Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Pogo]

To understand that a population is made up of at least two individuals that can reproduce with each other, you do not need to be indoctrinated.

not relevant though if a population was reduced to 2, extinction is most likely. Evolution 101

 

[Pogo]

Many breeds of dogs artificially created by geneticists demonstrate several things:

1) an intelligence is needed to direct the experiment, and
2) forced crossbreeding is defective.

1) Geneticists did not have anything to do with dog breeding.
2) which is one more reason that the population of 2 is a strawman.
Evolution 101

 

[Eli G]

A ghostly voice says that "if a population was reduced to 2, extinction is most likely."

That must be why no one has ever found any interspecies common ancestor. They are all extinct ... as false is the whole myth of the evolution of species.

 

[Eli G]

The concept "species ring" is a very interesting one. It describes a family of animals that are very similar to each other to the point of appearing to have a very close common ancestor but which cannot reproduce with each other, as if they formed a completely different species. But is that really the case?

How many biological reasons can be found to justify that a pair of individuals of the same species cannot reproduce with each other? For example: how many reasons can there be for a human couple not to give rise to a generation, or to a generation that really lasts and can continue reproducing indefinitely in the future?

 

[metis]

Because the previous post (post#586) refers to the fact that a change from one species to another must necessarily begin with an individual that changes at the same time that a specimen of the opposite sex compatible with it appears at the same time, and both individuals meet and transmit genetically species changes to the new generation.

No, that's not how it works as so many changes that eventually form a new phenotype first started out as recessive genes, which will typically get passed on.

humans and apes do not reproduce with each other.

Correct, because there's too many differences that emerged over millions of years.

Species can diversify, but they never become new species; believing that this happened in some remote past even if you have never seen it happen is to believe in a myth.

But diversification can eventually help lead to new species. One proof of this actually was done at where I did my grad work that entailed fruit flies whereas new species eventually emerged after so many years. Yes, they were still fruit flies but were eventually of different species.

 

[metis]

For some reason they believe that those who do not consider themselves apes cannot reason correctly.

You complained about some here who you say insulted you and yet you come back with this???

 

[Eli G]

No, that's not how it works as so many changes that eventually form a new phenotype first started out as recessive genes, which will typically get passed on.



Correct, because there's too many differences that emerged over millions of years.



But diversification can eventually help lead to new species. One proof of this actually was done at where I did my grad work that entailed fruit flies whereas new species eventually emerged after so many years. Yes, they were still fruit flies but were eventually of different species.

All you said here is speculation. You need faith to believe it.

I put my faith somewhere else. Will you condemn me for that?

PS: There was a time when saying "science" was like talking about knowledge. Now what is said and done in the name of science is shameful.

 

[Eli G]

You complained about some here who you say insulted you and yet you come back with this???

Don't you consider yourself an ape? And if you do it yourself, why is it an insult if I tell you?

Let me know if you want to go with the others to my ignore list... I do it with everyone who starts looking for conflicts with me that go beyond ideas.

 

[metis]

All you said here is speculation. You need faith to believe it.

No, the emergence of new species is simply not "speculation such as the example I gave you.

I put my faith somewhere else. Will you condemn me for that?

I have not condemned you for anything so why are you posting this?

PS: There was a time when saying "science" was like talking about knowledge. Now what is said and done in the name of science is shameful.

No, it's much more the other way around as all so many in religion blindly believe in what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.

Science and religion have a foundation in two different arenas, as science is based on using the "scientific method" while religion is based on religious texts written thousands of years ago by people we really don't even know.

Also, most Christian theologians [about 70% or so if I recall] actually do accept the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

 

[Eli G]

I am not indoctrinated like you were and you are now. You seem to be the kind of person who waits for others to tell him what to believe.
I think by myself.

I am trying to help others to reason critically as I do. Question everything ... even the belief of the evolution of species.

 

[metis]

Don't you consider yourself an ape?

A human ape, yes.

And if you do it yourself, why is it an insult if I tell you?

When you did this don't you realize that this is an insult?

Let me know if you want to go with the others to my ignore list... I do it with everyone who starts looking for conflicts with me that go beyond ideas.

I don't much care what you do with your ignore list.

 

[Eli G]

Ok. Since you seem to follow the steps of the rest, you'll end with them.
Good bye.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All you said here is speculation. You need faith to believe it.

So faith is bad.

I put my faith somewhere else. Will you condemn me for that?

No wait, faith is .... not bad?

Make up your mind.

No wait you don't have to. There is no use for faith in science, since it's an evidence based discipline.

PS: There was a time when saying "science" was like talking about knowledge. Now what is said and done in the name of science is shameful.

What is "said and done in the name of science" that is shameful as opposed to "talking about knowledge?"

 

[metis]

Ok. Since you seem to follow the steps of the rest, you'll end with them.
Good bye.

Oh, I'm shaking in my boots-- and I'm even barefoot!

Bye.

 

[Pogo]

Ok. Since you seem to follow the steps of the rest, you'll end with them.
Good bye.

Solitary in an echochamber. Whatever.

 

[Eli G]

The thousands of views on my threads are not limited to contentious forum members.

The world is bigger than the little box in which evolutionists live.

 

[Eli G]

I was thinking (I think a lot ) about certain results of some genetic calculations that indicate that human beings converge on a specific female and if I remember correctly, also on a certain specific male specimen in the same place in the past.

Why does it seem to me that such supposedly scientific conclusions contradict the assertions of some forum members in recent posts, who deny my analysis of a logical first human couple under the assumption of the evolution of apes into humans?

 

[Pogo]

I was thinking (I think a lot ) about certain results of some genetic calculations that indicate that human beings converge on a specific female and if I remember correctly, also on a certain specific male specimen in the same place in the past.

Why does it seem to me that such supposedly scientific conclusions contradict the assertions of some forum members in recent posts, who deny my analysis of a logical first human couple under the assumption of the evolution of apes into humans?

Because they were not the first humans and they didn't ever meet each other, you are referring to the calculated most recent common ancestor from mitochondrial DNA passed matrilineally and Y-chromosomes passed patrilinially .

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to the biblical Eve, which has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Popular science presentations of the topic usually point out such possible misconceptions by emphasizing the fact that the position of mt-MRCA is neither fixed in time (as the position of mt-MRCA moves forward in time as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages become extinct), nor does it refer to a "first woman", nor the only living female of her time, nor the first member of a "new species".[note 4]

Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although the informal name "Y-chromosomal Adam" is a reference to the biblical Adam, this should not be misconstrued as implying that the bearer of the chromosome was the only human male alive during his time.[7] His other male contemporaries may also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, through solely patrilineal descent; in other words, none of them have an unbroken male line of descendants (son's son's son's … son) connecting them to currently living people.

Now you know better.

 

[YoursTrue]

not relevant though if a population was reduced to 2, extinction is most likely. Evolution 101

Those alleles are really something, aren't they? At least in the minds of some scientists . Yet gorillas remain gorillas.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because they were not the first humans and they didn't ever meet each other, you are referring to the calculated most recent common ancestor from mitochondrial DNA passed matrilineally and Y-chromosomes passed patrilinially .


Now you know better.

What you are doing is conjecturing.