Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[John53]

You tipped your hand too many times. You are only pretending.

But wouldn't that be a breach of one of the top ten? eek!

 

[Subduction Zone]

But wouldn't that be a breach of one of the top ten? eek!

They seem to think that if one breaks that one for Jesus it is okay.

 

[Twilight Hue]

... the doctrine that a few pairs of African apes gave birth to a few humans who met and then formed their own tribe, and later dispersed around the world, abandoning their birthplace and giving rise to the different races (or human tribes) that we see today.

Keep in mind that the human race had evolved into separate branches of humanoids each in their own species.

I'm not sure if it was actually a single group of humans or several all from proto sources.

I'd have to check to see what the experts say about it.

 

[John53]

They seem to think that if one breaks that one for Jesus it is okay.

phew

 

[John53]

(lol)

(Hi), hey, g'day, yo.

(Great input). I have to go. Bye bye, hooroo, adieu, see ya later, (I'm outta here), adios.

You have a wonderful Easter, I hope the chocolate eggs are many and large.

(Bye for now)

P.S. Dust is still dust.

Good (night).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First, it's wrong to call the various ethnicities in homo sapiens different "races", but I'll run with it for the sake of argument.

What explanation does the evolutionary doctrine give to the different human races?

The same as it gives to diversification of all species: they adapted to their environment through natural selection

Does this have to do with the species of apes that populated the different regions of the earth?

It has to do with whatever selection pressures were active in the habitats / niches they found themselves in. This is all-encompassing. Weather, diet, sexual selection, natural enemies, available food / water sources, etc etc etc.

In any case, in human likeness, how many different races exist among the apes that later, according to evolutionary doctrine, became the different human races?

This question doesn't seem to make any sense.


And to answer the thread title question:

Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am mestizo, my mother is mulatto, daughter of mulatto and white, granddaughter of black and white ... and my father is white. Racism was a totally non-existent thing in my upbringing environment.

That does not mean that I do not recognize the racial diversity of the human race as a result of different factors that do not interest my topic, but that contribute to the beauty and diversity of God's creation, just as there are different colors and varieties in flowers, butterflies. , fish, birds, etc.

However, I do not see how evolutionary doctrine can fit within human racial diversity.

Well, it's interesting to read that bolded part.
Since you likely believe that all of humanity started with a single couple.... What "race" were they?
And how did the various "races" come about in your opinion, if not through an evolutionary process?

Why is it, that you can instantly tell what the geographic location was of the ancestral bloodline of these humans:

Why do these different "races" exist? If all of humanity started with one couple AND evolution doesn't occur, shouldn't there then be only one ethnicity?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is obviously a serious contradiction in some of these evolutionary theorists

This supposed "contradiction" only seems to exist in your strawman version.

did the human race originate in a single geographical location

Yes. Africa. From there, waves of migrations took place to populate the rest of the world, starting some 100.000 years ago.

and from a single race of apes, or in several geographic locations from different races of apes?

A single population of homo sapiens evolved. Waves of migration spread homo sapiens to other regions.
Species don't evolve twice.

PS: There are brown bears, gray bears, white bears,...

And they all descent from an ancestral population of bear.

It depends a lot on where you see them.

Yes. That's what evolution does. It makes population adapt to their environment. So when a group migrates out to another location, making them genetically isolated from the original population, they will set off on their own evolutionary path.

Today in homo sapiens, these different groups no longer are genetically isolated.
If however all these different groups would have remained genetically isolated for say another million years, they would eventually have diversified so much from others that they would have become a different sub-species. Even to the point where interbreeding were no longer possible.

To what extent can it be credible that the apes that evolutionists say gave rise to humans were of a single race?

1 in 1.

Populations evolve, not individuals.
And a species will not evolve twice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, according to evolutionary theorists: did humans come from a single geographic region

Yes. And they spread throughout the world from there in several migration waves.

, or from several geographic regions such as those that cause color and other clearly visible physical characteristics to change (see post#16, not mine but with an interesting map of this)?

No. The various ethnicities evolved after these groups migrated to other habitats, where they were faced with different selection pressures.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Another question: if humans originated in a single region, how does an evolutionist conceive of the parents of those first humans?

1. populations evolve, not individuals

2. in gradual processes like evolution, there is no "first".

Here's a good analogy:

Note the question at the bottom of that text: what is the "first" purple word in the text? What is the "first" blue word?
And if you pick one to say "this word is blue", can you really say that the word right before it is NOT blue?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

... the doctrine that a few pairs of African apes gave birth to a few humans

Not how evolution happens.
Every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents.
Just like in that analogy of the color-changing text: every word you see is pretty much the same color as the word right before it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apes are quite ugly compared to humans.
How ugly could the first human, children of apes, be and how did they become so fine later?

PS: who doubts the physical beauty of humans?
I've never seen a female monkey with breasts like a woman's, hips and long hair.

Is this a serious post?


It's kind of ironic that you say things like that while also complaining that you aren't getting serious answers to your silly ignorant questions...........................

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Race is about distinctive features.
Many animals that also have distinctive features and can successfully inter breed.
The many varieties of dogs,cats, horses. Cows, sheep etc are examples of this.
Some animals can also mate with near relatives like horses with donkeys, and lions with tigers, but they produce sterile offspring.

All humans can interbreed, so are just variations of the same species with distinctive features passed down through breeding.
Those with dark skins are better protected from excessive levels of UV light...those with light skins can better take advantage of low levels of UV light in the production of vitamin D.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many followers of evolutionary doctrine do not know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution.

I wish they would spend more time on that issue... and they wouldn't get so confused between what is fact and what is belief.

There is no difference in process. It's the same evolutionary process.
The only difference is the amount of accumulated change.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Microevolution is about small mutations that allows diversity ... which is a demonstrated fact.

And these small mutations accumulate over time.
1+1+1+1+1+1+......................+1 = big number.

Macroevolution is the idea that those mutations can be so big that they allow one species to become a different one

No. Small changes are inherited by off spring, who add their own small changes which they pass on to their off spring and so on.

The color change from one word to the next = micro-evolution.
The color change from the first word in the paragraph to the last = macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is NOT a member of species x giving birth to a member of species Y. That does not happen.
All change is micro-change, always. Micro-changes accumulate.

Again: 1+1+1+1+1+.......+1 = big number.


Consider walking.
Taking one step = micro-distance.
You walk taking one step at a time.
Walking for a long time = traversing a macro-distance.

There is no difference in the process of "walking" if you walk 10 meters vs 10 kilometers.

This is not hard to understand.
You'ld have to be willingly obtuse / ignorant not to understand such a simple concept as accumulation of small changes.

... which is just a belief. On this belief is based the human evolutionary doctrine.

No. Your strawman version of evolution is based on that belief.

Mutations can't take that level, because of genetic laws.

There are no laws of genetics that prevent the accumulation of micro-changes.

 

[HonestJoe]

And could that idea change in the future?

Of course. In science, anything is subject to change in the face of new evidence. I gather the evidential support for this general concept is pretty strong though, but changes to some of the details are possible (and have already been discovered).

Another question: if humans originated in a single region, how does an evolutionist conceive of the parents of those first humans?

It's misleading to think of the first humans as distinct individuals, something clearly human being born of something clearly non-human.

New species will develop through multiple generations over thousands of years. Each generation will have variations from their parents, some bringing them closer to the wider species and some further away. If some generational lines happen to develop a lot of variations from the rest of the species, especially if it is combined with geographic or social isolation, that can eventually lead to new sub-species and ultimately entirely distinct species.

Have you never read a book from the "for dummies" collection? My language is clear and direct so that it is better understood.

I've never been great at concise writing anyway, but in this kind of context, accuracy in meaning is at least as important. I don't think you're a "dummy" but I do think you're willing to misrepresent unclear wording as a gotcha to try to support your beliefs (such as trying to draw a distinction between apes and humans).

 

[Eli G]

I know, and you know, that "homo sapiens" is how we call human beings, and their supposed ancestors (according to you) got different names ... because those are NOT humans. There is not any 1% homo sapiens, nor a 95% homo sapiens, etc as you seem to think.

Human races show human mutations, microevolution, but those mutations will never transform a human in a different species ... You think that happened before with apes.

Be honest to youselves: how do you know when a bone you find is "homo sapiens" or not? I don't think you really know... Some modern humans got skulls similar to those you find, and some modern apes got bones similar to those you find. You just invent names to support your belief.

PS: I am on my phone right now, so I can't write too much at the moment. Enjoy your day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know, and you know, that "homo sapiens" is how we call human beings, and their supposed ancestors (according to you) got different names ... because those are NOT humans. There is not any 1% homo sapiens, nor a 95% homo sapiens, etc as you seem to think.

That is not how genetics or evolution works. We can add up the changes as the offspring from the same parent become greater and greater. That is why we can measure the difference between humans and chimps and find it to be less than 2% in the coding DNA. Those are just differences the two different lines of descent acquired. You still are 100% ape. You could not be anything else because you are descended from an ape. You are just a different ape than chimps are.

Human races show human mutations, microevolution, but those mutations will never transform a human in a different species ... You think that happened before with apes.

Why not? We have observed it with other species. Do you even know what a species is? I sincerely doubt if you do.

Be honest to youselves: how do you know when a bone you find is "homo sapiens" or not? I don't think you really know... Some modern humans got skulls similar to those you find, and some modern apes got bones similar to those you find. You just invent names to support your belief.

I would not know because I am not an expert in the field. But guess who can not only tell the difference, but explain the difference too? Experts in the field can do that. There is terminology for different shapes and structures of bones that I am almost totally unaware of, yet they can use it to show you why Homo erectus is human but not Homo sapiens. And no, also, please quit breaking the Ninth Commandment. Scientists do not "make things up". If they do their colleagues quickly tear them down. If a scientist coins a new term he has to be ready to justify its use. You seem to think that there is some sort of plan between scientists to conquer the world. Instead you will find endless squabbling and debate until a new finding is very well understood. You seem to be the sort that believes that because you cannot do something that others cannot do it either.

PS: I am on my phone right now, so I can't write too much at the moment. Enjoy your day.

You too. I must congratulate you on packing so much wrong in so little space.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

However, I do not see how evolutionary doctrine can fit within human racial diversity.

You do not see how evolution - a theory that explains how living populations diversify over time - can possibly fit within the idea that there is diversity within a living population?

Serious question: are you a joke account?

 

[Eli G]

Oh My ... These machines have movement detector ...