Black Evolution.

[gluadys]

Yes, it is. Any cultural theory which relegates some humans to a primitive status is racist. Especially, a biological Anglo-Saxon theory.

I don't get it. I don't get it. I don't get it.

By what means can a theory which posits that all human beings are the same species descended from the same ancestral group possibly be construed as relegating some humans to a primitive status?

The only logical conclusion I can draw from the theory of evolution is that we are all biological equals. What's racist about that?

 

[Asimov]

Interesting little fact, when Darwin was travelling on the Bugle, he had an argument with the captain, Fitzroy, over slavery. Fitzroy was all for it, Darwin was morally opposed to slavery.

(aint Mark Steel grand )

Wasn't it the Beagle?

 

[The Seeker]

Wasn't it the Beagle?

brain not fuly active at this hour.

Edited.

 

[jjdoe]

There is no such thing as race on a biological level!!!

Race is a social construct.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Racism was always around. It just took the Darwinists to justify it scientifically.

Your entire argument is based on a lie, the lie that the theory of evolution claims that some humans are less evolved than others. This is not the case, ToE is not racist because it argues that humanity is one race, it took religion to try and claim otherwise.

The taxonomic tables that appeared in the 19th century and claimed to classify human races in order of advancement were falsified by evolutionists, social Darwinism was a quasi-scientific twisting of the ToE in which racists attempted to use science to justify their bigotry. It was however opposed by leading evolutionary scientists from its very outset and was long ago falsified by evolutionists. They fought long and hard against social Darwinism because its primary supporters were a very strong lobby - they were the religious right.

You may want to read up on the history of social Darwinism before presenting this fallacy again, you may also want to properly research the ToE because once you understand it it is very hard to justify social Darwinism on the basis of evolutionary theory.

Of course I suspect you will do neither because your real motivation seems to be to cynically attack the ToE in any way you can, regardless of the legitimacy of the attack.

As some one of mixed race I have a great deal of emotional investment in the horrors of racism and I get extremely angry when people co-opt the suffering of millions to make an emotive appeal when there is no truth to their accusations. I find it extremely bad form and I am constantly ashamed to see Christians do it, seemingly heedless of the truth, as if any tactic was justified in defence of their dogmatic oposition to ToE.

Racism is a serious problem that has brought suffering to millions, please stop cynically using it as an excuse for your own belief system when it has nothing at all to do with what you are attacking. We are people we are not pawns in your game.

Ghost

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=jjdoe: "uh..race is a social construct."

Human evolution is also a social construct.

"Genetic variations between members of the same "race" are often greater then individuals of another "race". Thus, there is no such thing as race."

If there is no such thing as race, how can genetic variations be determined between the "same race" and "another race?" Sounds like a condradiction in terms.

"Crawford has been on this trip for a long time now."

Anglo-Saxon evolutionists have been on a longer trip.

"Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some as well."

American tobacco?

"Anyways, I think ignorant threads like these should be removed from Creation/Evolution."

That would be scientifically prejudicial.

 

[john crawford]

Most of you are confusing evolution with social darwinism. The concept of "b" being more highly evolved than "a" is social darwinism, not evolution.

What would you call the Anglo-Saxon concept of African people being mutant descendents of hairy African apes? Evolution or social darwinism?

 

[The Seeker]

What would you call the Anglo-Saxon concept of African people being mutant descendents of hairy African apes? Evolution or social darwinism?

Considering that it says that Anglo-Saxons are descended from the same "hairy African apes", I don't see the problem. Besides, everybody knows that the Celts are the most highly evolved race*

*For the awareness impaired, this is sarcasm

 

[The Seeker]

 

[JohnR7]

Race is a social construct.

Actually, I think the word your looking for is culture. Like my wife says: You can take the Filipino out of the Philippines, but you can not take the Philippines out of the Filipino.

 

[JohnR7]

Ops, swing and a miss. The idea that evolution is a tree has been falsified, they now believe that it is a bush.

 

[The Seeker]

Ops, swing and a miss. The idea that evolution is a tree has been falsified, they now believe that it is a bush.

Way to deliberately miss the freaking point

 

[john crawford]

The fossil record is but one piece of evidence.

Anglo-Saxon evolutionists use the fossil record to substantiate the Nordic myth that the original African people were mutant descendents of hairy African apes.

 

[john crawford]

I don't understand how evolution can be racist of all humans--Anglo Saxon, Asian, African--descended from a common AFrican ancestor. That would make EVERYONE African or "black" if you go back far enough.

We're all the same.

Why do Anglo-Saxon evolutionists want to make everyone African or "black" if "we're all the same" in the first place and only Africans evolved from hairy apes in Africa?

 

[john crawford]

People required larger brains in harsher terrains, ie the wintery north, so they evolved that way after they left Africa (according to the out of Africa theory). It is easier to live in the Africa than Europe. That is not racist, it's logic.

That's only Anglo-Saxon logic since bigger brains don't prove anything regarding one's sex and race.

 

[john crawford]

It's easier to live in Africa? Therefore people in Europe required larger brains?

How about some evidence showing that a modern European brain is larger than an modern African brain?

It's largely a matter of bigger egos than brains.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Why do Anglo-Saxon evolutionists want to make everyone African or "black" if "we're all the same" in the first place and only Africans evolved from hairy apes in Africa?

No, we ALL evolved from a common ancestor, possibly somewhere in what is now the continent of Africa.

I'm quite clearly, as I said, NOT Anglo-Saxon and I accept this.

Which, exactly, of your constructed stereotypes is it you have a beef with, 'evolutionists' or Anglo-Saxons?

Ghost

 

[john crawford]

Sorry, I don't understand, could you explain please?

Social, academic and intellectual Darwinism based on scientific naturalism is strictly an Anglo-Saxon development.

 

[john crawford]

Please point me to the evidence that has falisified evolution.

Social darwinism is not evolution

Since the human fossil record shows no evidence of hairy African apes ever mutating into African people, the Nordic myth that they did is further evidence of Anglo-Saxon social darwinism and not human evolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ops, swing and a miss. The idea that evolution is a tree has been falsified, they now believe that it is a bush.

The idea that that was an attempt at humor has been falsified...