Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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)

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

You refuted yourself in the second paragraph. There is no reasonable definition of human that would apply to a child but not its parent for the reason given. Human is a vague predicate. You'd need a definition in which a single mutation across a generation allows a nonhuman parent to have a human offspring, and you can't do that.

The sorites paradox examines this. With which loss of a single hair did a man become bald? At what minute did his beard become a beard? At which moment did the first light of dawn appear this morning? None of these can be answered precisely because we don't have definitions of any of these things that are that so precise that we can identify exactly when the transformation occurred.

 

[leroy]

You refuted yourself in the second paragraph. There is no reasonable definition of human that would apply to a child but not its parent for the reason given. Human is a vague predicate. You'd need a definition in which a single mutation across a generation allows a nonhuman parent to have a human offspring, and you can't do that.

The sorites paradox examines this. With which loss of a single hair did a man become bald? At what minute did his beard become a beard? At which moment did the first light of dawn appear this morning? None of these can be answered precisely because we don't have definitions of any of these things that are that so precise that we can identify exactly when the transformation occurred.

I agree, that is why I started my comment with “it depends on how you personally define human”…………..implying that there is not a *correct* universal definition



but no disagreement, i agree with your words
"There is no reasonable definition of human that would apply to a child but not its parent for the reason given. Human is a vague predicate. You'd need a definition in which a single mutation across a generation allows a nonhuman parent to have a human offspring, and you can't do that.

The sorites paradox examines this. With which loss of a single hair did a man become bald? At what minute did his beard become a beard? At which moment did the first light of dawn appear this morning? None of these can be answered precisely because we don't have definitions of any of these things that are that so precise that we can identify exactly when the transformation occurred."

 

[Kathryn]

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?

I am extremely "white" and I have 88 percent more Neanderthal DNA than other people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am extremely "white" and I have 88 percent more Neanderthal DNA than other people.

From my understanding the two tend to go together. Neanderthals lived largely in Europe if I remember correctly so people of European descent will have more Neanderthal genes than African or Asian people do. Just as those that have Denisovan genes in them tend to be eastern Asian.

 

[metis]

I am extremely "white" and I have 88 percent more Neanderthal DNA than other people.

Same with my Sicilian wife who has 3% Neanderthal d.n.a.