How did apes evolvle into humans?

[Norseman]

Still beating a dead horse are you jc?
This old "evolution=racism" canard (along with countless variations) is tired and pathetic. It has been refuted and destroyed several times on these forums.
It seems to me that you are simply looking at this through "racism colored glasses", which speaks simply of a previous unsubstantiated bias.

Give it a rest.

No, no, I think he's got a point. Evolutionism is racist, therefore it is false, ergo creationism is true, therefore creationists are infallible. Jown Crawford knows evolutionism is racist (from first-hand experience, I assume?), and since he is a creationist, he is infallible, and therefore evolutionism is racist. Perfectly supported, reasoned, and logical.

 

[corvus_corax]

No, no, I think he's got a point. Evolutionism is racist, therefore it is false, ergo creationism is true, therefore creationists are infallible. Jown Crawford knows evolutionism is racist (from first-hand experience, I assume?), and since he is a creationist, he is infallible, and therefore evolutionism is racist. Perfectly supported, reasoned, and logical.

I love your humor
(lets ignore, of course, shall we Mr Crawford, those little details such as Church Fathers using scriptures to justify racism....close a blind eye to it, shall we? hehe)

 

[Freodin]

Are you saying that when evolutionists compare the first human fossils in Africa with those human-like fossils of some monkey offspring, they are able to theorize that the first African people resembled human-like monkeys? That sounds like a racist theory of human evolution to me.

Sorry, I fail to see the racism in that.

Yes, the first African people resembled human-like monkeys. Where is the racism? These human-like monkeys were our ancestors. OUR ancestors! The ancestors of modern Africans as well as modern Asians, Europeans, Australians and Americans.

Where is the racism?

 

[Carico]

Sorry, I fail to see the racism in that.

Yes, the first African people resembled human-like monkeys. Where is the racism? These human-like monkeys were our ancestors. OUR ancestors! The ancestors of modern Africans as well as modern Asians, Europeans, Australians and Americans.

Where is the racism?

It is indeed racism. The very first thought that gave Darwin the idea of evolution was the fact that he thought Africans look liked monkeys, not the other way around because at that point, he had nothing that he considered evidence. Nothing. There had not been fossil studies yet, nor "archeological findings"" simply the notion that Africans look like monkeys. And that's how the whole thing started.

 

[notto]

It is indeed racism. The very first thought that gave Darwin the idea of evolution was the fact that he thought Africans look liked monkeys, not the other way around because at that point, he had nothing that he considered evidence. Nothing. There had not been fossil studies yet, nor "archeological findings"" simply the notion that Africans look like monkeys. And that's how the whole thing started.

Can you quote a reference to back up your assertion? What resources have you read that led you to this conclusion? How much of Darwin have you read? Please be specific.

 

[Carico]

Can you quote a reference to back up your assertion? What resources have you read that led you to this conclusion? How much of Darwin have you read? Please be specific.

Darwin would never publish anything until he had a spark of what he called evidence or he would have been kicked out of the scientific community so fast we would have never even heard of him. But why in the world would anyone even embark on such a journey as the fact that man came from apes if he did not first think there was a resemblance? Notice that no one has ever said that humans came from ants, have they? Remember also that prejudice against Blacks was rampant in the 19th century. Even the "best" minds of the day like Lincoln, thought that Blacks were inferior to Whites but should be freed anyway.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Can you quote a reference to back up your assertion? What resources have you read that led you to this conclusion? How much of Darwin have you read? Please be specific.

Darwin would never publish anything until he had a spark of what he called evidence or he would have been kicked out of the scientific community so fast we would have never even heard of him. But why in the world would anyone even embark on such a journey as the fact that man came from apes if he did not first think there was a resemblance? Notice that no one has ever said that humans came from ants, have they? Remember also that prejudice against Blacks was rampant in the 19th century. Even the "best" minds of the day like Lincoln, thought that Blacks were inferior to Whites but should be freed anyway.

Translation: No. I can not back up my assertion with your so called evidence. Don’t you understand that I gave up on evidence a long time ago? All I go by is blind faith when assertions are given to me and is it vital to my argument that you do the same. Why do you have to make this so hard? Just because my assertions are unsubstantiated doesn’t mean they are wrong. Sheesh.

 

[notto]

Darwin would never publish anything until he had a spark of what he called evidence or he would have been kicked out of the scientific community so fast we would have never even heard of him. But why in the world would anyone even embark on such a journey as the fact that man came from apes if he did not first think there was a resemblance? Notice that no one has ever said that humans came from ants, have they? Remember also that prejudice against Blacks was rampant in the 19th century. Even the "best" minds of the day like Lincoln, thought that Blacks were inferior to Whites but should be freed anyway.

Perhaps you should actually read his works before you make up assertions (lies) about his motives and work.

Can we take this as your admission that you can't back up your assertions and what he used for evidence. You should read the first chapter of Descent of Man. No mention of the 'resemblance' to Africans you keep talking about as his spark but much more is discussed. A lot of discussion about anatomical and other characteristics of ALL men that are common to apes.

Quit lieing and acually read his book. You credibility about Darwins motives is zero until you actually support them or show that you are familiar with his work.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-01.html

 

[Nathan Poe]

Darwin would never publish anything until he had a spark of what he called evidence or he would have been kicked out of the scientific community so fast we would have never even heard of him.

Exactly. Rememeber this the next time you rail endlessly against the Theory of Evolution.

But why in the world would anyone even embark on such a journey as the fact that man came from apes if he did not first think there was a resemblance?

Ah.... but Darwin never said this... this is your own unsupported assumption.

Now substantiate it or retract it.

Notice that no one has ever said that humans came from ants, have they?

You see a resemblance between humans and ants? Well, for starters, they have a few too many legs.

Really, Carico, even you can do better than this...

Remember also that prejudice against Blacks was rampant in the 19th century. Even the "best" minds of the day like Lincoln, thought that Blacks were inferior to Whites but should be freed anyway.

Which was precisely the kind of thinking that Darwin worked hard to do away with.

Had you actually read anything by the man, his views against racism would be abundantly clear.

Do us all a favor, Carico: Learn something, then come back.

 

[Norseman]

I've got it! Carico and jc think that evolution is like the wrong side of the following:

So naturally, they think evolutionists must think anything that we evolved from is below us, and therefore not as good as us. Their perception would be correct, if it weren't for the fact that they base that perception on a strawman of evolution.

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting. Carry on folks.

 

[john crawford]

This old "evolution=racism" canard (along with countless variations) is tired and pathetic. It has been refuted and destroyed several times on these forums. It seems to me that you are simply looking at this through "racism colored glasses", which speaks simply of a previous unsubstantiated bias. Give it a rest.

If evolutionist theories about human origins really are racist, it is too serious a matter to rest one's case against evolutionism being taught in public schools.

 

[notto]

If evolutionist theories about human origins really are racist, it is too serious a matter to rest one's case against evolutionism being taught in public schools.

Well, the theories aren't racist so don't worry about it. Evolution shows us that we all came from the same ancestors. Can't see how that could be considered racist or cause any problems today so you can give it a rest.

 

[john crawford]

Yes, the first African people resembled human-like monkeys. Where is the racism? These human-like monkeys were our ancestors. OUR ancestors! The ancestors of modern Africans as well as modern Asians, Europeans, Australians and Americans. Where is the racism?

Claims that a species of "human-like monkeys" were the immediate relatives of the first human "species" of human beings in Africa are simply based, founded and established in accordance with racist theories of human origins which claim to be scientific. These theorists don't scientifically define or differentiate between what they consider to be the "social concept and construct" of race and the scientific concept and evidence of species. Hence, they disregard the definition, meaning and application of the term race in reference to human origins and artificially and superficially apply the concept of species in describing and grading the physical characteristics of our human ancestors.

 

[notto]

These theorists don't scientifically define or differentiate between what they consider to be the "social concept and construct" of race and the scientific concept and evidence of species.

Actually, yes they do. There is only one species of human. All races are the same species.

Can you show us actual scientific work confuses or refuses to define this very specifically?

If you can, I'd like to see it. If you can't, quit making stuff up that you can't back up.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=notto

"Well, the theories aren't racist so don't worry about it."

How do you know that the theories are not racist? Do you know the definition and meaning of the word, race?

"Evolution shows us that we all came from the same ancestors."

There happens to be a current and ongoing discussion and debate about that also.

"Can't see how that could be considered racist or cause any problems today so you can give it a rest."

Stay tuned for more facts, data and information unless you find further discussion and debate too disturbing and would prefer to discuss something else.

 

[notto]

Stay tuned for more facts, data and information unless you find further discussion and debate too disturbing and would prefer to discuss something else.

If it means that you will actually support with evidence what you claim the theory of evolution says with actual references to the work of evolutionary biologists, then yes, please continue.

If you are simply going to continue to repeat your unsupprted claims and continue to build your strawman, then I will bow out.

Feel free to give us these facts, data, and information. You haven't really provided any so far, have you.

 

[:æ:]

How do you know that the theories are not racist?

Because racism involves prescriptive statements, whereas scientific theories only invovle descriptive ones. There, that was easy.

:æ:

 

[john crawford]

"There is only one species of human."

Not according to theories of human evolution out of Africa.

"All races are the same species."

The concept of various species based on different physical characteristics, by definition, when applied to humans may be considered to be one of the major divisions of humankind, hence the meaning of the word, race, is also applied to any genus, species, breed or variety of animals, including persons connected by common descent.

"Can you show us actual scientific work confuses or refuses to define this very specifically?"

No. Evolutionists seem to be very reticent about classifying all of their different human species as fully human members of the human race.

"If you can, I'd like to see it. If you can't, quit making stuff up that you can't back up."

I can back up my claims regardless of what evolutionists say.

 

[RoboMastodon]

"There is only one species of human."

Not according to theories of human evolution out of Africa.

"All races are the same species."

The concept of various species based on different physical characteristics, by definition, when applied to humans may be considered to be one of the major divisions of humankind, hence the meaning of the word, race, is also applied to any genus, species, breed or variety of animals, including persons connected by common descent.

"Can you show us actual scientific work confuses or refuses to define this very specifically?"

No. Evolutionists seem to be very reticent about classifying all of their different human species as fully human members of the human race.

"If you can, I'd like to see it. If you can't, quit making stuff up that you can't back up."

I can back up my claims regardless of what evolutionists say.

Two populations can only be said to be different species if they cannot reproduce with each other. Since all human races can easily reproduce with each other, they are the same species. Shut up with this "evolution is racist" rant, it is dishonest, and quite silly.

 

[john crawford]

If it means that you will actually support with evidence what you claim the theory of evolution says with actual references to the work of evolutionary biologists, then yes, please continue.

Since it is evolutionist theory regarding human origins, which is being charged with being racist, one might hardly expect those professors of "evolutionary" biology who support and give credence to evolutionist theories about human origins to be supportive with evidence refuting their own beliefs.