How did apes evolvle into humans?

[john crawford]

So evolution is racist against the human race?

Evolutionist theories are racist when they deny full humanity to population groups like our European Neandertal and African Homo erectus relatives. By arbitrarily assigning a degrading status of species to Neandertal and Homo erectus men and women, the evolutionist theorists unwittingly betray their scientific acceptance of all human beings as biological equals. They say that all people are biologically equal and then theorize that the first African people are more closely related to ape-like non-humans than we are today.

That's a form of scientific racism, even to African people.

 

[john crawford]

"On the other hand, the Bible states that God created each kind seperately and humans exclusively in his own image. THIS IS RACIST! BAN THE BIBLE!

Teaching biblical or scientific creationism is already banned in public schools.

Now's the time to also ban all racist teachings of human origins in public schools.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Nathan Poe:

"If you want to categorize different ehtnic groups as different species, you're on your own there."

Rather than "categorize different ethnic groups as different species," some creationists would prefer to categorize neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution out of Africa as a form of scientific racism.

 

[Jet Black]

Well the Way i see it, If you share my faith of Christanity, We were created By God Not evolved from apes, God Made us all unique.

non sequitur.

 

[john crawford]

If by this you mean that these werent Homo sapiens sapiens then those neo-Darwinists are correct. They were not members of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species. They were a distinct and seperate species (and/or subspecies, depending upon which Homo we are specifically referring to) within the Homo genus, just like Homo sapiens sapiens

Such comments are obviously based on neo-Darwinist racial theories about the human race's evolution from non-human entities in Africa once upon a time.

Classifying certain people in human history as a different and separate sub-human species incapable of human inter-fertility and breeding with other people is definitely a form of scientific racism.

 

[JimmyKoKoPop]

Classifying certain people in human history as a different and separate sub-human species incapable of human inter-fertility and breeding with other people is definitely a form of scientific racism.

The term "sub-human" is a term that doesn't apply in science. That's making a value judgement, saying that they are somehow "worse" and "below" normal humans.

And in any case, no group of people in human history is described today as a seperate species or sub-species of homo sapiens.

 

[john crawford]

I have yet to make sense of John Crawford's claim.

John, are you saying that because African-Americans have been discriminated against, any theory that has man evolving out of Africa is racist toward African-Americans? What I just wrote doesn't make sense, either, but I'm seriously trying to understand what Mr. Crawford is saying. John?

I certainly appreciate your attempt to understand what I am saying, but African-Americans have no more to do with evolutionist racism than descendents of Cro-Magnon or Neandertal men and women do.

It is the theory of human evolution out of Africa which is racist, not the people who advocate or support it, no matter what their ethnicity is.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Evolutionist theories are racist when they deny full humanity to population groups like our European Neandertal and African Homo erectus relatives. By arbitrarily assigning a degrading status of species to Neandertal and Homo erectus men and women, the evolutionist theorists unwittingly betray their scientific acceptance of all human beings as biological equals. They say that all people are biologically equal and then theorize that the first African people are more closely related to ape-like non-humans than we are today.

No. We theorise no such thing. That is why you are wrong. Since we've now identified the cause of your mistaken belief that evolution is racist, perhaps we will hear no more of it, though I doubt it.

According to mainstream evolutionary theory, I (white British male) am just as closely related to Australopithecus as Louis Armstrong was.

Clear?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Such comments are obviously based on neo-Darwinist racial theories about the human race's evolution from non-human entities in Africa once upon a time.

Classifying certain people in human history as a different and separate sub-human species incapable of human inter-fertility and breeding with other people is definitely a form of scientific racism.

OK. Neither neandertalis nor erectus are considered sub-human. Anything in genus Homo is human.

No-one knows the degree of inter-fertility between these two and sapiens. Indeed, around the period that speciation was taking place I expect there was complete interfertility at least potentially, even if for reasons of geographical isolation (perhaps giving rise to the speciation events) it wasn't actually happening, in the same way that in 400AD speakers of Latin dialects in Gaul, Iberia and Italy could all understand each other in a way that modern French, Spanish and Italian speakers can't.

 

[Elduran]

Since neo-Darwinists merely speculate that Neanderthal and Homo erectus people and their ancestors were not fully human and were not members of the human race but were instead a distinct and separate sub-human "species," any theory which they dream up and imagine to explain human origins out of Africa is a form of scientific racism according to both Lubenow's and the Oxford dictionary's superlative definition of the words, race and racism.

John: my ancestors were shorter than me. Is this statement a) fact or b) racism?

Simple, it's (a). Claiming that it was (b) would be foolish, right?

Guess what your claim sounds more like...

 

[dr.p]

I read this thread very carefully, and most of the articles linked to.

Referencing: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16757428&postcount=53

The last image (table of skulls) makes it looks like modern humans evolved from modern chimpanzees, as opposed to a common ancestor that looks dissimilar to either.

Where's the corresponding image of the progression of chimp skulls (or any primate skulls) through the ages? That, IMHO, would help a little if you are assuming (and you are assuming) that we share a common ancestor with primates.

I see two very distinct groupings of creatures in that image. A-E, to me, looks like primates, and F-L looks like humans... and the more I look at them all and compare them, the more the groups distinguish themselves.

Referencing: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16760929&postcount=107

Couldn't the fact that great apes and chimps both have 48 chromosomes, and we have 46, point to (in any realm of possibility) the fact that primates and humans DO NOT share a common ancestor? Isn't that AT LEAST a possibility? Isn't it a possibility that there were, at one time, a much larger variety of human-like beings, and ape-like beings, and most of them simply died out? Or even that humans changed, but to the degree being claimed?

Someone made a point about horse and mule interbreeding, and lions and tigers... you do realize that all asses (as far as I know,) and most ligers/tigons, are infertile? From what I've read, liger females are usually fertile, but the males are never(?).

When an interbred animal is consistently infertile, I consider that to be nature trying to tell us something. What, exactly, I won't go into.

Summary:

The more I look at evolution, the more I see the possibility of a common ancestor, and what the reasoning is behind that belief... but I'm always blindsided by how you evolutionists are just as stubborn as the creationists. Jumping from "it looks like we share an ancestor" to "yes, we absolutely share an ancestor" when there are gaps in the evidence is just as wrong as ignoring all the scientific evidence that's been gathered, IMHO.

 

[Elduran]

Couldn't the fact that great apes and chimps both have 48 chromosomes, and we have 46, point to (in any realm of possibility) the fact that primates and humans DO NOT share a common ancestor? Isn't that AT LEAST a possibility? Isn't it a possibility that there were, at one time, a much larger variety of human-like beings, and ape-like beings, and most of them simply died out? Or even that humans changed, but to the degree being claimed?

It's not too likely when you actually examine the chromosones and note that all of them are analogous between the chimpanzee and humans, with 2 pairs of chromosones in chimp DNA corresponding with a single larger chromosone in human DNA. This in itself wouldn't be convincing, but the human single chromosone contains remnants of termination points where it would originally have been separated, giving both humans and chimps 48 chromosones.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Couldn't the fact that great apes and chimps both have 48 chromosomes, and we have 46, point to (in any realm of possibility) the fact that primates and humans DO NOT share a common ancestor? Isn't that AT LEAST a possibility? Isn't it a possibility that there were, at one time, a much larger variety of human-like beings, and ape-like beings, and most of them simply died out? Or even that humans changed, but to the degree being claimed?

Almost anything's a possibility. What's intriguing about the ape/human chromosome difference is that human chromosome 2 is quite clearly a cobbling together of two chromosomes that are present in other apes but not in humans, whilst human chromosome 2 is missing from the other apes. This chromosome even has the remains of the original telomeres from the two chromosomes from which it derived.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Since neo-Darwinists merely speculate that Neanderthal and Homo erectus people and their ancestors were not fully human and were not members of the human race but were instead a distinct and separate sub-human "species," any theory which they dream up and imagine to explain human origins out of Africa is a form of scientific racism according to both Lubenow's and the Oxford dictionary's superlative definition of the words, race and racism.

Since you are incapable or unwilling to admit the errors in your argument, surely you must admit that this is nothing but a form of ad hominem/poisoning the well.

Whether or not the theory of evolution is racist has nothing to do with its veracity. You are fishing for a justification for an emotional knee-jerk reaction and using loaded language to do it.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=JimmyKoKoPop

"The term "sub-human" is a term that doesn't apply in science."

So what? It's a term that applies in ethics, morality, politics, history, psychology, education, social science and society in general.

"That's making a value judgement, saying that they are somehow "worse" and "below" normal humans."

So what? Just because so-called extinct 'species' of the human race can't make value judgements anymore doesn't mean that we the living can't.

"And in any case, no group of people in human history is described today as a seperate species or sub-species of homo sapiens."

Wanna bet? Even Homo sapiens sapiens are considered to be a sub-species of humanity according to evolutionist doctrine, to say nothing of it's relegating Neandertal Man in Europe and Homo ergaster men and women in Africa to the sub-human level of a different species more closely related to African apes than we are.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Karl - Liberal Backslider

"According to mainstream evolutionary theory, I (white British male) am just as closely related to Australopithecus as Louis Armstrong was."

That's just a racist theory, Karl. Louis Armstrong wasn't related to any extinct Australopithicine apes in Africa. He was an All-American jazzman. Just because some of his ancestors may have likely been born in Africa doesn't mean that he was a descendent of a non-human species of apes. To imply such a thing is the result of subscribing to, and believing in neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution, Karl.

 

[Nathan Poe]

QUOTE=Karl - Liberal Backslider

"According to mainstream evolutionary theory, I (white British male) am just as closely related to Australopithecus as Louis Armstrong was."

That's just a racist theory, Karl. Louis Armstrong wasn't related to any extinct Australopithicine apes in Africa. He was an All-American jazzman. Just because some of his ancestors may have likely been born in Africa doesn't mean that he was a descendent of a non-human species of apes. To imply such a thing is the result of subscribing to, and believing in neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution, Karl.

Wow... you're not even trying anymore, are you?

 

[john crawford]

OK. Neither neandertalis nor erectus are considered sub-human. Anything in genus Homo is human.

OK, so neandertalis and erectus are fully human and capable of interbreeding with each other as equal members of the human race. Why call them different species then if no other purpose is served than to include all members of the human race in Darwin's notion of the origin and separate evolution of species?

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Elduran

"my ancestors were shorter than me. Is this statement a) fact or b) racism?"

Depends who your ancestors were and whether your statement is true or not.

 

[john crawford]

The more I look at evolution, the more I see the possibility of a common ancestor, and what the reasoning is behind that belief... but I'm always blindsided by how you evolutionists are just as stubborn as the creationists. Jumping from "it looks like we share an ancestor" to "yes, we absolutely share an ancestor" when there are gaps in the evidence is just as wrong as ignoring all the scientific evidence that's been gathered, IMHO.

The fact of common descent in human ancestry is not in dispute. It is only a question of which common ancestors we descended from. Biblical Adam and Eve or African Eve and her highly imaginative, speculative and mythical consort.