How did apes evolvle into humans?

[Grengor]

Define "Human".

 

[john crawford]

And the facts.

Oh, yes. Concepts of the facts too.

 

[ebia]

Generally speaking, both, plus all other members of the human race who may take offense at a "science" which catagorically theorizes that some, if not all, of their human ancestors were not human.

Just because you are offended by the concept that your distant ancestors were not human, does not make the concept racist.

If evolution said some races were descended from non-humans and some not, that would be racist. Saying we are all equally descended from non-humans is not racist, however offensive some people might find it.

Racist and offensive do not mean the same thing.

 

[john crawford]

Erm I thought anything in the genus "homo" was considered a human? Homo erectus is human, but a different species of human.

I wonder what the term "human" may entail.

That's a good question considering the fact that H. erectus types are fully human and not a different species. Perhaps we might start with a good dictionary definition of what it means to be human since some evolutionists seem to think that some extinct Australopithicine apes were human.

 

[john crawford]

You could replace the end result with anyone, Asian, African, European, Latin American, and it would still be true.

It would still be racist too.

 

[sidiousmax225]

It would still be racist too.

 

[john crawford]

How can you be racist against everybody? That makes no sense.

It would if you were against full and equal status for all members of the human race and their human ancestors.

 

[Oonna]

It would still be racist too.

Rep 31
Post's 1,643

nuff said

 

[john crawford]

Such claims as those found in Genesis are merely based on a racial theory that God chooses certain tribes over others. Rather than recognize the full and equal humanity of all, God selects his chosen people, and therefore is, generally speaking, a racist form of judgement against all other human beings.

Difference is though, that neo-Darwinist racial theories of evolutionism are taught in U.S. public schools, not creationism.

 

[john crawford]

Such claims as those found in Genesis are merely based on a racial theory that God chooses certain tribes over others. Rather than recognize the full and equal humanity of all, God selects his chosen people, and therefore is, generally speaking, a racist form of judgement against all other human beings.

They don't teach that in U.S. public schools, do they?

 

[john crawford]

Such claims as those found in Genesis are merely based on a racial theory that God chooses certain tribes over others. Rather than recognize the full and equal humanity of all, God selects his chosen people, and therefore is, generally speaking, a racist form of judgement against all other human beings.

Try teaching that in a public school.

 

[nvxplorer]

They don't teach that in U.S. public schools, do they?

Such claims as those found in Genesis are merely based on a racial theory that God chooses certain tribes over others. Rather than recognize the full and equal humanity of all, God selects his chosen people, and therefore is, generally speaking, a racist form of judgement against all other human beings.

How do you like it, John? Does it get a little annoying after awhile? Your last thread on this subject, where you repeated the same tired argument, word for stinking word, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again; that thread was closed. I suspect this one will be shut down as well.

 

[ebia]

It would if you were against full and equal status for all members of the human race and their human ancestors.

Make your mind up - is it racist because it is offensive to some group currently living, or racist because it is offensive against some group now extinct?

Do try and keep your story straight.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=ebia:

"Just because you are offended by the concept that your distant ancestors were not human, does not make the concept racist."

I believe it does since I am human and believe that scientifically categorizing any of my ancestors as sub-human or non-human species is scientific racism.

"If evolution said some races were descended from non-humans and some not, that would be racist."

Any scientific theory which claims that members of the human race are descended from non-humans by an evolutionary process is racist.

"Saying we are all equally descended from non-humans is not racist, however offensive some people might find it."

Whether people find it offensive or not doesn't change the fact that they regard human evolution as a racial theory.

"Racist and offensive do not mean the same thing."

Neither do race and species since a race of people cannot be categorized as a separate species.

 

[nvxplorer]

Why are you telling us this, John? We're not your audience. There are many anti-racist organization you could contact if you're serious about this.

Try the ADL and the NAACP for starters.

 

[john crawford]

Make your mind up - is it racist because it is offensive to some group currently living, or racist because it is offensive against some group now extinct?

Do try and keep your story straight.

A theory of human evolution and descent from other species may be racist whether anyone finds it offensive or not. Some people find the theory racist and some just find it offensive. Some find it both and some find it neither. I don't find the theory to be racist just because I'm offended by it. I find the theory offensive because I first found it racist.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Thats great John, are you a biologist or anthropologist by chance?
Meaning, have you ever had any kind of formal education on the subject?

 

[ebia]

QUOTE=ebia:

"Just because you are offended by the concept that your distant ancestors were not human, does not make the concept racist."

I believe it does since I am human and believe that scientifically categorizing any of my ancestors as sub-human or non-human species is scientific racism.

[snip]

"Saying we are all equally descended from non-humans is not racist, however offensive some people might find it."

Whether people find it offensive or not doesn't change the fact that they regard human evolution as a racial theory.

"Racist and offensive do not mean the same thing."

Neither do race and species since a race of people cannot be categorized as a separate species.

In one post you have said evolution is racist because you find it offensive, and that it is racist, but not because you find it offensive. Until you make your mind up and stop contradicting yourself, you won't make much sense to anyone else.

"If evolution said some races were descended from non-humans and some not, that would be racist."

Any scientific theory which claims that members of the human race are descended from non-humans by an evolutionary process is racist.

You need to give a clear, non-contradictory, reason why this is so instead of going in circles.

 

[corvus_corax]

I believe it does since I am human and believe that scientifically categorizing any of my ancestors as sub-human or non-human species is scientific racism.

This, of course, makes no sense. Dont even pretend that it does.
Taken as you said it-
"I am human and believe that scientifically categorizing Eomaia as sub-human or non-human species is scientific racism"

Your statement is silly and non-sensical

Any scientific theory which claims that members of the human race are descended from non-humans by an evolutionary process is racist.

Oh, so ANY theory that states that we came from a pre-Homo genera is racist?
You sir, are spouting drivel

Neither do race and species since a race of people cannot be categorized as a separate species.

Homo Erectus was not a seperate race (according to the way you are using the term in this quote)...they were a seperate species.
Methinks you use the Dictionary when the definition applies to your argument, but turn around (as you have here) and throw all definitions out the window

Generally speaking, according to Oxford's definition of race, yes, but most animals are not members of the human race and don't have civil rights.

Ive asked before, I'll ask again-
When did the Neandertals begin demanding equal rights?
(Hopefully you'll get my point this time)

Difference is though, that neo-Darwinist racial theories of evolutionism are taught in U.S. public schools, not creationism.

They don't teach that in U.S. public schools, do they?

Ah, I see.
So if Creationism were taught in public schools, you would likewise decry the literal biblical teachings that God told his "chosen people" to commit racial genocide?
You would then stand up to Biblical racism?

Somehow I doubt that you would be up-in-arms about this teaching

 

[sidiousmax225]

It would if you were against full and equal status for all members of the human race and their human ancestors.

So wait. Is it racist that we don't include the first simple bacterial lifeforms, from where all life branched out from, in the human race?