Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[YoursTrue]

I am not quite getting your meaning here, but yes , you are correct that different "races" do not present any problems to "interbreeding". Oh, that feels so much like "miscegenation".

why don't you do yourself a favor and stop twisting.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is correct. They are based on politics and not biology.

The variations within any political 'race' are greater than the variations *between* the 'races'. That shows the whole concept is bogus.

OK, thanks for letting me know your thoughts about "racial" characteristics. I agree with you, but -- more importantly, the Bible indicates humans are of the same 'race,' but not in those terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

why don't you do yourself a favor and stop twisting.

What am I twisting?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, thanks for letting me know your thoughts about "racial" characteristics. I agree with you, but -- more importantly, the Bible indicates humans are of the same 'race,' but not in those terms.

Really? In the past Christians used the Noah's Ark myth to explain three very large groups. And used the curse of Ham as a justification for African slavery.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really? In the past Christians used the Noah's Ark myth to explain three very large groups. And used the curse of Ham as a justification for African slavery.

that is sadly true about misunderstanding amongst many about the curse on Ham. It was however, the descendants of Canaan, not Ham, as I and many others understand it. And race is basically a social concept, not a biological one that separates the human race. However it happened, God will remove all forms of prejudice and slavery in the future when this world is changed for the better, as I believe it will. Revelation 21:1-5 expresses this also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is sadly true about misunderstanding amongst many about the curse on Ham. It was however, the descendants of Canaan, not Ham, as I and many others understand it. And race is basically a social concept, not a biological one that separates the human race. However it happened, God will remove all forms of prejudice and slavery in the future when this world is changed for the better, as I believe it will. Revelation 21:1-5 expresses this also.

Your understanding is wrong as well since there never was such a flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Im not even going to answer it

When someone keeps on going on about "interbreeding" they sound a lot like racism to me. And it was the real hard core racists in the US that outlawed for quite a while "miscegenation". A black man could not legally marry a white woman in many southern states. I am not sure if the law applied to white men marrying black women. Since racism and sexism often walk hand in hand I would not be terribly surprised if it was legal for white men to do what black men could not, and that would be marry across "race lines".

 

[YoursTrue]

When someone keeps on going on about "interbreeding" they sound a lot like racism to me. And it was the real hard core racists in the US that outlawed for quite a while "miscegenation". A black man could not legally marry a white woman in many southern states. I am not sure if the law applied to white men marrying black women. Since racism and sexism often walk hand in hand I would not be terribly surprised if it was legal for white men to do what black men could not, and that would be marry across "race lines".

You misunderstand. I was asking about race. Wanted specifics from biologic experts here as to why race is delineated on some medical and government forms. Some here have answered honestly without twisting and I appreciate that. Agreed that many in religion have twisted the concept of differences in appearance as well as gender inequality.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Who here has said that blacks are "inferior" to whites?

one wonders why the O.P even wrote the question...clearly you didn't read it
At least use some basic reading comprehension...if someone asks the question "is this racist?" where do you suppose they get that idea from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You misunderstand. I was asking about race. Wanted specifics from biologic experts here as to why race is delineated on some medical and government forms. Some here have answered honestly without twisting and I appreciate that. Agreed that many in religion have twisted the concept of differences in appearance as well as gender inequality.

"Race" is pretty much an undefined term. There is no "negro race", there is no "white race". What you will have in African people are a range of pigmentations that reflect how much sunlight that they are exposed to. There are benefits to both light and dark colored skin. If you look at Australian Aboriginal People you will see a lot of similarities to people of Africa, but that is due to climate and not due to being closely related. The whole "what is your race" question is pretty much nonsense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Different skin colours did not come from our ape descendants but was caused by migration into cooler climates after the humans evolved.

Do you mean the Unknown Common Ape Ancestor(s) from which the gorillas, bonobos and supposedly humans evolved? From what I understand all apes are supposed to have come from one UCA. Scientists haven't really found it yet. They just figure that's how it might have happened. Now do you know when gorillas and bonobos are said to branch out from their "Unknown Common Ancestor" or is that just conjecture, too?

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

Hello. From my research and understanding of the theoretical scientists projecting about the theory of evolution, the ape sector, including humans, evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor, also known as UCA. "Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)"
So they say.
There's more but a person has to be honest to understand it.

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

The 13-million-year-old infant skull may have resembled a baby gibbon

www.scientificamerican.com

Notice it said "most closely related to the apes," hmmm, most closely related to the apes. most closely related to the apes...yet the classification is as apes. but now most closely related to apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hello. From my research and understanding of the theoretical scientists projecting about the theory of evolution, the ape sector, including humans, evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor, also known as UCA. "Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)"
So they say.
There's more but a person has to be honest to understand it.

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

The 13-million-year-old infant skull may have resembled a baby gibbon

www.scientificamerican.com

Notice it said "most closely related to the apes," hmmm, most closely related to the apes. most closely related to the apes...yet the classification is as apes. but now most closely related to apes.

Note: humans AND apes...humans and apes, humans and apes...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean the Unknown Common Ape Ancestor(s) from which the gorillas, bonobos and supposedly humans evolved? From what I understand all apes are supposed to have come from one UCA. Scientists haven't really found it yet. They just figure that's how it might have happened. Now do you know when gorillas and bonobos are said to branch out from their "Unknown Common Ancestor" or is that just conjecture, too?

"Supposedly" is not the correct terminology. I know that you do not like it but denying that you share a common ancestor with chimps makes about as much sense as you denying that you and your cousins have the same grandparents on one side of the family.

And no, there were a series of common ancestors. The oldest one with the other great apes is the one we share with orangutans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos. There was split between the population that formed gorillas, chimps, bonobos and us and the one that led to the orangutans. That line split more than once also. We do not know of more because tropical rain forests are very rough on bones. We know that they formed the three modern species of orangutans and there are limited fossils of other species. One was a giant species, the largest apes ever that we know of Gigantopithecus blacki. Only four mandibles and quite a few teeth, about a thousand are all we have of this species. Porcupines probably munched the skeletons:

Gigantopithecus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The next common ancestor was the population that split where one side became the two modern gorilla species and the other became us, chimps and bonobos.

And then there was the last one when we split off from the group and one group became us and the other eventually became chimps and bonobos.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good question.

Ignorant question, is more accurate.

Species don't evolve twice.
So no, humans did not evolve several times independently from different ancestral ape population.

A single ape population produced homo sapiens and that popluation populated the world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That’s good… thank you.

I’ve always wondered… if the oldest human remains in Australia is about 40,000 years, what is your theory on how they got there from Africa? Do you think that the earth was all together at one point and then divided after? Or do you have an alternative theory?

Most likely by sea through island hopping using canoe's and alike.
Note that this was during glaciation periods and sea levels would have been MUCH lower back then.
It is quite likely that those early people would have been able to see australian land from where they were and thus did not merely venture into the unknown by going out in the sea while seeing only water on the horizon.

Also, even if we assume they couldn't see the land because it was just too far, it would still have been close enough for other clues to be visual that land was present there. For example birds, cloud patterns and even seeing smoke from forest fires or alike.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

one wonders why the O.P even wrote the question...clearly you didn't read it
At least use some basic reading comprehension...if someone asks the question "is this racist?" where do you suppose they get that idea from?

In the case of the question of the OP, the question comes from the OP's ignorance concerning evolutionary biology, and not from anyone saying any particular thing.
This has been pointed out on page 1 of this thread already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you mean the Unknown Common Ape Ancestor(s) from which the gorillas, bonobos and supposedly humans evolved? From what I understand all apes are supposed to have come from one UCA. Scientists haven't really found it yet. They just figure that's how it might have happened.

No. This has been explained to you before multiple times.
All apes sharing a common ancestor is a genetic fact.

It's not some "guess" or "assumption" or whatever-you-wish-to-call-it.
It's a genetic fact.

Now do you know when gorillas and bonobos are said to branch out from their "Unknown Common Ancestor" or is that just conjecture, too?

Again, common ancestry = genetic fact.
Facts aren't conjecture.

Evolution theory (= the mechanism) is a model that explains this fact (among many other facts).

If you disprove evolution theory tomorrow, then the genetic fact that species share ancestors remains.
Disproving the mechanism of evolution doesn't change anything about the fact of common ancestry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hello. From my research and understanding of the theoretical scientists projecting about the theory of evolution, the ape sector, including humans, evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor, also known as UCA. "Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)"
So they say.

No. Instead: so the genetic evidence demonstrates.

There's more but a person has to be honest to understand it.

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

The 13-million-year-old infant skull may have resembled a baby gibbon

www.scientificamerican.com

Notice it said "most closely related to the apes," hmmm, most closely related to the apes. most closely related to the apes...yet the classification is as apes. but now most closely related to apes.

How many more times must I explain to you that identifying a common ancestor is quite different, and not necessary, to determine that one existed?

If we don't know who your parents were, does that then mean that they didn't exist?

 

[Kenny]

Ignorant question, is more accurate.

Species don't evolve twice.
So no, humans did not evolve several times independently from different ancestral ape population.

A single ape population produced homo sapiens and that popluation populated the world.

So, how did they get to Australia? There were no boats to travel that distance