Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[shunyadragon]

so let mke get this straight...we started off with no hair, then evolved hair as ape ancestors,

No

then lost the thick covering of fur because it wasn't beneficial, then our skin colour changed to dark skin to protect ourselves from the sun...tell me, why have humans that live in extremely cold climates not got a thicker covering of hair again?

Homo sapiens developed clothing to deal with the different climates they moved into, also . . .

Human Skin Color Variation

humanorigins.si.edu

Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success.

You need to get an education and do your own homework insted of asking others to 'spoon feed' you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes exactly...and yet you subscribe to evidence and theory that clearly is in conflict with itself...
Apes evolved into black ancestral humanity which then lost its hair, after which its skin turned black in order to protect from the sun. Why did it loose hair at all given that protects apes from the sun?

Because on the open plains hair also traps heat. You may not have noticed, but people sweat. Our ability to sweat is directly tied to our ability to run for long distances without break. Furred animals can outsprint us easily. But on a continued chase man can wear down quite a few animals. A lack of fur meant that some other sort of protection would be needed, therefore our skin darkened:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/508695#:~:text=Another%20hypothesis%2C%20presented%20by%20Carrier,run%20some%20mammals%20to%20exhaustion.

Did early man's ancestors loose their hair simply because they developed enough brain capacity to make clothes?

No. That is rather ludicrous. Clothes came later. Successful species tend to fill in their ecological niche. Once they do that they start to migrate to other ones. Colder climates required a fix that was faster than evolution.

There's a big problem there as ive already highlighted and you have ignored.

Really? That is a big problem? It was solved long ago. What I posted is nothing new.

This comes down to the same stupid answer TEists give for their world view...it must be right because it just is. That's not an explaination simply because it's now claim to be fact even though this is a clear problem (one of many)

Evolution is exceedingly well accepted as fact because of the endless evidence for it. The problem is that far too many creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. Simply making an ad hoc argument is not good enough. What I did with my running example could almost be called an ad hoc argument. That is why I linked to a paper where they went much deeper into that than I did. An ad hoc argument solves some problems but ignores others, especially it ignores evidence against. You did not bring up any evidence against you only brought up questions.

Please note that according to archaeology once humans left Africa they spread rather quickly. There were whole new worlds open up to humans. And since that was a rapid spread evolution could not fix the problem of no fur quickly. That was why ingenuity was needed to over come it.

But keep asking questions. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so let mke get this straight...we started off with no hair, then evolved hair as ape ancestors, then lost the thick covering of fur because it wasnt beneficial, then our skin colour changed to dark skin to protect ourselves from the sun...tell me, why have humans that live in extremely cold climates not got a thicker covering of hair again?

Time. The spread out of Africa was far faster than evolution could "fix". Evolution is not an instant solution to problems. By our standards it is always rather slow.

Take vitamin D. There would have been a higher incidence of rickets and other such diseases as our ancestors first moved north. Our skin makes Vitamin D but it needs sunlight to do so. There has always been a variation in the amount of pigment that people have. If you have kids you might have even noticed that variation among them. The lighter skinned children would have fewer diseases from Vitamin D deficiency than others, meaning that they would be more likely to survive to a breeding age and pass on that lighter skin which increased Vitamin D production to their children. Even a little bit helps. And the same would happen with those children. As long as Vitamin D was in short supply there would be pressure for lighter skinned offspring to successfully make it to breeding age. They would have an advantage over their darker skinned siblings.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Because on the open plains hair also traps heat. You may not have noticed, but people sweat. Our ability to sweat is directly tied to our ability to run for long distances without break. Furred animals can outsprint us easily. But on a continued chase man can wear down quite a few animals. A lack of fur meant that some other sort of protection would be needed, therefore our skin darkened:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/508695#:~:text=Another%20hypothesis%2C%20presented%20by%20Carrier,run%20some%20mammals%20to%20exhaustion.

No. That is rather ludicrous. Clothes came later. Successful species tend to fill in their ecological niche. Once they do that they start to migrate to other ones. Colder climates required a fix that was faster than evolution.


Really? That is a big problem? It was solved long ago. What I posted is nothing new.

Evolution is exceedingly well accepted as fact because of the endless evidence for it. The problem is that far too many creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. Simply making an ad hoc argument is not good enough. What I did with my running example could almost be called an ad hoc argument. That is why I linked to a paper where they went much deeper into that than I did. An ad hoc argument solves some problems but ignores others, especially it ignores evidence against. You did not bring up any evidence against you only brought up questions.

Please note that according to archaeology once humans left Africa they spread rather quickly. There were whole new worlds open up to humans. And since that was a rapid spread evolution could not fix the problem of no fur quickly. That was why ingenuity was needed to over come it.

But keep asking questions. There is nothing wrong with that.

archelogoical finds of the coexistence and inbreding of hominids, neanderthals and homo sapiens as recently as 45000 years ago means that there is everything wrong with that. The evidence tells us that the fact they coexisted means they are not ancestors at all.

 

[Pogo]

so let mke get this straight...we started off with no hair, then evolved hair as ape ancestors, then lost the thick covering of fur because it wasnt beneficial, then our skin colour changed to dark skin to protect ourselves from the sun...tell me, why have humans that live in extremely cold climates not got a thicker covering of hair again?

IT is shown that Neandethals may have had less hair than us, and yet they are protrayed as being quite hairy in images...clearly to attempt to show they are ancestoral when they arent.

We are mammals, mammals are hairy, our ape ancestors are hairy and our early hominid ancestors are hairy. The branch that became Neandertals probably retained its hair (don't know on that one).
Where did you get that Neandertals may have had less hair than us?"
Neandertals are not ancestral to us, they are cousins from way back but lived in different places than where we lost our hair.

 

[Subduction Zone]

archelogoical finds of the coexistence and inbreding of hominids, neanderthals and homo sapiens as recently as 45000 years ago means that there is everything wrong with that. The evidence tells us that the fact they coexisted means they are not ancestors at all.

How so? That appears to be a non sequitur. The Neanderthal was very closely related to humans. But still distant enough to be another species. That is shown by the lack of humans with Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. When speciation is almost complete sometimes breeding only goes one way. The Neanderthal may have left Africa before Homo sapiens did.

 

[Pogo]

archelogoical finds of the coexistence and inbreding of hominids, neanderthals and homo sapiens as recently as 45000 years ago means that there is everything wrong with that. The evidence tells us that the fact they coexisted means they are not ancestors at all.

The word you want is interbreeding and again, they are not our ancestors, they are cousins from way back.
Are your cousins your ancestors? Never mind, we don't want to know.

 

[YoursTrue]

No facts here, just an awkward interpretation of ancient tribal text without provenance.

Fact - A day is 24 hours,

Do you understand the definition of the word 'fact?'

You might consider reading the Bible more and figuring what a 'day' is. Hey, have a good one!

 

[YoursTrue]

How so? That appears to be a non sequitur. The Neanderthal was very closely related to humans. But still distant enough to be another species. That is shown by the lack of humans with Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. When speciation is almost complete sometimes breeding only goes one way. The Neanderthal may have left Africa before Homo sapiens did.

Can you personally explain in detail how Neandertals were very closely related to humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

The word you want is interbreeding and again, they are not our ancestors, they are cousins from way back.
Are your cousins your ancestors? Never mind, we don't want to know.

Since you say Neandertals are not our ancestors but cousins, do you know who are our ancestors?

 

[Pogo]

Since you say Neandertals are not our ancestors but cousins, do you know who are our ancestors?

A picture for you to try to bring it to your level

 

[Pogo]

Since you say Neandertals are not our ancestors but cousins, do you know who are our ancestors?

A picture for you to try to bring it to your level

 

[YoursTrue]

A picture for you to try to bring it to your level

Can you say in simple English which hominid, if you use that term referring to homo sapiens ancestry, you would consider to be your Ancestors? One or two words will do, thanks.

 

[McBell]

Can you say in simple English which hominid, if you use that term referring to homo sapiens ancestry, you would consider to be your Ancestors? One or two words will do, thanks.

Nope.
Can't be done.
The names are in Latin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you personally explain in detail how Neandertals were very closely related to humans?

The fact that we could breed fertilely with them tells you that we are very closely related.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope.
Can't be done.
The names are in Latin.

Stanley and Marsha.

 

[Pogo]

Stanley and Marsha.

And Betty and Barney

 

[YoursTrue]

The fact that we could breed fertilely with them tells you that we are very closely related.

Well, being that you are more knowledgeable about these things than I am, I am reading something that says Neanderthals diverged from modern humans about 500,000 years ago. I have a couple of questions: What are modern humans and how did they diverge? And Neanderthals diverged FROM modern humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

"The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as the great apes[note 1] or hominids (/ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo (the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan); Gorilla (the eastern and western gorilla); Pan (the chimpanzee and the bonobo); and Homo, of which only modern humans (Homo sapiens) remain.[1]" So -- according to this, "modern humans" are also called homo sapiens.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you say in simple English which hominid, if you use that term referring to homo sapiens ancestry, you would consider to be your Ancestors? One or two words will do, thanks.

In other words, the believers cannot explain...which makes sense -- Hey! Have a good one, y'all...