Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[IndigoChild5559]

I see that the perpetuation of nonsense questions and demands that are not based on anything the theory of evolution explains or states seems to remain the order of the creationist day.

If non-human ape species produced a human offspring that would falsify the theory of evolution.

I understand that the questions and points raised, no matter how ignorant of biology and facts that they are, is done to promote a non-scientific ideological agenda. But I do wish that those asserting the implication of superiority of knowledge would actually demonstrate that superiority is real by formulating questions that are logical and based in fact.

You and me both, dude.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Growing up, I knew of an individual that had some superficial similarity to my conception of a Neanderthal. Short, thick stature, pronounced brow. He wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and unfortunately met his demise at the hands of an individual that apparently found a knife in the drawer that was sharp enough.

I was familiar with his mother and sister and they appeared to run to the standard model of Homo sapiens external traits, so either he was atavistic for some traits or had a different father. But I do not know.

It is quite possible that it was this boxer - Nikolai Valuev:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thoroughly agree.

I also have had the first hand experience of seeing someone who resembled a Neanderthal in some ways, to the point where it was striking. I remember way back in high school choir there was a girl had a much more prominent jaw and large teeth, very prominent cheekbones and brow. I remember feeling sorry for her, as I assumed this would make her unattractive to men. However, many years later, my brother told me that he thought she was very attractive, so go figure LOL.

But of course, a perception like that is a long, long ways from saying a modern human is like a Neanderthal in every way.

And there are many things in the environment that can alter a phenotype and, despite our comparatively limited diversity as a species, we still have great variety within the normal range of human morphological diversity. No one familiar with modern genetics, development and disease would consider that John Merrick was not Homo sapiens.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is quite possible that it was this boxer - Nikolai Valuev:

View attachment 90033

That is interesting. The young man I was referring to had similar features of brow, jaw and thickness of body. Though my initial impression from the photo, coupled with the fact that you mention he is or was a boxer, gives me the impression of longer, typically human, limb length. Of course, it is just an impression without facts. But a boxer with short forearms and calves would seem at a distinct disadvantage from the start.

Phenotypic variety in a species has many environmental and developmental sources beyond the full expression of the genes.

 

[Pogo]

Keep in mind that for a couple to have offspring they have to belong to the same species.

False, see species concept and speciation.

If two apes evolved to the point of becoming humans, how did they find each other if they were just two isolated "animals" in the jungle?

False, see species concept and speciation.

Speciation is a population level function.

start here: Evolution 101

 

[Eli G]

For an entire community of genetically compatible individuals of the same species to appear, there must have been at least one couple formed by an advanced male individual who found a female genetically compatible with him, and they had offspring with different characteristics from previous generations.

This event had to be repeated many times so that a community of modern humans could be formed, since many compatible male and female had to meet to continue transmitting such characteristics, not only biological, but also intellectual. All these couples must conformed a community after that, so they must meet each other and reunite in a same group to finally make a human tribe.

That scenario does not seem very likely statistically, especially when modern evolutionists claim that modern man emerged in a single locality and only later did the different human races emerge.

 

[Pogo]

Mmmh. I don't know what the difference is between what I call "species" and you call "related species".

That is just theory.

No it is a fact because species is a man made concept applied to evolutionary diversity.

A population is made up of individuals,

duh

and a community is made up of couples. If there are no like-minded individuals and couples, the community or population does not have the slightest possibility of emerging.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

If no two apes "comparable to humans" existed in the same place and time, how could a community of human apes have emerged?

Through evolution, who was the first speaker of French?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You and me both, dude.

The questions are based on a straw man knowledge of the biology and poor logic. Now, I know from past experience that pointing out these flaws will elicit claims of personal attack, but they are not. They are statements of fact that may or may not be obvious to the persons posing the questions. I suppose that it doesn't really matter to mention the flaws in fact and logic. From past experience I have found that it seems to cause those using this poor basis to double down and insist their misunderstood nonsense is the facts.

For instance, the idea that new populations of species spring instantly from existing populations where new species are born to existing species is ridiculous. There is nothing in biology that makes this claim. It reveals the level of knowledge and ignorance or perhaps just the level of intent of the persons posing such questions.

 

[Eli G]

The concept "species" is a human convention. It does not determine reality, but rather tries to describe it.

Definitions are useful to a certain extent, but they are not always decisive. Human concepts and definitions can be revised over time and change, which shows that they are relative.

For example: if a Neanderthal is discovered to be intellectually identical to a modern human, what prevents him from being considered "homo sapiens"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No it is a fact because species is a man made concept applied to evolutionary diversity.

duh

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Through evolution, who was the first speaker of French?

I wonder how insects determine the like-minded individuals in their populations when seeking mates. It must be tough.

 

[Pogo]

For an entire community of genetically compatible individuals of the same species to appear, there must have been at least one couple formed by an advanced male individual who found a female genetically compatible with him, and they had offspring with different characteristics from previous generations.

This event had to be repeated many times so that a community of modern humans could be formed, since many compatible male and female had to meet to continue transmitting such characteristics, not only biological, but also intellectual. All these couples must conformed a community after that, so they must meet each other and reunite in a same group to finally make a human tribe.

This is all wrong, it is a strawman of evolution.

That scenario does not seem very likely statistically, especially when modern evolutionists claim that modern man emerged in a single locality and only later did the different human races emerge.

It is not likely because it is absurd and a made up scenario by people who are fooling you to get your money by getting you to support their website such as AIG, ICR, Kent Hovind, Living Waters etc.
They are lying to you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is interesting. The young man I was referring to had similar features of brow, jaw and thickness of body. Though my initial impression from the photo, coupled with the fact that you mention he is or was a boxer, gives me the impression of longer, typically human, limb length. Of course, it is just an impression without facts. But a boxer with short forearms and calves would seem at a distinct disadvantage from the start.

Phenotypic variety in a species has many environmental and developmental sources beyond the full expression of the genes.

When I saw this fellow I think it was before they had done reconstructions of Neanderthal faces, and hence why my impressions might not tally with the full Neanderthal look.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is there someone in here claiming they have? I'm no scientist, but I try to stay abreast of the big news in anthropology, and I have never seen any scientific claim that modern humans interbred with other apes. Only that we interbred with other forms of humans, such as Denisovans and Neanderthals.

Not to mention the fact that this is not what the theory of evolution explains.

Despite a couple of wild stories about "ancient" research in Russia and China, humans and other existing ape species are not known to interbreed and no one expects them to.

 

[Pogo]

I wonder how insects determine the like-minded individuals in their populations when seeking mates. It must be tough.

Hive Mind?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is quite possible that it was this boxer - Nikolai Valuev:

View attachment 90033

Excellent picture for us to discuss! Thank you.

I'm assuming that you provided it because his brows are so huge. Yes, that is one trait of Neanderthals. However, if you look at his chin, it is very strong, which is a MODERN HUMAN trait, not Neanderthal. Also, look at how short the distance is between his face and the back of his head -- another clear indication that he is modern human and not Neanderthal. IOW, despite his heavy brow, no one would EVER confuse this man with a Neanderthal.

 

[John53]

I wonder how insects determine the like-minded individuals in their populations when seeking mates. It must be tough.

Like minded for me has always been someone who didn't run off screaming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like minded for me has always been someone who didn't run off screaming.

Unfortunately, past experience tells me that those were the ones I should have pursued a little more. In the positive sense of course. Not the "help me there is a strange man chasing me" sense.

 

[Pogo]

The concept "species" is a human convention. It does not determine reality, but rather tries to describe it.

Definitions are useful to a certain extent, but they are not always decisive. Human concepts and definitions can be revised over time and change, which shows that they are relative.

For example: if a Neanderthal is discovered to be intellectually identical to a modern human, what prevents him from being considered "homo sapiens"?

The totality of his ancestry our intellect is not the defining aspect of our species.
Are persons of different intellect only sometimes human? Does your lack of understanding of evolution make you not human?

 

[Balthazzar]

I think he is conflating the general term NS from RM+NS with the idea of sexual selection.

Something to that effect, only it's more about survival than just sexuality. I suggest our natural predisposed and preferred choices play a role in the natural process of mate selection. I'm sure there's more to it than just this, but Darwinian evolution doesn't appear to be racist. I haven't read the argument being made, but it was presumed that it's a racist view ... for whatever reason. Maybe someone could articulate this premise with some brevity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hive Mind?

Then how would two hive minds determined like hive-minded hive minds?

It's all so confusing! If only there were scientists that actually studied these things and came up with logical explanations for us to base our questions on and learn about.