Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, how did they get to Australia? There were no boats to travel that distance

Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

I am not quite getting your meaning here, but yes , you are correct that different "races" do not present any problems to "interbreeding". Oh, that feels so much like "miscegenation". why don't you do yourself a favor and stop twisting.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[John53]

So, how did they get to Australia? There were no boats to travel that distance

South-east Asia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea

 

[Pogo]

So, how did they get to Australia? There were no boats to travel that distance

Walked and canoed when sea was lower.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sounds more like me choosing a peach milkshake over strawberry. I'm not racist against strawberries.

No, it really doesn't sound anything like that at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It does hmm. So some mutations became plants and others became animals. That is sooo stupid imo of course.

I have no idea why you experience this as stupid. It makes perfect sense to me that the division between plants and animals was one of the very first to take place. way back when life was still single celled.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So do the evolutionists here believe all life including plants and animals came from a common ancestor?

yes

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, I was right: the evolutionary doctrine is a racist doctrine.

If you see the figure in the post#328 you can see a modern typical Hawaiian next to a typical Englishman. Is any of them more evolutionarily advanced than the other?

No ROFL A modern Hawaiian looks nothing like a neanderthal, for example, Hawaiians are noticeably taller. I think you are trying to make a problem where none exists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

True, I am ashamed that there is a figure created by evolutionists to make people believe that a modern man has to have a skeleton similar to that of a modern Englishman. (See post#328)

This is not the case at. You can tell the difference between a neanderthal and ANY modern human from ALL around the world. sheesh.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that Hawaiian people are evolutionarily inferior to English people, are they? Can I ask where you got that impression? Who said they were?

No. I don't think Hawiians look Neanderthal at all. To start with, they are considerably taller. The brain case is also much much different.

If anyone is to be embarrassed by our knowledge of Neanderthals, it is Europeans, most of whom carry Neanderthal DNA.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Anyone can see in the post#328 that a modern Hawaiian person is not considered a "modern human" because of their racial details.

See the figure, points and classifications and judge for yourself.

Baloney

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just to reiterate, you believe that after the "start" of life, it all happened by "natural selection," right?

Natural selection is formative. But it is not the only process driving evolution. For example, random mutation is also a factor at work.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So are you saying it's not possible for humans to de-evolve, or evolve to become fish again? you know, by mutations maybe?

It doesn't work that way. Evolution does not go up or down. It simply builds on what came before. For example, we know that cetaceans evolved from four legged lang mammals, but despite their obvious similarities to fish, such as having fins and tails, there are noticeable differences, such as they are air breathing and nurse their young.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi. I laughed when I saw your expression about whales look like fish but are not.

Please tell me that you understand whales are not fish.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

IF a question asks..."is evolution racist" how do you come to that conclusion given that the descent response about whites coming from blacks out of Africa is an assumption? Do we actually know for sure that black came first? Was it perhaps red, or brown, or yellow??

Yes, we really do know this. The genetic mutation that causes pale skin is fairly recent. Cheddar man is the oldest homo sapiens fossil in Britain, and he had dark skin.

No one has "red" skin or "yellow" skin. There is only ONE color skin, caused by melanin, and the only difference is how much of that melanin you have.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Science has pretty much proven there is no merit to the idea of distinct human races. While all populations have variation in appearance, there is no clear cut boundary where we can say "this is where white stops and black begins."

Now, racists sometimes try to coopt science into proving their nonsense. This is known as scientific racism, which is just pseudo science garbage. Dont' confuse their nonsense with the real deal.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So studies have shown, have they, that humans did not "come from" Ireland or Canada, since you say we know humans came from Africa, right?

correct. the oldest homo sapiens skeletons in Africa are some 200,000 years old. These homo sapiens do not begin to migrate out of African until 60-90,000 years ago.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So are there or are there not races of mankind?

correct

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Men (scientists perhaps?) categorize men (and women) into races.

People do that. Scientists do not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Men (scientists perhaps?) categorize men (and women) into races.

People do that. Scientists do not.

 

[Soandso]

No. I don't think Hawiians look Neanderthal at all. To start with, they are considerably taller. The brain case is also much much different.

If anyone is to be embarrassed by our knowledge of Neanderthals, it is Europeans, most of whom carry Neanderthal DNA.

Not just Europeans but most other people on earth. There are some pockets of folks In Africa with almost none at all from what I've read. I think the fact that many folks have neanderthal DNA is pretty interesting, personally. I might pay the extra 20$ to see how much neanderthal DNA is in my sample