What has that got to do with whether or not speciation is occurring within the human race?
I thought that was the you point you were making. I don't think I have touched on the topic of Social Darwinism in this thread at all.

It that SD has been extensively mentioned if you look throught the record.

Now if one accept that speciation is possible and be that unlikely/likely/inevitable then the division of humanity into races based on ever differing genotypes and phenotypes is also unlikely/likely/inevitable. Personally, trying to remain of a non-anthropocentric mind set, I would plump for the latter, but it is immaterial for the purposes of this debate.

Social Darwinism actually predates Darwin himself (see my reference to the survival of the fittest man - Galton). it is my position that Darwin himself embracerd it (see his views on the Aboriginees), but I understand that this is debateable. What is clear, however, is that it is a natural and logical extension of the NS hypothesis IF this is taken in isolation.

off to the family now I will catch up with you all later. Thank you very much for the debate

"Social Darwinism actually predates Darwin himself (see my reference to the survival of the fittest man - Galton). it is my position that Darwin himself embracerd it (see his views on the Aboriginees), but I understand that this is debateable. What is clear, however, is that it is a natural and logical extension of the NS hypothesis IF this is taken in isolation."

Who cares if Darwin believed it? he clearly made great advances through his journeys, but we now know how traits are controlled (what chemical structure holds the genetic information) and how to measure allele frequency... it is clear however that humans are unique in at least one way.

Only in our ability to reason (which is computational in effect, and extended by our scientific tools) there are other social/co-operative creatures, ant colonies are a great example. However we can conceivable define our own evolution. Without even using genetic engineering, we have countless example of breeding programs, whether to get a pure breed of dog (and there are horrible results or in-breeding here, but they do manage to emphasis particular traits) or to develop different strains of bean. (i believe performed by some monks in middle age europe) and it has happened in humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States) though they didn't speciate, breeding was common.

It is perfectly possible to develop a political philosophy which includes determining which traits are favourable. We are perfectly capable of defining what the 'fittest' traits are, which phenotypes are preferred by society. We could easily sterilise those who were determined to be undesirable.

We could force speciation, we could divide into classes which would develop into seperate species. We could but should we? Currently popular opinion says no. Popular political theory suggests that humans should be considered equals, slavery abolished and the Universal Declaration of Human rights respected.

It is conceivable within the current scheme of things to speciate and extend human rights to both 'classes' though i can't see why we would bother at the moment... as i suggested i think orbital colonies will be the first, but i think that offworld colonies will include more adaption of humans than they will involve terraforming. (though concept of Geoengineering will surely be tested - i think a non-rotating (zeroG) orbiting space colony will be easier to build, and you can't change the gravity on Mars...

How much gene transfer will occur is a question, and population sizes will start off pretty small but eventually we'll leave this rock.

It is likely that in the past large geographical distances and lack of safety/ability to travel seperate hominids, i postulate that the next time this will happen is when we can again expand our territory/habitat. (because at first these new colonies will be greatly seperated transport will again be dangerous and time consuming)

This seems more likely than an overturning of our current political institutions (though perhaps i'm not looking at the big picture and being very optimistic - it's entirely possible that civilisation will collapse and we will again find travelling around the world both dangerous and time-consuming...or that standard conventions of human rights will be thought of as a backward failed ideology...)

Going back to yesterday, OK, I see your point fulhamish. Yes, of course in a situation like that speciation would occur, naturally humans are not exempt from natural laws and I would never argue otherwise. All I'm saying is that it hasn't happened yet, and really due to the constant gene flow that has existed more or less throughout history has nothing to do with the very superficial "racial" differences to which our society gives such credence.

''Going back to yesterday, OK, I see your point fulhamish. Yes, of course in a situation like that speciation would occur, naturally humans are not exempt from natural laws and I would never argue otherwise. All I'm saying is that it hasn't happened yet, and really due to the constant gene flow that has existed more or less throughout history has nothing to do with the very superficial "racial" differences to which our society gives such credence.''

Yes and no. I would really like to go for this oft repeated truism but in terms of speciation -

1) It might be that just a comparatively very few number of genes are required to make a difference, if they code for something vital. Thus figures which give overall % similarities may not be to the point.

2) I can't remember the exact figure but are we at 98 % similarity with the chimps and even around 50 % odd with a mollusc?

3) In genetics a small genotype change can give a big phenotype result (e.g., cystic fibrosis).

4) In summary although your oft repeated view is something which I would like to agree with without challenge in a ''sociological'' context I am not sure if I can in one of ''science''.

5) Maybe then humans are unique for some other reason?

What is your point exactly? That racial differences really do exist and are important in some way? I mean, obviously people have different physical characteristics, but I still don't see how the differences which we call race are any more significance than the difference between two people of the same race who have pale complexion compared with darker complexions and so on. I mean southern Europeans used to be considered a different race from people from England. Nowadays we classify them all as "white". Who's to say that the totally arbitrary divisions we've come up with and use today are scientifically valid, but the totally arbitrary divisions we used to use are complete bunk.

Orathaic, although I didn't enjoy reading your last post I could actually argue with little in it.
Mafialligator, in answer to your last post directed at me, I suggest that your read Orathaic's last post which, in my view, gets pretty close to the connecion between NS and SD. It is hand in a gloove stuff, IMO.

Now that we have reached the edge of this abyss, there may be another factor at work here which we haven't discussed yet

by the way, i'm imagining that enough gene transfer has occured since the out of africa event ~60,000 years ago, that we are currently a fairly diverse species which is still one.

But i doubt it matters as two species would each fight for their human rights, and eventually be recognized as equals.

@fullhamish: what didn't you enjoy about my post? did i not make enough jokes? i may have been very sleep deprived when i wrote it, my apologies if it made terrible reading.

Also what other factor may there be?

Orathaic, it reminded me, in spirit at least, of Heart of Darkness. Perhaps uncomfortable would have been a better word.