Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[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?

That story is typical ... We got many of similar stories in all websites and forums where people try to support evolution.

Anyone realizes that the only thing that is real about these stories is that they found a piece of bone or something else (and perhaps not even that is real, like the famous Piltdown man)... the rest of the story is imaginary, just like the drawings they make that put a face and a body to a little piece of skull.

How far does the blind credulity of the acolytes of evolution go?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Well if that is all they are to you read them in bed in your Armor of God PJs and quit wasting our time with your disingenuous questions.

Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to 'bait' people.
Go away

 

[Pogo]

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.

As usual, all false, in the past we interbred with homo neandertalensis. the rest is just trolling garbage

 

[Eli G]

What is the difference between a Homo Sapiens and a Neanderthal?

None...just the name.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

Identifying long extinct species isn't an exact science (especially prior to DNA testing). A whole combination of different factors are considered when categorising archaeological finds, including physical features, location, age, all within what is known about previous finds and other evidence. DNA testing has given a whole new area of evidence, and can be used to identify genetic traces from preceding species.

Human races show human mutations, microevolution, but those mutations will never transform a human in a different species

Why not? The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is scale, so why couldn't a lot of changes over a long period of time ultimately lead to the latter?

Also, hominids and apes obviously aren't the only sets of species we're able to study, and we have plenty of examples with shorter lifespans and thus more recent speciation.

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.

If I found a bone, I wouldn't be able to tell whether it was homo sapiens or bovine! The actual experts in the field will have multiple techniques to identify their finds, with varying levels of accuracy and confidence.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Wrong again, we have genetic data to locate mitochondrial eve and y-chromosome adam, not who you think they are. We also have family trees for mammals like this.

and even more extensive ones if you want to go back further.

ETA software is screwing up.

 

[Eli G]

Not matter how many mutations you add, they won't transform a species to a different one.

Neanderthal is just a man with different racial characteristics, not a different species of ape.

All story behind a bone is imaginary.

There is no homo sapiens that can be dated later than human civilization reaches (that is wishful thinking and wrong dating). If they find a deformed bone of a human in a cave, it is logical to think that the owner was not among the rest of the humans of his time for obvious reasons... not because he was a different species...

 

[metis]

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?

Generally speaking, in anthropology we generally avoid the word "race" relating to humans because of different connotations some may take it as implying.

But to deal with your question, genetic variations do and have occurred over what likely 6 million years of human evolution, thus we don't all look and act alike.

 

[Eli G]

Generally speaking, in anthropology we generally avoid the word "race" relating to humans because of different connotations some may take it as implying.

But to deal with your question, genetic variations do and have occurred over what likely 6 million years of human evolution, thus we don't all look and act alike.

I know you avoid the word "race" but it is a reality.

Think on this: there were races in old Homo sapiens; one of them may have been what you call Neanderthal ... just some variations in their bodies, but still humans.

Genetic variations follow laws they can't break ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

That story is typical ... We got many of similar stories in all websites and forums where people try to support evolution.

Anyone realizes that the only thing that is real about these stories is that they found a piece of bone or something else (and perhaps not even that is real, like the famous Piltdown man)... the rest of the story is imaginary, just like the drawings they make that put a face and a body to a little piece of skull.

How far does the blind credulity of the acolytes of evolution go?

Hang on ... so you just made up an erroneous story encompassing multiple fields of science, then responded to yourself to say that this is the typical kind of stories we get from "evolutionists."

I have to ask, are you alright?

 

[metis]

I know you avoid the word "race" but it is a reality.

Depends on how one defines and may apply it. If you want to use the word "race", no one is stopping you, I'm sure.

Think on this: there were races in old Homo sapiens; one of them may have been what you call Neanderthal ... just some variations in their bodies, but still humans.

Absolutely.

Genetic variations follow laws they can't break ...

Are you including mutations?

 

[Eli G]

Genetic variations and mutations are the same.

PS: Turn off the machines; They are unpleasant and take away the seriousness of the evolutionary doctrine...
Bad acolytes are a shame for that sect.

 

[metis]

Turn off the machines; They are unpleasant and take away the seriousness of the evolutionary doctrine...
Bad acolytes are a shame for that sect.

?

 

[Eli G]

?

Those inmature comments that are disturbing the dialog are just a shame for that doctrine ... Like Jesus says: "wisdom is proved righteous by its works" (Matt. 11:19).

 

[metis]

Those inmature comments that are disturbing the dialog are just a shame for that doctrine ... Like Jesus says: "wisdom is proved righteous by its works" (Matt. 11:19).

I really don't know what you are referring to or even who post #292 was referring to with the last sentence.

 

[Eli G]

Again: Genetic variations and mutations are the same.

Mutations (or genetic variations) follow laws.

A leaf tailed gecko was never a leaf.

 

[John53]

How far does the blind credulity of the acolytes of evolution go?

Are you using acolyte as an insult? I need to know if I should be offended or flattered.

 

[Eli G]

I wonder what would be the reaction of an acolyte of the evolutionary doctrine if a forumer said this to him:

"Eli: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" (post#73)

That was a very gravious insult. Nobody deleted the post ... Stop the cynicism and hypocrisy ...

Yes, I can read posts of people in my ignore list when I am offline.

I will give another month banned to this forum so you understand that my participation here is a favor I am doing to you.

Good bye.

 

[John53]

I will give another month banned to this forum so you understand that my participation here is a favor I am doing to you.

You're a saint. I shall write a terse email to the Pope demanding you be canonised!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Sure. So?

Human races show human mutations, microevolution, but those mutations will never transform a human in a different species

They might gradually change them into subspecies.
Speciation is a vertical process.

... You think that happened before with apes.

Yes and we are still apes.
It also happened to mammals. We are still mammals.
It also happened to tetrapods. We are still tetrapods.
It also happened to vertebrates. We are still vertebrates.
In evolution, you don't outgrow your ancestry.

It seems this concept of vertical speciation and the concept of gradual accumulation of small change resulting in big changes over longer periods is something that really escapes you.

I will refer you back to the text gradually changing color analogy.
There is no word of which you can say that it is a clearly different color as opposed to the word immediately preceeding it or following it. Not even 2 or 3 words before or after it. Yet it starts out red and ends up blue.

Be honest to youselves: how do you know when a bone you find is "homo sapiens" or not?

Comparative anatomy. It's a field of expertise all by itself. You can go to a university and take a course in it.

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.

Is that what you think experts in anatomy and paleontologists do? Just guesses and hunches and stuff?
You might want to read up on these fields. But I have a feeling you're not actually interested in learning.