Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Eli G]

I'm not going to respond to people who don't even know how to peacefully talk to others. It's the result of their own bad behavior, and it's going to stay that way. If no one wants to talk to you, you'll have to improve something to achieve that.

The proof that people who behave like this don't even deserve attention is that every time they address me it's to disqualify me and not to respond gracefully to the messages I post. They act as if I were their enemy; but I'm not, and my posts are honest and without bad intentions. But these individuals must change their behavior and then they will be able to reason more clearly about everything that is being raised and they will see where the crux of the matter is.

By the way, the article I referred to is exactly the one that a forum member mentioned before (post#1301); it's in that same link that he posted... Take some time and read it honestly and you will understand my point.

Since I know that the only regular forum members here are the same old harassers that I have ignored, I wish you all a happy day, and until next time. Take it easy, and find something else to do besides hanging around here harassing forum members who don't believe the same as you.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not going to respond to people who don't even know how to peacefully talk to others. It's the result of their own bad behavior, and it's going to stay that way. If no one wants to talk to you, you'll have to improve something to achieve that.

The proof that people who behave like this don't even deserve attention is that every time they address me it's to disqualify me and not to respond gracefully to the messages I post. They act as if I were their enemy; but I'm not, and my posts are honest and without bad intentions. But these individuals must change their behavior and then they will be able to reason more clearly about everything that is being raised and they will see where the crux of the matter is.

By the way, the article I referred to is exactly the one that a forum member mentioned before (post#1301); it's in that same link that he posted... Take some time and read it honestly and you will understand my point.

Since I know that the only regular forum members here are the same old harassers that I have ignored, I wish you all a happy day, and until next time. Take it easy, and find something else to do besides hanging around here harassing forum members who don't believe the same as you.

You aren't going to respond to yourself. How interesting.

 

[Eli G]

Back to the topic: I want to make it clear, although I have already insisted on this from the very beginning of my topic, that the topic is not about racism, but about the origin of the different human races from the evolutionary point of view. It is not either about how the races could have emerged (which is well known, and I agree), but about the original genetic basis that could have supposedly converted monochromatic and "rough" apes into humans with such fine characteristics, and varied in so many different ways.

I am going to make it clear that although I am not an expert on the subject or a scientist (and never said that), I do not need to be one to be a rational thinker. The first thing that a theory has to have, no matter how scientific it may seem, is that it is logical and clearly answers the simplest questions that are raised. A theory should not be based on simple assumptions. Although some people say that science "does not prove" things, but rather tries to "justify" itself with "evidence", evidence is never irrational, and is logical and naturally understandable.

A simple explanation is enough to understand any scientific theory, no matter how complex it may seem; all it takes is a good teacher to explain it to non-experts. And please, stop the stupidity of assuming that in order to answer questions from a non-expert, it is the one who asks the question who has to "educate" himself. It is the one who pretends to be an expert who has to clearly answer the questions of the non-expert... The truth is that the classism of scientificists (I think that's the word that describe them) is as repugnant as racism is.

So, suppose you want to explain to a non-expert what the first non-human apes that supposedly engendered humans looked like, that might be a good start. The idea is to answer the question: how did humans come out so physically different? And isn't that obvious?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not going to respond to people who don't even know how to peacefully talk to others. It's the result of their own bad behavior, and it's going to stay that way. If no one wants to talk to you, you'll have to improve something to achieve that.

The proof that people who behave like this don't even deserve attention is that every time they address me it's to disqualify me and not to respond gracefully to the messages I post. They act as if I were their enemy; but I'm not, and my posts are honest and without bad intentions. But these individuals must change their behavior and then they will be able to reason more clearly about everything that is being raised and they will see where the crux of the matter is.

By the way, the article I referred to is exactly the one that a forum member mentioned before (post#1301); it's in that same link that he posted... Take some time and read it honestly and you will understand my point.

Since I know that the only regular forum members here are the same old harassers that I have ignored, I wish you all a happy day, and until next time. Take it easy, and find something else to do besides hanging around here harassing forum members who don't believe the same as you.

Excuses, excuses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Back to the topic: I want to make it clear, although I have already insisted on this from the very beginning of my topic, that the topic is not about racism, but about the origin of the different human races from the evolutionary point of view. It is not either about how the races could have emerged (which is well known, and I agree), but about the original genetic basis that could have supposedly converted monochromatic and "rough" apes into humans with such fine characteristics, and varied in so many different ways.

I am going to make it clear that although I am not an expert on the subject or a scientist (and never said that), I do not need to be one to be a rational thinker. The first thing that a theory has to have, no matter how scientific it may seem, is that it is logical and clearly answers the simplest questions that are raised. A theory should not be based on simple assumptions. Although some people say that science "does not prove" things, but rather tries to "justify" itself with "evidence", evidence is never irrational, and is logical and naturally understandable.

A simple explanation is enough to understand any scientific theory, no matter how complex it may seem; all it takes is a good teacher to explain it to non-experts. And please, stop the stupidity of assuming that in order to answer questions from a non-expert, it is the one who asks the question who has to "educate" himself. It is the one who pretends to be an expert who has to clearly answer the questions of the non-expert... The truth is that the classism of scientificists (I think that's the word that describe them) is as repugnant as racism is.

So, suppose you want to explain to a non-expert what the first non-human apes that supposedly engendered humans looked like, that might be a good start. The idea is to answer the question: how did humans come out so physically different? And isn't that obvious?

What's the point??? You don't seem to actually care about having any sort of back-and-forth discussion whatsoever.

And on top of that, you don't seem to understand the basics of evolution.

So, what's the point of all this?

 

[firedragon]

What explanation does the evolutionary doctrine give to the different human races?

The evolutionary doctrine explains that different human races are the result of human populations adapting to their environments over long periods. As early humans spread across the world, their bodies developed traits suited to their local climates, such as skin color, hair type, and facial features. These differences are small variations within the same species, Homo sapiens, and do not imply separate origins. All humans share a common ancestor. It's not that I am a proponent of darwinian evolution as dogmatic fact. But this is what it is in theory. What's racist about that? Completely baffled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to respond to people who don't even know how to peacefully talk to others. It's the result of their own bad behavior, and it's going to stay that way. If no one wants to talk to you, you'll have to improve something to achieve that.

The proof that people who behave like this don't even deserve attention is that every time they address me it's to disqualify me and not to respond gracefully to the messages I post. They act as if I were their enemy; but I'm not, and my posts are honest and without bad intentions. But these individuals must change their behavior and then they will be able to reason more clearly about everything that is being raised and they will see where the crux of the matter is.

By the way, the article I referred to is exactly the one that a forum member mentioned before (post#1301); it's in that same link that he posted... Take some time and read it honestly and you will understand my point.

Since I know that the only regular forum members here are the same old harassers that I have ignored, I wish you all a happy day, and until next time. Take it easy, and find something else to do besides hanging around here harassing forum members who don't believe the same as you.

Wow! That is amazing hypocrisy. By your standards no one should respond to you. The article was from what is largely a click bait source. Now the finders of those fossils may believe that it is an ancestor of humans. People are often swayed a bit by national pride. That was the main reason that Piltdown Man was accepted. The British wanted an ancestor of man from their island. These do not appear to be a hoax but the best argument with our current knowledge is that they are most probably from an ape species that left Africa. That happens quite often in biology Life expands outside of the area where it arose. All of your allegations were unsupported and irrational.

 

[Eli G]

Again:

Back to the topic: I want to make it clear, although I have already insisted on this from the very beginning of my topic, that the topic is not about racism, but about the origin of the different human races from the evolutionary point of view. It is not either about how the races could have emerged (which is well known, and I agree), but about the original genetic basis that could have supposedly converted monochromatic and "rough" apes into humans with such fine characteristics, and varied in so many different ways.
...

Is there anyone here (besides ...) really reading the posts?

Were the European apes white and the African ones black?

If the (supposedly pre-human) apes never changed races when they supposedly migrated from Europe to Africa, how come humans supposedly did so as soon as they started migrating? Besides number of chromosomes in the DNA, what else changed them so much?

 

[Argentbear]

Back to the topic: I want to make it clear, although I have already insisted on this from the very beginning of my topic, that the topic is not about racism, but about the origin of the different human races from the evolutionary point of view. It is not either about how the races could have emerged (which is well known, and I agree), but about the original genetic basis that could have supposedly converted monochromatic and "rough" apes into humans with such fine characteristics, and varied in so many different ways.

I am going to make it clear that although I am not an expert on the subject or a scientist (and never said that), I do not need to be one to be a rational thinker. The first thing that a theory has to have, no matter how scientific it may seem, is that it is logical and clearly answers the simplest questions that are raised. A theory should not be based on simple assumptions.

a theory is simply a set of assumptions or predictions about something you think will happen based on existing evidence and that can be tested to see if those outcomes turn out to be true.

Although some people say that science "does not prove" things, but rather tries to "justify" itself with "evidence", evidence is never irrational, and is logical and naturally understandable.

A simple explanation is enough to understand any scientific theory, no matter how complex it may seem; all it takes is a good teacher to explain it to non-experts. And please, stop the stupidity of assuming that in order to answer questions from a non-expert, it is the one who asks the question who has to "educate" himself. It is the one who pretends to be an expert who has to clearly answer the questions of the non-expert... The truth is that the classism of scientificists (I think that's the word that describe them) is as repugnant as racism is.

So, suppose you want to explain to a non-expert what the first non-human apes that supposedly engendered humans looked like, that might be a good start. The idea is to answer the question: how did humans come out so physically different? And isn't that obvious?

did the first humans look so physically different from other primates?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evolutionary doctrine explains that different human races are the result of human populations adapting to their environments over long periods. As early humans spread across the world, their bodies developed traits suited to their local climates, such as skin color, hair type, and facial features. These differences are small variations within the same species, Homo sapiens, and do not imply separate origins. All humans share a common ancestor. It's not that I am a proponent of darwinian evolution as dogmatic fact. But this is what it is in theory. What's racist about that? Completely baffled.

I have seen the racism of the originator of those claims to be more likely to be racist than those on the evolution side. There is a well known one of accusing "evolutionists" of saying that different races were descended from different apes..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again:

Is there anyone here (besides ...) really reading the posts?

Were the European apes white and the African ones black?

If the (supposedly pre-human) apes never changed races when they supposedly migrated from Europe to Africa, how come humans supposedly did so as soon as they started migrating? Besides number of chromosomes in the DNA, what else changed them so much?

And no sooner said than done!

 

[Eli G]

did the first humans look so physically different from other primates?

Based on what you observe, what do you think?

PD: I can't see what evolutionist have in their imagination. It's like trying to see a trinity that can't be seen in the Bible. So, try to explain it in the natural way, like you would explain it to your young child.

 

[metis]

So, suppose you want to explain to a non-expert what the first non-human apes that supposedly engendered humans looked like, that might be a good start.

Even though Lucy wasn't the first, one can get a general picture of the trend going back through human history: Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia. [scroll down for reconstruction]

The earliest find from Chad has been debated as to whether it is more "human" or "ape", and the last time I read it hasn't been agreed upon.

The idea is to answer the question: how did humans come out so physically different? And isn't that obvious?

Actually, we ain't that different with the exception of our relatively massive human brain.

Pretty much all organisms have evolved as all materials tend to change over time, and our genes determined by changes in our d.n.a. The true miracle would be if they and we didn't change.

 

[Eli G]

we ain't that different with the exception of our relatively massive human brain.

You can't be serious.

 

[metis]

You can't be serious.

I am but notice the words "that" and "relatively". As Desmond Morris wrote, we are "The Naked Ape".

 

[Eli G]

Even something as simple as the pregnancy time of the females is not the same...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am but notice the words "that" and "relatively". As Desmond Morris wrote, we are "The Naked Ape".

Correct, people are apes. This was something that even the creationist and originator of the genus/species classification system Carl Linnaeus realized.

In other words as to whether Lucy was an ape or not, yes she was, but so are we. Though the OP seems to believe that he is a tree or maybe a fungus. I can't be sure. He has denied being human.

 

[Eli G]

Let's say that the ability of reproductive cells to generate variety is genetic, meaning that we humans inherit it from our ancestors, also human.

You don't even have to be an evolutionist to understand that the different physical varieties of human beings are the result of many natural factors in addition to genetic ones, since all of us who consider the Bible a gift from our Creator know that human beings in all their variants come from a single couple.

However, apes do not have that ability. Where did the first humans inherit it from, if supposedly their parents were non-human apes?

 

[Argentbear]

Based on what you observe, what do you think?

no early human's didn't look all that different

Homohabilis for example

 

[Eli G]

no early human's didn't look all that different

Homohabilis for example

Who was the photographer?

It's funny how much evolutionists go to great lengths to try to disseminate the obvious differences between humans and apes.

Aren't they obvious to them? Now I really understand what the phrase "cognitive dissonance" means.

It's not enough for an evolutionist to try to make people believe that because evolutionists classify humans as apes, the differences will go away.

A human classification is just a convention that is made, and life has shown that while they can be useful at times, many others are not only useless, but counterproductive. They have even been created, changed, and even rejected just as easily many times.

Given what other, more educated forum members have posted on the forum, those who try to make science seem like a dogmatic belief system are not really scientists.