Oh Gods that's rich.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Oh Gods that's rich.
... 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.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Anything that you would (hopefully) call an ape existed before Homo sapiens did. "Race" is a very recent evolutionary development so we all evolved from the same "apes". Race has nothing to do with your mistaken concept of evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not the "evolutionary doctrine". That is far closer to creationism than to evolution.... 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.
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.
What's this got to do with evolution (beauty)? Btw our hips and buttocks are shaped as they are due to us evolving to walk upright.
Where did the long hair on the human head, the fine features of human faces, the delicate skin of humans, etc. evolve?
There is no comparison with the supposed higher apes, and there seems to be no link between this kind of beauty with any existing apes that could be supposedly related to humans...
Isn't it obvious? Leave fantasyland and land in reality.
There is no comparison with the supposed higher apes, and there seems to be no link between this kind of beauty with any existing apes that could be supposedly related to humans...
Isn't it obvious? Leave fantasyland and land in reality.
Where's the irony frubal? We need an ironic frubal.
To the best of my knowledge, apes never mastered the ugly capacity for willful ignorance.
Mutations that are due to external factors usually reverse when those factors disappear... Supposedly the characteristics that the apes lost in their supposed transformation due to external factors must have been reversed in certain geographic or environmental contexts... However, there are no human apes in nowhere in the actual modern world.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Yup definitely arguing a strawman. If you want to see an ape give birth to a human, just hang out at a maternity ward for a little while, there are humans born from apes every day.... 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.
We are apes, we never stopped being apes.(sort of like kinds, you never leave your clade thus we are also chordates and mammals) Evolution theory not imaginary doctrine says that populations can isolate for various reasons and different pathways. The ancestor of chimps and humans separated about 6 million yrs ago. The branch that became humans also had intermediates like Ergaster, Rudolfensis, Habilis, Heidelbergensis and others, some may be our direct ancestors, some may just be cousins of theirs.
As to a few humans, you are inadvertently almost correct, about a million years ago a few, maybe only one human ancestor had a chromosomal fusion event where the parents had 48 chromosomes like all the other apes and at least one child had only 46. through inbreeding with this 46 chromosome population eventually was the ancestor of all extant humans as we are all apes with 46 chromosomes. (actually chromosomal fusions still happen rarely but none have radiated significantly)
Anyhow, there is some more information for you to help you leave behind the strawman version of evolution and catch up on the last 100 plus years of knowledge.
I have no idea what evolutionary doctrine is. Never heard of it.
I would say that it is a fair assumption that it is an attempt to put science on the same level as religion given that false equivalence is a common fallacy used in this sort of debate/discussion. That doesn't seem to say much for the attitude about religion that it displays about the people attempting it.
The trivial traits that differentiate some human populations evolved follow the evolution of Homo sapiens based on the genetic evidence. From a genomic position, these trait variations exist with a genetic basis, but they don't represent a significant genetic difference between the populations.
I reject the claims of posts #26 and #40 regarding other posters that have responded here and in other, similar threads. I'm amused at the great irony that it reveals.
I would say that it is a fair assumption that it is an attempt to put science on the same level as religion given that false equivalence is a common fallacy used in this sort of debate/discussion. That doesn't seem to say much for the attitude about religion that it displays about the people attempting it.
The trivial traits that differentiate some human populations evolved follow the evolution of Homo sapiens based on the genetic evidence. From a genomic position, these trait variations exist with a genetic basis, but they don't represent a significant genetic difference between the populations.
I reject the claims of posts #26 and #40 regarding other posters that have responded here and in other, similar threads. I'm amused at the great irony that it reveals.
Both statements are contradictory.
Mutations are changes at the genetic level resulting from the environment. They are not reversible when the causative agent of the environment is removed. However, they can leave a population eventually if they do not provide an fitness benefit.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Willful ignorance is a poor survival strategy and most species have generally evolved beyond it, our species apparently hasn't.
This:
... is practically the same as this:... 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.
Have you never read a book from the "for dummies" collection? My language is clear and direct so that it is better understood.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not seem to know what an ape is. Humans are apes. There is no "turning back into an ape" since people never stopped being apes. And do you know who the first person was to realize that humans were apes? It was the creationist that devised the Genre, species form of biological naming of species. Linnaeus was a creationist but he could not deny the obvious. That humans were apes. This fact did bother him more than a bit.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
They might be redundant, but it appears you don't know what contradictory means.Both statements are contradictory.
Agreed. There is a distinct disparity in the knowledge to rejection ratio among creationists.