Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[John53]

Do alligators and lions unite and try to kill others for no rational reason at? They work on the family level at the most killing for food.

Do troops eat the bodies of the enemies that they kill?

Do you yet realize how foolish your comparison was?

I wonder if lions move criminal lions to different prides to protect them?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder if lions move criminal lions to different prides to protect them?

A rogue protection plan that involves a lot of hush-hush and conspiracies I would imagine. I lot of lion goes on.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

no, because racism is normative, evolution is not... some idiots have tried to co-opt evolution for normative racist purposes, but they all have inevitably gotten SLAPPED DOWN by facts and logic

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speaking of which, how would you show it isn't? Any idea(s)?

What you need to be concerned about it how you show it is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For almost 200,000 years, human beings also felt no need to invent the written word. In fact, hunter gatherer tribes today have no written word, or if they do, only have it because outside missionaries came in a created it for them. Why is that? Any theories?

@YoursTrue I'm still waiting for your answer on this.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue I'm still waiting for your answer on this.

I don't believe the estimates. That's my answer.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't believe the estimates. That's my answer.

Do you understand that written language is a product of city dwelling? That human tribes that are nomadic or only have small villages never develop written language? It's the old "necessity is the mother of invention" thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you understand that written language is a product of city dwelling? That human tribes that are nomadic or only have small villages never develop written language? It's the old "necessity is the mother of invention" thing.

I understand that archaeologists and paleontologists have their ideas and opinions, but I go with the Bible to recognize that mankind as spoken of in the Bible is about 6,000 years old. There is no suggestion that I know of in the Bible as to exactly when writing was invented.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The first evidence of dugout canoes is 6,000 BC.

No. The oldest canoe found is from about 8000 BC.
But this isn't a problem. Whatever floating device people used, it would have been made from materials that easily decay.
The oldest canoe found doesn't mean it was the "first" canoe ever build. It rather means that people in 8000 BC were crafting canoes.
So it means that almost certainly, they were doing exactly that before that time also.
And neither does it mean that canoes were the only floating devices people used either.

Human evidence in Australia, according to archaeologists, is 40,000 BC way before evidence of the most simplest of canoes and those canoes probably wouldn’t attempt to reach a land they don’t even know exists.

The options that we have is IMV:

1) There was only one continent
2) Waterline was so low you could just walk
3) Different apes (or other species) became men

Or: 4. people used water floating transportation to cross rather small bodies of water during a time when sea levels were much lower then today.

I'ld put my money on 2 or 4.

1 and 3 are ruled out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

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?

Evolution is a process that happens to populations. Not to individuals.

Your question is moot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What part of "populations evolve, not individuals" did you not understand?

 

[metis]

I understand that archaeologists and paleontologists have their ideas and opinions, but I go with the Bible to recognize that mankind as spoken of in the Bible is about 6,000 years old.

Categorically false as there are settlements unearthed that date back even further than that.

 

[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.

I read a comment somewhere in response to this post of mine where an evolutionist says that "populations evolve, not individuals."

It seems to me that this forum member is very confused. There is a big difference between social evolution and the doctrine that teaches that apes became not only intellectually but also physically human.

Learning does not change anyone genetically.

 

[metis]

I read a comment somewhere in response to this post of mine where an evolutionist says that "populations evolve, not individuals."

Everything changes, nothing stays the same, thus evolution happens at all levels.

 

[Eli G]

Everything changes, nothing stays the same, thus evolution happens at all levels.

And yet, monkeys do not become humans.

 

[metis]

And yet, monkeys do not become humans.

You didn't see the blind date I had once.

 

[metis]

The process of evolution takes place over millions and billions of years whereas things change here on Earth, and this process is magnified if we consider the entire universe's history.

 

[Eli G]

Humans are a particular species because their genetics are different from those of animals, which allows them to be aware of their environment in a conscious way and not like animals do, guided by instinct. The Bible says that humans were created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27) precisely because of that particular capacity with which we were created.

No matter how much you try to educate a monkey, it will never transform into a human being. In Spanish I know a saying: "la mona, mona se queda aunque se vista de seda" which is more or less this: "the female monkey remains a monkey even if she dresses in silk."

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet, monkeys do not become humans.

Evolution doesn't say that monkeys should ever become humans.

You need to take some science courses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I read a comment somewhere in response to this post of mine where an evolutionist says that "populations evolve, not individuals."

It seems that you're confused. This is correct.
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Populations evolve, not individuals.

It seems to me that this forum member is very confused. There is a big difference between social evolution and the doctrine that teaches that apes became not only intellectually but also physically human.

Learning does not change anyone genetically.

It's you that is confused. These sentences have nothing to do with your first sentence.