Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[YoursTrue]

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

I do not always believe what scientists say.

 

[YoursTrue]

You never owned up to your own mistake. There never were only two human beings. That is what the sciences tell us. You might want to learn about "emergent processes". They exist all around the world. Evolution is an emergent process where populations of animals change over time. There is no hard line in the sand where you can say "wolf" "chihuahua". And yet we know that happened. In fact there was no single change in wolves where one could say "this animal is no longer a wolf". That is why people are still apes. There never was a single change where we lost an "ape" gene or gained a "human" one.

You truly don't know that. I mean bones are bones and do not necessarily have to be those of humans even if a scientist proclaims it to be such, especially according to the dating evaluations. Thank you.

 

[ppp]

You truly don't know that.

We do truly know that. Silly

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

And the complaint is that creationists are always being told they don't know what they are talking about and need to be educated in the subject matter. I wonder why?

 

[McBell]

And the complaint is that creationists are always being told they don't know what they are talking about and need to be educated in the subject matter. I wonder why?

um...
Because they do not know what they are talking about and are in serious need of being educated on the subject matter?


It would be nice, but as has been thoroughly demonstrated in this very thread, they flat out refuse to learn any thing about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You truly don't know that. I mean bones are bones and do not necessarily have to be those of humans even if a scientist proclaims it to be such, especially according to the dating evaluations. Thank you.

I must warn you that it does look as if you are breaking the Ninth Commandment again by bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Scientist cannot ever "proclaim" anything. They have to be willing and able to show why their beliefs are correct. That is why peer reviewed papers can be so dull and cumbersome at times. All aspects of their work has to be thoroughly described so that others may reproduce their work and test their findings.

Can you please watch your language in the future, or be read to prove that they only "proclaim" things. You cannot seem to understand that when you attack others like that you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

I must warn you that it does look as if you are breaking the Ninth Commandment again by bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Scientist cannot ever "proclaim" anything. They have to be willing and able to show why their beliefs are correct. That is why peer reviewed papers can be so dull and cumbersome at times. All aspects of their work has to be thoroughly described so that others may reproduce their work and test their findings.

Can you please watch your language in the future, or be read to prove that they only "proclaim" things. You cannot seem to understand that when you attack others like that you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself.A

Perhaps you can look at 7 Basic 'Facts' That Have Changed Since The Millennium. So when scientists are able to show why their beliefs are correct, it could be they are not correct and are refuted by other scientists. You keep telling me I'm breaking a commandment by bearing false witness. Which makes me wonder about you and science. I didn't say science only "proclaims" things. You misunderstand. So I'll explain for your benefit. When a scientific paper is published and conclusions are drawn by the scientists, that is the conclusion drawn by those scientists. See?

 

[YoursTrue]

I must warn you that it does look as if you are breaking the Ninth Commandment again by bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Scientist cannot ever "proclaim" anything. They have to be willing and able to show why their beliefs are correct. That is why peer reviewed papers can be so dull and cumbersome at times. All aspects of their work has to be thoroughly described so that others may reproduce their work and test their findings.

Can you please watch your language in the future, or be read to prove that they only "proclaim" things. You cannot seem to understand that when you attack others like that you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself.

Meantime, just because a scientist says something, and perhaps it is accepted at large by others within and without the community, doesn't make the 'statement' or conclusion correct. (OK, not the proclamation...ok, satisfied?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meantime, just because a scientist says something, and perhaps it is accepted at large by others within and without the community, doesn't make the 'statement' or conclusion correct. (OK, not the proclamation...ok, satisfied?)

No, but it makes it far more likely to be right. And of course the myths that you believe in were refuted so badly that they are never coming back. That is how we know that you call your own God a liar.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yes, it's exactly 2 posts above yours.

It seems to me that this forum member is very confused.

lol, no

Evolution is a mechanism that acts on populations, not on individuals.
It's just what it is. The fact that you don't know shows your ignorance on the theory. The fact that you categorically refuse to learn after so many people explained it to you (I was hardly the first one) shows your ignorance is on purpose.

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.

This makes absolutely no sense and just goes to show further that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet, monkeys do not become humans.

If a population of non-human apes would evolve into humans a second time, then evolution as currently understood would be falsified.

Count on creationists to demand evidence FOR evolution while that type of evidence would actually disprove it.
This is the extent of your strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

umans are a particular species because their genetics are different from those of animals,

No. Our genetics aren't more different from other species then other species genetics differ from each other.

which allows them to be aware of their environment in a conscious way and not like animals do, guided by instinct.

This is actually false.

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.

The bible also says that stars can "fall from the sky to earth". Going to the bible for understanding the facts of reality doesn't seem that good of an idea.

No matter how much you try to educate a monkey, it will never transform into a human being.

If it would, evolution would be disproven.

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."

And that is your argument against the unified field theory of biology?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I consider monkeys and apes the same thing. I am not indoctrinated like you.

You can consider whatever you like.
You could consider cats and dogs to be the same thing also.

You'ld just be wrong though

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not affected by the disqualifications that come from those who consider themselves apes.

Do you consider yourself to be a mammal?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I still don't see a refutation of this reasoning:

Strawmen don't need refutation. They only need pointing out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are many limits on the reproduction even of individuals of the same species.

A pair of humans, for example, cannot always manage to generate a new generation for many reasons, and many times the offspring does not survive for reasons that are beyond the control of the couple.

Evolutionists want us to believe that the conditions in which a supposedly advanced male ape found and reproduced with a female individual compatible with him were something so easy to achieve, that not only a couple of advanced apes managed to produce one human, but an entire population of humans emerged as if by magic.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

You keep making the same silly mistake.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists seem not to realize the unfathomable abyss that exists between an ape and a human being.
That's how indoctrinated they are.

1. humans are apes
2. the difference between humans and non-human apes is actually a lot smaller then between a housecat and a lion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're not in my ignore list.

Typical.

Kind of like how so many creationist videos on youtube have the comments turned off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidently, before answering a post, the first thing to do is understanding not only what it says but what it means.

What does this post mean?

Think about it, and later answer: why does that argument make a lot of sense?

It makes no sense because it is based on the strawman that individuals evolve, while evolution is a process that acts on entire populations instead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Answering "populations are what evolve" does not refute or explain the above. Why? 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. Then this process is repeated continuously and in the end all the new individuals meet and form a community of similar individuals that continue to procreate and reproduce the supposed new BIOLOGICAL species.

So if the first events do not happen, the last does not come to pass.

PS: Wolves are nothing more than wild dogs, the same species in a different variety. They reproduce with each other. Humans and apes do not reproduce with each other. A comparison between those relationships is ridiculous. 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.

Evolution works by the accumulation of micro-changes achieving fixation.
This is why it acts on populations and not on individuals.

Yes, mutations (micro changes) arise in individuals. Those don't make any individual "incompatible" with any other individual of the population.
The micro-change, if selected for, spreads from that individual over the rest of the population. This takes many generations.
This is how slowly and gradually a population evolves.

At no point is there any individual who is "incompatible" with the rest of the population.



I'm sure you've heared the language analogy already.............
Latin, over the course of 2000 years, turned into spanish.
Was there a point in history where a spanish speaking person existed among latin speaking people who then needed to find another spanish speaking person in order to be able to communicate?
Was there a point in history where a latin speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child?

Nope.

Throughoug the entire history of the lineage of modern spanish speaking folks, all people from that group spoke the same language.
That language was latin 2000 years ago. Gradually it turned into the spanish we know today.
At no point was there a spanish speaking person living among latin speaking peers.