Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so the Neanderthals died out for some reason. And only the homo sapiens were left. But the homo sapiens have Neanderthal DNA within them, right? Because they inherited that from way back when.

Because even though we were different populations speciation, which is irreversible eventually had not fully occurred yet. Speciation is a gradual process. Like almost all biological processes. Two populations do not wake up some day and go "Oh!! We are different species now.

What you first notice is limitations on breeding. One possibility is the breeding only going one way, in our case it was that our men did not breed with their women but their men could breed with ours. We still have some Neanderthal DNA because Neanderthal males would breed with human females. Who knows, our men may have been able to breed with their women, but some species will kill odd looking offspring. That could have happened too. We just know that we have not found any Neanderthal mtDNA yet. Mitochondrial DNA comes from only the mother's side. If you are interested this article goes into some of the reasons that sperm do not bring any mtDNA to the fertilized cell:

Mature sperm lack intact mitochondrial DNA, study finds

New research provides insight about the reason mitochondria — the powerhouse of the cell — pass only from the mother.

news.ohsu.edu

Not finding any Neanderthal mtDNA, which comes from the mother only, tells us that there were no Neanderthal mothers and human fathers whose children reproduced. They could have had children, but if they did those children were sterile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So like for instance there are groups that interbreed and produce people (homo sapiens) with short legs and arms and are noticeable by that. There are groups that produce offspring with typically long arms and legs (longer than usual) and are also noticeable that way. Same with dark skin or light skin. They are still within the group (species?) called homo sapiens, right?

As long as breeding goes both ways, yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But not enough for one site to compare him with what we see in Neanderthal skulls apparently - posted earlier, as edit.

View attachment 90067

I've been thinking about this photo and why it was nagging at me. Then I recalled why. A friend developed a tumor on his pituitary gland when we were in our early 20's. Parts of his body started growing again and, while not as prominent or noticeable as in this photo, his brow ridge became more pronounced. His hands, feet and jaw line were also impacted by new growth. These features can become accentuated in people with pituitary disorders from overproduction of growth hormone. So there is an explanation outside of having Neanderthal DNA in a person's genome that can account for some of the similarity of feature. I'm not sure that most of the remaining Neanderthal DNA that makes up a very tiny percentage of the genome in those of European descent expresses as these sorts of traits either. They seem to be dominated by genes expressing physiological responses affecting sleep, disease resistance and similar traits.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I've been thinking about this photo and why it was nagging at me. Then I recalled why. A friend developed a tumor on his pituitary gland when we were in our early 20's. Parts of his body started growing again and, while not as prominent or noticeable as in this photo, his brow ridge became more pronounced. His hands, feet and jaw line were also impacted by new growth. These features can become accentuated in people with pituitary disorders from overproduction of growth hormone. So there is an explanation outside of having Neanderthal DNA in a person's genome that can account for some of the similarity of feature. I'm not sure that most of the remaining Neanderthal DNA that makes up a very tiny percentage of the genome in those of European descent expresses as these sorts of traits either. They seem to be dominated by genes expressing physiological responses affecting sleep, disease resistance and similar traits.

This guy does have some abnormality that would likely be the cause of the brow ridges but it was just his appearance that threw me rather than him obviously having any actual Neanderthal DNA - or more than any others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This guy does have some abnormality that would likely be the cause of the brow ridges but it was just his appearance that threw me rather than him obviously having any actual Neanderthal DNA - or more than any others.

I find it interesting. Especially given the personal association that took me a while to recall.

The features are striking and do harken to those known to be a normal part of the skeletal structure of Neanderthals. I would be my first thought when seeing them expressed in an individual.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I find it interesting. Especially given the personal association that took me a while to recall.

The features are striking and do harken to those known to be a normal part of the skeletal structure of Neanderthals. I would be my first thought when seeing them expressed in an individual.

Yes. I'm sure he knew I was so surprised, and probably gets this all the time - famous or not, if it was actually Valuev. The brow ridges and the sloping forehead.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. I'm sure he knew I was so surprised, and probably gets this all the time - famous or not, if it was actually Valuev. The brow ridges and the sloping forehead.

It was interesting that his picture got posted in response to your initial mention of your story and it turned out to be him that you saw.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It was interesting that his picture got posted in response to your initial mention of your story and it turned out to be him that you saw.

Well I mentioned in one post that I thought he might have been a Russian boxer - perhaps in the news at the time - and it was only recently that I searched for one that I knew (Klitschko) and an image of Valuev came up too - since he was going to fight one of them but actually didn't. So when I saw this guy I think it was before the internet had fully arrived. And he seemed to fit what I remembered seeing.

 

[Eli G]

Obviously, for some kind of mindless ape animal in some kind of metamorphic fantasy to become a human being, there would have to be MANY CHANGES, both intellectually and physically.

As I asked in a previous post: have you ever put a photo of a real ape (not one you imagine; Learn to distinguish reality from fiction) and a human being side by side?

Start with the skin; Compare the roughness of the skin, facial features, the beauty of human movements, gestures, etc. Have you ever counted the real differences that exist?

How many of those supposed animal transformations have some "evolutionary" reason for occurring? For example: why would any "evolutionary" necessity change the rough skin of a monkey into the thin skin of a human being, and not the other way around?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Obviously, for some kind of mindless ape animal in some kind of metamorphic fantasy to become a human being, there would have to be MANY CHANGES, both intellectually and physically.

As I asked in a previous post: have you ever put a photo of a real ape (not one you imagine; Learn to distinguish reality from fiction) and a human being side by side?

Start with the skin; Compare the roughness of the skin, facial features, the beauty of human movements, gestures, etc. Have you ever counted the real differences that exist?

How many of those supposed animal transformations have some "evolutionary" reason for occurring? For example: why would any "evolutionary" necessity change the rough skin of a monkey into the thin skin of a human being, and not the other way around?

Try something from here, then come back and discuss:

Best Science Books on Human Evolution (38 books)

38 books based on 5 votes: From Molecule To Modern Human: The 4.4-Billion-Year Evolution of Homo sapiens by Frank Dunne, Human Evolution: A Very Short In...

www.goodreads.com

 

[Eli G]

In animals, we categorize subspecies. Race is a weird (and non-scientific) concept we use for humans.
There is no hard-line defining the different 'races', as you're aware based on your own family.

The word "race" describes a reality that will not disappear through pure indoctrination, just as no one can make us believe that there are genders additional to the ones we naturally see exist.

Consider this: the skin is considered by many to be an organ of the body. Any variation that occurs across different human groups around the planet responds to the same process in which the beaks of Galapagos finches change shape and size to adapt to different diets: adaptation.

Just as the difference in skin color in humans does not divide them into different species, the changes in the beaks of Galapagos finches do not describe an evolution of species.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The word "race" describes a reality that will not disappear through pure indoctrination, just as no one can make us believe that there are genders additional to the ones we naturally see exist.

You do you. I'm talking about scientific terms, not colloquial usage.

Consider this: the skin is considered by many to be an organ of the body. Any variation that occurs across different human groups around the planet responds to the same process in which the beaks of Galapagos finches change shape and size to adapt to different diets: adaptation.

Skin colour is more important as a marker of distinction than eye colour? Hair colour? Do we divide humans up by these characteristics? No? Just skin colour, and call it race? Really?
How many humans do you think have 'pure' bloodlines representative of 'a race'? All of use are a mix of inherited characteristics, our skin colour amongst countless other ones.

Just as the difference in skin color in humans does not divide them into different species, the changes in the beaks of Galapagos finches do not describe an evolution of species.

Fair enough. As I said, you do you. I could see one being able to argue the toss on finch populations being a subspecies, rather than a separate species, since technically they can still interbreed. But they don't (depending on which variant we are talking about).

 

[Eli G]

Race is not a scientific issue; it is a reality that we can see by simple observation.

Skin colour is NOT more important as a marker of distinction than eye colour.

In genetics studies they say blue eyes are genetically special for some reason ... Are blue eyed people a different human species?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no data to back up your blind acceptance of what you write. Again...sad. have a good day.

Translation: you are ignorant of how dating mechanisms work and are doing your very best to maintain that ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Where did you get that silly idea?
Which mammals are hairless?

then lost the thick covering of fur because it wasnt beneficial,

I didn't get lost. It got thinner. Your body is still covered with hair follicles.
And as already was pointed out to you: this occured for heat regulation while running, which is how our ancestors hunted.
We also started to use animals skins as clothing to keep warm while not running (and fire, off course).

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?

Because they weren't naked and still required heat regulation while running.

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.

I'm not aware of any scientific source that considers neaderthals to be ancestral to homo sapiens.
Maybe you got this falsehood from some ignorant (or deliberatly dishonest) creationist source?

 

[Esteban X]

As I asked in a previous post: have you ever put a photo of a real ape (not one you imagine; Learn to distinguish reality from fiction) and a human being side by side?

Pedant here. Human beings are apes. There are 4 genera of apes of which the genus Homo is one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Race is not a scientific issue; it is a reality that we can see by simple observation.

You can stop after 'is not a scientific issue'.
You're quite right. The rest is mostly politics.

Skin colour is NOT more important as a marker of distinction than eye colour.

Unless you're on the other side of various race-based laws over the centuries which have judged race by simple observation.

In genetics studies they say blue eyes are genetically special for some reason ... Are blue eyed people a different human species?

Of course not. Nor are black-skinned people.
Humans are a single species (these days).

 

[Eli G]

Pedant here. Human beings are apes. There are 4 genera of apes of which the genus Homo is one.

Someone saying that humans are apes is the same to me as someone telling me that humans are bananas.

Actually, did you know that humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Someone saying that humans are apes is the same to me as someone telling me that humans are bananas.

Actually, did you know that humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas?

God's little joke, but it's probably about 90% in your case.

 

[Pogo]

Someone saying that humans are apes is the same to me as someone telling me that humans are bananas.

Actually, did you know that humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas?

Sounds about right depending on what you are counting.
I might care to explain it, but it would be like explaining physics to a 2 year old in mid-tantrum.
But when you calm down, you can start here. How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas? | Pfizer