Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Pogo]

@HonestJoe
However, I have found it very curious that the different "drawings" of pre-human apes (according to the doctrine) that are artistically drawn from found bones, resemble the race of the modern inhabitants of the place where the bones were found and NOT the same race (skin color, facial features, skull shape, height, etc.)...

To me it seems more like a competition to see which human race (typical of Asians, typical of Africans, typical of Europeans, typical of Arabs, etc.) originated in the first place, as if the apes that gave rise to them were of different "races" before giving rise to humans.

Or are racial characteristics only human?

It may seem that way to you but all of us are descendants of 1 or 2 populations in africa ~ 200,000 years ago. This can be demonstrated using the exact same methodology that is used in courts to determine parentage and recently even to identify unknown criminals from genetic databases.

BTW, your idea is a good example of the worst of 19th century racism which has been so totally disproven that it is more likely to get you into a fight than a rational discussion.

Seriously, start with this article from wikipedia Out of Africa Theory read it and come back and then we can the various species ancestral to homo Sapiens. (us)

 

[Pogo]

So, higher apes do have races like humans have?

We don't have races, it is an outdated distinction that grew out of ignorance and mistaken ideas of superiority amongst social groups.
Question, do you agree with White Supremacists?

 

[Eli G]

My thread is based on a real issue related to the doctrine of evolution.

There is obviously a serious contradiction in some of these evolutionary theorists: did the human race originate in a single geographical location and from a single race of apes, or in several geographic locations from different races of apes?

PS: There are brown bears, gray bears, white bears,... It depends a lot on where you see them. To what extent can it be credible that the apes that evolutionists say gave rise to humans were of a single race?

 

[Pogo]

My thread is based on a real issue related to the doctrine of evolution.

There is obviously a serious contradiction in some of these evolutionary theorists: did the human race originate in a single geographical location and from a single race of apes, or in several geographic locations from different races of apes?

150 years ago, this might have been a reasonable question, there is no question any more, we have 100 plus years of evidence against your idea and nothing for it.
You may find some websites that still espouse this idea, I will guarantee you that they are not scientific but they will be racist.
How about before we go any further, you post a link to a source that you think demonstrates this "serious contradiction"?

 

[Pogo]

My thread is based on a real issue related to the doctrine of evolution.

There is obviously a serious contradiction in some of these evolutionary theorists: did the human race originate in a single geographical location and from a single race of apes, or in several geographic locations from different races of apes?

PS: There are brown bears, gray bears, white bears,... It depends a lot on where you see them. To what extent can it be credible that the apes that evolutionists say gave rise to humans were of a single race?

One more thing, there is no "Doctrine of Evolution" there is however a theory of evolution which explains the observations we have made. Your use of the term indicates that you have been led to believe a strawman version of evolution which is disingenuous misrepresentation of reality designed to cover up for bad arguments about the actual theory and evidence.

 

[Eli G]

I'm waiting for rational thinkers who understand my questions without judging them... That is lacking here, because what participates in these forums are mainly philosophers, demagogues and sophists... and not people willing to dialogue without trying to make others believe that those who think differently do not think well.

PS: The only post worth reading so far is post #15, direct, honest and non-judgmental. The rest is pure useless filler...

See you next time ...

 

[vulcanlogician]

Um. Evolutionary theory describes how species change over time. Not how one species or certain members of one species are superior to one another.

Like. The dinosaurs are extinct. All evolutionary theorists know that. Many species of birds still exist. All evolutionary theorists know that.

An evolutionary theorist would do a fine job of telling you that hawks were a subspecies of dinosaur that was able to survive the meteoric cataclysm that affected earth eons ago.

But if an evolutionary theorist were to say that a hawk was "superior" to a T-Rex... that would just be, like... their opinion, man.

 

[Pogo]

PS: There are brown bears, gray bears, white bears,... It depends a lot on where you see them. To what extent can it be credible that the apes that evolutionists say gave rise to humans were of a single race?

Yes, and like humans they all come from a single bear ancestor, they interbreed just like humans.

 

[Eli G]

I am not interested in teachings related to evolutionary doctrine unless they answer my honest questions.

Since they do not reasonably answer any of my questions so far, I have no reason to believe that it is a really factual or useful doctrine.

 

[Pogo]

I'm waiting for rational thinkers who understand my questions without judging them... That is lacking here, because what participates in these forums are mainly philosophers, demagogues and sophists... and not people willing to dialogue without trying to make others believe that those who think differently do not think well.

PS: The only post worth reading so far is post #15, direct, honest and non-judgmental. The rest is pure useless filler...

See you next time ...

As we have been trying to explain to you, your idea is not currently a real issue, but an issue that was resolved many years ago. It is not a question of thinking, it is a question of knowledge of the subject and we are not judging you, we are trying to lead you to a greater understanding of human history.

 

[Pogo]

I am not interested in teachings related to evolutionary doctrine unless they answer my honest questions.

Since they do not reasonably answer any of my questions so far, I have no reason to believe that it is a really factual or useful doctrine.

There is no evolutionary doctrine and at this point, it appears that your questions are dishonest in that you are making no attempt to understand the reasonable answers given to you. That you don't find the facts reasonable is not our problem.

 

[HonestJoe]

However, I have found it very curious that the different "drawings" of pre-human apes (according to the doctrine) that are artistically drawn from found bones, resemble the race of the modern inhabitants of the place where the bones were found and NOT the same race (skin color, facial features, skull shape, height, etc.)...

I can't say I've noticed that. Scientific reconstructions will be based on the evidence and reasonable inference, and some of that could be legitimately similar to modern natives if it was a relatively consistent environment. Anything that is more "artists impression" could be open to subconscious bias of the artist (or possibly the intended audience).

To me it seems more like a competition to see which human race (typical of Asians, typical of Africans, typical of Europeans, typical of Arabs, etc.) originated in the first place, as if the apes that gave rise to them were of different "races" before giving rise to humans.

It isn't, your impression is mistaken.

Or are racial characteristics only human?

Not exactly. Any species that develops notable subspecies are likely to have differences comparable to the ones we use to define human "races". We just generally choose not to perceive the variations in (other) animals in the same way we do variations in humans, presumably for social and cultural reasons.

It's largely artificial and exaggerated, but you could see dog breeds as a similar thing (indeed, the word breed is sometimes used in the context of human races, typically negatively, such as "half-breed").

 

[Eli G]

So, according to evolutionary theorists: did humans come from a single geographic region, or from several geographic regions such as those that cause color and other clearly visible physical characteristics to change (see post#16, not mine but with an interesting map of this)?

 

[ChristineM]

So, according to evolutionary theorists: did humans come from a single geographic region,

Yes

or from several geographic regions such as those that cause color and other clearly visible physical characteristics to change?

It didn't work like that. Lighter skin is a result of migration

 

[HonestJoe]

So, according to evolutionary theorists: did humans come from a single geographic region, or from several geographic regions such as those that cause color and other clearly visible physical characteristics to change?

The current theories involve Homo Sapiens first emerging in Africa and then spreading across the world over ten of thousands of years. Because evolution is a constant ongoing process, populations of humans in different regions developed these variations over than long time period.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Same as @Revoltingest .

What is evolutionary doctrine?

 

[Eli G]

The current theories involve Homo Sapiens first emerging in Africa and then spreading across the world over ten of thousands of years. Because evolution is a constant ongoing process, populations of humans in different regions developed these variations over than long time period.

Thank you.

And could that idea change in the future?

Another question: if humans originated in a single region, how does an evolutionist conceive of the parents of those first humans?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since they do not reasonably answer any of my questions so far, I have no reason to believe that it is a really factual or useful doctrine.

Yay! You win.

Now scurry off while the evolutionary human sciences march on ...

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh. This is another of those threads about make-believe.

Bye.

 

[Eli G]

An educated person is usually a decent person with good social communication habits.
Why are there so many forum members here who pretend to be "scientists" and at the same time are so vulgar?