Evolution is a racist doctrine

... Currently the trend is the less inteligent and less educated people are the more children they have, so we are heading for a future portrayed in idiocracy. So as fare as evolution is concerned right now inteligent and educated people are less evolved.

but isn't education the dissemination of memes? Without education the brain is just as intelligent, it just doesn't have the memes to apply to different situations.

To my mind all living things are equally evolved -- they have arrived at this time and place after over 3.5 billion years of evolution.

And as far as racism goes, it is only racist if you claim one is better than another. Being different is not racist.

Enjoy

...but this statement that humans are part of the primate branch and that primate BRANCH never branched from any other biological branch, it a complete LIE and deviates entirely from the supposed theory of evolution. Davidjay, your reading comprehension appears to be sorely lacking, as does your ability to entertain ideas other than those frozen in place in your closed mind.

When they think they are attacking the Theory of Evolution with a broadaxe, but in reality it is a 1950's balsa wood movie prop.

Because they never studied the difference between steel and wood.

Enjoy

... I am merely a human and equal, not superior or inferior to any other human. ...

Curiously, all evolution "says" about branching lines of descent is that each branch is equally evolved, not superior or inferior to any other branch.

Racism is a judgement on a group that one is superior or inferior to the other. Evolution makes no judgement and thus cannot be racist.

Not understanding this doesn't make evolution racist, it merely makes the person saying it misinformed.

That you have perpetuated this misinformation for this length of a thread is truly a monument to stubborn denial of reality, and it has nothing to do with racism.

Enjoy

Originally posted April 25th as Message 81 on thread Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection':

quote:

---

afer Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime"

I have been giving this a bit a thought and would like to break it down slightly differently:

Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:

1. people too stupid to understand the concepts. These are the unfortunates. It is not their fault.
   
2. people ignorant of the concepts, possibly through no fault of their own. These are the fortunates -- they can be cured via education. A good starting source is Berkeley: Evolution 101.
   
3. people that have been misinformed. These are the deceived. It may be possible to cure them with education, however the victims need to be willing to learn, and willing to give up the false concepts they have regarding how evolution works. Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
   
4. people who are charlatans. These are the people that do the deceiving of others. These are the deplorables. They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. Trolls also fit in this category.
   
5. people who are clinically insane. These are also unfortunates, as it is not their fault.

The more I read this "Davidjay" postings the more I become convinced he is in the 4th category, not really interested in real, honest debate, certainly not interested in learning.

Pity.

---

Experience since then has only confirmed this opinion. Lack of factual support, failure to address issues raise, treating the debate as a game to be won or lost, it all fits.

Sad

As far as I know we are all against racism, although some posters unintentionally show some institutional racist tendencies.

But lets get back to how and why evolution is a racist doctrine.

Indeed. Please show us why you think this statement can possibly be true.

Exhibit A

First, I say this because racism is a judgment that one whole group is superior or inferior to another whole group ...

ie -- that (allA) are inherently better than (allB)

... and evolution deals with individuals, not whole groups.

Second, I say this because evolution makes no social or moral judgements, positive or negative.

Third, I say this because what evolution "says" is that some traits are better for survival and reproduction than other traits in certain ecologic conditions, and that as a result individuals having these traits will likely produce more offspring than the others. But it also "says" that those other traits are better at survival and reproduction in different ecological conditions leading to different benefits for the individuals.

... so how can evolution be racist when "being better" depends of which ecological conditions is involved?

• black mice "better adapted" than tan mice on lava beds
  -- vs --
  
• tan mice "better adapted" than black mice on sandy soil
  -- vs --
  
• black mice equally adapted as tan mice on green moss covered ground?

Is one race/variety superior to the other?

Exhibit B

Being tall is an advantage in some conditions, such as reaching things on high shelves and playing basketball.

... so you see a lot of tall people playing basketball ...

Being short is an advantage in some conditions, such as riding on airplanes in comfort, and fighting your way through thick jungle growth.

The variations in height exist because there are a variety of conditions where differences in height have different benefits.

But neither tallness nor shortness are "racial" traits, which are actually population traits related to closer common ancestry than the general population, as shortness and tallness traits exist in all purported racial groupings. Other traits are just as mixed across "racial" lines.

So Please show us why you think your statement about evolution can possibly be true ... you've made 63 posts in a thread where you made this silly claim.

Enjoy

For evolution teaches that a species or kind divides from its original species into a new viable species. Or in human terms .....a better species or kind of human... a superior human race.

Ah, I see your argument is all based on a single false premise and a failure to understand the process of evolution.

Enjoy

First they say primates came from bats, then tree shrews

Intentionally repeating a comment that has been shown to be a false portrayal of what people have said is a lie.

Their trees are artists conceptions and do NOT show what evolved from what, but rather groups which should have existed and possibly have parented other groups. Its full of MISSING LINKS and their tree branching is just a classification system of maube might have, could have been ancestors, that might have could be or might be found, but sadly all went extionct or were just imaginations of an evolutionists mind. This is why they debate classifications endlessly among themselves...why because they have no proofs, no cause and effect, no parentage lineage.

Says the person ignorant of genetics and morphology.

Amusingly what the discussion involves is decent from a common ancestor, just as creationists claim all life descended from original kinds. They are scared to actually look at what those original kinds look like in the fossil and genetic records, scared to follow their belief.

Creationists should welcome the effort scientists put into developing clades of descent, because that is exactly how descent from original kinds would occur, but they are scared that the evidence will not validate their beliefs, so they mock and chide and dissemble and lie.

Its just semantics as mentioned..... well call this branch para-primates, because there is no animal called paraprimates, its just a label, a make-believe group of animals that should have been around to form future primates.

Please provide the names and descriptions for all the purported original kinds, and then show how species alive today descended from those original kinds.

Davidjay never provides real answers to questions posed to him, just another non-sequitur diversion. You can check this out by looking at the index for each thread, a tool that also shows his frequent claim of never being answered to be another falsehood.

Where did humans come from Raz ?

The earliest Homo sapiens fossils found to date are from Ethiopia from about 200,000 years ago.

Technically "Humans" (genus Homo) evolved from Australopithicines, an extinct type of ape very similar to the first species of the Homo clade (ergaster and habilis).

quote:

---

Human Evolution

Under the current taxonomy (based on genetic rather than behavioral criteria), the term "hominid" refers to members of the biological human family Hominidae: living humans, all human ancestors, the many extinct members of Australopithecus, and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla.

The chart ... shows the evolutionary chronology inputed to these biological branches. Ardipithecus, the common primate ancestor to paranthropines, australopithecines and humans, went extinct about 4 million years ago.

Human evolution is a puzzle made up of thousands of fossil pieces. The Chart of Human Evolution (below) shows the major pieces of that puzzle arranged in a likely solution.

The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.

---

Our ancestor apes would have evolved from common ancestor population of ancient apes that we share with chimps, an ancestor ape, probably similar to Ardipithicus ramidus.

Enjoy

Where did humans come from Raz ?

Curiously I note that this has nothing to do with YOUR topic "Evolution is a racist doctrine" and that you failed utterly to answer my questions on Message 288:

quote:

---

... so how can evolution be racist when "being better" depends of which ecological conditions is involved?

• black mice "better adapted" than tan mice on lava beds
  -- vs --
  
• tan mice "better adapted" than black mice on sandy soil
  -- vs --
  
• black mice equally adapted as tan mice on green moss covered ground?

Is one race/variety superior to the other?

---

Is evolution 'racist' because black mice are 'superior' to tan mice on lava beds?

Or is evolution 'racist' because tan mice are 'superior' to black mice on tan soil?

Which is it oh great purveyor of misinformation?

(correct answer: neither, because evolution is not racist)

Enjoy

The first interesting thing on this thread! Do you have any more context for our graphic? I found the website, but there is little explanation for how they present it, and I am very curious which Ethiopian fossils they are classifying as H. antecessor. I've only ever seen this applied to Spanish fossils.

This is one of my go-to sites, as they keep updating with new information. There's an "email me" link, so I would do that.

Enjoy

ps thanks for the wrist link

You've posted exactly the same thing on four threads (so far anyway), which is spamming and a troll trait.

Which thread do you want the answer on:

This one (Evolution is a racist doctrine Message 347)
or
A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 127
or
The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans Message 8
or
Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' Message 228

or do you want me to pick?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

Update - See A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 131 for reply

Edited by RAZD, : abe

Edited by RAZD, : updated

quote:

---

"Pigeon chess" or "like playing chess with a pigeon" is a figure of speech originating from a comment made in March 2005 on Amazon by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer[1] regarding Eugenie Scott's book Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction:

”Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

---

... makes me think about someone who is constantly claiming victory but not making any effort to achieve it.

Now back to evolution is a racist doctrine, as Razz used the word 'branching' even though within and earlier, evolutionists denied that evolution taught branching and diversity into supposed new species from the old species called 'humans' Thats racism folks and READERS,, even though evolutionists from their branches will not admit it.

Your definition of "racism" appears to differ wildly from any normal definition. You are saying that any diversity is racist?

I don't follow what you are saying, it just makes not sense. Changing definitions of words doesn't make it valid.

quote:

---

Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1][2]

The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior.[3] The Holocaust is a classic example of institutionalized racism which led to the death of millions of people based on race. While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[4]

---

Curiously I don't see anything in there about evolution and the development of diversity: increasing diversity does not cause bias, prejudice or discrimination.

Perhaps you could clarify your inept assertion.

Enjoy

First state whether inbreeding is proof of evolution or not.

This is your thread,

Your topic is "Evolution is a racist doctrine" a silly assertion that has been falsified by several people, yet you continue to assert this falsehood. Knowingly asserting a falsehood is lying.

You have totally failed to defend your thesis from this criticism, and instead resort to the old creationist dodge of moving the goalposts ...

First state whether inbreeding is proof of evolution or not.

This is moving the goalposts ...

First state whether inbreeding is proof of evolution or not.

This is a tacit admission that you have lost this debate.

Perhaps it is time to put this thread in summary mode seeing as you have done nothing to defend it, and only use it to talk about other topics.

Enjoy

Thanks Davidjay, your inability in answering the questions on your 'evolution is racist' assertion, has further proven that you have no evidence to back that assertion. The fact that you are trying to change the subject means that you have no evidence to back that assertion.

Branching is not racism, as you have tried to suggest but never supported. Nor have you answered the content of the posts where this assertion is demonstrate to be false.

Your cognitive dissonance makes you afraid to answer those questions, or for any creationists to answer this question, you ALL show that you are afraid to answer evidence based questions because you know that real objective empirical evidence is true. You know that if you say evolution creates variations, it doesn't really cause present day racism of different variations in the human population. Religions and biased beliefs do that.

If you say branching creates racism with that demented ignorance of evolution that you have displayed, then it still doesn't mean your strange obsession with inbreeding has any meaning to the argument.

Reality wins again, and Davidjay loses again

Variation does not create new kinds of people, they are still people, still humans. Variation does not necessarily mean new dog species or new human species have evolved via selection. Saying evolution is racist is ignorant, ludicrous and scientifically insane, as has been demonstrated ad nauseum.

No, this thread is going nowhere fast, and you have helped prove everyone else's point that you are just a bag of wind blustering from thread to thread, post to post, with irrelevant and false claims, distractions and bluff while totally failing to substantiate a single argument, or provide a single item to support your false thesis, so keep up the good work Davidjay, with your losing lack of answers....

But do return to try and get those branching humans to breed racism, in hopes of producing something that is in the direction of a valid argument, instead of bluster, bluff and berating behavior befitting a troll with little apparent understanding of reality.

The earth is round, and it has been orbiting the sun for over 4 billion years with no global flood. Man landed on the moon using science, not fantasy, and (in case you missed it) ... evolution is real and occurring all around you. No animals exhibit racist behavior and yet they have evolved for over 3 billion years. It appears that only humans display this trait, just as they are the only ones that display religious beliefs and racist beliefs.

There does seem to be a correlation between religious beliefs and bigotry. And racism.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .