Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Saying that they differ does not make it so. You will not find a trait shared by all of the other apes that you do not have yourself Amounts do not count. You probably have just as many hairs as a chimpanzee. Theirs are merely longer and thicker than what you have.

And I can argue that humans are conscious of the similarity of men and other apes. That is shown by how people disparage others racially. You will find that cultures often compare their enemies and rivals to apes and monkeys. They do not compare them to giraffes or lions. It is apes and monkeys more than anything else. The one thing that the other apes lack compared to humans is intelligence. That is why you probably feel insulted when it is point out that you are an ape. You instinctively feel that people are insulting your intelligence when they are merely pointing out what biological category that you are in.

 

[GoodAttention]

Saying that they differ does not make it so. You will not find a trait shared by all of the other apes that you do not have yourself Amounts do not count. You probably have just as many hairs as a chimpanzee. Theirs are merely longer and thicker than what you have.

And I can argue that humans are conscious of the similarity of men and other apes. That is shown by how people disparage others racially. You will find that cultures often compare their enemies and rivals to apes and monkeys. They do not compare them to giraffes or lions. It is apes and monkeys more than anything else. The one thing that the other apes lack compared to humans is intelligence. That is why you probably feel insulted when it is point out that you are an ape. You instinctively feel that people are insulting your intelligence when they are merely pointing out what biological category that you are in.

I think it’s the conclusion that Jesus was therefore God in the monkey-flesh that is insulting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it’s the conclusion that Jesus was therefore God in the monkey-flesh that is insulting.

Why would that be insulting? Humans are not that far above our fellow monkeys. By the way, we are "monkeys" too. That is just a fact. It is not an insult.

 

[metis]

We instinctively understand (as humans are the only ones who are conscious of reality), that humans and apes are fundamentally different.

As an anthropologist who has studied ape behavior, you are categorically wrong. Generally speaking, our behavior in general is very much shared with especially the great apes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We instinctively understand

Please speak only for yourself.

(as humans are the only ones who are conscious of reality),

This idea was never universally held, and has pretty much been tossed out by scientists today. It seems like every new study that comes out only reaffirms just how conscious of reality other species can be.

that humans and apes are fundamentally different. They differ in anatomy, genetics, intellect, and in countless other ways.

The differences between humans and other great apes are relatively minor. The others are hairier. Their females only have big boobs when nursing. You get the idea. But MOSTLY we are similar: backbones, four limbs, opposable thumbs, lost our tails, nurse our young, grow hair... Other great apes have culture just like we have culture, although this capacity is more advanced among humans. Other great apes have language just like we have language (albeit less developed). We all use tools, although a rocket ship is more sophisticated than a tool kit for catching termites. We think of ourselves as smarter, but there are some ways others apes show greater intelligence, such as the far superior short term memory in chimps. We all show self awareness and theory of mind. The building blocks of morality (empathy and fairness) are understood by other great apes. We can even find religious behaviors in other ape species.

IOW, if I could sum it, the differences seem to be only those of degree, not quality.

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.

Again with the unconscious thing. That's gotta go, dude. All the evidence is against this. The good old days when people assumed animals didn't have awareness or thoughts or feelings are just gone with the wind.

 

[ppp]

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.

You just have incorrect beliefs about what an ape is, and are attempting to legitimize those poorly considered convictions with a the false veneer of "instinctive understanding". You are an ape.

 

[Valjean]

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.

I'm not sure our assessments of fundamental differences are instinctive at all, considering the wide variety of relationship hierarchies found in different cultures. Instincts are universal.

How "fundamentally different" is different -- or significant? What makes one feature a fundament (foundation) and another not?
I'm different from my brother, and from my neighbor, and my cat, and the lizard in the back yard, or the cricket it had for breakfast. At what point does the difference become fundamental?

Humans have more in common with other apes than they do with any other 'kind' of animal. Yes, there are differences, just as there are differences between my brother and me.
"Ape" has a specific biological description or definition. Humans fall within the parameters of that definition. Dows that not make us apes? Is a thing not its definition?

Taxonomic classification is based on relationship -- brothers and sisters, cousins, parents and grandparents. Follow a human's and a chimp's family trees back far enough and you'll see them converge.

 

[Valjean]

I think it’s the conclusion that Jesus was therefore God in the monkey-flesh that is insulting.

Why? Wasn't He supposedly fully God and fully human?
His flesh was ordinary man-flesh; fully mammalian.

Are monkeys or apes lesser creations?

 

[GoodAttention]

Why? Wasn't He supposedly fully God and fully human?
His flesh was ordinary man-flesh; fully mammalian.

Are monkeys or apes lesser creations?

I was considering how a Christian could think, so to answer your question I believe is yes, monkeys and apes would be lesser creations.

 

[Valjean]

Eli G said
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.

They are not "very different". There are more similarities than differences, compared with all other animals. Both are fully conscious.

You posit a status hierarchy: "the other is far superior." What's that superiority based on? Religion? Speciesism? Arrogance? Insecurity?
Is intelligence the epitome of status? Why is superiority always based on the characteristic you are most proud of?

 

[Eli G]

...Taxonomic classification is based on relationship -- brothers and sisters, cousins, parents and grandparents. Follow a human's and a chimp's family trees back far enough and you'll see them converge.

"Relationship"??? On what foundation is the family tree of animals built to suggest any genuine link between different species? Sisters, cousins, really?

What solid proof exists that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor? There is no concrete evidence; these claims are merely speculative and often contradict established facts, yet they are promoted as truths that should be accepted without questioning, by faith.

At least, there are some who have the decency to admit that they only believe in this "theory" because they have no other alternative that seems more "credible" to them and not because they think is been really demonstrated. The confusion, or even the shamelessness of some, is to continue insisting that the evolution of species is based on direct facts.

Beliefs on such transcendental matters as the true origin of humans and the purpose of life are not issues that should be accepted as truths because some people defend them with all the passion in the world. These issues are not resolved apologetically or by forcing others to accept them, but through conscientious and honest reasoning... something that many proponents of that theory lack.

PS: Who doesn't know the differences between animals and human beings? Com'on, stop wasting so much time on nonsense.

 

[Pogo]

"Relationship"??? On what foundation is the family tree of animals built to suggest any genuine link between different species? Sisters, cousins, really?

What solid proof exists that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor? There is no concrete evidence; these claims are merely speculative and often contradict established facts, yet they are promoted as truths that should be accepted without questioning, by faith.

At least, there are some who have the decency to admit that they only believe in this "theory" because they have no other alternative that seems more "credible" to them and not because they think is been really demonstrated. The confusion, or even the shamelessness of some, is to continue insisting that the evolution of species is based on direct facts.

Beliefs on such transcendental matters as the true origin of humans and the purpose of life are not issues that should be accepted as truths because some people defend them with all the passion in the world. These issues are not resolved apologetically or by forcing others to accept them, but through conscientious and honest reasoning... something that many proponents of that theory lack.

PS: Who doesn't know the differences between animals and human beings? Com'on, stop wasting so much time on nonsense.

You realize your post is just projection by the person who has some "belief in such transcendental matters" You have no evidence for your claims and are reduced to denying the obvious facts of ancestry. To your claim of no relationship, the evidence is of the same quality that is used in determining paternity. It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt though you are welcome to your unreasonable doubts supported only by your denial.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Relationship"??? On what foundation is the family tree of animals built to suggest any genuine link between different species? Sisters, cousins, really?

Originally? Shared features. Today? Genetics.

You know how in a court of law, they can do DNA testing and have the results used in court? You know how you can do a DNA test to prove paternity? You know how a DNA test can give you your ancestral background? That same DNA testing is exactly what shows how closely two beings are related, and how long ago their common ancestor lived. Whether it is two people on ancestry.com or two species, the science is identical.

Now, if you want to just throw out the entire field of genetics, if you want to say, "That's all hogwash!" then yeah, I suppose you can cling to the idea different species don't have common ancestors.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Relationship"??? On what foundation is the family tree of animals built to suggest any genuine link between different species? Sisters, cousins, really?

What solid proof exists that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor? There is no concrete evidence; these claims are merely speculative and often contradict established facts, yet they are promoted as truths that should be accepted without questioning, by faith.

At least, there are some who have the decency to admit that they only believe in this "theory" because they have no other alternative that seems more "credible" to them and not because they think is been really demonstrated. The confusion, or even the shamelessness of some, is to continue insisting that the evolution of species is based on direct facts.

Beliefs on such transcendental matters as the true origin of humans and the purpose of life are not issues that should be accepted as truths because some people defend them with all the passion in the world. These issues are not resolved apologetically or by forcing others to accept them, but through conscientious and honest reasoning... something that many proponents of that theory lack.

PS: Who doesn't know the differences between animals and human beings? Com'on, stop wasting so much time on nonsense.

Carry on if you like but you are only preaching to the ill-informed, those without sufficient education, those fixated on alternative beliefs, or any mix of these. You are the one wasting time, and fortunately it is your time you are wasting - and probably will do so for the rest of your life - being unable to admit you might be wrong and that science just does not get things like this so wrong as you seem to believe.

 

[Eli G]

It's quite frequent for evolutionists to speculate a connection between two different species, only for it to be later disproven.

Clearly, these supposed links are merely hypothetical assumptions that can never be confirmed, as they don't occur in reality.

Those kinds of family connections only exist in the evolutionist popular imagination, like myths.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's quite frequent for evolutionists to speculate a connection between two different species, only for it to be later disproven.

This is better than the religious approach, which is at best
not even disprovable, ie, beliefs that aren't testable.
And at worst, utterly ridiculous, eg, creation, living
inside a whale. (All IMO.)

 

[John53]

It's quite frequent for evolutionists to speculate a connection between two different species, only for it to be later disproven.

Examples?

 

[Valjean]

"Relationship"??? On what foundation is the family tree of animals built to suggest any genuine link between different species? Sisters, cousins, really?

What solid proof exists that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor? There is no concrete evidence; these claims are merely speculative and often contradict established facts, yet they are promoted as truths that should be accepted without questioning, by faith.

Anatomy, physiology, and the fossil and genetic sequences evidence the lines of descent. The mechanisms involve are clear and observable.
These claims are not merely speculative. They're reasonable and evidence-based. There is as much confirmatory evidence as there is for the heliocentric or germ theories.

At least, there are some who have the decency to admit that they only believe in this "theory" because they have no other alternative that seems more "credible" to them and not because they think is been really demonstrated. The confusion, or even the shamelessness of some, is to continue insisting that the evolution of species is based on direct facts.

The level of confidence required to qualify as scientific "theory" is immense. In science, 'theory' denotes the apex of confidence.
Evolution has been demonstrated. It's commonsense and productive.
Belief in evolution is evidence-based, the fact that the alternative is magic is incidental.

Beliefs on such transcendental matters as the true origin of humans and the purpose of life are not issues that should be accepted as truths because some people defend them with all the passion in the world. These issues are not resolved apologetically or by forcing others to accept them, but through conscientious and honest reasoning... something that many proponents of that theory lack.

The true origin of humans is not a transcendental matter. It's a matter of concrete fact. It's within the purview of science.
Purpose? That's irrelevant to the question. Purpose is a human invention. I assume it was brought up as a motive of a proposed intentional creator.

PS: Who doesn't know the differences between animals and human beings? Com'on, stop wasting so much time on nonsense.

Do you know what an animal is? Do humans not fall within the biological definition of "animal?"
How do you define "human" that excludes animal? Does it rest on religious mythology?

 

[Valjean]

It's quite frequent for evolutionists to speculate a connection between two different species, only for it to be later disproven.

Clearly, these supposed links are merely hypothetical assumptions that can never be confirmed, as they don't occur in reality.

Those kinds of family connections only exist in the evolutionist popular imagination, like myths.

A disproven speculation???
Yes, speculation awaits facts. When the requisite facts emerge, the relationship is clarified.

Biology is an active field. New facts are always emerging. Sometimes they indicate unexpected relationships.
Science seeks and follows facts. Its understanding of reality is derived from these facts. It's unlike religion, whose understanding of reality is based on myth, and to whom evidenced facts can be an impediment.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's quite frequent for evolutionists to speculate a connection between two different species, only for it to be later disproven.

This has happened so rarely that it astounds me you even think it a point worth mentioning.

Before we had genetics, scientists had only anatomical similarities to use as evidence of relatedness. Now we have the science of genetics, which is infinitely superior. In a few extremely rare cases, there have incidents of convergent evolution. That means that two unrelated species develop a similar trait, because that trait became adaptive in two very different places. Subsequent genetic analysis ruled out relatedness.

But frequent? No. that's only in your imagination.