Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[SkepticThinker]

I found an interesting news story somewhere that proves to me what I was afraid of: evolutionists constantly change their rhetoric and therefore cannot be trusted at all.

The news story says that evolutionists AGAIN believe that the apes that transformed into humans originally lived in Europe and then moved to Africa.

They are as fickle as the stock market. Who are you betting on this week? Africa, Asia, Europa, Australia?

That would be paleoanthropologists or archaeologists. And of course, you've misunderstood what they've said.

Yep, turns out you did:

"Study co-senior author David Begun, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto, clarified that they are talking about the common ancestor of hominines, and not about the human lineage after it diverged from the ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest living relatives.

"Since that divergence, most of human evolutionary history has occurred in Africa," Begun told Live Science. "It is also most likely that the chimpanzee and human lineages diverged from each other in Africa."

Human and ape ancestors arose in Europe, not in Africa, controversial study claims

A newly described fossil suggests that the ancestor of humans and apes arose in Europe, not in Africa.

www.livescience.com

But thanks for demonstrating yet again that you don't understand the first thing about science.

 

[Eli G]

Not heard that one. However they must have evolved somewhere. And the date of the earliest remains will have some bearing on where it was. Most genetic studies put that in Africa.
But finding fossils depends a great deal on luck.

In this topic I have been analyzing a single aspect of evolutionary theory: the origin of the different racial characteristics of human beings.

The evolutionary rhetoric revolved around one of the beliefs of these evolutionary forum members: that the homosapiens species originated in Africa and over time populated the rest of the planet, later giving rise to racial differences.

They even talked about how the first homosapiens must have been black and then acquired human characteristics with whiter skin as they moved to other places and their diet changed.

It turns out that if that news I read somewhere is true, all that rhetoric falls apart and in just a few months the direction of the conversation changes completely from the beginning. Is a doctrine that changes every time the wind changes direction reliable?

 

[Pogo]

I found an interesting news story somewhere that proves to me what I was afraid of: evolutionists constantly change their rhetoric and therefore cannot be trusted at all.

The news story says that evolutionists AGAIN believe that the apes that transformed into humans originally lived in Europe and then moved to Africa.

They are as fickle as the stock market. Who are you betting on this week? Africa, Asia, Europa, Australia?

No, that is not what the article said, it said that there were early humans, H sapiens, not apes in Europe as much as 300,000 years ago in Greece, but that ignores that H neandertalensis has already been there for several hundred thousand years. These were not the ape species that became Homo later in their evolution and yes there is some evidence of back migration from what is now Europe but was more connected to Africa in the past.

Yeah, I saw the article too, but I can't find it now and I bet you won't post it if you do since it doesn't support your fantasy.

ETA Kudos to @SkepticThinker who found the one you couldn't present, not the one I remembered about a different "controversy", but She is right and you got the article all wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

And of course, you've misunderstood what they've said.

That is expected

 

[Eli G]

If they build theories and even put a face and hair on a simple tooth (and there's not bigger fantasy than that one), what evidence will they have of pre-human ape migrations?

 

[Tomef]

I have been analyzing

Your language is a little ambitious. Making random declarations based on things you don't attempt to understand is not really 'analysis'.

 

[Eli G]

If those who migrated from Europe were ancestors of homosapiens when they went to live in Africa, shouldn't the first humans have been white Africans (and not black ones as the forum's evolutionists have been saying from the beginning)? The rhetoric changes regarding what this topic is about since it was opened.

And the question remains: how is it that if apes have monochromatic skin and characteristic rough features, humans are so fine in appearance (regardless of their race)?

PS: I'm still laughing at the photo filters that a forum member used on a photo he posted in a past comment to make people believe that apes have different skin colors:

 

[Pogo]

In this topic I have been analyzing a single aspect of evolutionary theory: the origin of the different racial characteristics of human beings.

The evolutionary rhetoric revolved around one of the beliefs of these evolutionary forum members: that the homosapiens species originated in Africa and over time populated the rest of the planet, later giving rise to racial differences.

They even talked about how the first homosapiens must have been black and then acquired human characteristics with whiter skin as they moved to other places and their diet changed.

It turns out that if that news I read somewhere is true, all that rhetoric falls apart and in just a few months the direction of the conversation changes completely from the beginning. Is a doctrine that changes every time the wind changes direction reliable?

A reasonable education in the basics of evolution would have prevented you from making the ridiculous assumptions you did based on that article.
Just saying.
Evolution 101

 

[Eli G]

Just to let you know: I still have the same people on my ignore list that I ignored before. Don't waste your time on personal insults and other disqualifications that you are used to.

I am not here to respond to people who don't even know how to behave; that is the first thing that a knowledgeable person should learn, and if someone doesn't know that, then they don't know anything else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If those who migrated from Europe were ancestors of homosapiens when they went to live in Africa, shouldn't the first humans have been white Africans (and not black ones as the forum's evolutionists have been saying from the beginning)? The rhetoric changes regarding what this topic is about since it was opened.

And the question remains: how is it that if apes have monochromatic skin and characteristic rough features, humans are so fine in appearance (regardless of their race)?

PS: I'm still laughing at the photo filters that a forum member used on a photo he posted in a past comment to make people believe that apes have different skin colors:

Sounds like you should have read through the article until the end.

 

[Pogo]

If those who migrated from Europe were ancestors of homosapiens when they went to live in Africa, shouldn't the first humans have been white Africans (and not black ones as the forum's evolutionists have been saying from the beginning)? The rhetoric changes regarding what this topic is about since it was opened.

And the question remains: how is it that if apes have monochromatic skin and characteristic rough features, humans are so fine in appearance (regardless of their race)?

PS: I'm still laughing at the photo filters that a forum member used on a photo he posted in a past comment to make people believe that apes have different skin colors:

Here is a link from inside my last link to begin to decrease your ignorance.

Evolutionary history is more than skin deep

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[ChristineM]

Just to let you know: I still have the same people on my ignore list that I ignored before. Don't waste your time on personal insults and other disqualifications that you are used to.

I am not here to respond to people who don't even know how to behave; that is the first thing that a knowledgeable person should learn, and if someone doesn't know that, then they don't know anything else.

But you still check to see what I've written. What is the point of ignore if you are just to curious not to override it?

 

[Pogo]

Just to let you know: I still have the same people on my ignore list that I ignored before. Don't waste your time on personal insults and other disqualifications that you are used to.

I am not here to respond to people who don't even know how to behave; that is the first thing that a knowledgeable person should learn, and if someone doesn't know that, then they don't know anything else.

Don't get your panties in a twist, we are replying as much to your compatriots who are as ignorant as you as to you.

Ignorance is curable with education, thus our reason for our replies, your choice to learn or not.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If those who migrated from Europe were ancestors of homosapiens when they went to live in Africa, shouldn't the first humans have been white Africans (and not black ones as the forum's evolutionists have been saying from the beginning)? The rhetoric changes regarding what this topic is about since it was opened.

And the question remains: how is it that if apes have monochromatic skin and characteristic rough features, humans are so fine in appearance (regardless of their race)?

PS: I'm still laughing at the photo filters that a forum member used on a photo he posted in a past comment to make people believe that apes have different skin colors:

Early humans in Europe were dark skinned and blue eyed. Overtime some of their skins became lighter until it became the mix we see today.
There was a degree of intermixing with the Neanderthal.sufficient for all of us to have some neanderthal DNA. it has been shown that we all have a heritage that includes a number of human species. As they could all interbreed they must all have a common earlier ancestor.
Even at the time of the Roman empire dark skins were the norm in most of Europe.

.

 

[Eli G]

For decades we have seen evolutionists "creating" evidence for their theory.

They are so desperate that they have not found any real proof that some species evolve into others or that apes gave rise to humans, that the new trend is to insult "non-believers of the evolutionary doctrine" in order to demoralize them. It's shameful how some people make "science" look.

On the other hand, I see people who are beginning to realize that we have a Creator, and who are beginning to change their personalities to have a closer relationship with the One who gave us the beautiful things that we are enjoying since He created us, and who still keeps the system of life stable, without those who do not wish to correct themselves morally being able to damage it to the point of no return.

It is unquestionable that people who love God are those who truly improve human existence, not those who do not wish to accept the One who created us and gave us life and everything that sustains it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

For decades we have seen evolutionists "creating" evidence for their theory.

They are so desperate that they have not found any real proof that some species evolve into others or that apes gave rise to humans, that the new trend is to insult "non-believers of the evolutionary doctrine" in order to demoralize them. It's shameful how some people make "science" look.

On the other hand, I see people who are beginning to realize that we have a Creator, and who are beginning to change their personalities to have a closer relationship with the One who gave us the beautiful things that we are enjoying since He created us, and who still keeps the system of life stable, without those who do not wish to correct themselves morally being able to damage it to the point of no return.

It is unquestionable that people who love God are those who truly improve human existence, not those who do not wish to accept the One who created us and gave us life and everything that sustains it.

Nothing like this has happened. Nobody is trying to "demoralize" anybody by setting the facts straight on how evolution actually works, in light of the many inaccuracies you've posted about it.

You're living in a persecution complex of your own making.

 

[Eli G]

Early humans in Europe were dark skinned and blue eyed. Overtime some of their skins became lighter until it became the mix we see today.
There was a degree of intermixing with the Neanderthal.sufficient for all of us to have some neanderthal DNA. it has been shown that we all have a heritage that includes a number of human species. As they could all interbreed they must all have a common earlier ancestor.
Even at the time of the Roman empire dark skins were the norm in most of Europe.

Tell me something: what is the reason that I have to accept as true all that story with no proof that you tell us? Should I accept it as religious believers accept sermons?

At least I use the Bible to prove my beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Tell me something: what is the reason that I have to accept as true all that story with no proof that you tell us? Should I accept it as religious believers accept sermons?

Because it's based on the available EVIDENCE.

At least I use the Bible to prove my beliefs.

Which is probably why you're faring so badly in this thread about science.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Tell me something: what is the reason that I have to accept as true all that story with no proof that you tell us? Should I accept it as religious believers accept sermons?

At least I use the Bible to prove my beliefs.

I have told you nothing that has not been published and reviewed. The evidence supporting those papers has also been reviewed.
I have no mission to present such evidence to you, as it is readily available, even if it would take considerable work to gather it all into one place.
I doubt you have any desire to educate your self by such research. So you will likely remain ignorant of such matters.

I am well aware of what the Bible tells us, and while it does support many ethical values, its record on scientific matters is abysmal.

 

[Eli G]

Were not paleontological frauds EVIDENCE of the past?