I understand. I am of the same mind and recognition for my observations on that too.
Still, it is interesting to see the overlap of some trait space for particular traits.
-
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
Still, it is interesting to see the overlap of some trait space for particular traits.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There is a stream of posts from you that make assumptions about what scientists say, that are simply inaccurate. IOW, you have a long and steady history of setting up straw men to knock down.
1. There is absolutely nothing to say that there was never an instance when it was a genetically more advanced FEMALE who mated with a compatible less advanced male.
2. The truth is that anthropologists and archeologists say that there were SEVERAL competing populations of new humans that successfully interbred, forming what we call homo sapiens, or modern man. Now, these several different populations were ALL in Africa--remember that Africa is a very large continent. But yes, we can say that homo sapiens originated in Africa. That is NOT the same thing as claiming that homo sapiens had our origins in a single locality.
A very interesting article about the intellectual capacities of Neandertal A look at the new discoveries that make Neanderthals more knowable now than ever.
Actually, the face of the individual drawn as a Neanderthal in that website is easily recognizable in modern humans.
Actually, the face of the individual drawn as a Neanderthal in that website is easily recognizable in modern humans.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
sexual selection is just a catchall for selection of traits that in and of themselves are neutral but can cause populations to drift phenotypically.
That is sexual selection. But it can be correlated to fitness, since the selection is on traits that are fitness proxies. Like feather length and color in birds. They provide an indication of overall vigor of an individual if they have the resources to waste on longer, more showy tails or brilliant colors and patterns.
Sexual selection is a recognized form of natural selection. But not all traits are the result of sexual selection and not all of them end up sustainable in the totality of the environment.
Here's something funny - having a look on Google images - well who turns up - old Nikolai?
6 Neanderthal DNA physical traits in modern humans
Most modern humans outside of Africa have between 1 and 4% Neanderthal DNA, with this DNA having considerable effects on physical and psychological traits today. Physical signs of carrying Neanderthal DNA include light skin and hair, baldness, lack of back hair, obesity, elongated skull shape, and h
www.thearchaeologist.org
Last edited:
I am not interested on your personal attacks. Evidently you don't know how to answer my questions.
On the other hand I don't make any asumptions at all about what scientists say ... I mention EVOLUTIONISTS, not scientists.
Have a great day.
According to the evidence, Neanderthals originated in Europe and Asia coincident to the origin of Homo sapiens in Africa.
I also notice that casual awareness of trivial similarities in facial features is used to form the basis for claims that Neanderthal look like modern humans. That some traits in a finite portion of a species population may resemble the more widespread traits of another population doesn't mean that second population or species is a subset of the first.
At least we have gone away from the fallacy that Neanderthals look like modern Hawaiians, but I don't think that divergence is based on some learning of the facts and is merely an alteration of existing, pro-agenda tactics.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Yeah, nothing controversial there in regards to evolution. Neanderthals split off long before the origin of modern humans but had not diverged so much that they were not inter-fertile just like different species of bears
The differences between what they call Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens are based exclusively on a racial profile.
PS: I mentioned the Hawaiians because they are evidently a community with distinctive physical aspects that look more "primitive" than those of an Englishman. Furthermore, I based myself on a figure that a forum member presented in post#328. I could well have mentioned any other modern community with similar racial aspects and the effects would be the same.
PS: I mentioned the Hawaiians because they are evidently a community with distinctive physical aspects that look more "primitive" than those of an Englishman. Furthermore, I based myself on a figure that a forum member presented in post#328. I could well have mentioned any other modern community with similar racial aspects and the effects would be the same.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Well since evolutionists are just a strawman creation of non-scientist evolution deniers and not real people we will continue to point this out to you.
I would say that genetic testing would reveal a higher proportion of Neanderthal DNA present in this individual coincident with the expression of certain features. But there are, as noted earlier, many features that are typically Homo sapiens and not found in Neanderthals. Given the ancestral origin I speculate for Nikolai, and the Eurasian origin of Neanderthals, it may not be shocking to find a higher mix of genes.Here's something funny - having a look on Google images - well who turns up?
6 Neanderthal DNA physical traits in modern humans
Most modern humans outside of Africa have between 1 and 4% Neanderthal DNA, with this DNA having considerable effects on physical and psychological traits today. Physical signs of carrying Neanderthal DNA include light skin and hair, baldness, lack of back hair, obesity, elongated skull shape, and h
Still, a note of interest. But he certainly does not look like a modern Hawaiian.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
False, race as has been explained here ad nauseum is not a biological category.
What a long thread. No point in me posting much at this point, however
@Eli G it was in the USA where evolution was first weaponized by the slave industry to justify its evil practices, but this was not scientific and was somewhat along the lines of Phrenology and Phenomenology. They'd excuse slavery by claiming black skinned people had inferior morals due to their genes. This was unforgivable of course, but the lie was overcome. Christians had a lot to do with that success: rejecting the lie of genetically based slavery, though it was the war which really decided politically which course the USA would take on the issue. The end of slavery began in the UK, believe it or not; but the idea that it was wrong was always with us. People of strong conscience were always against chattel slavery if not indenture.
Indenture has always been more debatable and more acceptable to people, but we also have gotten rid of outright indenture though credit debt still exists.
Evolution does not, however, justify chattel slavery at all nor any sort of slavery. The differences between each group of people is very small.
@Eli G it was in the USA where evolution was first weaponized by the slave industry to justify its evil practices, but this was not scientific and was somewhat along the lines of Phrenology and Phenomenology. They'd excuse slavery by claiming black skinned people had inferior morals due to their genes. This was unforgivable of course, but the lie was overcome. Christians had a lot to do with that success: rejecting the lie of genetically based slavery, though it was the war which really decided politically which course the USA would take on the issue. The end of slavery began in the UK, believe it or not; but the idea that it was wrong was always with us. People of strong conscience were always against chattel slavery if not indenture.
Indenture has always been more debatable and more acceptable to people, but we also have gotten rid of outright indenture though credit debt still exists.
Evolution does not, however, justify chattel slavery at all nor any sort of slavery. The differences between each group of people is very small.
I only give trivial attention to posts that spring from a personal emotional and ideological agenda basis. The real interesting posts are coming from others and on the facts and not on straw men.
I agree. The differences are based on careful study of the available evidence and not on some supposed racial bias fantasy.
Humans pretty much *always* have offspring with apes since humans *are* apes.
It is possible, for example, for two species that are closely related (a recent divergence from a common ancestor) to be able to interbreed. usually, this does NOT produce fertile offspring, but it can happen.
So is the theory of gravity. Both are theories that are well supported by the evidence.
Changes of species happens over the course of many generations. it isn't an individual thing.
An analogy is found with languages. Nobody spoke French 2000 years ago. But the Latin language, over time, changed in meanings and pronunciation to the place that no original Latin speaker would be able to understand a modern French speaker or vice versa,.
But, at each generation, everyone understood those around them. There was no 'first French speaker'. There were always 'like minded individuals' that were able to speak to each other. But the beginning and end points are different languages.
In the same way, populations change genetically over time. The population always has variations and there are always 'like minded' individuals that will breed to make the next generation. But, over time and generations, the characteristics of the population chage to the point that the end and beginning populations are different species.
See above.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
Those are other apes. Humans are apes.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Your PS is a perfect example of the racism that biologists have been refuting since Darwin's time. Hawaiians are no more "primitive" than Englishmen. Join the 21st century.