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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

This is false, actually.

As false as it is to say that at some point in history someone who didn't speak "spanish" raised a child that grew up to speak "spanish".
Every individual ever born was of the same species as its biological parents.

In a gradual process like evolution, there is no "first human" and thus no such thing as a non-human giving birth to a human - by any definition of the word "human"

The problem is that for any practical purpose it is hard to draw a line between human and not human

Not just "hard". Rather impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

In fact I learned just a few days ago, but after I posted this, that there were apparently even earlier human exoduses from Africa that may not have been successful. How do we know? It is because an analysis of they Neanderthal Y-chromosome is a human Y-Chromosome and not a Neanderthal one. Denisovans and Neanderthals were more closely related to each other than they are to us. The exception of the Y-chromosome indicates that even earlier humans interbred with Neanderthals but replaced their Y chromosomes:

The mystery of the disappearing Neanderthal Y chromosome

Non-Africans carry around 2% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes — yet there's one chromosome where DNA from our ancient cousins is nowhere to be found.

www.livescience.com

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb6460

 

[Eli G]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called different species of hominids... just labels.

I've come across anthropologists who argue that these groups are essentially the same species, compatible with modern humans. If a Neanderthal or Denisovan were alive today, they could certainly reproduce with modern humans. I struggle to see the objective difference applied to individuals labeled with these terms.

If we had complete DNA profiles for modern humans, wouldn't we find as many variations as those between Neanderthals and Denisovans? Wouldn't this suggest that these "different species" are merely variations within the same family, much like how a pygmy and a Dinka are both human despite their differing statures?

 

[Valjean]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called different species of hominids... just labels.

I've come across anthropologists who argue that these groups are essentially the same species, compatible with modern humans. If a Neanderthal or Denisovan were alive today, they could certainly reproduce with modern humans. I struggle to see the objective difference applied to individuals labeled with these terms.

Species, genus, family, &c are just hierarchical designations of wider or narrower categories. What features designate which category is arbitrary. The designations are conveniences; hierarchy designations.
If you want to visualize actual relationships look at a cladogram.

If we had complete DNA profiles for modern humans, wouldn't we find as many variations as those between Neanderthals and Denisovans? Wouldn't this suggest that these "different species" are merely variations within the same family, much like how a pygmy and a Dinka are both human despite their differing statures?

The category designations are just conveniences, like great grandparent, 1st cousin, or second cousin once removed.
The terms denote different variants, all of which may also be subsumed under "human."

 

[Eli G]

The category designations are just conveniences, like great grandparent, 1st cousin, or second cousin once removed.
The terms denote different variants, all of which may also be subsumed under "human."

So it is evident that humans have always been humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called different species of hominids... just labels.

I've come across anthropologists who argue that these groups are essentially the same species, compatible with modern humans. If a Neanderthal or Denisovan were alive today, they could certainly reproduce with modern humans. I struggle to see the objective difference applied to individuals labeled with these terms.

If we had complete DNA profiles for modern humans, wouldn't we find as many variations as those between Neanderthals and Denisovans? Wouldn't this suggest that these "different species" are merely variations within the same family, much like how a pygmy and a Dinka are both human despite their differing statures?

Geneticists have sampled quite a few humans. They can plot out those values. They tend to fit within a specific curve. They of course have not sampled as many Neanderthals or Denisovans, but they have more than enough to show that they are a very distinct group.

Remember, "species" is a human invention. The concept is not perfect because nature does not follow it. But even worse is the term "knd" which creationists cannot come close to defining properly.

The differences have been know of for quite some time. An easier comparison is done with mitochondrial DNA since the genome of that is far smaller. But even so we can see on this graph how much variation there is in the human mitochondrial genome, and the Neanderthal and Chimp one:

Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it is evident that humans have always been humans.

No, that is as "evident" as saying that Spanish speakers have always been Spanish speakers. If you were in present day Spain and could go back in time eventually you would get to the point where a native would say "I do not know what language that is, but it is not Spanish".


You appear to be misinterpreting data on purpose. That is not every convincing at all.

 

[Eli G]

Comparing the development of a language to human anatomy is ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Comparing the development of a language to human anatomy is ridiculous.

Why? It is a very good analogy. There was no "first human'. And there was not "first Spanish speaker". Show me what is wrong with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called different species of hominids... just labels.

Lions, tigers,... and other so-called different species of felines... just labels.

If we had complete DNA profiles for modern humans, wouldn't we find as many variations as those between Neanderthals and Denisovans? Wouldn't this suggest that these "different species" are merely variations within the same family, much like how a pygmy and a Dinka are both human despite their differing statures?

We have sequenced the genome of Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis, and we can tell the difference.
To the point that we can detect Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.

So no, you're wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Comparing the development of a language to human anatomy is ridiculous.

It is only ridiculous to the willfully ignorant who refuse to understand how small changes over generations accumulate over time into big changes over many generations.

 

[metis]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called different species of hominids... just labels.

I've come across anthropologists who argue that these groups are essentially the same species, compatible with modern humans. If a Neanderthal or Denisovan were alive today, they could certainly reproduce with modern humans. I struggle to see the objective difference applied to individuals labeled with these terms.

If we had complete DNA profiles for modern humans, wouldn't we find as many variations as those between Neanderthals and Denisovans? Wouldn't this suggest that these "different species" are merely variations within the same family, much like how a pygmy and a Dinka are both human despite their differing statures?

Yes, as in some cases two kinds may be labeled as being od different species even if they can reproduce. Thus, some have used this label: Homo neanderthalensis and some have used this label Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Currently, I don't know which is more commonly used amongst anthropologists. I guess I better look it up using a new source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, as in some cases two kinds may be labeled as being od different species even if they can reproduce. Thus, some have used this label: Homo neanderthalensis and some have used this label Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Currently, I don't know which is more commonly used amongst anthropologists. I guess I better look it up using a new source.

Speciation is also a gradual process. It begins every time that two populations are separated. But if there is regular interbreeding it may not advance very far and the two populations can become one again. Or one of the two populations can die out. We saw that with both Neanderthals and Denisovans. Speciation was never complete. There is a progression in relatedness. If I was a totally amoral scientist I might be able to bring a human chimp hybrid to term using artificial fertilization. Perhaps an in vitro start would make it possible. Humsters show that it would be possible to at least fertilize an ovary:

Humster - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[gnostic]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other so-called different species of hominids... just labels.

I've come across anthropologists who argue that these groups are essentially the same species, compatible with modern humans. If a Neanderthal or Denisovan were alive today, they could certainly reproduce with modern humans. I struggle to see the objective difference applied to individuals labeled with these terms.

If we had complete DNA profiles for modern humans, wouldn't we find as many variations as those between Neanderthals and Denisovans? Wouldn't this suggest that these "different species" are merely variations within the same family, much like how a pygmy and a Dinka are both human despite their differing statures?

Biology have define “human” with the taxonomic classification genus as “Homo”.

Within the genus Homo, are numbers of Homo species or human species, many of them are more “archaic” humans than that of the Homo sapiens, eg Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc. As far as biologists are concerned, these are all species of the genus Homo, therefore they are all humans.

What are of interest to us, the Homo heidelbergensis is most likely the ancestor species to the Neanderthals, Denisovans & the Homo sapiens.

There are trace evidence that some modern humans have mitochondrial DNA that belonged to the Denisovans, while in nuclear DNA some trace evidence existed that traced it back to the Neanderthals. There are fossil evidence of the Denisovans from the Denisova Cave, located in Siberia, Russia, in the Altai mountains, the same cave where there are also some Neanderthal fossils.

The Homo heidelbergensis is either having evolved from the Homo erectus, or it is Homo erectus that inhabited Europe. The Homo erectus itself can also be described as those species that left Africa, migrating to Europe and to Asia, while the Homo ergaster or the African Homo erectus, remained in Africa.

 

[Eli G]

We instinctively understand (as humans are the only ones who are conscious of reality), that humans and apes are fundamentally different. They differ in anatomy, genetics, intellect, and in countless other ways.

Stop the exaggeration; even if an academic chooses to classify humans and apes together for didactic purposes, it doesn't alter reality at all: both are very different, one is an unconscious animal and the other is far superior, an intelligent conscious being... Even a child can perceive that.