Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Nope. That's not how evolution works. Apes didn't produce a "different species" to apes. They produced variations of apes that included humans. We never stopped being apes, just as we never stopped being mammals, vertebrates, animalia or eukaryotes. We are all of those things.

 

[Eli G]

A gorilla won't interbreed with a chimp.

Why are you talking about apes when I am talking about homo sapiens, a specific species?

Don't tell me; I know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A gorilla won't interbreed with a chimp.

Right. But a gorilla will breed with a gorilla, and the gorillas they produce will still be gorillas, but will have slight variations. Hence why there are lots of different variations of gorillas.

Why are you talking about apes when I am talking about homo sapiens, a specific species?

Because you literally talked about apes and I was specifically responding to what you said in order to explain why it was wrong.

If you can understand the idea that "apes produce apes, but WITH VARIATION" then you can understand the idea that "humans produce humans, but WITH VARIATION". It's really not that hard to understand. Kids get it.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

What explanation does the evolutionary doctrine give to the different human races? Does this have to do with the species of apes that populated the different regions of the earth?

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?

Biologically [and evolutionarily] speaking, all people -irrespective of skin colour- belong to one and the same race: the human one.

 

[George-ananda]

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

The different human races occurred through separated population evolving a little differently for the new conditions encountered. Some even interbred to some extent with different human species (Neanderthal, Denisovan for example).

I would be hesitant to use the loaded word 'racist' as that has negative and loaded meanings. I see it as races just evolved somewhat differently but this would be too much to hear for some and I get called the evil racist too. But anyway, facts are facts to me.

 

[Eli G]

Right...

Then you know. And why are you lying to yourself thinking that non-homo sapiens interbred with them, as if any specific ape can do that with another species?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then you know. And why are you lying to yourself thinking that non-homo sapiens interbred with them,

I don't think that. I just explained your misconception.

as if any specific ape can do that with another species?

Again, that's not how evolution works.

Are you actually reading what people are explaining to you, or are you just trolling?

 

[Eli G]

Misconception?

It is your misconception to think that a homo-sapiens interbred with a non-homo dapiens, or that any different species stop being what it was to become a different one.

Not because you call humans apes it means you can invent a interbreeding among different monkeys or apes.

AND if there is a human with a genetic disease and you cut him both arms, and make him tattoos, and opened holes in the ears ... if he got children they wont be aliens.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm waiting for rational thinkers who understand my questions without judging them... That is lacking here, because what participates in these forums are mainly philosophers, demagogues and sophists... and not people willing to dialogue without trying to make others believe that those who think differently do not think well.

PS: The only post worth reading so far is post #15, direct, honest and non-judgmental. The rest is pure useless filler...

See you next time ...

There's definitely something lacking on your part: Responses to the questions posed to you in this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you know. And why are you lying to yourself thinking that non-homo sapiens interbred with them, as if any specific ape can do that with another species?

Only creationists get evolution that wrong.

You might want to look up the concept of an event being an emergent process.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Macroevolution is the idea that those mutations can be so big that they allow one species to become a different one ... which is just a belief. On this belief is based the human evolutionary doctrine.

Wrong. Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of the small mutations for microevolution. In other words, those small changes add up over the course of many generations.

Here is an analogy: the French language developed out of the old Latin language. But there was no first French speaker. Each generation understood their parents and children. But, over the course of many generations, the language changed so that French and Latin are completely different languages.

The same thing happens in evolution: small genetic changes occur every generation, with those helping survival in their environment more likely to get passed on. Over the course of many generations, those changes add up to be large scale. But, every generation is similar to both its parents and its children.

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

The acolytes of the doctrine don't know many things. That's why they attack people who question their beliefs like dark ages inquisitors.

You claim the 'acolytes' of evolution (as opposed to the students of evolution) don't know many things. And yet, you fail to understand the basics of how large scale evolutionary change actually happens.

In answer to your original question, humans of all races evolved out of the same prior population. After they migrated to other climates, skin coloration changed to be more adaptive to the new environments. That is what produced the different skin colors humans have. Races are simply not that different biologically: a bit of pigment in the skin is the major variation. And no, the different races did not originate from different species or races of earlier apes.

Here's another example to consider: all modern dogs have evolved from wolves. All those dogs are the same species, but there is a wide variety of different breeds. They all came from the same ancestral populations of wolves. You can look at the wide variety of dog breeds and learn just how much small changes over time can add up to give major changes.

 

[Polymath257]

Happy dogs ... nobody calls them "apes".

But they are descended from wolves. Both dogs and wolves are canines, just like both humans and chimps are apes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Seeing the vulgarity of many evolutionists on the forum, I can foresee, without being a prophet, the grievous social state in which evolutionists would plunge human societies if their doctrine were extended to all of humanity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Funny how they use the word "abuse" ... LOL.
They totally live in a bubble.

Says the person talking to themselves.

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists and others have named different species of apes when they do not resemble other known ones... They usually invent a new ape name every time they dig up a bone in a place where they had not done so before.

Imagine the scene: you suddenly find a bone while constructing a building on Mountain X, where the earth has never been excavated before. The bone looks like it's part of an ape skull, but they've never seen an ape with a bone like that before, so we have to name it. His name will be X-pithecus, because they found it on mountain X.

If they draw him, they are going to draw "him" as an ancient inhabitant of the mountain, so he will have their skin color, height, and facial features... Maybe we can put on him clothing, in the drawing, that resembles the clothing of a primitive inhabitant of the mountain. We put a spear in his hand, because there are bears on that mountain...

And we just discovered X-pithecus. The bone is 250 thousand years old, and is probably the first ape who managed to climb mountains on two feet. Not because we have verified that it is bipedal, but because the piece of skull that we found was at the top of the mountain, and there were no trees there according to the excavations that were done in the surrounding area.

We've added another ape to man's collection of human's ancestors, and the mountain community is very proud of their ape ancestors.

What is real in the whole story?

 

[Pogo]

Evolutionists and others have named different species of apes when they do not resemble other known ones... They usually invent a new ape name every time they dig up a bone in a place where they had not done so before.

Imagine the scene: you suddenly find a bone while constructing a building on Mountain X, where the earth has never been excavated before. The bone looks like it's part of an ape skull, but they've never seen an ape with a bone like that before, so we have to name it. His name will be X-pithecus, because they found it on mountain X.

If they draw him, they are going to draw "him" as an ancient inhabitant of the mountain, so he will have their skin color, height, and facial features... Maybe we can put on him clothing, in the drawing, that resembles the clothing of a primitive inhabitant of the mountain. We put a spear in his hand, because there are bears on that mountain...

And we just discovered X-pithecus. The bone is 250 thousand years old, and is probably the first ape who managed to climb mountains on two feet. Not because we have verified that it is bipedal, but because the piece of skull that we found was at the top of the mountain, and there were no trees there according to the excavations that were done in the surrounding area.

We've added another ape to man's collection of human's ancestors, and the mountain community is very proud of their ape ancestors.

What is real in the whole story?

Nothing, it is just another of your strawmen, No point in discussing because you will just throw back another strawman

 

[Eli G]

A similar story:

The first Australopithecus fossil, a skull of a child classified as Au. africanus, was found at Taung in South Africa in 1924. Additional fossils found in South Africa established the genus as a hominid, but by the 1960s the focus had turned to eastern Africa, where many additional fossils of Australopithecus were found alongside fossils of early members of Homo (in the form of H. habilis and H. erectus). In the 1970s the pioneering work of the French geologist Maurice Taieb opened Ethiopia’s Afar rift valley to scientific investigation. Taieb discovered the Hadar, Gona, and Middle Awash fossil fields, as well as several other fossil-rich areas along the Awash River, which flows through this desert region.

At Hadar, Taieb and American paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson found abundant fauna, including fossils of Au. afarensis. This species was also unearthed during the 1970s at the northern Tanzanian site of Laetoli. Au. afarensis became widely appreciated as the probable ancestor of later Australopithecus species. Its biology is well understood, thanks to fossils such as “Lucy,” which was discovered at Hadar by Johanson in 1974, and the Laetoli footprints, which were discovered by English-born archaeologist and paleoanthropologist Mary Leakey in 1978.

Compared with later species of Australopithecus, Au. afarensis was somewhat more primitive in its skull and teeth. In the prevailing paradigm of the 1970s, when the first fossils of this species were found, most attention was focused on craniodental (head and teeth) and postcranial (body) features, which were often characterized as chimpanzee-like, compared with younger Australopithecus fossils. However, since the earliest representatives of Au. afarensis were dated to approximately 3.75 million years ago, there remained a large gap in time between the last common ancestor that humans shared with chimpanzees (7 million years ago) and the emergence of Au. afarensis.

The immediate ancestors of Au. afarensis were found in Kenya in the mid-1990s. These fossils were dated to approximately 4.2 million years ago, were classified in the species Au. anamensis, and were clearly megadont (possessing large teeth), bipedal, small-brained precursors of the Hadar and Laetoli hominids. Au. anamensis and Au. afarensis have since been recognized as chronospecies—arbitrary segments of a single lineage in Australopithecus lineage that underwent anatomical evolution over time. This lineage was present across much of Africa by 3.8 million years ago, and it most likely gave rise to Au. africanus of southern Africa, as well as to Homo. Au. anamensisevolved only a little earlier and was so similar in anatomy to Au. afarensis that it did not reveal very much about the evolutionary origins of Australopithecus. Beginning in 1992, earlier fossil sites in Ethiopia finally began to yield remains that would illuminatethe nearly three-million-year interval between the earliest Australopithecus and the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

Ardipithecus | History, Features, Habitat, & Facts

I enjoy a lot all those stories. They are great entertainment ... like Avatar.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then you know. And why are you lying to yourself thinking that non-homo sapiens interbred with them, as if any specific ape can do that with another species?

This was in response to, "Right. But a gorilla will breed with a gorilla, and the gorillas they produce will still be gorillas, but will have slight variations. Hence why there are lots of different variations of gorillas."

And ...

"Nope. That's not how evolution works. Apes didn't produce a "different species" to apes. They produced variations of apes that included humans. We never stopped being apes, just as we never stopped being mammals, vertebrates, animalia or eukaryotes. We are all of those things."


This poster absolutely did not say what you're claiming above.

Be honest, you didn't even read the responses, did you?

 

[Eli G]

In modern times, with the technology and science behind the human genome, family relationships can be traced back to a certain generational distance... and from there no further, depending on the data available.

Evolutionists want to make you think they are capable of creating an entire bestiary, a book of fantastic animals, with relatives and all, of apes that supposedly lived millions of years ago ... who was the uncle of this and the grandson of the other, when they were born and when they died, all the ape-family story (not history) .

In the previous post of the story of the bone in Mountain X... maybe there is some monkey or ape somewhere in the world with a bone like the one they dug up, or perhaps there is a human in some aboriginal tribe in some remote place with a skull that could be like that of the dead owner of the bone . Furthermore, those millions of years to an unearthed bone are the most fantastic detail that can be invented in all the story.

Maybe they are giving different names to old human races of old human aborigines. But they already got an agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In modern times, with the technology and science behind the human genome, family relationships can be traced back to a certain generational distance... and from there no further, depending on the data available.

Citation needed. I have never heard of this limit. Where are you getting that from. Oh wait, where you keep all of your ideas. Did you at least wash your hands?

Evolutionists want to make you think they are capable of creating an entire bestiary, a book of fantastic animals, with relatives and all, of apes that supposedly lived millions of years ago ... who was the uncle of this and the grandson of the other, when they were born and when they died, all the ape-family story (not history) .

No, the evidence is rather clear about the existence of dinosaurs and other prehistoric life. It is not "created" at all.

In the previous post of the story of the bone in Mountain X... maybe there is some monkey or ape somewhere in the world with a bone like the one they dug up, or perhaps there is a human in some aboriginal tribe in some remote place with a skull that could be like that of the dead owner of the bone . Furthermore, those millions of years to an unearthed bone are the most fantastic detail that can be invented in all the story.

Silly strawman arguments do not merit an answer. Can you try to be serious?

Maybe they are giving different names to old human races of old human aborigines. But they already got an agenda.

No, we can clearly tell that they are other species. The "just an old man with arthritis" was refuted by "old ladies with arthritis" "young men with arthritis" "young women with arthritis" "children with arthritis". After a while reality sinks in and people realize that it is not arthritis.