In his book Species with Amnesia, Robert Sepehr abuses science to manufacture support for his argument that the "races" of humanity are actually separate species. Specifically, Sepehr argues for the distinction of the white race, stating his interest in “Europeans, which were originally a separate species from African lineages” ( page 34). He cites scientific research suggesting that white people are the most genetically similar to “anatomically correct” humans like Cro-Magnons, while people of color share genes with “archaic hominins” (page 25). The implication of this theory is that white people descend from true, modern humans and everyone else is a mixture of primitive human-like species and are therefore lesser beings; this idea places Caucasian people at the pinnacle of intellectual and physiological advancement, and suggests that Aryans are biologically superior. Unfortunately, the manipulation of science to support racist agendas is not a new phenomenon. Scientific racism has been used for centuries to justify acts such as the enslavement of Africans and the disenfranchisement of American Indians. In 1839, a man named George Morton published a book of illustrations called Crania Americana, which depicted an array of different skulls that he claimed demonstrated the physiological differences between races. In this publication, Morton proposed that differences in skull structure were indicative of differences in mental capability, where the shapes and sizes of white people’s skulls reflected the greatest intelligence. These claims gave scientific credence to racist ideas of the supremacy of the white race and informed Euro-American perspectives on "race" for decades. While the claim that non-white races were more primitive and even non-human used to be based on crude "scientific" data such as phrenology and other physical measurements, modern day racists now utilize genetics to highlight differences between races. Sepehr describes himself as a paleobiologist or archeogeneticist, terms that suggest his use of genetic data is expert and legitimate. Sepehr’s claim that white genes are modern while the genes of other races are archaic and of separate species is unsupported by real scientific data. In his book, Sepehr cites scientific research that shows people today have DNA with genes shared by now-extinct human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. Sepehr interprets this information to mean that separate species were capable of interbreeding, and because different races share variable amounts of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, that different races are the products of different species intermixing. Sepehr cites a 2013 paper in Genetics by Jeff Wall et. al that shows higher levels of Neanderthal DNA in East Asians than Europeans; he uses the ideas presented in this article to support his claim that archaic genes are more prevalent in non-white races, but neglects to include the fact that people of recent African decent have little or no Neanderthal DNA, which by his own sloppy argument would suggest that they are more fully modern humans. A large part of Sepehr’s presumption that races are different species relies on the existence of different and incompatible blood types. In chapter two of Species with Amenesia, he asserts, “if mankind evolved from the same African ancestors, their blood would be compatible, but it is not” (page 23). The basic assumption of such a statement, however, is wrong: scientists have discerned that blood types most likely evolved in reaction to the diseases that specific human populations were exposed to. The fact that certain blood types are incompatible is “an accident of evolution” that has not been accounted for through natural selection because “blood transfusion is a recent phenomenon, and therefore has nothing to do with the evolution of blood groups.” In other words, blood transfusions don’t occur in nature, so why would it matter if one person’s blood can’t be injected successfully into someone else? Apparently Sepehr hasn’t considered this, or maybe he thinks highly advanced Aryan Atlanteans were capable of performing blood transfusions during the Ice Age. Like many fringe theorists, Sepehr is fixated on Rh-negative blood. He discusses that Rh-negative blood is more common in Aryan individuals, and that if a woman is pregnant with a baby that has the opposite Rh blood type to her, the pregnancy can be terminated by the woman’s own immune system. Sepehr suggests that this would only happen if individuals of different races/species were not meant to interbreed. However, Rh Sensitivity is a rare occurrence and is a consequence resulting from random mutations in genes that affect blood rather than the result of unsuccessful interspecies mating. Furthermore, while certain blood types are more common to certain races, blood type and race do not perfectly correlate; the O blood type occurs more in people of recent African descent, but I myself, a white individual, have O+ blood, as do both of my white parents. Sepehr’s argument of interspecific mixing is also flawed by basic scientific illiteracy. A cornerstone of his argument is the idea of species and speciation, but it appears that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what a species is. According to the biological species concept, species are defined as “related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.” This is very important. The basis of distinguishing one species from another is their ability to interbreed; therefore, if two individuals can breed and produce viable offspring, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE SPECIES! In an attempt to circumvent the biological species concept, Sepehr includes various examples from the animal kingdom that demonstrate how “two separate and distinct species…can produce viable hybrid offspring” (page 25). However, Sepehr’s examples simply do not prove what he thinks they do. Some of these examples are outdated or incorrect, such as the idea that domestic dogs and gray wolves, which can interbreed, are separate species; scientists have considered dogs and wolves the same species since 1993. Sepehr mentions, but glosses over, the caveat that most offspring produced by interspecific mating, such as the blood parrotfish and the Yakow, are infertile. By the biological species concept, infertile offspring are indicative of an unsuccessful mating, which reinforces the idea that mated species cannot interbreed. Sepehr also includes certain examples, such as the Grolar bear, which biologists acknowledge as the result of interfertility but still consider separate species due to the geographic and adaptive separation of the parent species. While grizzly and polar bears are theoretically interfertile (capable of interbreeding), they do not successfully interbreed in nature due to the great distance the two species live apart and the fact that hybrid offspring would likely die in the habitat of either parent species due to maladaptation. In other words, though organisms could reproduce if they came into contact or were artificially inseminated, nature does not “allow” them to mate, so they function as separate species. It is notable that humans do not exhibit any of the pitfalls of interspecies mating: we produce offspring that can reproduce themselves, and, due to human propensity for global travel, can interbreed with people from different environments, where we can and do live successfully. While the field of paleoanthropology is often limited in its classification of species because fossils cannot breed, genetic evidence of interbreeding such as that presented by Sepehr himself would indicate that people of different races as well as certain “archaic” human types with which they share genes are and were capable of interbreeding and therefore are not separate species. The definition and scientific idea of a species renders Sepehr’s whole argument completely invalid. How embarrassing. Recent genetic studies have shown that human genetic variation is a result of geography and not speciation. The differences between races are no more significant than the natural variation between individuals of the same race; phenotypic variety among humans evolved as a result of the geography in which we each lived and does not exist because we are distinct species. Species with Amnesia is a fundamentally racist publication, in which Robert Sepehr strives to assert the dominance of the Aryan race over the rest of the world on both a cultural and genetic basis. The book’s arguments are not founded in real science. The idea that people of different races all belong to the same species, which Sepehr has deemed mere “political correctness,” has been proven by modern science to be fact. So if Sepehr believes he, as a white man, is a “modern” human, perhaps he should abandon such archaic views.
18 Comments
truth
4/3/2017 07:07:15 am
That was a great book, get over your low self esteem and inferiority complex, it will help you in the long run.
Reply
Evelyn Bennett
7/5/2017 04:12:55 pm
Self-esteem has nothing to do with it. The assertions in this article are based on fact, unlike Sepehr's book, which is inaccurate and largely plagiarized from other erroneous sources.
Reply
Jason
5/21/2021 03:56:38 am
Such a shame you can't disprove Roberts research. Such a treasure Mr. Sepher is to deciphering the lies of history. You should write to Robert and apologize for your lack on insight.
Lilla
9/26/2018 08:20:58 am
Why each one of you trolls must have "truth" as your nickname and attack people and their "low self-esteem", instead of providing arguments? Stop with your white supremacy agenda. You're the one with low self-esteem if you must boast about how superior your race is.
Reply
Bacon
7/13/2020 06:23:51 am
I agree that his arguments are fundamentally flawed but those of us who choose to use science to further humanity must be cautious about using the word fact. Good science is based on current best evidence. Dogma must be stringently disallowed. Personal Political leanings should be scrutinized in the hope that one does not mistake bias with data. Be flexible and have an open mind. Remember that Darwin himself would have been very comfortable with Sepehr’s arguments.
Azure
4/9/2017 02:19:50 am
Unfortunately, I agree. There are some racist undertones no matter how one looks at it. I agree with what you have written. We are all one human race and only the geography of the land of our ancestors gave rise to the physical differences we see today. That's the beauty of evolution. That's the beauty of adaptation. No one is superior and no one is inferior.
Reply
dennis c wing
7/18/2022 04:28:16 pm
nothing racist at all .. we are discussing species. look the same, but different genetics .. thats science. doesnt indicate better or worse but is different with biological differences
Reply
Esoteric
8/14/2018 05:22:06 pm
I look at both sides of any picture when it comes to theories, unfortunately I dont see any evidence other than someone trying to shoe horn in genetic superiority > here's what lets me sleep well at night in a couple of generations all humans will be mixed and beyond that they will only be the ethnicity Earthling - I find much of his material fascinating and thought provoking but when I go to find references that back up his claims > he is sorely lacking - the thing at the end of the day is > no matter the subject if your biased you will do what you can to maintain that bias so your world makes sense - in the end we are all human and I hope we can achieve together great things that are for the betterment of all
Reply
Lilla
9/26/2018 08:08:11 am
"White" isn't even a race, is a concept made by western supremacists. "White" people have only one thing in common: pale skin. Skull shape, facial features, etc... differ from nation to nation. I suspect this guy just spreads disinfo.
Reply
dennis c wing
7/18/2022 04:25:30 pm
and does that explain the differences in social advances and civilizations? define seperate species ... then look at history
Reply
Patrick Raglan
8/16/2022 03:02:32 pm
The review already defined separate species. Did you read it?
Anonymous
1/27/2019 11:39:18 am
This man has done his research.
Reply
Tj
3/17/2019 01:10:26 am
Its always good old anonymous, who hides out, afraid to show their face. Life w/ a sheet over your head, veiled lenses, crooked motives, hands over ears, all the while mouth open spewing disinformation and hate. Congrats you succeeded. Now shake your hand mightily (in a "get off the lawn I stole" manner) and say we are superior. There, feel better. Now are you superior? Did you experience an IQ bump? Are you stronger physically? Are you better looking? Doubtful. Putting someone else down does not elevate you. Go out and work on you. Go to school. Get a degree. Read your bible. Find where Christ has for some gosh awful reason stated that the creation of man is tier-based (good, better, best). If you look, stop, it's not in there. It assumes imperfection on the part of the father. Couldn't be. He stepped back, looked at his work, and saw that it was good. He made man in his image. He made human in his image. He did not promise salvation for all, however. My message for you. This is not hell "fire insurance", this is seed for your eternal soul. Trust in the Lord, lean not to your OWN understanding, acknowledge him in all your ways, and he shall direct your path. Amen. Be well.
Reply
Ian
10/7/2020 11:17:59 am
I would hardly call arguments based on a religious belief structure scientific. Also, because racial differences can easily be explained by geography, that is by no means proof that they are. I'm also not saying it is not so, because I keep in mind one thing that a great many people - locked into their opinions - forget: You can't prove a negative. Allow other people's beliefs to evolve, as your own surely do...or don't. Suffice it to say, there is a great deal more to learn about our past, present and future. I'm willing to hear anyone's thoughts and research come into the mix.
PanApollo
8/21/2019 06:46:49 am
SCIENTIFIC FACT: Blacks are Sub-Humans
Reply
Ian
10/7/2020 11:22:35 am
Thank you; this is fascinating. Wish I could have read more, but your comment was cut off.
Reply
dennis c wing
7/18/2022 04:18:20 pm
It was an intersting article that did not answer my investigative question ... are sub subsuharan people a different species of the primate human. most articles define a species as having between 2% to 4% deference.
Reply
B Roberts
3/14/2023 09:42:50 pm
"...if two individuals can breed and produce viable offspring, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE SPECIES!"
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |