Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sure they do. Haven't you heard of "getting a tan"?... with the exception that apes do not change skin color no matter where they live.
-
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?
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Since I'm an entomologist and not a human biologist, I can only relate facts that I learned getting my BS in biology degree. There may be more reasons that lighter skin pigmentation was selected for in northern environments. But those are two that I learned.
And this change in pigmentation would have occurred across generations and not occurred simply by moving to a new location in one generation. That is not the adaptation that is describing evolution.
Excellent example. And another termed adaptation by the general population that is not the adaptation associated with evolution and a change in genetics of a population.
That is an example of a developmental change that doesn't require a change in the genetics.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Seeing the vulgarity of many evolutionists on the forum, I can foresee, without being a prophet, the grievous social state in which evolutionists would plunge human societies if their doctrine were extended to all of humanity.
Us, vulgar? Here's what we think of that remark.
It is difficult to discuss a technical subject with anyone that feels they are an expert, but whose expertise clearly arises from misinformation and unrelated dogma and not from the understanding arising from study, a familiarity of the knowledge and work with the subject.
It looks like the only thing that evolves from that former position is insulting commentary that isn't even accurate or meaningful.
But most do. It is because there is no such thing. It is all creationist fiction.
You're welcome.
So glad to make you happier. Please, no applause.
Microevolution is about small mutations that allows diversity ... which is a demonstrated fact.
Macroevolution is the idea that those mutations can be so big that they allow one species to become a different one ... which is just a belief. On this belief is based the human evolutionary doctrine.
Mutations can't take that level, because of genetic laws.
The acolytes of the doctrine don't know many things. That's why they attack people who question their beliefs like dark ages inquisitors.
Macroevolution is the idea that those mutations can be so big that they allow one species to become a different one ... which is just a belief. On this belief is based the human evolutionary doctrine.
Mutations can't take that level, because of genetic laws.
The acolytes of the doctrine don't know many things. That's why they attack people who question their beliefs like dark ages inquisitors.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, getting a tan is not an example of evolution. It could be said to be a result. Also, white skin probably preceded dark skin. Take a look at a chimpanzee, our closest relatives. They live in the forest and have fur. But they like us have a broken gene for making vitamin C. That means that they either have to eat fruit (which they do quite often) or at least get some sun. Fur also acts like melanin. It blocks UV rays. Chimps are fairly light under their fur and the ancestor that we shared with them probably was light skinned as well.
Darker than your average European maybe, but not nearly as dark as the darkest of human beings.
Of course losing hair would have been gradual and there would have been a gradual darkening of skin as our ancestors evolved. Everything would have balanced and changes would not have been noticeable.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But we have seen new species arise. The changes won't be huge and would probably not be clear to you or me. But they can be clear to the populations involved. You appear to have a strawman version of those concepts. You did get it right that macroevolution is change on the species scale. But that was about it.Microevolution is about small mutations that allows diversity ... which is a demonstrated fact.
Macroevolution is the idea that those mutations can be so big that they allow one species to become a different one ... which is just a belief. On this belief is based the human evolutionary doctrine.
Mutations can't take that level, because of genetic laws.
The acolytes of the doctrine don't know many things. That's why they attack people who question their beliefs like dark ages inquisitors.
Speciation is an observed phenomenon based on evidence. Doctrines based on the rejection of empirical evidence and rational examination of it perpetuate this unnecessary distinction out of ignorance and desire that their doctrine replace science and evidence and reason.
Following the evidence, that is the basis of this thread built on ignorance of the science in order to dismiss and reject the science for reasons of doctrine.
The obvious evidence is not just the failure to establish accepting the theory of evolution as some sort of doctrine, but the complete failure to present even a comical argument in support of that claim.
Following the evidence, that is the basis of this thread built on ignorance of the science in order to dismiss and reject the science for reasons of doctrine.
The obvious evidence is not just the failure to establish accepting the theory of evolution as some sort of doctrine, but the complete failure to present even a comical argument in support of that claim.
Yes, there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle and not some simple magic that is implied by the OP where apes give birth to people and they suddenly change color.
The definition that the mutations would be so big that it would result in a change of species is wrong. It is not some macromutation that suddenly jumps the offspring to the level of a new species. It would be the accumulation of mutations over time that gradually increase the divergence of different populations to the point they do not interbreed with much or any success.
Every post addressing these misinformed claims arises from knowledge that the misinformed claims do not. The very essence of the application of a doctrine based on desired outcomes, but not actual outcomes derived from evidence.
I feel ashamed of what they are capable of doing to defend a doctrine... The religious inquisition ended a long time ago, and it seems that the new fashion is the inquisition of the evolutionists... Only that unfortunately for them the impact is scant. There are not only Christians in the religious world, and evolution is not a credible alternative in most religions. Only someone with political interests can put so much effort into making humans believe that they are inferior animals. Fortunately, although they differ with many religions, their religious motivations do not move them to such behavior.
Did you know that the ideas of overpopulation of the planet and the drastic measures to prevent it originate from the idea that humans are animals? Likewise, do child abuse, abortion, and so many other anti-human ideas originate in the extreme wings of the belief in evolution and its principle of survival of the fittest applied to humans as animals.
Did you know that the ideas of overpopulation of the planet and the drastic measures to prevent it originate from the idea that humans are animals? Likewise, do child abuse, abortion, and so many other anti-human ideas originate in the extreme wings of the belief in evolution and its principle of survival of the fittest applied to humans as animals.
These have alopecia, but are otherwise healthy animals from the look of them. They have a female with this trait at the local zoo.
It illustrates your point quite well I think.
I see you have beat me to the point that it is not the size of the mutation that is significant or defining of those two descriptions of evolution.
From what I have read so far, that seems to be the entire basis of scientific understanding being expressed. Entirely straw man versions that have no corollary in observable reality or in the actual science based on that reality.
I agree, some intelligent design proponents are willing to sink to some very low tactics.