Neo-Darwinst theories about the origin and evolution of species are a form of scientific racism when applied to any or all members of the human race
a classical example of the perils of applying darwinian thought to humanity is social darwinism. they took the name, but not the thought itself, from darwin -- they were just trying to justify their extreme views. part of the problem was that people don't obey the laws of nature in the wild, per se. and money is not an indication of success, genetically speaking. these were logicall fallacies in the idealogy.
dividing and separating our human ancestors into different species reduces and degrades them to an inferior and unequal biological status
this is also not true, the first major fallacy here. the number one idea of darwinism is common ancestry: the interconnection of all life. since we are ALL current end results, all are equally successful evolutionarily speaking. there is NOTHING in darwinism that says one species is "better" in some human terms than another unless one of the two is dead. racism is being read into it, or it is being used to justify racism -- but it in and of itself is not racism.
It is a form of scientific racism to theorize that Middle Eastern and European Neanderthal people and Homo erectus people in Asia and Africa were not fully human but were rather an evolutionary subspecies of humanity which became extinct
so we're arguing against racism -- wait, no -- SPECIESISM against species that no longer exist? h. neandertals and h. erectus are not even h. sapiens (cromagnon) let alone h. sapiens sapiens (us). this is not the same as saying "people from africa came from inferior stock." this "inferior stock" is as unrelated the these specific modern populations as anyone else is. some species that came from them advanced beyond them, and overtook their population. everywhere. everyone alive today is of and from the same species.
only a small amount of neandertal dna (as they DID interbreed) arguably exists in the gene pool. and the people who arguably have these "inferior" genes aren't commonly targets of racism at all.
It is a racist scenario to theorize that both European and Middle Eastern Neanderthals and Asian Homo erectus types of people were eliminated and replaced by more highly evolved Homo sapiens who originally migrated from Africa
but this is exactly what the evidence very strongly indicates happened. although noticeably minus the "higher evolved" bit -- h. sapiens was actually LESS adapted to its environment than the species it replaces. for instance, neandertals were BUILT for cold weather: short and stocky, very round. probably light skinned. h. sapiens was build for warm weather: long and tall, and skinny. probably dark skinned. (note: these are the opposite skin colors that used to be depicted in "racist" textbooks)
what h. sapiens had that made it more effective was sort of an evolutionary short-cut. cheating so to speak. it had a larger brain. that meant that it did not have to out evolve the more highly-adapted neandertals. it just had to do things a little smarter.
and didn’t or wouldn’t interbreed with other humans simply because evolutionists label them as a separate species of humans who couldn’t sexually reproduce with other humans even if they wanted to.
this is also evidently not true. we have fossilized remains of children who seemed to have shared both neandertal and h. sapiens parentage in a smooth combination of features. they could, in fact, interbreed. like i said, some argue that there is still neandertal dna in our gene pool. my guess is that we both probably have a little if this is true.
however, there is very, very little evidence that this happened often. so it's thought that they didn't interbreed by choice. perhaps they just didn't find short hairy women attractive? we seem to sexually select for women with little to no body hair today. this could be why.
It is a form of scientific racism against people of Muslim, Jewish and Christian ancestry and descent who believe that some human ancestors were descendants of Abraham and that all of their human ancestors were descended from Noah's family, to theorize that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ shared common genealogical ancestry with a mythological Homo sapiens woman named Eve in Africa who is theoretically associated, identified, categorized and classified with a species of hon-human primates who are then also claimed to have evolved from some other non-human "species" in Africa.
that's just bs now. first of all, "eve" was a biblical reference -- not actually the eve of the bible. they gave her that name because she appeared to be the mother of all mankind. and if she's h. sapiens, that makes her human.
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2