Update

race.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Instead of the word *race* the politically correct camp uses words such as *ethn
 
 Pseudoleft uses cheap, logically faulty arguments to deny the existence of race; for example that there are no clear objective boundaries between races -- of course there are not, but how does that imply nonexistence of race? The same argument could also be given even e.g. for the term *species* (see e.g. ring species in which the boundaries are not clear) so as to invalidate it; yet we see no one doubting the existence of various species of animals. That's like saying that color doesn't exist because given any two distinct colors there exists a gradual transition, or that [music](music.md) and noise are the same thing because objectively no clear line can be drawn between them. If by this argument races don't exist, then movie genres, psychological disorders, emotions or political opinions also don't exist.
 
-The politically correct camp further argues that there wasn't enough time for human races to develop significant differences as evolution operates on scales of millions of years while the evolution of modern humans was taking part about in an order of magnitude smaller time scale. However it has been shown that **evolution can be extremely fast and make great changes in mere DECADES**, e.g. in cases of rapid environment change (shown e.g. in a documentary *Laws of the Lizard* on anoles that show signs of evolutionary change only after 14 years, also see e.g. the book *The 10,000 Year Explosion* talking about actual acceleration of human evolution) and interbreeding with other (sub)species (e.g. Denisovan or Neanderthals, which European population bred with but African population didn't), which did occur when humans spread around the world and had to live in vastly different conditions -- successful civilizations themselves actually furthermore started to rapidly change their environment to something that favors very different traits. It has for example been found that average male brain increased from 1372 gram in 1860 to 1424 grams in 1940, a very significant change in LESS THAN A CENTURY. We can take a look at the enormous differences between dog breeds which have been bred mostly during only the last 200 years and whose differences are enormous and not only physical, but also that of intelligence and temperament -- yes, the breeding of dogs has been selective, but a rapid change in environment may have a similar accelerating effect, and the process in humans still took many tens of thousands of years. For example races of slaves were probably selectively bred, even if unintentionally, as physically fit slaves were more likely to survive than those who were smart; similarly in prospering civilizations, e.g. that of Europe, where trade, business and development of technology (e.g. military) became more crucial for survival than in primitive desert or jungle civilizations, different traits such as intelligence became preferred by evolution.
+The politically correct camp further argues that there wasn't enough time for human races to develop significant differences as evolution operates on scales of millions of years while the evolution of modern humans was taking part about in an order of magnitude smaller time scale (but of course they won't have any objections to articles that claim that e.g. [women](woman.md) are "catching up" to men in brain size in span of mere years). However it has been shown that **evolution can be extremely fast and make great changes in mere DECADES**, e.g. in cases of rapid environment change (shown e.g. in a documentary *Laws of the Lizard* on anoles that show signs of evolutionary change only after 14 years, also see e.g. the book *The 10,000 Year Explosion* talking about actual acceleration of human evolution) and interbreeding with other (sub)species (e.g. Denisovan or Neanderthals, which European population bred with but African population didn't), which did occur when humans spread around the world and had to live in vastly different conditions -- successful civilizations themselves actually furthermore started to rapidly change their environment to something that favors very different traits. It has for example been found that average male brain increased from 1372 gram in 1860 to 1424 grams in 1940, a very significant change in LESS THAN A CENTURY. We can take a look at the enormous differences between dog breeds which have been bred mostly during only the last 200 years and whose differences are enormous and not only physical, but also that of intelligence and temperament -- yes, the breeding of dogs has been selective, but a rapid change in environment may have a similar accelerating effect, and the process in humans still took many tens of thousands of years. For example races of slaves were probably selectively bred, even if unintentionally, as physically fit slaves were more likely to survive than those who were smart; similarly in prospering civilizations, e.g. that of Europe, where trade, business and development of technology (e.g. military) became more crucial for survival than in primitive desert or jungle civilizations, different traits such as intelligence became preferred by evolution.
 
 Another pseudoleftist argument is that "the DNA of any two individuals is 99.6 % identical so the differences are really insignificant". Now consider that DNA of a pig is 98 % identical to human. We see the argument is like saying a strawberry and beer is practically the same thing as they are both about 93 % water. It is known that only a minuscule part of DNA has any actual biological effect, only a small part is important and therefore including all the unimportant junk in judging similarity is just purposeful attempt at misleading statistics.