• 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?

Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Eli G said:
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.
Click to expand...
This happens *every generation*. The large scale changes that we see in evolution don't happen from one generation to the next. What happens in the variations in the population shift over time and end up with a new species.
Eli G said:
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.
Click to expand...
You completely misunderstand the tempo of these changes. From one generation to the next, there would be almost no visible change. But, over the course of tens of thousands of generations, larger scale changes happen.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
What is "Neanderthal DNA"? :rolleyes:

Perhaps a set of genes that determine certain physical characteristics, and that are conventionally attributed to a different species. Evidently Neanderthals were intelligent humans, and they only differed from other intelligent humans in their physical features.

Obviously, you can isolate any group of genes that define modern races with their physical characteristics and invent a new species from that genetic set. Obviously, the name "Neanderthal" only describes one human race.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
The concept "population" is relative.

A population can consist of only one family and its descendants.

For any population to meet certain genetic characteristics, there must exist at the same time and in the same place at least one pair of individuals, male and female, with the same genetic characteristics and who transmit those special characteristics to their offspring.
 
Pogo

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Eli G said:
What is "Neanderthal DNA"? :rolleyes:

Perhaps a set of genes that determine certain physical characteristics, and that are conventionally attributed to a different species. Evidently Neanderthals were intelligent humans, and they only differed from other intelligent humans in their physical features.

Obviously, you can isolate any group of genes that define modern races with their physical characteristics and invent a new species from that genetic set. Obviously, the name "Neanderthal" only describes one human race.
Click to expand...
Neandertal DNA was the DNA of the species of homo that existed before the migration of homo Sapiens out of Africa. There was some interbreeding prior to the extinction of the species and this is measureable in the DNA of humans today, there are also humans whose ancestors did not interbreed with Neandertals since the divergence in populations which is effectively proof that they were a different species than modern humans. Again with the racism of phenotypical traits, drop it and join the 21st century.
 
Pogo

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Eli G said:
The concept "population" is relative.

A population can consist of only one family and its descendants.

For any population to meet certain genetic characteristics, there must exist at the same time and in the same place at least one pair of individuals, male and female, with the same genetic characteristics and who transmit those special characteristics to their offspring.
Click to expand...
family being plural and thus technically a population, it could, but that is irrelevant to the reality of evolution. We could send a family to mars and they will evolve further, but they and their offspring will still be home Sapiens even if after a million years they can no longer interbreed with us.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Polymath257 said:
This happens *every generation*. The large scale changes that we see in evolution don't happen from one generation to the next. What happens in the variations in the population shift over time and end up with a new species.

You completely misunderstand the tempo of these changes. From one generation to the next, there would be almost no visible change. But, over the course of tens of thousands of generations, larger scale changes happen.
Click to expand...
A process that never begins cannot produce anything.

How can you demonstrate each supposed "small step" that produced such immense changes that evolution preaches? What was the first or second step from an irrational ape to a human?
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Eli G said:
A process that never begins cannot produce anything.

How can you demonstrate each supposed "small step" that produced such immense changes that evolution preaches? What was the first or second step from an irrational ape to a human?
Click to expand...
Again, not just one small step, but thousands. And the difference between humans and other apes isn’t that large.

ALL populations have variations. Those variations are the raw material for adaptation over generations, which is the basis of evolution. We do not get large scale change from one generation to the next. In fact, no generation would be significantly different than the next. But those insignificant differences add up over many generations to produce larger scale changes. And, whether you like it or not, the differences between humans and other apes just aren't that large.
 
Last edited:
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Eli G said:
What is "Neanderthal DNA"? :rolleyes:

Perhaps a set of genes that determine certain physical characteristics, and that are conventionally attributed to a different species. Evidently Neanderthals were intelligent humans, and they only differed from other intelligent humans in their physical features.
Click to expand...
Nope. They were distinct in a way that 'races' are not:

Ancient DNA and Neanderthals

humanorigins.si.edu humanorigins.si.edu

"Researchers compared the Neanderthal mtDNA to modern human and chimpanzee mtDNA sequences and found that the Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from both (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). Most human sequences differ from each other by an average of 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. Since this study was completed, many more samples of Neanderthal mtDNA have been replicated and studied."

So, different than both modern human and chimp, but about half the number of differences from humans as chimps."

Fast Facts:
  • Neanderthals are genetically distinct from modern humans, but are more closely related to us than chimpanzees are
  • The Neanderthal and modern human lineages diverged about 550,000 years ago
  • So far, we have no evidence of Neanderthal mtDNA lineages in modern humans
  • Neanderthals were not as genetically diverse as modern humans were at the same period, indicating that Neanderthals had a smaller population size
  • Neanderthal nuclear DNA shows further evidence of small population sizes, including genetic evidence of incest
  • As technology improves, researchers are able to detect and analyze older and more fragmentary samples of DNA"

Eli G said:
Obviously, you can isolate any group of genes that define modern races with their physical characteristics and invent a new species from that genetic set. Obviously, the name "Neanderthal" only describes one human race.
Click to expand...
No, you cannot. The variations between 'races' and within 'races' are comparable and much, much smaller than what is seen between humans and neanderthal. Furthermore, as expected from our understanding of evolution, neanderthal dna is closer to human than chimps, but distinct from both.

One aspect of this is that humans and chimps are not all that different genetically. Most of our genetics is identical (as is ours with neanderthal). There are differences, but we are talking about a very small percentage of the total.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Kenny said:
Do you believe that a dugout canoe would attempt that voyage? At the narrowest, can you even see Australia from Papua New Guinea?
Click to expand...

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

That is just theory.

A population is made up of individuals, 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.

If no two apes "comparable to humans" existed in the same place and time, how could a community of human apes have emerged?
Click to expand...
In the sciences theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.

And you go off the rails when you forget that humans are apes. You are still an ape, you never stopped being one, nor has any other human being. Your irrational arguments cannot refute reality.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Eli G said:
A process that never begins cannot produce anything.

How can you demonstrate each supposed "small step" that produced such immense changes that evolution preaches? What was the first or second step from an irrational ape to a human?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that other apes are "irrational"? They may not reason as well as we do, but that does not make them irrational.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Polymath257 said:
So do horses and zebras. But they are not the same species.

No, I did NOT say the human race came from a single couple. The population was likely around 1200 about 8-900,000 years ago. But that was NOT modern humans.

Click to expand...
No, it did not? And so you have the evidence they did not? What is it? Maybe like we are fish, right? Maybe you don't understand my answer. So let me tell you what I mean. This IS no evidence that homo sapiens evolved from fish to denisovans intermingling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top