Evolutionists, where, geographically, did man evolve?

[Valjean]

Asia, Africa and Europe, seeing as, scientifically, there are three distinct species of human: Caucasiod, Orientalis and Congoloid. Genetically, there is enough difference to separate them as such.

All of them originated in Africa and later migrated to Europe, Asia, Australia, &c.
They are not separate species, any more than Siamese, grey tabbies and Manx's are different species of cat. There's just not that much genetic difference.

And where did you come up with this three race system? Why not a six or eleven race system? Why don't you include the San and Pygmy races, or the Polynesian, Melanesian, Negrito, Australian Aborigine or Inuit races? Some of them are a lot more genetically distinct than Caucasions vs Negroids.

Fact is, race is more a social construct than a biological reality. People are tribal. We never tire of creating out-groups and inventing underlying justifications for our categories.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Evolutionists, where, what places, did man evolve separately? Good luck!

What's an "evolutionist"?

 

[Desert Snake]

What's an "evolutionist"?

A person who believes in evolution. Pretty self explanatory.

 

[David M]

A person who believes in evolution. Pretty self explanatory.

In that case I think the term should be "realist".

 

[psychoslice]

Its hard for me to realize that there are people in this day and age that don't believe in evolution, or even partly, its mind boggling to say the least.

 

[Desert Snake]

In that case I think the term should be "realist".

That's nonsense.

 

[Valjean]

Could you expand, please?

 

[Vishvavajra]

A person who believes in evolution. Pretty self explanatory.

Not seeing why we need a special term for that. Is someone who believes in gravity a "gravitist"? If you believe the world is round, are you a "sphericist"? Are those who accept the germ theory of medicine "microbists"?

Either people accept that science is a valid methodology for interpreting the world or they don't. If they do, then cherry-picking like this doesn't work. There is no form of biological science in which the theory of evolution by natural selection does not serve as a foundation. There are no non-evolutionists, except for people who reject science altogether. And if they reject science altogether, perhaps they ought to stop using things like the Internet, since it's clearly a form of witchcraft.

 

[David M]

That's nonsense.

No, creationists are the ones who adhere to nonsense. People who pay attention of reality accept the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life.

 

[gnostic]

What's an "evolutionist"?

A person who believes in evolution. Pretty self explanatory.

In that case I think the term should be "realist".

That's nonsense.

I think the only nonsense come from creationists. That they still believe in old superstitions as given in Genesis 1 & 2, John 1, Job 38-41, just showed the lack of education in science.

They rather believe in a fully-grown adult man can be made directly from dust (Genesis 2:7), which involved no reproduction, no conception, no pregnancy and no birth, means they believe in supernatural or magic. That is as far as from reality as believing in ghouls and goblins, or the tooth fairies.

Believing that a being could create "light" from just less than a-half-dozen words - "Let there be light", is utter nonsense; any one who believe that is possible, is like what Colonel Jack O'Neill said:

"Three fries short of Happy Meal"

 

[Desert Snake]

I think the only nonsense come from creationists. That they still believe in old superstitions as given in Genesis 1 & 2, John 1, Job 38-41, just showed the lack of education in science.

They rather believe in a fully-grown adult man can be made directly from dust (Genesis 2:7), which involved no reproduction, no conception, no pregnancy and no birth, means they believe in supernatural or magic. That is as far as from reality as believing in ghouls and goblins, or the tooth fairies.

Nice attempt, but this is actually irrelevant to the OP. lol

 

[gnostic]

I was referring to the OP, but to the recent exchange between you and David M & Vishvavajra about what is an "evolutionist".

The theory of evolution is explanation to natural biological change, over a long period of time. Natural as "real". Biologists are naturalists, as well as realists.

Creationists, on the other hand believe in the myth in Genesis 1 & 2, which involved supernatural making man of dust, and have fable too - talking serpent.

What does "talking serpent" tell you?

Well, it tell me that this creation myth is also a fable, which have nothing to do with reality. So creationists (like you) who believe in these nonsense, are not "realists".

Talking serpent and dust-made man are fascinating stories, but they have no basis in reality and completely defy the law of nature (or law of physics), other than anthropological interests myth, culture and custom.

Don't get me wrong, I loved myths and stories, but I do draw a line on what is real and what is not, or what is science and what is religious myth (superstitions).

So on that basis, I just have to say creationists are not realists.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I wouldn't say creation myths have no basis in reality. They do express certain things about human experience. At the same time, they are not meant to be taken as fact. They make no sense to begin with if taken at face value, and moreover there are literally thousands of them. The irony of the OP is that creation myths have posited far more geographic origins for humanity than biological science has, as most every culture tends to describe humanity's origin in or around the place where that culture resided. So of course the ancient Hebrews imagined that humans were created in the Middle East, but to pretend that's the only creation myth in the world, or somehow exceptional, would be disingenuous.

 

[Desert Snake]

I wouldn't say creation myths have no basis in reality. They do express certain things about human experience. At the same time, they are not meant to be taken as fact. They make no sense to begin with if taken at face value, and moreover there are literally thousands of them. The irony of the OP is that creation myths have posited far more geographic origins for humanity than biological science has, as most every culture tends to describe humanity's origin in or around the place where that culture resided. So of course the ancient Hebrews imagined that humans were created in the Middle East, but to pretend that's the only creation myth in the world, or somehow exceptional, would be disingenuous.

Huh? I didn't say anything close to that, off topic,

 

[McBell]

I think the only nonsense come from creationists.

I disagree.
There is plenty of nonsense from all sides.

Though, I will agree that most of the nonsense comes from creationists.