Evolution is a racist doctrine

Yes, apes are a branch of primates. That branch then split, one side going to orangutans, the other to gorillas-chimps-humans.The gorillas-chimps-human branch then split, one side going to gorillas, the other to chimps and humans.The chimp-human branched, and the chimp branch split between chimpanzees and bonobos.Are you claiming that identifying orangutans, gorillas, chimps, and humans as different species is racist?- It's pretty much a fact that all living humans form a single breeding population. There has been no branching of populations of living humans.Do you dispute this? Do you think that there has been a branching of living human populations? Because if you think that in spite of the facts to the contrary, then that makes you the racist.Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.

No, I didn't say that at all. I wanted to talk about what the theory of evolution says about branching in regards to human beings. For brevity I didn't want to start at the origin of life so I started with apes.I've talked before how my family started in Ohio and ended up in Alaska. Starting the discussion with my grandfather being born in Ohio does not mean I'm claiming that my great grandparents didn't have themselves.No reasonable person would have made such an inference, and your misunderstanding of the point you're commenting on is just as unreasonable.- I'm not sure why you'd accuse me of lying when I've tried to be polite toward you. I could be impolite and accuse you of being deliberately disingenuous to distract from your inability to respond to my point. Instead I'll try to remain polite by working under the assumption that due to your profound ignorance of the subject - it's not impolite to note that you continue to show you don't really know much about evolutionary biology - you were unable to properly interpret what I wrote.

This is a response to the following message in another thread: Message 799. I thought this thread would be the appropriate venue for a response. Evolutionary biology does not imply different human races are unequal nor that any humans are superior to others. Repeating your misunderstanding over and over will not change that fact.

...or as your Genesis claims.Edited by Chiroptera, : Corrected tag.

Well, scientists just discover the how the world around us works and hope that people are responsible enough to be able to handle the truth.Of course, there are people who distort the discoveries of science for less than honorable purposes, but if you'd pay attention the you'd see that scientists make an admirable attempt to correct the errors being made to the public. Not always successfully, but not for lack of trying.- A background and basis that you have so far failed to explain.Don't worry, Davidjay, I'm pretty patient. As long as you continue to make incorrect statements and baseless claims, I'll continue to correct your errors and point out how you are failing to back up your claims.

I don't know what you think I'd be ashamed of, but I'm not really all that interested at this moment demonstrating the evidence that supports evolution. Other people are doing a fine job.Right now I'm more interested in whether the theory of evolution is racist, a claim that you have been repeating without being able to prove it.

I should point out that the "branching of the tree of life" is a discovery that predates Darwin. I'm not sure when and where it was first discovered, but it formed the basis of Linnaeus' work, long before Darwin. In fact, the nested hierarchy as developed by Linnaeus is a key evidence for common descent (and to me, the most compelling).Darwin's theory of evolution explains why the branching that was already observed occurred. It explained that because naturally occurring variations were more or less random, natural selection would cause isolated populations of a species to adapt in different ways to their local environments. As time goes on, this would lead to different species. After a longer time, different genera would result, then different families, and so forth.The theory of evolution does not say that humans should have branched. The theory of evolution says that if different human populations become isolated from each other for a very, very long time, then small differences would have added up to produce different species. Since currently living humans have never been isolated long enough, the theory of evolution does not at all claim that humans should have branched into different races.As long as humans form a single population, interbreeding will maintain humans as a single species. Only if different populations become isolated for a very, very long time will evolution cause the different populations to differentiate.Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.

Sounds racist to me. Funny. "The same templates of life" is what evolution does. Are you racist?

Just to answer your question (just cuz I think phylogeny is fascinating): According to Palaeos, Primates as a branch separated from the branch consisting of tree shrews and flying lemurs. The larger branch consisting of these two branches is called Archonta.However, Archonta is a clade that includes bats (ahem!) assuming that bats are that closely related to primates. Recent analysis suggests that bats may not be as closely related as was thought. A clade called Euarchonta has been proposed to take this into account.Unfortunately, my sources may be all out of date.Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.Edited by Chiroptera, : Autocorrect never catches the ones it's supposed to!

Okay, you had me going for a while, but I've finally caught on. You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?

Have you given up pretending that you're talking about racism?Edited by Chiroptera, : punctuation.

Coragyps aren't bats.

My god! And we haven't even gotten to Morganocodon yet!

Let's continue the topic of branching until we're ruled off-topic.Let's accept that Euarchonta as a clade that comprises primates, tree shrews, and flying lemurs but not, according to molecular data, bats.Then the next step back brings us to Euarchontoglires. This branch split, one branch leading to Euarchonta and the other branch leading to modern rodents and rabbits.Interesting: according to Wikipedia, there is some evidence that tree shrews may actually belong to the rodent/rabbit branch rather than the primate/colugo branch. Man, I love this stuff!

Well, that's too bad. I was enjoying my Daily Branch.But since we have to get back to the topic, let me summarize my position:First, scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. Of course, our beliefs, including what we think is right or wrong, should be based on facts, so that if you make decisions based on the belief that the planets are attached to crystal spheres centered on the earth or that a talking snake tricked some people into eating fruit, then you should probably reconsider how you approach things.But beyond that, a description about how the world works does not itself have moral or ethical implications. The theory of gravity doesn't imply that I should live in a valley, celestial mechanics doesn't imply I should always be walking in a circle, and the theory of evolution doesn't imply I should have as many children as possible.Second, evolution itself does not promote racism. In particular, evolution doesn't say that some human branches are superior to others. Evolution explains how the branches that exist came to be. Since it is a fact that humans haven't produced distinct branches, the theory of evolution has nothing significant to say about about human races.Furthermore, when branches do exist the theory of evolution doesn't make judgements about which branch is superior; it limits itself to explaining why there are branches.