Isn't this cute?

[Valjean]

So do all the 400,000 species of beetles belong to the same kind? And if so, do all the 6,400 species of mammals belong to the same kind? In our evolution over the last 65 million years, we have remained mammals and primates, so there has been no vertical change, that is no change of kind.

I recommend The Beetles' Anthology, for a comprehensive overview.

 

[David Davidovich]

New depictions of ancient hominids aim to overcome artistic biases | Science News

I don't understand, @YoursTrue. They look very similar to me.

 

[David Davidovich]

Unfortunately, that's the thing that horror movies are made out of.

But some humans look like that, @YoursTrue, therefore, I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[David Davidovich]

You don't find them attractive? Why do you think the renditions look like that? Again regarding bias, these two images do look like things from a horror movie. Rarely does a freak character look like the supposed Prince Charming. However, while we're on the subject, some astute observers recognize the racial characteristics concerning the depiction of supposedly evolved humans. From chimpanzee-looking sorts as they supposedly straighten up. . .

So, what are you saying, @YoursTrue?

 

[David Davidovich]

YoursTrue said:
Looking up a few things about evolution and racism, I was a little surprised to read the following:
"When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population. Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’.
She was a hardcore racist, but this is not publicized by Planned Parenthood today."

When I was in high school I was not a real believer in God, I didn't study the Bible or know that much about it. But I did not like war and I ingenuously asked my American history teacher (I was an 'honor student,' by the way) why people go to war. And he said one reason was to, "reduce the population." Little did I know that was a rather popular belief among those like Margaret Sanger. I was astounded and saddened to hear him say that--I liked and respected my teacher--but I had no Bible trained belief at the time so just heard that excuse (reason) in some dismay without recourse.
Does A Belief In Evolution Lead To Racism? – The Truth (thetruthwins.com)

What has this anything to do with the subject at hand?

Plus, there is absolutely no link between belief in evolution and racism if only because racism, even "scientific racism" far predates the publishing of Darwin's theory of evolution let alone modern synthesis. Today, most racist people subscribe to some pseudoscientific beliefs about biology and race usually referred to by sociologists as "folk biology" when they even have some sort of pseudoscientific foundations to support their beliefs and attitudes. Most often, its not even the case and racism just comes from a sense of fear and lack of education.

I don't mean this as an attack or a disparaging remark, but it kind of sounds like a religious fundamentalist's way of combating the phenotypical features that they actually see and don't like.

 

[metis]

I recommend The Beetles' Anthology, for a comprehensive overview.

And one can access this as well: Evolution of insects - Wikipedia

 

[Astrophile]

Vertical? Change of kind?
What?

I was following Wildswanderer's argument, where he said,

Authors should be more precise when they—using a qualification—inform the reader of any assumed vertical change (when one kind of living thing is changed into another kind, as Darwinian evolutionists believe has happened regularly throughout life’s history, yet has not been shown).

and was trying to understand what he meant by saying 'when one kind of living thing is changed into another kind'. Since he appeared to regard the ~400,000 species of beetles as a single kind, I proposed that the 6.400 species of mammals should also be regarded as a single kind, and therefore our evolution during the last ~65 million years did not involve changing one kind into another.

 

[Audie]

I was following Wildswanderer's argument, where he said,

and was trying to understand what he meant by saying 'when one kind of living thing is changed into another kind'. Since he appeared to regard the ~400,000 species of beetles as a single kind, I proposed that the 6.400 species of mammals should also be regarded as a single kind, and therefore our evolution during the last ~65 million years did not involve changing one kind into another.

Creationist with their strange made up ideas about evolution actually know less than nothing.

 

[David Davidovich]

I don't mean this as an attack or a disparaging remark, but it kind of sounds like a religious fundamentalist's way of combating the phenotypical features that they actually see and don't like.

I want to make a correction. Because decades ago, I studied with the Jehovah's Witnesses and attended their meetings and assemblies and there were various looking kinds of people who attended. However, there were some people that I thought were very unattractive, but in no way, shape, or form did I dislike them because I viewed them all all as Jehovah's Witnesses, i.e. as God's children who all came from Adam and Eve. And in my mind, I rationalized that the various ways that people looked was because of God's will because of the genetic variability that he put into Adam and Eve's genes. However, that doesn't mean that I didn't think that some people who were Jehovah's Witnesses were ugly, nor did it mean that I did not like the way they looked.

And even going back further back than that when I was in high school, most people that I knew had a Christian background and therefore, believed in the Adam and Eve/Genesis creation story. However, at the same time, if my friends and I saw an especially ugly person walking by or whatever, we would joke among ourselves by saying something like, 'He or she kind of makes you think twice about evolution.' Therefore, for @YoursTrue to say that she has never seen any humans that are ugly enough to resemble apes and that ape-like reconstructive images of our evolutionary ancestors are so hideous, then she is not being honest about our reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

Creationist with their strange made up ideas about evolution actually know less than nothing.

Is it possible that those with concepts like yours actually know less than nothing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it possible that those with concepts like yours actually know less than nothing?

No, we can demonstrate our knowledge. It is supported by evidence. You have to keep yourself from understanding what evidence is in the first place. You deny knowledge to yourself.