Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 8:44 AM
374 online now:
frako, jar, New Cat's Eye, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, RAZD, vimesey (10 members, 364 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,642 Year: 19,248/21,208 Month: 2,007/3,111 Week: 228/574 Day: 24/46 Hour: 7/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution is a racist doctrine
jar
Member
Posts: 29144
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 76 of 391 (805301)
04-17-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Davidjay
04-17-2017 11:43 AM


Davidjay continues posting falsehoods.
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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios † † My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Davidjay, posted 04-17-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Davidjay, posted 04-17-2017 12:01 PM jar has responded

  
Davidjay
Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 77 of 391 (805303)
04-17-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
04-17-2017 11:53 AM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 04-17-2017 11:53 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 04-17-2017 12:05 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Genomicus, posted 04-17-2017 12:11 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2017 12:28 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2017 2:10 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29144
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 78 of 391 (805304)
04-17-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Davidjay
04-17-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
Maybe English is not your first language. Race and Species are not synonyms.

Perhaps you should first learn English before posting here.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios † † My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Davidjay, posted 04-17-2017 12:01 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 79 of 391 (805306)
04-17-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Davidjay
04-17-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
...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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Davidjay, posted 04-17-2017 12:01 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 80 of 391 (805308)
04-17-2017 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Davidjay
04-17-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Davidjay, posted 04-17-2017 12:01 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11558
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 81 of 391 (805312)
04-17-2017 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Davidjay
04-17-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Davidjay, posted 04-17-2017 12:01 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Porosity, posted 04-17-2017 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 146
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 82 of 391 (805313)
04-17-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
04-17-2017 2:10 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2017 2:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 04-17-2017 4:26 PM Porosity has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 83 of 391 (805321)
04-17-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Porosity
04-17-2017 3:15 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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:
Apes emerged within the catarrhines with the Old World monkeys as a sister group, so cladistically they are monkeys as well. However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys, rendering this grouping paraphyletic.

This excerpt from the article on Catarrhini left me equally so:

quote:
Therefore, cladistically, apes, catarrhines and related contemporary extinct groups such as Parapithecidaea are monkeys as well, for any consistent definition of "monkey". "Old World Monkey" may also legitimately be taken to be meant to include all the catarrhines, including apes and extinct species such as Aegyptopithecus, in which case the apes, Cercopithecoidea and Aegyptopithecus emerged within the Old World Monkeys.

Egad!

I still don't think apes are monkeys, but this bit of reading has rendered me incapable of arguing the point.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Porosity, posted 04-17-2017 3:15 PM Porosity has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 5:05 PM Percy has responded
 Message 90 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2017 4:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1334
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.4


(1)
Message 84 of 391 (805322)
04-17-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
04-17-2017 4:26 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 04-17-2017 4:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 04-17-2017 5:32 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Porosity, posted 04-17-2017 6:11 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 04-18-2017 8:07 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29144
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 85 of 391 (805325)
04-17-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by herebedragons
04-17-2017 5:05 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
And neither the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with racism.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios † † My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 5:05 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 146
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 86 of 391 (805327)
04-17-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by herebedragons
04-17-2017 5:05 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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 hereís 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.

Thatís a scientific argument for considering apes to be monkeys.


https://paoloviscardi.com/...1/apes-are-monkeys-deal-with-it

Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 5:05 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 87 of 391 (805369)
04-18-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by herebedragons
04-17-2017 5:05 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 5:05 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2017 9:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6385
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 88 of 391 (805373)
04-18-2017 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
04-18-2017 8:07 AM


Fish are another paraphylic group
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 Iím proud of it. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 04-18-2017 8:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-18-2017 11:41 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1514
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 89 of 391 (805396)
04-18-2017 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Chiroptera
04-18-2017 9:05 AM


Re: Fish are another paraphylic group
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2017 9:05 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1316
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 90 of 391 (805463)
04-18-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
04-17-2017 4:26 PM


Re: Evolutionists continue posting falsehoods.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 04-17-2017 4:26 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017