If man evolved from monkeys,.....

[Kenny]

"Develop" is a tricky word to apply here. To me it suggests that there's a common goal.
The only goal is really the unintended expansion where successful. If resistance to
sunlight is the goal, then Australian aboriginals are more "developed". If resistance
to less sunlight but more cold is the goal, then northern folk are more "developed".
But things are changing with intermingling.

Hmmm... no intermingling, Australia is completely separated from the rest of the world. It looks like you are saying evolutionary pressures changes the EXCEPT when it deals with the line of homo sapiens AFTER the common ancestor separated in different continents... which doesn't follow what you have said to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmmm... no intermingling, Australia is completely separated from the rest of the world. It looks like you are saying evolutionary pressures changes the EXCEPT when it deals with the line of homo sapiens AFTER the common ancestor separated in different continents... which doesn't follow what you have said to me.

I know Americstanians who emigrated to Australiastan.
And I suspect they're breeding.
Homo sapiens are subject to evolutionary forces,
but we ourselves are creating some of new forces.
Technology does make us different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So antibiotic resistance within some strains of bacteria is racist?

Following what I can gather, that odd claim would be a logical next step. Where would it end? Individual variation could then be considered a form of racism. Maybe? I am obviously not clear on the details. I cannot get around the idea that conditions that we have no control over are being classed as something that requires direct action in order to exist.

 

[Kenny]

But none of this is racism. I get the impression that natural selection is being equated to eugenics or something like that and that is not the case.

On the contrary... it IS racism...

“In earlier periods, one of the few persistent barriers to social Darwinist theory in Australia was the Christian doctrine that all human beings were of ‘one blood.’”
Cruickshank, J., Darwin, race and religion in Australia, ABC Religion and Ethics, abc.net.au, 11 Apr 2011, accessed 13 April 2011

"Along with museum curators from around the world, some of the top names in British science were involved in this large-scale grave-robbing trade. These included anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith, and Charles Darwin himself. Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four full-blooded native Tasmanians were left alive.

American evolutionists, too, were strongly involved in this flourishing ‘industry’ of gathering specimens of ‘sub-humans’ The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various groups of people."
Monaghan, D., The body-snatchers, The Bulletin, 12 November 1991, pp. 30–38

It IS racist because it declares that some STRAINS of homo sapiens would develop differently because of the environmental forces.

 

[Kenny]

So antibiotic resistance within some strains of bacteria is racist?

Are there not SUPER RESISTANT strains because of evolution of environmental pressures? So... are there SUPER races over others? You are only supporting my position. A racist position that I also I reject completely when proposed that we are a monkey's uncle.

I love how evolutionists dance around the reality of what they propose.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmmm... no intermingling, Australia is completely separated from the rest of the world. It looks like you are saying evolutionary pressures changes the EXCEPT when it deals with the line of homo sapiens AFTER the common ancestor separated in different continents... which doesn't follow what you have said to me.

But Australia currently contains a population with origins from Asia, Europe and the Pacific Islands. I assume you mean aboriginal Australians exclusively. They are no more responsible for the biological response of their population to the environment than you or I are.

I am still not seeing a connection to racism unless you are suggesting that there are active programs to eliminate populations based on trivial and superficial differences that in no way relate to ones quality as a human being.

Are you talking about the twisted way in which some individuals have misused and misinterpreted some of the science to their own biased ends? That is not an aspect of the science and does not have anything to do with common ancestry except as an excuse for horrible behavior and stupidity. Are you blaming biological realities that we have no control over and do not say that one group is better than another as people for bad learned behavior?

 

[Kenny]

Are you sure that you went through this at some point before?
.

Yes, I did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

On the contrary... it IS racism...
View attachment 26741
“In earlier periods, one of the few persistent barriers to social Darwinist theory in Australia was the Christian doctrine that all human beings were of ‘one blood.’”
Cruickshank, J., Darwin, race and religion in Australia, ABC Religion and Ethics, abc.net.au, 11 Apr 2011, accessed 13 April 2011

"Along with museum curators from around the world, some of the top names in British science were involved in this large-scale grave-robbing trade. These included anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith, and Charles Darwin himself. Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four full-blooded native Tasmanians were left alive.

American evolutionists, too, were strongly involved in this flourishing ‘industry’ of gathering specimens of ‘sub-humans’ The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various groups of people."
Monaghan, D., The body-snatchers, The Bulletin, 12 November 1991, pp. 30–38

It IS racist because it declares that some STRAINS of homo sapiens would develop differently because of the environmental forces.

That is racist people and not the result of a natural feature of biology. You are confusing bad human behavior for an aspect of evolution. What you describe is the results of racist upbringing and very poor use of scientific knowledge to achieve something that the information does not indicate.

 

[Kenny]

I assume you mean aboriginal Australians exclusively

Obviously.

 

[Kenny]

That is racist people and not the result of a natural feature of biology. You are confusing bad human behavior for an aspect of evolution. What you describe is the results of racist upbringing and very poor use of scientific knowledge to achieve something that the information does not indicate.

Hmmmm... you just ignored what science was saying that CAUSED the bad human behavior. The principles that I applied are those you are suggesting to me.

Yes, we can still take care of apes (a sub-species as compared to humans) and not behave badly to them... but, as is proposed by evolutionists and supported by evidence, it is what science proposed until the REALIZED the fact that they are supporting racism. Now there is a change in tune but have never explained why the aborigines in a completely secluded continent (because there weren't boats in their time) developed in the same manner as the natives of the jungles in Brazil, as did the eskimos in Alaska, as did the Africans etc. even though there were different environmental pressures.


After all, the Europeans DID develop in capacity far more than the aborigines.

They just dance around it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are there not SUPER RESISTANT strains because of evolution of environmental pressures? So... are there SUPER races over others? You are only supporting my position. A racist position that I also I reject completely when proposed that we are a monkey's uncle.

I love how evolutionists dance around the reality of what they propose.

That is an interesting point. There could be traits that lend themselves to leaning to racism like there are to leaning to alcoholism, but I do not know of any specifically and not every person with a genetic predisposition to something embraces that something. In any case, that is about the ends and not the means that go there. Evolution, natural selection and common ancestry are not racist.

I do not know of any super race, somehow endowed by some plan to be the superior of all the rest. I know that people and groups have used this rationalization to commit atrocities, but they have used gravity and electricity to those same ends and neither of those phenomena are racist either.

We are not a monkey's uncle. We are related to apes through a common ancestry and by a much deeper ancestry, our taxonomic groups are related to monkeys by the same commonality of ancestry. To consider that racist is silly and reaching for any excuse to deny the evidence.

 

[Kenny]

That is an interesting point. There could be traits that lend themselves to leaning to racism like there are to leaning to alcoholism, but I do not know of any specifically and not every person with a genetic predisposition to something embraces that something. In any case, that is about the ends and not the means that go there. Evolution, natural selection and common ancestry are not racist.

I do not know of any super race, somehow endowed by some plan to be the superior of all the rest. I know that people and groups have used this rationalization to commit atrocities, but they have used gravity and electricity to those same ends and neither of those phenomena are racist either.

We are not a monkey's uncle. We are related to apes through a common ancestry and by a much deeper ancestry, our taxonomic groups are related to monkeys by the same commonality of ancestry. To consider that racist is silly and reaching for any excuse to deny the evidence.

And thus we will still disagree... but I support your right to believe that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmmmm... you just ignored what science was saying that CAUSED the bad human behavior. The principles that I applied are those you are suggesting to me.

Yes, we can still take care of apes (a sub-species as compared to humans) and not behave badly to them... but, as is proposed by evolutionists and supported by evidence, it is what science proposed until the REALIZED the fact that they are supporting racism. Now there is a change in tune but have never explained why the aborigines in a completely secluded continent (because there weren't boats in their time) developed in the same manner as the natives of the jungles in Brazil, as did the eskimos in Alaska, as did the Africans etc. even though there were different environmental pressures.


After all, the Europeans DID develop in capacity far more than the aborigines.

They just dance around it.

I do not believe I have ignored anything and you are adding things that just are not there.

Even if racism is a trait, that does not make the process of evolution racist. You are having difficulty separating concepts. Bad human behavior would be a result in your scenario and some unidentified environmental condition would be the cause. Certainly, group behavior that results in negative responses to those outside the group has an evolutionary component and could contribute to the development of racism in individuals and groups. You are suggesting that we are prisoners of our genes and cannot learn. I reject that idea, at least in part.

Apes are a different species. Some are even in different genera. Science is not supporting racism and you have not demonstrated that it is.

Your interlude into the evolution of Australian aborigines and explanations for alleged commonality of development is vague and is drifting off point as near as I can tell.

If the tune can change, then it is not an aspect of biology and thus evolution is not racist as you contend. You have confused how knowledge of biology is used and the facts of biology that have been discovered. According to your logic, gravity is racism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And thus we will still disagree... but I support your right to believe that.

It is not a question of belief for me. It is an understanding of biology, science and what you are really claiming is the cause. You can believe as you like, but I cannot understand how someone can come to have such a twisted understanding and no interest in the truth.

 

[ChristineM]

We are subject to selection that involves a lot of our own activity. Considering I have eyesight issues, I have wondered how technical fixes that overcome the problem has altered our evolution in some way. Glasses would be one, among many others, of those resistances to natural selection that you allude to.

I think in our effort to resist natural selection, we have only diverted it down different paths. Not a conscious diversion, but a diversion that is a natural consequence of the conditions we impose without intent to achieve a diversion.

Not sure if you can download the podcast in your neck of the woods, worth a try

Yesterday i listened to an "infinite monkey cage" radio program by Prof Brian Cox and Robin Ince along with comedian and author David Baddiel, Prof Aoife Mc Lysaght and Dr Adam Rutherford talking about whether human beings are still evolving?

Very interesting with a twist of humour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00snr0w/episodes/downloads

 

[Jose Fly]

Are there not SUPER RESISTANT strains because of evolution of environmental pressures?

Yes.

So... are there SUPER races over others?

Of humans?

You are only supporting my position.

Only to those who have taken a rather substantial blow to the head.

A racist position that I also I reject completely when proposed that we are a monkey's uncle.

I love how evolutionists dance around the reality of what they propose.

Honestly dude, if you think you're coming off well here, I would like to talk to you about some real estate investment opportunities.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not sure if you can download the podcast in your neck of the woods, worth a try

Yesterday i listened to an "infinite monkey cage" radio program by Prof Brian Cox and Robin Ince along with comedian and author David Baddiel, Prof Aoife Mc Lysaght and Dr Adam Rutherford talking about whether human beings are still evolving?

Very interesting with a twist of humour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00snr0w/episodes/downloads

Thanks Christine.
I do not know if I can get it, but I will give it a try.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes.


Of humans?


Only to those who have taken a rather substantial blow to the head.


Honestly dude, if you think you're coming off well here, I would like to talk to you about some real estate investment opportunities.

He has some evidence of bad human behavior that some used a poor understanding and abuse of science to justify and is claiming it is an inherent feature of the science. Some have misused Judaism, Christianity and Islam to justify their bad behavior. Following his logic, these religions have racism as a core value. I do not believe that, but it is a reasonable conclusion of his logic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

how come we still have monkeys?

GET A FREAKING EDUCATION BEFORE YOU START THIS FOOLISHNESS AGAIN!

And incidentally, as the very next post by @Nakosis after your OP shows, the material you need to learn is incredibly simple. And by the way, Nakosis got it quite right.

A topic I think I'd like to see on the forums, though I'll never start it because I'd never have time to answer the ignorance, is "why do those who know so little about topics in science insist on starting threads refuting what those very topics actually show?" Are they hoping nobody will be answer, and that they can therefore consider themselves geniuses on subjects about which they know essentially nothing?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not sure if you can download the podcast in your neck of the woods, worth a try

Yesterday i listened to an "infinite monkey cage" radio program by Prof Brian Cox and Robin Ince along with comedian and author David Baddiel, Prof Aoife Mc Lysaght and Dr Adam Rutherford talking about whether human beings are still evolving?

Very interesting with a twist of humour.

The Infinite Monkey Cage - Downloads - BBC Radio 4

I got it to download and play just fine.