and am just starting a PhD in palaeobiology, so this is an area in which I have a little knowledge. Since the '40s most biologists have been in agreement that a species is a population of individuals which are capable of breeding with each other freely (and producing fertile offspring), but which are reproductively isolated from other populations, and this definition is now largely accepted in science. Thus, in living creatures it is fairly easy to separate species and create a realistic taxonomy. Judging by the drive of your original post and the effects of 'political correctness' on science (and having read other posts in this forum) I'd imagine you envisage the 'sensitivity' of the issue arising from different human races, and whether these could be considered different species. Thus, from a scientific perspective, using this definition of a species (or the more recent recognition species concept, which is less supported yet provides a different definition of a species), since humans of all races can interbreed they are the same species.

Of course this is far harder to do with the fossil record, as all we have to go on there - for the most part - is the skeletal morphology of organisms; we can't observe behaviour, mating, or anything else to help our interpretation. It is here that differentiating species becomes truly difficult, and this is just as vital to our understanding and categorization of living organisms, as well as their evolutionary history. By studying the fossil record it really drives home how arbitrary most taxanomic units are, as - if the record is good enough - you get a smooth gradation from once 'species' to another. The line where 'species A' becomes 'species B' is usually arbitrarily drawn in these situations. So, in modern biology there is relatively little debate about what constitutes a species, but the further you go back in the history of life the more argument there is... But clearly in these situations, the political constraints are minimal.

 

[Scourge of God]

I've always found the whole idea that you can draw a neat taxanomic history from the fossil record fundamentally absurd. Skeletal morphology is such a goddamn guessing game it's not even funny - and that's if you're talking LIVING organisms. With the all the sexual and occasionally age related dimorphism out there, what's the point of drawing anything more detailed that familial relationships from fossil remains, if that?

On the larger issue, I'm not sure it really matters. The public really only cares about what scientists believe when the scientific evidence matches what the public would like to believe. Everyone with any scientific training knows that some version of naturalistic evolution is behind the diversity of life, but the public is too stupid to accept reality. Scientists (well, with the exception of barely literate yahoos like Robert Bakker) have known for decades that T. rex couldn't possibly run at any speed, but the general public will continue to believe implicitly that it could have run down a jeep, because they saw it in Jurassic Park. I know this is ultimately about the scientific distortion of the meaning of 'race,' but other than a handful of leftist activists, no one actually believes that race doesn't biologically exist. So why get the knickers in a twist?

MetalBooger delenda est.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I have a background in palaeontology, and am just starting a PhD in palaeobiology, so this is an area in which I have a little knowledge. Since the '40s most biologists have been in agreement that a species is a population of individuals which are capable of breeding with each other freely (and producing fertile offspring), but which are reproductively isolated from other populations, and this definition is now largely accepted in science. Thus, in living creatures it is fairly easy to separate species and create a realistic taxonomy. Judging by the drive of your original post and the effects of 'political correctness' on science (and having read other posts in this forum) I'd imagine you envisage the 'sensitivity' of the issue arising from different human races, and whether these could be considered different species. Thus, from a scientific perspective, using this definition of a species (or the more recent recognition species concept, which is less supported yet provides a different definition of a species), since humans of all races can interbreed they are the same species.

"a species is a population of individuals which are capable of breeding with each other freely (and producing fertile offspring), but which are reproductively isolated from other populations"

The main problem with this is that it means that you cannot breed two species together and form a fertile hybrid. But you certainly can do this between many species of animals and plants.
So that definition must be wrong then!

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

One of the most popular biological definitions of species is in terms of reproductive isolation; if two creatures cannot reproduce to produce fertile offspring, then they are in different species. This definition captures a number of intuitive species boundaries, but it remains imperfect. It has nothing to say about species that reproduce asexually, for example, and it is very difficult to apply to extinct species. Moreover, boundaries between species are often fuzzy: there are examples where members of one population can produce fertile offspring with a second population, and members of the second population can produce fertile offspring with members of a third population, but members of the first and third population cannot produces fertile offspring.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scourge of God]

Reproductive isolation doesn't so much mean that a population isn't capable of producing fertile offspring with another population, but that the populations do not, in fact, interbreed in the wild.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Reproductive isolation doesn't so much mean that a population isn't capable of producing fertile offspring with another population, but that the populations do not, in fact, interbreed in the wild.

But some wild species DO hybridise and produce fertile offspring
INTERSPECIFIC HYBRIDIZATION OF WILD GLADIOLUS SPECIES USING A DENDROGRAM BASED RAPD ANALYSIS

http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=673_62

I think plants often do.

Some wild birds hybridise too and they have one species then a hybrid population as a subset of both this species and a neighbouring species. Different species of Crow do this.

While googling there I also found this!

What is a chimpanzee? A trickier question than you might think. The name usually refers to members of a species designated Pan troglodytes and found in a broad but discontinuous distribution across equatorial Africa. Such ‘common chimpanzees’ are distinguished from their close relative the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo (Pan paniscus), which lives only south of the Congo River in the current-day Democratic Republic of Congo. But for other taxa, genetic similarity as close as that between humans and chimpanzees leads routinely to classification in the same genus – adopting that logic would make us all chimpanzees, or all chimpanzees members of the genus Homo.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=250904731f0efffc540e36ce08180f97

But it is agreed that biological groups that cannot produce viable offspring together are different species certainly.
What about those that are called different species however, and yet can and/or do interbreed with fertile offspring in the wild or in domestication?

 

[Scourge of God]

You're trying to treat lifeforms like physics. Atoms behave in entirely predictable patterns. Gold is the same as it was 5 billion years ago, but living organisms are in a constant state of flux. There are always going to be exceptions when you're dealing with ever changing genomes.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You're trying to treat lifeforms like physics. Atoms behave in entirely predictable patterns. Gold is the same as it was 5 billion years ago, but living organisms are in a constant state of flux. There are always going to be exceptions when you're dealing with ever changing genomes.

Well I will now lay my cards on the table.
Different human ethnicities may qualify as different species.
If they have physically adapted to a geographical niche and are morphologically categorisable - I say they are different species.

Not all humans are. For eg. those southern Europeans that look just like north Africans or Mexicans or Semites. But there are some (rapidly being mixed out of existence) species.
How do you like that Scourge? (I'm hoping you approve btw...)

 

[Norsemaiden]

Just before we go into all that nonsense about why "race" doesn't exist though - I know that there is as much genetic difference between an African from one tribe and one from another as there could be between either of them and a Swede. I am not saying all Africans are of one species - they could be a number of species.

 

[Russell]

The main problem with this is that it means that you cannot breed two species together and form a fertile hybrid. But you certainly can do this between many species of animals and plants.
So that definition must be wrong then!

Not wrong - science, like the real world, isn't black and white (no pun intended). You'll never find a law governing (or definition of) something as complex as life which doesn't have exceptions, oddities or at least variations, yet this does not mean said law or definition is fundamentally flawed. That is the approach, for example, creationists take and is not how science works. The biological species concept is the best, and most useful, definition we have, and is accepted by most scientists at the moment. Obviously it is a complex issue, and others may choose to draw the line between species at a whole host of different specicifities. This is what you're doing, and are entirely entitled to do so, but the variation between 'species' as per your definition is not close to the widely accepted range. Morphological differences between different groups of humans clearly do exist, but they are so minor that if we used them to define the amount of variation between species, the entire concept of a species would no longer be any use whatsoever to a large proportion of living organisms, and the entirety of the fossil record (even more so than the biological species concept), and thus would lose any validity or usefulness. You have to bear in mind that a species is nothing more than a classification invented by scientists to make life easier, it's nothing more, nothing less - as you have already highlighted scientists treat some groups (i.e. humans) very differently to others in this classification, and that is one of the flaws of the system. Objectively assessing the variation between species and making this the same for all organisms is incredibly difficult, and ultimately nigh on impossible.

Further to this several palaeoanthropologists have, if I recall correctly, suggested that there was interbreeding between the early human species. It has been suggested the Asian skull bears remarkable similarities to Homo erectus, and these populations could in fact be a Sapian/Erectus hybrid. The scientists that put this forward were not shunned, as you suggest would be the case, but the theory was considered equally with others until it was disproven by genetic work. The only time the scientists in question got a bit twitchy is when it was picked up by far-right neo-nazi groups as proof non-Aryan races were inferior (which the supposition in no way implies). But generally it is true this does not happen often, because - I'm relieved to say - scientists tend not to be fixated on race. While it is an interesting topic, there are a large number of more fundamental and important things to research than subtle differences between humans.

 

[Blowtus]

So the world doesn't let us fit out neat little generalised boxes around everything - why does it matter? The term species is merely a tool we have created in order to generalise and help us in our understanding / communication, not some universal constant.

Why should scientists be free to pursue whatever they want? Where is knowledge the only thing of importance, such that all else can be sacrificed for it? Would you attempt to argue that science can make no damaging revelations? That humanity is presently strong and well organised enough to cope with anything science can discover? You put your own political slant on the issue as always, but by doing so I think you miss the broader question you pose.

I do not necessarily agree with current restrictions on scientists, nor do I think there need be many, but I can see the possibility that 'some' may result in a 'better' world.

 

[MetalBooger]

Agree.^^

just before we go into all that nonsense about why "race" doesn't exist though

Perhaps race can solve your problem, for it appears what you think is a species is actually a different race. Within one species. A race as i understand is simply a group of people with common traits.

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and maybe race(at least for humans)

And what about dogs, the differnt breeds would be considered race, not species right? This would be directed at the future doctor.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There are some species of Gulls that can only be told apart by a small spot visible in their eye (iris probably). There is a species of bird which can only be told from another species by knowing its geography (and it sings a different song). These had to be classified as different species because they do not interbreed. The Gulls must be able to discriminate their species from the other, even though their geographical range overlaps.
I will try and find an old article I have on this.
These differences are far less than some between human ethnicities.
These issues are important because the truth is at odds with the doctrine of Universalism, essential to the agenda of Capitalists/corporations for example, in much the same way as the truth about climate change is or facts about the various pollutants that affect our health. But of all these subjects, this issue is the one they go most out of their way to clamp down on - as proved by the fact that Political correctness primarily applies to this. They feel it's important to suppress.
It could be vitally important for the entire future of the planet, as I believe it is.
But we can discuss some other aspects of my first post rather than this go full tilt into a direction that has recently been discussed on other threads.

The thing is: there is a definition of species that would work and that is that a species is a morphologically or behaviourally recognisable type, regardless of whether there are other species (by this definition of species) that it can interbreed with and produce fertile hybrids.
As far as I can tell, this would not have any exceptions, odities or variations. Or can you think of any?

 

[MetalBooger]

And what impacts would this definition be on the way the scientific community currently organizes life forms? Wouldnt this fiddle with the latin naming system? Would the benefits of this be so great that they surpass the costs of deconstructing our current effective system(despite the odd exception)?

 

[Russell]

The thing is: there is a definition of species that would work and that is that a species is a morphologically or behaviourally recognisable type, regardless of whether there are other species (by this definition of species) that it can interbreed with and produce fertile hybrids.

As far as I can tell, this would not have any exceptions, odities or variations. Or can you think of any?

Yes, but - as I said in my previous post - this would be so limited in scope that it would prove absolutely no help whatsoever in the study of the fossil record (and thus the history of life), and a large proportion of other living species. Species are invented to help us classify life. If we make the level of specialization these represent (already hugely varied, it must be admitted, as I mentioned above) so high it would lead to huge problems in classification – for example, sexual dimorphism. In the fossil record male and females of each species(using our current classification), by your definition would have to be considered a different 'species' as they are morphologically different. Male and female living animals are also morphologically distinct; obviously with these we can tell they can breed and are the same species, but they nevertheless are both morphologically and behaviorally distinct - should they be a different species? There is also huge morphological diversity within a species, between young and old, and between different individuals. Where do you propose we draw the new line between such minor variations and species, and how do we apply this objectively to both living organisms and then fossils? And then what of the higher ranks? How do we objectively define these? What we would end up with is the current system, but with an even greater range of specialisations at the 'species' level, or a far larger number of intermediate units, which - considering the debates concerning classification that already rage using the current system - would create nothing new or useful to the scientific community.

Imperfect as it is, the current taxanomic system has been developed over the centuries because it is the most useful to us. Clearly it divides what is in fact a gradual and incremental change between organisms into a false number of stages, hence the huge number of different ranks added between kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. It is also clear the level of variation between these units can vary hugely for different areas of life on Earth - but the system is applicable to both living species and the history of life on Earth. This is a tall order, and something which your definition would not allow.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes, but - as I said in my previous post - this would be so limited in scope that it would prove absolutely no help whatsoever in the study of the fossil record (and thus the history of life), and a large proportion of other living species. Species are invented to help us classify life. If we make the level of specialization these represent (already hugely varied, it must be admitted, as I mentioned above) so high it would lead to huge problems in classification – for example, sexual dimorphism. In the fossil record male and females of each species(using our current classification), by your definition would have to be considered a different 'species' as they are morphologically different. Male and female living animals are also morphologically distinct; obviously with these we can tell they can breed and are the same species, but they nevertheless are both morphologically and behaviorally distinct - should they be a different species? There is also huge morphological diversity within a species, between young and old, and between different individuals. Where do you propose we draw the new line between such minor variations and species, and how do we apply this objectively to both living organisms and then fossils? And then what of the higher ranks? How do we objectively define these? What we would end up with is the current system, but with an even greater range of specialisations at the 'species' level, or a far larger number of intermediate units, which - considering the debates concerning classification that already rage using the current system - would create nothing new or useful to the scientific community.

Imperfect as it is, the current taxanomic system has been developed over the centuries because it is the most useful to us. Clearly it divides what is in fact a gradual and incremental change between organisms into a false number of stages, hence the huge number of different ranks added between kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. It is also clear the level of variation between these units can vary hugely for different areas of life on Earth - but the system is applicable to both living species and the history of life on Earth. This is a tall order, and something which your definition would not allow.

There is still disagreement among scientists on how to define species, and the defintion has changed a lot. The first definition is the one that I suggest it should be. The objection that a creature (eg a butterfly) goes through various morphological stages is not a reason to abandon this. That sounds suspiciously like a lame excuse.

Definition of "Species"
The term species has undergone many changes in the history of evolution. It has always been used to describe groups that were intrinsically different. Originally, the distinction was based on morphological differences. However, it soon became apparent that some types of organisms had different forms at various stages in their lives. Additionally, some organisms came in different forms, such as the queen and worker forms found among many social insects. These individual types of insects were clearly the same type of organism even though they were morphologically different.
Because of these problems, the modern definition of species does not mention morphological similarities. Instead, it focuses on reproductive ability. Today, a species is defined as a group of organisms that shares the same gene pool and can successfully mate. As is discussed in more detail in Reproductive Isolation, the emphasis on "successful" reproduction is both important and problematic. Many closely related species can produce infertile offspring, while in other species populations exist that cannot mate with each other but can each mate with a third population.
Species can also be seen as populations between which there is interbreeding or gene flow. Whether populations that have the potential for interbreeding but for some reason do not interbreed (for example, because of geographic isolation) can or cannot be considered the same species is a point of contention among biologists. For our purposes, we will consider a species to be a group of populations that can interbreed to produce viable offspring.

http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section1.html

The scientists who devised the first definition of species knew very well the different morphological forms of a butterfly! But should the original definition have been kept, and the idea that God made all humans was properly rejected, then there was every possibility that this defintition would justify categorising humans into more than one species. The horror of this lead to the attempt to muddy the definition of species into something that is full of holes.
What is the present official definition of "race" (as a scientific term)?

We wouldn't have to consider male and female to be different species since their morphological difference could be attributed to their sexual difference. Also, just as ethnicity can be guaged by DNA analysis, so this could be added to the morphological data.
I can't see why doing things this way would hamper classification of the fossil record.

 

[Norsemaiden]

So the world doesn't let us fit out neat little generalised boxes around everything - why does it matter? The term species is merely a tool we have created in order to generalise and help us in our understanding / communication, not some universal constant.

Why should scientists be free to pursue whatever they want? Where is knowledge the only thing of importance, such that all else can be sacrificed for it? Would you attempt to argue that science can make no damaging revelations? That humanity is presently strong and well organised enough to cope with anything science can discover? You put your own political slant on the issue as always, but by doing so I think you miss the broader question you pose.

I do not necessarily agree with current restrictions on scientists, nor do I think there need be many, but I can see the possibility that 'some' may result in a 'better' world.

What, in the wildest stretches of hypothetical imagination, might scientists discover that they would be better never to have been allowed to research, let alone to present their findings and evidence for?

 

[Russell]

We wouldn't have to consider male and female to be different species since their morphological difference could be attributed to their sexual difference. Also, just as ethnicity can be guaged by DNA analysis, so this could be added to the morphological data.
I can't see why doing things this way would hamper classification of the fossil record.

Sorry, exam looming, hence this is short again. This would hamper the fosil record because we can't do DNA analysis or tell sexual difference. We already have trouble identifying in the fossil record the different sexes of fossils because they can be so dimorphic. If you make the morphological distinctions between species so small - and this scheme was followed exactly - then you would have to define the different sexes as different species. If, however, you can bend the rules for sexual dimorphism and morphological changes through development you have lost the one useful aspect of your definition - the objectivity. It would - as I said above - be exactly like the current taxonomy but with a higher specicivity at the species level, and considering the sparsity of the fossil record and the trouble of fitting many fossils into it as it is, this would not prove helpful. For example - ammonite dating zones, based on the coexistence of different ammonites and their evolutionary development go down to about a million years in the very best places. This is a million years' worth of morphological variation before we're able to tell species apart from the fossil record (which is actually fantastically detailed for geological time). Homo sapiens originated in Africa ~200,000 years ago. They made it to Europe by ~40,000 years ago, hence the disparity between races represents ~40,000 years of seperation and development. How can we possibly apply this level of difference to fossils where we are only able to tell species apart - in the very best circumstances with the fastest and easiest to identify changes in morphology - from 25 times this period of diversification?

I'm not in any way trying to avoid your definition because of moral/ethical dilemas it could introduce, as the use of 'lame excuses' may imply. I think those are inconsequential (see below), but you have to bear in mind the fossil record is patchy as it is, and what there is can't be forced into little boxes as small and neat as you are suggesting.

But, to go with your definition, races would be defined as different species - so what? Species are a concept invented by us to show a level of difference between organisms. In order to make this difference apply to human ethnicities you have made it far smaller than it already is (for nearly all animals - obviously this varies because of the time difference between different groups' diversification). In doing so different ethnicities would be different species, and that level of variation would have to be applied somehow throughout the animal kingdom (you can't exactly have one rule for humans and another for everyone else). All you've done is change the definition of the word species to be equivalent to our word race, which would only be useful to a miniscule percentage of the life we can study in as much depth as we do our own species, and a higher taxanomic division for our current species unit would need to be developed (or, as I said above, the specicifity of the species level would vary even more wildly than it does at the moment, which seems to be your criticism of it).

This has done nothing apart from provide a few racists with internal satisfactions that humans can be split into 'species', and even that satisfaction would only exists because of the previous definition of the word species. The word race already exists to recognise there are morphological differences between humans, or the word breed in animals - what difference does it make to use whether the word used is 'race' or 'species' if they represent the same dimorphism?

 

[Russell]

The objection that a creature (eg a butterfly) goes through various morphological stages is not a reason to abandon this. That sounds suspiciously like a lame excuse.

No, all I'm saying is that unless your system was applied blindly, with no interpretation of what represents morphological development (which, incidentally is extremely hard to tell in fossils now even with the current level of morphological disparity between species) it would require interpretation on our part. This would lead to exactly the same disagreements, differences and inconsistencies the current system has, but with even more argument due to the increased specicifity of the highest level.