Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Dan From Smithville]

He was speaking in ancient snowshoe hare.

A language only understood by beavers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't you know the story of the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosomal Adam in the evolutionist Bible?

We do, but it sounds like you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Getting personal is absolutely not my thing ...

Uhu.........

Some evolutionists are simply delusional. They don't even know the difference between a human and an animal anymore, and that's just crazy. Crazy people should be locked away in a mental asylum... or on the ignored list.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I were to spend time explaining to someone why a human is not an animal and an animal is not a human, I would be another one with some mental problem.

A normal human would neither need it explained to them, nor believe that someone who needs that explanation is normal.

So, trying to explain to a person who is not "normal" something that they should normally understand is typical of someone who does not think normally.

Capisci.

Here's a challenge for you.

Come up with a definition of the word "animal" which includes all animals, describing the properties they share, yet excludes humans without arbitrarily adding "...except humans"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When those who do not know the difference between a human and an animal understand this, perhaps they will come to understand why they should never expect a female ape to give birth to a human being...

First of all, humans are apes. So every time a human gives birth, you have an ape giving birth to a human
Just like humans are mammals. So every time a human gives birth, you a mammal giving birth to a human.

But, in your ignorance, you probable mean a non-human ape giving birth to a human.
Nobody who understand evolution expects that to happen.
In fact.... if that were to happen, evolution would be disproven.

just as they would never expect an apple tree to naturally produce a mango.

Again, nobody who understand evolution would expect that to happen.
It would disprove evolution.

Oh, wait! Maybe they don't know the difference between a mango and an apple. What do I say now?

You better not say anything anymore and start reading up. All you are doing is making a fool of yourself by exposing your incredible ignorance on the topic you seem hellbend on arguing against...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you don't know the diferences of animals and humans, the problem is not that I "don't have even a rudimentary understanding of biology.".

The problem is that you are so into your books that you went out of the real world.

If you use the colloquial definition of the word animal, then by that word you mean "all animals except humans"
The biological definition of the word however, means "all members of the kingdom of animalia" - and that includes humans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human.

Nobody believes that.

I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

There is no "first" in gradual processes like evolution.
Just like there is no "first" spanish speaker.

I'm leaving this subforum until there is some poster who I can take seriously.

A better idea might be to leave this subforum until you actually read up on the basics of the basics of the topic you wish to discuss...

 

[metis]

...apes and humans are so very different, that they would never interbreed with each other.

Then you didn't see a blind date I once had.

 

[metis]

Some evolutionists are simply delusional. They don't even know the difference between a human and an animal anymore, and that's just crazy. Crazy people should be locked away in a mental asylum... or on the ignored list.

Well, then you must be something else: Outline of life forms - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

That's not even remotely logical and definitely is not scientific in any way.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

You're just making up your own version of 'evolution' and then criticising it. That's either dishonest or ignorant.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even a little kid would start crying if you told him that the monkey at the zoo is his real grandmother. And if it's any funnier, he'd laugh out loud.

I have seriously wondered many times who or what is behind many of the characters posting on this forum...

I once showed my young niece and nephew a photo of my father when he was younger.
They both told me he looked like a gorilla.
I don't know what kinds of kids you're hanging out with.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

Nope. Another poster literally just explained to you that this is not how it works.

In fact, if that were to occur, evolution would be falsified.

Oops.

Rather than a bedtime story, it seems like a Frankenstein-type horror story.

You made it up because you don't understand evolution. That can be corrected, but it seems you're not interested in actually understanding it. Why? I don't know. Seems weird to me.

It can't be that I'm still entertaining characters who don't seem to realize the simplest things and yet believe they are aligned with "science."

I'm leaving this subforum until there is some poster who I can take seriously.

And some people need to take a long look in a mirror before typing such things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

How many thousand times, on this forum, have evolution deniers been told that this is NOT AT ALL WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS SAY?!?!? It's almost as if you can't read -- or won't due to lack of interest in anything but your own opinion.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Well here is a picture of the known skeleton of Australopithicus Afarensis discovered in 1974 with some later discoveries added in and a few reconstructed bits by reflection from the opposite side in white. This may not be a direct ancestor but a cousin or so removed but you can see that already at first glance it looks like a human skeleton.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ85nOWebIwIpmr2b3NoFL7mOwr8jvrO5F2oOHPLMCSGtoP2N9FfPGF5FEUnY5J8PEsYsQ&usqp=CAU

Beyond that, the current observation that we have children and parents and no two of them are exactly alike physically or in other ways. some of them even move far away. Add those and that this skeleton represents an individual that lived over 3 million years ago and there you have an explanation designed for even the most simplistic of rational thinkers as to what some of our ape ancestors looked like and how we came to look like we do.
Minor note, this ancestor is far after the common ones with the other pictures you posted.

 

[Pogo]

Don't you know the story of the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosomal Adam in the evolutionist Bible?

Yeah, we even understand your pretend dismissal of it as a worthless collection of tales called a Bible.

 

[GardenLady]

or is it that the acolytes of the doctrine do not have an answer and are only filling the void with curtains of smoke.

NOTE: I know there are many pages I have not yet read after the statement above, but still, I am responding to this and related early statements.

I cannot even roll my eyes enough at this.

Evolution is not a "doctrine" with "acolytes" but a well-supported scientific FACT. The theory of evolution is a scientifically supported statement of how the fact of evolution occurs. Lying about it does not change that.

The idea that human races (largely a social construct) descended from different types of apes is appalling and offensive.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

More creationist confusion and misinformation. Do you ever look at a science book, or just your ancient scriptures?

I'm leaving this subforum until there is some poster who I can take seriously.

Your considerable contributions to understanding will be sorely missed.

More

 

[wellwisher]

What explanation does the evolutionary doctrine give to the different human races? Does this have to do with the species of apes that populated the different regions of the earth?

In any case, in human likeness, how many different races exist among the apes that later, according to evolutionary doctrine, became the different human races?

The different races have to due with natural selection. Each of the various environments, on earth, have different selection pressures and criteria; climate, flora, fauna, topology, water supply, etc. Some people do better in the cold and others do better in the hot. The cold weather people, may require more clothes making skills; animal furs. This blocks the sun and skin pigment declines over time. While those who like the hot, will use less clothes, and will develop deeper skin pigmentation. Over time, the humans optimized for each environment, start to appear as what call, a unique race.

My theory for modern humans is what helped humans become setup for success, leading to civilization, was an alliance with dogs. Dogs were the first domesticated animal about 11,000 year ago. Humans and dogs had been allies much longer than that.

Dogs are humans' oldest companions, DNA shows

Dogs and Humans were two apex animals, during the last Ice Age, each with their own instinctive skills for hunting and adaptation. Learning to work as as a team, they both were able to learn from each other, beyond their own natural instincts. A new composite human formed; the ego secondary begins to emerge, and dogs become domesticated; symbiosis. Dogs have canine instinct, but can also learn to do jobs like humans. Domesticated dogs have want I would call a virtual ego, that can learn outside its own instincts. But without training and human interaction, dogs can become ferrel and the virtual ego will shut off.

As an example, in the ape world a large male is dominate in the ape community. But in the dog world, the leader is not always the male. In the dog world, based on fitness and team, the leader which can also be a female. Modern humans have that in common with dogs. The original modern human groups were matriarchies; 10,000 years ago, nature worshipped and mother=matter.

Inactive relationships, between species; humans and other animals, also added selective pressures. While a pack of wolves as allies would allow the humans to eat better and get more protein in their diet for brain growth. The humans could use fire which the dogs liked. They will help bring home the bacon, and the human can fry it in the pan; symbiosis. A pack of wolves are a good security force.

 

[leroy]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

Rather than a bedtime story, it seems like a Frankenstein-type horror story.

It can't be that I'm still entertaining characters who don't seem to realize the simplest things and yet believe they are aligned with "science."

I'm leaving this subforum until there is some poster who I can take seriously.

It all depends on what you mean by human, but yes at some point a non human (someone that doesn’t fit your definition of human) gave birth to a human ](someone that fits your definition of human)...........I dont see any horror story there

The problem is that for any practical purpose it is hard to draw a line between human and not human…………..as an analogy an young man will eventually become an old man………. But you can´t really draw a line and point to a specific day where that happened