|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is a racist doctrine | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Davidjay writes: Now, to elevate this evil of racism in the human heart, a stupid insane theory of evolution came along, that helps support this racism in mens and womens hearts (Remember males and females are the same, no different...equal in racism unless delivered by love and equality and justice and truth via the Lord of Lords). Yet more falsehoods from Davidjay. The truth is that both the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution show that there really is no such thing as "race" and that the human species is simply another member of the Primates and an animal as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
No, this thread is about evolution stating point blank that the human genology has branched out from the primates, from apes, to CroMagnon supposed men, onto our HUMAN KIND. No honest evolutionists will deny this, and no honest evolutionists could possibly back up Jar's denial of this basis of evolution.
Come on Evolutionists be honest, you have been caught again, evolution is a tool of racism, and backs up racism and the branching out of the human genone. Its a lie, but thats their theory, and so they must deny deny deny. (Readers when reading evolution doctrine and evolutionists words, take time and read between the lines, and decipher carefully what they are saying. Why because theirs is a theory based on words and imaginations, intimidations and shallow shallow false science. read their words very carefully. Use logic and wisdom and hear from the Lords truths before swallowing their falsehoods). The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Maybe English is not your first language. Race and Species are not synonyms.
Perhaps you should first learn English before posting here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1932 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
...evolution is a tool of racism, and backs up racism... No, because molecular evolutionary approaches empirically shattered the concept of biological race. So it does the exact opposite of "backing up" racism. Now, are you going to respond to this point of mine or are you going to get on your pulpit and talk about the Lord and swallowing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, this thread is about evolution stating point blank that the human genology has branched out from the primates, from apes, to CroMagnon supposed men, onto our HUMAN KIND. And this is, obviously, not racism. Now, perhaps you could answer my question instead of ducking it. Don't you think that all humans share a common ancestry? 'Cos according to you, that's racism ... somehow ... in some way you can't explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
No, this thread is about evolution stating point blank that the human genology has branched out from the primates, from apes, to CroMagnon supposed men, onto our HUMAN KIND. That's dumb, humans are apes and they are primates. They cannot have evolved from apes/primates to humans... 'cause they're still those things. That's like saying that apples evolved from fruit to apples. But apples are still fruit!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2084 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
It's also important to point out that all apes are monkeys, but that not all monkeys are apes. Just as all humans are apes, but not all apes are human. It's called a nested hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Porosity writes: It's also important to point out that all apes are monkeys, but that not all monkeys are apes. Just as all humans are apes, but not all apes are human. It's called a nested hierarchy. I'm not sure it's true that all apes are monkeys, but I'm finding this more confusing than I thought it would be. I read the introductions to the Wikipedia articles on monkeys, apes and Old World monkeys, and it seems that New World monkeys are in one group, while apes and Old World monkeys are in another group, the Catarrhini. Apes are in the superfamiily Hominoidea, while Old World monkeys are in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea. I don't think Old World monkeys contains apes. But this explanation from the article on monkeys says that apes are monkeys, except that they're not, because of parphyletics. It left me gasping for air:
quote: This excerpt from the article on Catarrhini left me equally so:
quote: Egad! I still don't think apes are monkeys, but this bit of reading has rendered me incapable of arguing the point. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Maybe this will clear up the confusion somewhat.
Wikipedia: Primates Unfortunately, the cladogram is not an image so I couldn't figure out how to post just the cladogram, so you will just have to go to the page. The common names are noted on the right side of the chart and include monkeys, lesser apes, great apes and humans. They are saying that to be consistent, everything that shares a common ancestor with Simiiformes should be called "monkeys" since old world and new world monkeys are at the base of that clade, so monkeys are paraphyletic. And everything that shares a common ancestor with Hominidae should be called "great apes" but they aren't, we called humans "humans", so apes are also paraphyletic. It is the traditional terminology that makes the clade paraphyletic. So I would say this: Humans are not monkeys or apes, they are "humans." They are however, in the clade Hominidae which also includes the great apes. They are also in the clade Simiiformes which includes the monkeys, lesser apes and great apes. They are also in the clade Primates, etc., HBD Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And neither the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with racism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2084 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
Here is a decent diagram that may help clear this up a bit.
If a name is given to a group of species that are not all related in this way it will either be a polyphyletic group (many leaves) or a paraphyletic group (excluding leaves). Again, this can be confusing to describe, so here’s another diagram:
Polyphyletic and paraphyletic groups are not particularly scientifically informative, since they include or exclude members of clades with no evolutionary justification. This means that scientists prefer to base names for groups on clear monophyletic clades.
Apes are monkeys – deal with it | Zygoma That’s a scientific argument for considering apes to be monkeys. Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Thanks for the reference. Porosity's diagram in Message 86 was also helpful. Let me see if I've got this straight.
Clades are the scientifically most useful classification system, but they can often conflict with traditional classification names. Traditionally humans are in their own classification unit, but cladistically they're in the same clade with apes, and at a higher classification level they're in the same clade with monkeys. This means that when creationists bellow, "I didn't come from no monkey," we have to stop correcting them that they mean apes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
An example I like is fish. Humans and lungfish are both on a branch that split from the other fish long ago. Any clade that includes both lungfish and, say, salmon will also include humans.
Yet, it's a bit strange to say, "humans didn't evolve from fish - they are fish!" Language is what it is, and I think we should accept that "fish" is a common word that describes a paraphylic group of animals, while "apes" can refer to a paraphylic group that doesn't include humans or a monophylic group that does depending on context. I'm agnostic whether "monkeys" can properly be used for a monophonic group that includes humans.I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4319 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Language is what it is, and I think we should accept that "fish" is a common word that describes a paraphylic group of animals, while "apes" can refer to a paraphylic group that doesn't include humans or a monophylic group that does depending on context. I am confused, is "mammals" a paraphylic that includes humans or a monophylic group that includes humans?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1014 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
I'm not sure it's true that all apes are monkeys, but I'm finding this more confusing than I thought it would be. I read the introductions to the Wikipedia articles on monkeys, apes and Old World monkeys, and it seems that New World monkeys are in one group, while apes and Old World monkeys are in another group, the Catarrhini. Apes are in the superfamiily Hominoidea, while Old World monkeys are in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea. I don't think Old World monkeys contains apes. Apes are not monkeys. If you're speaking English. That's because neither 'ape' nor 'monkey' are formally defined phylogenetic terms. They're common, everyday words which refer to groups of organisms we've lumped together for one reason or another Hominoidea, Cattarhini, Platyrhinni and Simiiformes are formally defined phylogenetic terms. The realisation that apes are more closely related to babboons than to howler monkeys means that Hominoidea must be considered part of Cattarhini. It makes not a jot of difference to the meanings of ape or monkey. All this confusion would be avoided if we weren't speaking English, since most European languages don't have two seperate words. In Dutch, a monkey is an aap, as is in an ape (of course, it's still paraphyletic used in the traditional sense, since humans are not aapen). In Czech, there are different words for black rats and brown rats (krysa and potkan, respectively). Most rats are called krysa. But it makes no sense to therefore say that a potkan is a krysa since potkani are nested within the krysa clade. Some normal terms are pretty much meaningless phylogenetically. 'Toad' refers to a wide range of anurans spread across the tree, and what's called a toad by some may be a frog to others. And of course, this distinction does not exist everywhere - there isn't a seperate word for frog and toad in every language. This is why they invented the formal neo-Latin terminology in the first place.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024