How did apes evolvle into humans?

[john crawford]

This:

just looks like the modern-day version of this:

Which is kind of confusing, considering the new "common ancestor" spin being put on it.

Yes, the 'ape-man to human' parade was a big propaganda victory for evolutionists despite the obvious dark to light transition of hairy apes progressively evolving into species which might be said to resemble some modern people.

 

[sidiousmax225]

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

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Mechanical Bliss:

"Whether or not evolution is "racist" has no bearing on its veracity. Its veracity is determined by evidence."

Whether based on scientific evidence or not, a scientific theory of human origins and evolution based on physical characteristics and perceived differences between race and species may be discovered to have racial overtones and elements of racism inherent in it.

"However, it's clear that your intention is a smear campaign against evolution by calling it "racist" to provoke emotional reactions to your loaded language. To deny that this is what you are doing is ridiculous. And we all know the only reason you do this is because you have no logical, evidentiary argument, just emotional misrepresentations."

Isn't is possible to discuss the perceived differences between race and species based on the physical characteristics of our human ancestors in a rational and scientific manner instead of resorting to emotionalism?

 

[Magnus Vile]

this is more of a long term advantage and would not be a factor in the initial evolution of bipedality, unless there was something fairly immediate which required free hands.

I don't know. I have this idea that tool use in our ancestors drove our evolution in the direction it took. I have absoutely no evidence of this, mind you, just a few ideas that I keep expanding on.

I think the correct, scientific, term for this idea of mine is "guess".

 

[john crawford]

Evolution claims EVERYONE'S ancestors were not human.

Generally speaking, to scientifically speculate or theorize that any of the ancestors of any members of the human race were not human is a form of scientific racism against members of the human race.

Click?

 

[nvxplorer]

Great John. I get it. Speaking for myself, I don't give a damn. If evolution is racist, so be it.

Do you ever post other topics?

 

[john crawford]

Evolution does not claim that SOME persons ancestors were not human - it claims that ALL persons ancestors were not human.

Such claims about the ancestral descent and origins of the human race are merely based on a racial theory of human origins and evolution which denies rather than recognize, the full and equal humanity of all ancestors and descendents of the human race, and is, generally speaking, a racist form of judgement against the ancestry of all equal members of the human race.

 

[Grengor]

If your brother was mentally retarded, would you treat him special? What about sub-humans whose brains aren't as developed as ours?

 

[ebia]

Generally speaking, to scientifically speculate or theorize that any of the ancestors of any members of the human race were not human is a form of scientific racism against members of the human race.

Click?

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

 

[john crawford]

I can savely assume that I am more closely related to my grandfather - who was also an outstanding member of the human race - than to Louis Armstrong. And I don´t even need my grandfather´s permission or the permission of Louis Armstong to state that.

Is this statement racist too?

Of course not, since you, your grandfather and Louis Armstrong may all be considered to be equal members of the human race in good standing.

Obviously, evolutionists wish to apply "scientific" theories about their own ancestral origins to everyone else and impose their theoretical beliefs about race, species and science on others.

 

[nvxplorer]

Such claims about the ancestral descent and origins of the human race are merely based on a racial theory of human origins and evolution which denies rather than recognize, the full and equal humanity of all ancestors and descendents of the human race, and is, generally speaking, a racist form of judgement against the ancestry of all equal members of the human race.

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.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Let's not forget that God shows His racism in action as well as word: Choosing one tribe of people and aiding them exterminate the others -- when He's not busy doing the job Himself.

 

[john crawford]

"Ever hear of a paternity test?

Sure. Do you think that paternity testing of an extinct species of apes or humans might also conclusively prove ancestry or descent?

 

[nvxplorer]

Sure. Do you think that paternity testing of an extinct species of apes or humans might also conclusively prove ancestry or descent?

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.

 

[Smilin]

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.

Agreed!
However,God (supposedly) choosing the Israelites as his "chosen" people, then systematically (according to the Bible) using them to slaughter the inhabitants of the so-called promise land makes him much more than a racist! It makes him a murderer! Especially since he ordered the slaughter of ALL inhabitants of the cities the Israelites "supposedly" took siege to. This included INNOCENT children as well as the women! IMO, it makes him out to be a savage and a murderer!

And the genocide committed by "His" people upon the Native Americans, and African slaves! That God is much more than a racist my friend! That God is a psycopathic murderer!

Just my opinion on the matter!

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Karl - Liberal Backslider:

"Who exactly are you postulating this "racism" is directed against? Ancient Homo erectus or modern Africans?"

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.

"I think we need to know exactly what you're alleging, because you've confused a lot of people."

Thanks for asking. Admittedly, most posters are not familiar with Lubenow's thesis that so-called modern "scientific" theories about human origins and evolution from sub-human and non-human species in Africa are a form of scientific racism. Another difficulty is that in order to discuss the racial aspects and implications of evolutionist theory one needs to resort to standard dictionary definitions of race or accept more scientific understandings and applications. Since the only scientists who might satisfactorily describe and define race are social scientists, theoretical evolutionists have no hard facts or science of their own to rely on in their own profession.

 

[john crawford]

Calling an organism another species means one is racist?!

Theoretically classifying some human ancestors of the human race another species is a form of scientific racism, especially when that species is considered to be sub-human or non-human.

 

[nvxplorer]

Theoretically classifying some human ancestors of the human race another species is a form of scientific racism, especially when that species is considered to be sub-human or non-human.

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.

 

[john crawford]

So is zoology racist because it classifies most animals as "non-human species?"

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.

 

[john crawford]

Since all humans are apes, I really don't see the problem.

Neither do apes.