• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
APES: 24 pairs of chromosomes

HUMAN: 23 pairs of chromosomes

Only one chromosome has hundreds or thousands of genes, which have the instructions for making proteins. Each of the estimated 30,000 genes in the human genome produces an average of three proteins.

BTW: There are not transitional quantities of chromosomes. There is not species with 23.7 or 23.5 pairs of chromosomes. :cool:
That problem has been solved. Would you like to know how it is now evidence for evolution?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Evolutionists lost objectivity
Quite the contrary. As new evidence has come to light, scientists have tweaked the theory of Evolution. It is constantly updated. The rule of thumb for scientists is to be loyal to the evidence, not the conclusion.

How different that is from religious belief. In a religion, you start with the conclusion (from which you will never waver) and then go looking only for the evidence that supports it, ignoring evidence to the contrary.

And I say these things as a highly religious woman. :)
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Quite the contrary. As new evidence has come to light, scientists have tweaked the theory of Evolution. It is constantly updated. The rule of thumb for scientists is to be loyal to the evidence, not the conclusion.

How different that is from religious belief. In a religion, you start with the conclusion (from which you will never waver) and then go looking only for the evidence that supports it, ignoring evidence to the contrary.

And I say these things as a highly religious woman. :)
unscientific-method1.gif
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes:

DNA does not transform from parents with 24 pairs of chromosomes (apes) to DNA in children with 23 chromosomes (humans) in millions of years. It is a specific discret change and has to happen in a single generation.

It seems that you, the fans of that doctrine, imagine many millions of couple of apes transforming their DNA in some way over millions of years until they are no longer 24 pairs of chromosomes but 23. :shrug:

They went first to 23.9 pairs, then to 23.8, later to 23.7, and so on for millions of years until children were born with 23 pairs of chromosomes? :facepalm:

Don't you realize how ridiculous that teaching is? I need to know exactly how you imagine that process. ;)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In fact, macroevolution conceived as the set of many small mutations that occured little by little is contradictory to the supposed evolution of entire populations.

No, that is the reality.

In my anthropology course, I used the name "mosaic evolution", namely that any species is comprised of many smaller groups all evolving in their own way, only some of which may form new species.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
:rolleyes:

DNA does not transform from parents with 24 pairs of chromosomes (apes) to DNA in children with 23 chromosomes (humans) in millions of years. It is a specific discret change and has to happen in a single generation.

It seems that you, the fans of that doctrine, imagine many millions of couple of apes transforming their DNA in some way over millions of years until they are no longer 24 pairs of chromosomes but 23. :shrug:

They went first to 23.9 pairs, then to 23.8, later to 23.7, and so on for millions of years until children were born with 23 pairs of chromosomes? :facepalm:

Don't you realize how ridiculous that teaching is? I need to know exactly how you imagine that process. ;)

Logically, if you were to be correct, then geneticists would be overwhelmingly in agreement with you, but they're certainly not. As part of my training, I was constantly subject to information from geneticists because we work hand-in-hand with them.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
For now I'm leaving the topic open as the question has been answered; you just don't like the answer. Race is a social construct.

"Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning."

- Race (human categorization) - Wikipedia
Differences in skin color should be caused by evolution and natural election, if the theory is correct. Places where there is stronger sun will select based on more skin pigments. This is more optimized; more sun protection and less skin cancer. If you live where it is colder and less sun, that skin pigment is less significant in terms of selection. What is more important is the extra ingenuity and work needed to live under the harsher seasonal conditions; better winter planning via extra summer work.

This will show up as a wide range of differences that we call racial differences. How do you explain black muscle tone and being good athletes as a group? They had more selective pressures to use their muscles in more active ways. Living in harsh climates takes more work and planning than living in paradise climates. The harsh living selection creates a different set of strengths. Life has to adapt to the pressures of the environment or it will not be selected. The originals humans that migrated, diverged and went separate ways, each altered by selective pressures in different ways.

If you go to one of the genealogical web sites that traces your family history, you can give them a DNA sample and from that they can find traces of all the places your ancestors may have lived. Part can be due to breeding, but part can be due to regional selective pressures.

DNA Testing - Options & Benefits | FamilySearch

What is common to all humans and makes us one species is the operating system of the brain; human nature. All humans have brain firmware that is common to all and define us as species; human. This is not based on culture, which is learned behavior that makes us different, but rather innate natural behavior that connected to our human DNA; inner self. The ego is where differences appear; learned. All humans and only humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self; integral, and ego; differential. That is our commonality.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
You are way off base, all humans split off in one event in the past ~6 million years ago, the differences that you see since then are minor due to recent geographical isolation of populations in the last 200,000 years. We are the result of one speciation event only.
In terms of evolution, there is no difference between those differences that historically have been called races. In fact, your history is evidence of the lack of evolutionary distance and that while isolation of populations has occurred over the last 200k years, our interaction with other ancestral populations will only reduce the differences in populations.
1_2.jpg
Although this tells us when the changes occurred, the unanswered question is, what caused the humans to continue to change, while the other branches more less remained in steady state? All the Apes still hang in trees, while humans fly planes.

One possible way to answer this is with a variation of natural selection. One possible change in selective pressure, would be if the early pre-humans had formed a working relationship with another species; canine. Dogs were domesticated about 15,000 years ago, so these initial dogs, would not be domesticated but wild dogs that worked with the pre-humans in a cooperative way, that was mutually beneficial.

Based on the dating of the diagram above, there were major climate events and ice ages from the time these branches appear to the present. Having a relationship with dogs, would give these pre-humans a selective advantage during ice ages.

The value of this is pre-humans, could learn skills that were not innate, but which came from another apex species. Dogs are good pack hunters and the extra meat would increase the protein in the pre-human diet, so their brain could grow. With the dogs not yet domesticated, the pack interactions with the pre-humans would offer a more personal natural selective pressure.

For example, packs of dogs will fight among themselves for pecking order, like a football team at practice. If you include the pre-humans in this pack dynamics, they will need to learn to fight with the dogs and other humans, gaining skills to defending themselves and hunt, while migrating into new territories as a pack; chase and ambush. Pre-humans standing upright, would make him more intimidating in pack fights.

I had a dog who liked to chew sticks. When he chewed larger sticks; branch length, he often made a pointy stick. The caveman pounding a stick to a point with a rock is like copying a dog chewing a stick with his molars. The pre-human would not learn that from watching apes.

To start this journey of change, all that would need to happen is a group of transitional apes or prehuman, finding a litter of puppies, with no mother. They built a bond since puppies are friendly and needy. But since Apes and Dogs were enemies, both species rejected this odd couple. so they had to leave and find a new home, together. As the puppies grew up some will be too wild and some more cooperative; mutual selection and deselection. As time goes on and new generations appear, their bonds get stronger. The symbiosis add a whole new range of experience, that was not written on Ape or Dog DNA, but would become the two future composites; modern human and domestic dog.

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. This is unique to humans, with the ego appearing a little bit after the time of dog domestication. However, dogs and some other higher domestic animals, like cats and horses, etc., appear to have evolved a virtual secondary due to their human interaction and their selection for this purpose; work dogs. This virtual secondary can become programmed to act like a virtual ego; seeing eye dog. When someone treats their dog like as baby, the dog's virtual ego is populated, and the dogs begins to act from this program to where it appears to be leading the human, so she/he can enjoy coddle him.

If a domesticated dog was to become feral, the virtual secondary become less conscious, and the dog become more from inner self, which is better for survival.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes:

DNA does not transform from parents with 24 pairs of chromosomes (apes) to DNA in children with 23 chromosomes (humans) in millions of years. It is a specific discret change and has to happen in a single generation.

It seems that you, the fans of that doctrine, imagine many millions of couple of apes transforming their DNA in some way over millions of years until they are no longer 24 pairs of chromosomes but 23. :shrug:

They went first to 23.9 pairs, then to 23.8, later to 23.7, and so on for millions of years until children were born with 23 pairs of chromosomes? :facepalm:

Don't you realize how ridiculous that teaching is? I need to know exactly how you imagine that process. ;)
Should I assume that some of the replies to my post are attempts to answer my questions?

I'm sorry to tell you but: they failed and they were very bad attempts.

Hopefully some other "expert" will give some real answer... at some point... or never. :)
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Should I assume that some of the replies to my post are attempts to answer my questions?

I'm sorry to tell you but: they failed and they were very bad attempts.

Hopefully some other "expert" will give some real answer... at some point... or never. :)
Chromosomal fusion has been explained to you many times, this new strawman of fractional chromosomes is just your latest demonstration that you are not actually engaging in discussion but trolling.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Although this tells us when the changes occurred, the unanswered question is, what caused the humans to continue to change, while the other branches more less remained in steady state? All the Apes still hang in trees, while humans fly planes.

One possible way to answer this is with a variation of natural selection. One possible change in selective pressure, would be if the early pre-humans had formed a working relationship with another species; canine. Dogs were domesticated about 15,000 years ago, so these initial dogs, would not be domesticated but wild dogs that worked with the pre-humans in a cooperative way, that was mutually beneficial.

Based on the dating of the diagram above, there were major climate events and ice ages from the time these branches appear to the present. Having a relationship with dogs, would give these pre-humans a selective advantage during ice ages.

The value of this is pre-humans, could learn skills that were not innate, but which came from another apex species. Dogs are good pack hunters and the extra meat would increase the protein in the pre-human diet, so their brain could grow. With the dogs not yet domesticated, the pack interactions with the pre-humans would offer a more personal natural selective pressure.

For example, packs of dogs will fight among themselves for pecking order, like a football team at practice. If you include the pre-humans in this pack dynamics, they will need to learn to fight with the dogs and other humans, gaining skills to defending themselves and hunt, while migrating into new territories as a pack; chase and ambush. Pre-humans standing upright, would make him more intimidating in pack fights.

I had a dog who liked to chew sticks. When he chewed larger sticks; branch length, he often made a pointy stick. The caveman pounding a stick to a point with a rock is like copying a dog chewing a stick with his molars. The pre-human would not learn that from watching apes.

To start this journey of change, all that would need to happen is a group of transitional apes or prehuman, finding a litter of puppies, with no mother. They built a bond since puppies are friendly and needy. But since Apes and Dogs were enemies, both species rejected this odd couple. so they had to leave and find a new home, together. As the puppies grew up some will be too wild and some more cooperative; mutual selection and deselection. As time goes on and new generations appear, their bonds get stronger. The symbiosis add a whole new range of experience, that was not written on Ape or Dog DNA, but would become the two future composites; modern human and domestic dog.

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. This is unique to humans, with the ego appearing a little bit after the time of dog domestication. However, dogs and some other higher domestic animals, like cats and horses, etc., appear to have evolved a virtual secondary due to their human interaction and their selection for this purpose; work dogs. This virtual secondary can become programmed to act like a virtual ego; seeing eye dog. When someone treats their dog like as baby, the dog's virtual ego is populated, and the dogs begins to act from this program to where it appears to be leading the human, so she/he can enjoy coddle him.

If a domesticated dog was to become feral, the virtual secondary become less conscious, and the dog become more from inner self, which is better for survival.
Although this tells us when the changes occurred, the unanswered question is, what caused the humans to continue to change, while the other branches more less remained in steady state? All the Apes still hang in trees, while humans fly planes.

One possible way to answer this is with a variation of natural selection. One possible change in selective pressure, would be if the early pre-humans had formed a working relationship with another species; canine. Dogs were domesticated about 15,000 years ago, so these initial dogs, would not be domesticated but wild dogs that worked with the pre-humans in a cooperative way, that was mutually beneficial.

Based on the dating of the diagram above, there were major climate events and ice ages from the time these branches appear to the present. Having a relationship with dogs, would give these pre-humans a selective advantage during ice ages.

The value of this is pre-humans, could learn skills that were not innate, but which came from another apex species. Dogs are good pack hunters and the extra meat would increase the protein in the pre-human diet, so their brain could grow. With the dogs not yet domesticated, the pack interactions with the pre-humans would offer a more personal natural selective pressure.

For example, packs of dogs will fight among themselves for pecking order, like a football team at practice. If you include the pre-humans in this pack dynamics, they will need to learn to fight with the dogs and other humans, gaining skills to defending themselves and hunt, while migrating into new territories as a pack; chase and ambush. Pre-humans standing upright, would make him more intimidating in pack fights.

I had a dog who liked to chew sticks. When he chewed larger sticks; branch length, he often made a pointy stick. The caveman pounding a stick to a point with a rock is like copying a dog chewing a stick with his molars. The pre-human would not learn that from watching apes.

To start this journey of change, all that would need to happen is a group of transitional apes or prehuman, finding a litter of puppies, with no mother. They built a bond since puppies are friendly and needy. But since Apes and Dogs were enemies, both species rejected this odd couple. so they had to leave and find a new home, together. As the puppies grew up some will be too wild and some more cooperative; mutual selection and deselection. As time goes on and new generations appear, their bonds get stronger. The symbiosis add a whole new range of experience, that was not written on Ape or Dog DNA, but would become the two future composites; modern human and domestic dog.

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. This is unique to humans, with the ego appearing a little bit after the time of dog domestication. However, dogs and some other higher domestic animals, like cats and horses, etc., appear to have evolved a virtual secondary due to their human interaction and their selection for this purpose; work dogs. This virtual secondary can become programmed to act like a virtual ego; seeing eye dog. When someone treats their dog like as baby, the dog's virtual ego is populated, and the dogs begins to act from this program to where it appears to be leading the human, so she/he can enjoy coddle him.

If a domesticated dog was to become feral, the virtual secondary become less conscious, and the dog become more from inner self, which is better for survival.
1717085002707.jpeg

And we have just as many hair follicles as other apes ours are just for the most part much finer to allow for better evaporation while sweating.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes:

DNA does not transform from parents with 24 pairs of chromosomes (apes) to DNA in children with 23 chromosomes (humans) in millions of years. It is a specific discret change and has to happen in a single generation.

It seems that you, the fans of that doctrine, imagine many millions of couple of apes transforming their DNA in some way over millions of years until they are no longer 24 pairs of chromosomes but 23. :shrug:

They went first to 23.9 pairs, then to 23.8, later to 23.7, and so on for millions of years until children were born with 23 pairs of chromosomes? :facepalm:

Don't you realize how ridiculous that teaching is? I need to know exactly how you imagine that process. ;)
Can someone tell me clearly how the hypothesis of chromosome fusion that evolutionists attribute to some ape can answer my questions? :facepalm:

Did chromosomes merge over millions of years until a 24-pair ape became a 23-pair human?

Have they a low level of logical understanding or they're just pretending? :facepalm:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Can someone tell me clearly how the hypothesis of chromosome fusion that evolutionists attribute to some ape can answer my questions? :facepalm:

Did chromosomes merge over millions of years until a 24-pair ape became a 23-pair human?

Have they a low level of logical understanding or they're just pretending? :facepalm:
No. Because you don't actually care to learn. You've made that crystal clear. Several people have already explained this to you, and here you are pretending that never happened.
You can Google it.
 
Top