My comment about arrant nonsense stands. May I remind you of your response to my question in this very thread:
Gumlegs: "So, you're saying there was no racism before 1859."This would appear to undercut your non-point here:Yes I am.
It is also fallacious to argue that since racism predated Darwin, then evolution has nothing to do with racism.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
What are the depths of your ignorance? How does an observation about speciation lead inevitably to or equate to racism? To state that it does is junk though of the most careless kind.
If you believe in human evolution, doesn't it follow that there are some humans who are more evolved and others who are less evolved?
No. All humans are the same species. You appear to be projecting your own psychological issues into a scientific theory that has nothing whatever to do with the various races of humanity.
If you can resist the temptation to be funny with the question you might agree that human evolution or devolution has to be ongoing even now.
So what? What does "devolution" mean? It’s nowhere to be found in the scientific literature, although I’ll readily admit that it appeared in a 1980s pop song. Is that where you got your science from?
If it's stopped due to genetic mixing, when did that occur do you think?
Why would "genetic mixing" whatever that might be, lead to a pause or so-called reversal in evolution? Are you aware that the Theory of Evolution does not specify a “direction”?
Might there be some isolated piece of the gene pool that is less "advanced" than average?
The question is meaningless. If you are human, you are human. If you’re a bearded dragon, you’re a bearded dragon. There isn't a degree of "advanceosity" to be measured. Unless, of course, you're really a closet racist yourself.
And if we managed to identify those individuals, wouldn't we be racists?
Speak for yourself.
Smileys are an insult to the reader.
As are your posts.