Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[TagliatelliMonster]

A gorilla won't interbreed with a chimp.

Why would you expect otherwise?

Why are you talking about apes when I am talking about homo sapiens, a specific species?

Homo sapiens is a species of ape. Just like it is a species of mammal.

Don't tell me; I know.

I'm fairly certain you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you know. And why are you lying to yourself thinking that non-homo sapiens interbred with them, as if any specific ape can do that with another species?

Plenty of different species are able to interbreed.

Also, do you not know that we've managed to sequence the neanderthal genome and in so doing, we KNOW FOR A FACT that homo sapiens interbreed with them?
If you are from Europe, chances are enormous that you have neanderthal DNA. If you are from africa, you more then likely do not.

You seem completely oblivious to how much we actually know of our evolutionary ancestry from genetics alone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Misconception?

It is your misconception to think that a homo-sapiens interbred with a non-homo dapiens

That's not a misconception. That's a genetic fact.

, or that any different species stop being what it was to become a different one.

Nobody has ever said that (except creationists).
In fact, we've been going out of our way in these threads trying to explain to you folks how species in fact NEVER outgrow their ancestry.
Again: speciation is a VERTICAL process. When a species speciates, it becomes a SUB species of the parental species.
Meaning that it remains within that hierarchy.

Mammals produce more mammals and sub-species of mammals, which are still mammals.
Apes produce more apes and sub-species of apes, which are still apes.

It's not rocket science.

Not because you call humans apes it means you can invent a interbreeding among different monkeys or apes.

No. That's again just your strawman and / or willful ignorance.
This mistake of yours has been pointed out time and again. It's about time you let it go.
Not sure what it is you try to accomplish by insisting on being wrong about the theory you seem so hellbend on arguing against.

AND if there is a human with a genetic disease and you cut him both arms, and make him tattoos, and opened holes in the ears ... if he got children they wont be aliens.

I don't even know how to respond to that...
I'm just going to call it an afront to the education system.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists and others have named different species of apes when they do not resemble other known ones... They usually invent a new ape name every time they dig up a bone in a place where they had not done so before.

Actually, it was a pre-darwin creationist christian who realized that humans were in fact apes.

Imagine the scene: you suddenly find a bone while constructing a building on Mountain X, where the earth has never been excavated before. The bone looks like it's part of an ape skull, but they've never seen an ape with a bone like that before, so we have to name it. His name will be X-pithecus, because they found it on mountain X.

If they draw him, they are going to draw "him" as an ancient inhabitant of the mountain, so he will have their skin color, height, and facial features... Maybe we can put on him clothing, in the drawing, that resembles the clothing of a primitive inhabitant of the mountain. We put a spear in his hand, because there are bears on that mountain...

And we just discovered X-pithecus. The bone is 250 thousand years old, and is probably the first ape who managed to climb mountains on two feet. Not because we have verified that it is bipedal, but because the piece of skull that we found was at the top of the mountain, and there were no trees there according to the excavations that were done in the surrounding area.

We've added another ape to man's collection of human's ancestors, and the mountain community is very proud of their ape ancestors.

What is real in the whole story?

There literally is nothing real in that story.
This is not at all how the sciences of comparative anatomy or paleontology etc work.
This is just your fantasy and / or willfull ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That story is typical ... We got many of similar stories in all websites and forums where people try to support evolution.

Anyone realizes that the only thing that is real about these stories is that they found a piece of bone or something else (and perhaps not even that is real, like the famous Piltdown man)... the rest of the story is imaginary, just like the drawings they make that put a face and a body to a little piece of skull.

How far does the blind credulity of the acolytes of evolution go?

Bearing false witness seems to be your only "argument".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not matter how many mutations you add, they won't transform a species to a different one.

"no matter how many color micro-changes you add, red won't turn into blue"

Neanderthal is just a man with different racial characteristics,

Yes, neanderthal is indeed a different variation of human.

not a different species of ape.

That is in direct contradiction with the previous quote.

All story behind a bone is imaginary.

Yeah, all of paleontology and comparative anatomy is just imagination. The university course just says "just make something up and then you get an A". Yep.

There is no homo sapiens that can be dated later than human civilization reaches (that is wishful thinking and wrong dating).

But when the exact same dating mechanism dates an artefact that doesn't contradict your a priori faith based beliefs, then it's "correct dating", I bet?

If they find a deformed bone of a human in a cave, it is logical to think that the owner was not among the rest of the humans of his time for obvious reasons... not because he was a different species...

lol


Yeah, sure why not.
Hey, did you know that there is no such thing as dogs? There are only "deformed cats"

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Agreed.

Variations of traits evolved in different populations, but they are trivial and do not reflect the so-called race model.

But those variations are real. Just not significant in reinforcing cultural, racial stereotypes.

One of the degrees my youngest sister achieved was in anthropology. In one of her classes, they did a laboratory on the use of facial measurements to determine population origins for each of the students. Her measurements indicated an Asian influence in our past. Years later, this was corroborated by 23 and Me. On our mother's side of the family we are 1/4 Croat. That part of the world was a crossroads for trade and military travel. It was no surprise to me that we have Asian ancestry.

Oh neat!

 

[Polymath257]

Misconception?

It is your misconception to think that a homo-sapiens interbred with a non-homo dapiens, or that any different species stop being what it was to become a different one.

Ancient humans interbred with other subspecies of humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans. But that is closer to a labrador interbreeding with a wolf. Very close species, although different in noticeable ways.

Not because you call humans apes it means you can invent a interbreeding among different monkeys or apes.

We don't *invent* it: we look at the evidence and understand that no individual interbred with a significantly different individual. Yet larger changes happened over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

AND if there is a human with a genetic disease and you cut him both arms, and make him tattoos, and opened holes in the ears ... if he got children they wont be aliens.

We aren't talking about genetic diseases. We are talking about variants that are healthy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Misconception?

It is your misconception to think that a homo-sapiens interbred with a non-homo dapiens,

Okay, now you're just making stuff up.

No, that's not something I have ever said, nor is it necessarily anything to do with how evolution actually works.

Are you operating on the assumption that evolution requires cross-species breeding?

or that any different species stop being what it was to become a different one.

I've explained this three times already. They never stop producing what they are, BUT THEY PRODUCE VARIATIONS OF WHAT THEY ARE. Everything that lives is a VARIATION of what came before it.

Not because you call humans apes it means you can invent a interbreeding among different monkeys or apes.

You seem very confused by this concept, so I will attempt to explain it in a way that children can understand:

Both you and your cousin are very different. But you and your cousin both have the same grandparents. You are both descended from the same group of people, even though you and your cousin have marked differences. Do you understand?

AND if there is a human with a genetic disease and you cut him both arms, and make him tattoos, and opened holes in the ears ... if he got children they wont be aliens.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[metis]

Again: Genetic variations and mutations are the same.

No, they are not. Accumulated mutations led to variations.

Mutations (or genetic variations) follow laws.

Only to a very limited extent. Basically, mutations are unpredictable as to when they will occur and what the phenotype will be.

A leaf tailed gecko was never a leaf.

Who said it was?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What explanation does the evolutionary doctrine give to the different human races?

Science has pretty much proven that separate races do not exist. There are ethnicities, which are social constructs, not biological categories. But not races. Now there are many people who do use the word "race" when they really should be saying "ethnicity" so you have to be very careful to listen for what they actually mean.

On the other hand, racism is a very very real thing. All groups have some people in them who are racist, due to the fact that our biology drives us to divide people into "us" and "them." In the past, racists have tried to commandeer science to prove their nonsense; this ideology is known as scientific racism. But honestly, there is nothing scientific about it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, higher apes do have races like humans have?

Neither humans nor apes have races. However, there are different SPECIES. Like the eastern gorilla, orangutan, bonobo...

 

[anotherneil]

... the doctrine that a few pairs of African apes gave birth to a few humans who met and then formed their own tribe, and later dispersed around the world, abandoning their birthplace and giving rise to the different races (or human tribes) that we see today.

Humans are apes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Anything that you would (hopefully) call an ape existed before Homo sapiens did.

Humans are part of the family "hominidae," aka the Great Apes.

We did not evolve from any of the other apes that exist today. Rather, we and those apes share a common ancestor. "And many researchers have thought that a large-bodied, 18-million-year-old ape called Proconsul from Kenya offered the best model for the ancestor of all apes." https://www.science.org/content/article/mother-all-apes-including-humans-may-have-been-surprisingly-small#:~:text=And many researchers have thought,the ancestor of all apes.

Here is a picture of Proconsul from Kenya.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Proconsul_africanus.jpg/330px-Proconsul_africanus.jpg

I you go back further, you will find the ancestor of all primates, which include apes, monkeys, lemurs, and tamarins.

If you go back all the way to the beginning you will find the ancestor of all life, which would be microbes.

 

[Valjean]

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?

No. We're all the same species, genomically very close. The visible differences we use to determine race are fairly recent. minor variations,

...and when did evolution become a doctrine?

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?

Race is largely a human construct. What demographic is assigned to what race is pretty arbitrary.
There are regional variations amongst other plants and animals that might be called races, or subspecies, or species... depending on who you ask.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

... the doctrine that a few pairs of African apes gave birth to a few humans who met and then formed their own tribe, and later dispersed around the world, abandoning their birthplace and giving rise to the different races (or human tribes) that we see today.

What the heck are you talking about? I don't know of anyone who thinks this.

You appear to be incredibly ignorant of basic evolution. I recommend you go to Amazon and order a good book on the subject. Or if you want a very short summary, last year I created this post: Evolution: the basics

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

At any rate, it's simply a natural neutral force and is incapable of being biased, or thinking, or reasoning, or feeling.

 

[sayak83]

That story is typical ... We got many of similar stories in all websites and forums where people try to support evolution.

Anyone realizes that the only thing that is real about these stories is that they found a piece of bone or something else (and perhaps not even that is real, like the famous Piltdown man)... the rest of the story is imaginary, just like the drawings they make that put a face and a body to a little piece of skull.

How far does the blind credulity of the acolytes of evolution go?

Thanks for providing us with this fascinating insight into your state of denial. I would encourage you to fully explore and expand this rabbit hole. Soon it should go into "reality is just imaginary, it's just flickers and sensations in my head". Full speed ahead man.

 

[Valjean]

Thanks for providing us with this fascinating insight into your state of denial. I would encourage you to fully explore and expand this rabbit hole. Soon it should go into "reality is just imaginary, it's just flickers and sensations in my head". Full speed ahead man.

She doesn't seem to know what science knows or how it knows it. He's making a claim about something he appears entirely ignorant of.

 

[Valjean]

What is the difference between a Homo Sapiens and a Neanderthal?

None...just the name.

Stop it Eli. They are not the same thing. We have abundant fossil evidence of both, as well as genetic evidence.

Not matter how many mutations you add, they won't transform a species to a different one.

Why not? We've seen it happen.
What prevents small variations from accumulating into big ones? Do they know when to stop, somehow?

There are creatures now that didn't exist ten million years ago, and creatures from 20 million years ago that didn't exist 10M years ago, &c, &c. Where are they all coming from? Are they just popping into existence fully formed and scampering off to to their thing? How?

Neanderthal is just a man with different racial characteristics, not a different species of ape.

Obviously you know nothing about the class characteristics of either. Please learn a bit about the subjects you're discussing.

All story behind a bone is imaginary.

So they're imaginary bones with imaginary anatomy?

There is no homo sapiens that can be dated later than human civilization reaches (that is wishful thinking and wrong dating). If they find a deformed bone of a human in a cave, it is logical to think that the owner was not among the rest of the humans of his time for obvious reasons... not because he was a different species...

Dated later, or earlier? We're H. sapiens from later than the advent of civilization.

We're not talking about a single deformed specimen. We have lots of individuals from different times and places, all with distinctive anatomical features.
Do you think the various sciences are just making this stuff up??