[Ohioan]

This revives the pre-Darwinian debate between the Monogenesists and the Polygenesists, and also brings to mind the studies of the great Naturalist Louis Agassiz that demonstrated that clear patterns of different fauna also accompanied the different types of man in the different regions of the world. There has long been such a body of evidence that supports the view of separate creations, or else a very, very ancient branching of all major species.

Of course, the argument raised by the modern Monogenesists that seeks to trivialize racial differences on the basis of a common human ancestor 150,000 years ago, is absurd on its face. Whether or not the races of man developed immediately before the historic period, or at a vastly earlier period; races are clearly works in progress. One can demonstrate profound changes in types of ability and definable traits from selective breeding patterns in a very few generations. So the argument--relied upon by Clinton and the like, in their recitation of how few genetic factors actually control our differences--is absolutely meaningless.

Men have clearly been racially different for longer than Beagles have been different from Foxes or Wolves, or whatever their nearest cousins may be; and the human differences are just as profound. That doesn't put anyone down. It is simply an acknowledgement of how unique we all are.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[blam]

"Men have clearly been racially different for longer than Beagles have been different from Foxes or Wolves, or whatever their nearest cousins may be; and the human differences are just as profound. That doesn't put anyone down. It is simply an acknowledgement of how unique we all are."

I agree. However, foxes are closer related to cats than to dogs. DNA indicates that dogs have been domesticated at least four different times and in all cases from wolves.