Important interpretation? : does having been a monkey, help all future "evolutions" in a monkey way?

[Believer000]

You can believe that all you want, but the Bible has clear passages about supporting of slavery (it's to be expected since it was written at a time when slavery was a commonplace thing).

Charles Darwin believed what was commonly believed at the time. People in the Victorian era were racist, though it was massively progressive of Darwin to suggest that white people and black people came from the same place.
But just because Charles Darwin was racist does not in any way, shape or form, mean that theory of evolution is racist. To say it is is an outright lie.

Slavery in the Bible was often a good thing. It was like a kind of 'social security'. If you did not have any money rather than starve you could offer your work to another in exchange for food and housing. There was also Certain laws that protected those in this kind of contract. This was abused by some.

The theory of evolution is still a racist theory in my opinion, the premise still stands. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a racist theory. It was used to justify slavery. Look up the origins and you may learn something.

Believer, using evolution to justify racism via slavery is a touchy subject.

It begs the question:

Was slavery condoned IN SPITE OF evolution? or was slavery condoned WITH RESPECT TO evolution?

Ultimately, evolution has us all cut from the same cloth, no matter what color we are.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Slavery in the Bible was often a good thing. It was like a kind of 'social security'. If you did not have any money rather than starve you could offer your work to another in exchange for food and housing. There was also Certain laws that protected those in this kind of contract. This was abused by some.

The theory of evolution is still a racist theory in my opinion, the premise still stands. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Slavery is still slavery, no matter how you try and butter it up.

And no, you are just flat out wrong. You can't even show how the theory of evolution except by trotting out the old "Oh, Darwin was racist, so the theory of evolution is racist too!" lie. Either prove it or stop lying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either prove it or stop lying.

Do you honestly think he's lying?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Believer, using evolution to justify racism via slavery is a touchy subject.

It begs the question:

Was slavery condoned IN SPITE OF evolution? or was slavery condoned WITH RESPECT TO evolution?

Ultimately, evolution has us all cut from the same cloth, no matter what color we are.

Asking a moral question of a theory in biological science is like asking a moral question of cheese making. Quite dumb and pointless.

But your point does stand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you honestly think he's lying?

I might get a mod on me if I say what I really think, so I plead the Fifth.

 

[Believer000]

Slavery is still slavery, no matter how you try and butter it up.

And no, you are just flat out wrong. You can't even show how the theory of evolution except by trotting out the old "Oh, Darwin was racist, so the theory of evolution is racist too!" lie. Either prove it or stop lying.

He was a racist individual. There is no trotting around that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He was a racist individual. There is no trotting around that.

But that does not mean that theory of evolution is racist though!
Prove to me that theory of evolution is racist, without relying on the fact that Darwin was a Victorian-period Englishman and had the commonly held beliefs of such.

 

[Believer000]

But that does not mean that theory of evolution is racist though!
Prove to me that theory of evolution is racist, without relying on the fact that Darwin was a Victorian-period Englishman and had the commonly held beliefs of such.

The theory of evolution is Dawins brain child. A reading of Dawins own writings will point you to an individual who believed one race was more advanced than another based on how they physically looked. He also believed men had larger brains than women. However, his theory is still the foundation of what many 'scientists' believe today. You cannot say you believe in evolution while counteracting a large part of what Dawin based his theory on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The theory of evolution is Dawins brain child. A reading of Dawins own writings will point you to an individual who believed one race was more advanced than another based on how they physically looked. He also believed men had larger brains than women. However, his theory is still the foundation of what many 'scientists' believe today. You cannot say you believe in evolution while counteracting a large part of what Dawin based his theory on.

Again:
Prove to me that theory of evolution is racist, without relying on the fact that Darwin was a Victorian-period Englishman and had the commonly held beliefs of such.

All you are doing is saying Darwin's personal thoughts, and saying nothing about the theory of evolution regarding racism.
The theory of evolution does not end with what Darwin wrote or thought. He came with the basis for the modern ideas for evolution, but that does not mean he is the man who had the final say on what the theory of evolution said.

 

[Believer000]

Again:
Prove to me that theory of evolution is racist, without relying on the fact that Darwin was a Victorian-period Englishman and had the commonly held beliefs of such.

All you are doing is saying Darwin's personal thoughts, and saying nothing about the theory of evolution regarding racism.
The theory of evolution does not end with what Darwin wrote or thought. He came with the basis for the modern ideas for evolution, but that does not mean he is the man who had the final say on what the theory of evolution said.

OK, so am I correct in thinking that you believe in evolution but you believe we all evolved from one common ancestor who somehow had to be carrying all of the different skin tones and this person had to have found a mate (from somewhere) and these two (primates?) formed the human that we have today?.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, so am I correct in thinking that you believe in evolution but you believe we all evolved from one common ancestor who somehow had to be carrying all of the different skin tones and this person had to have found a mate (from somewhere) and these two (primates?) formed the human that we have today?.

One does not believe in evolution. It is not a belief. Evolution is the name given to describe a fact of evolution. I accept that the theory of evolution explains what that fact is.

You do realise that I could also ask you same thing regarding Adam and Eve? And th fact that you say "found a mate (from somewhere)" really shows your own personal ignorance regarding the theory of evolution. If you took the time to study it, you'd see why such comments are... well, let's just say that they're bad.

 

[Believer000]

One does not believe in evolution. It is not a belief. Evolution is the name given to describe a fact of evolution. I accept that the theory of evolution explains what that fact is.

You do realise that I could also ask you same thing regarding Adam and Eve? And th fact that you say "found a mate (from somewhere)" really shows your own personal ignorance regarding the theory of evolution. If you took the time to study it, you'd see why such comments are... well, let's just say that they're bad.

Here is the difference between us. I KNOW how and where I came from. Evolution is not based on facts, it is a theory. Evolution has never been proven to be a fact. You believe in a man's idea.

Believing in a Creator completely removes the need to try and figure out how a monkey (somehow) became this amazing human being with an incredibly complex brain.

As an unbeliever (I'm assuming) you will always be trying to figure out your origins.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here is the difference between us. I KNOW how and where I came from. Evolution is not based on facts, it is a theory. Evolution has never been proven to be a fact. You believe in a man's idea.

Believing in a Creator completely removes the need to try and figure out how a monkey (somehow) became this amazing human being with an incredibly complex brain.

As an unbeliever (I'm assuming) you will always be trying to figure out your origins.

A theory in science is the explanation of facts. It does not just mean idea. If you knew anything about science, even at its most basic, you'd know that too.

I do believe that God created everything we see, and I believe that He did so via what we see through the revelation of God's creation, aka through science. And theory of evolution is just a part of that revelation.

I also like how you flat you say "I don't even need to know the details." So, thank you for being honest.

Still nothing in there about proving how evolution is racist.

 

[Believer000]

A theory in science is the explanation of facts. It does not just mean idea. If you knew anything about science, even at its most basic, you'd know that too.

I do believe that God created everything we see, and I believe that He did so via what we see through the revelation of God's creation, aka through science. And theory of evolution is just a part of that revelation.

I also like how you flat you say "I don't even need to know the details." So, thank you for being honest.



Still nothing in there about proving how evolution is racist.

The definition of theory is a collection of IDEAS intended to explain something (the theory of evolution for example). Nothing about a theory is based on facts. A fact would be that the sun is very hot. We know this, it has been proven. Evolution has not.

Oh, you believe in God? That's awesome.

However, God does not need 'science' to prove His existence. Evidence of God is everywhere and all around us. Just look at the plants and the trees and the stars...

 

[AV1611VET]

I might get a mod on me if I say what I really think, so I plead the Fifth.

Evolution breeds hostility.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

I’m not certain what you are asking. It’s to vague and maybe could be worded more precisely.

For example the genus homo which consists of our species , h. Sapiens and many other now extinct humans such as h. neanderthalensis , h. longi and roughly 12 ish other species and the genus Pan ( p. troglodytes and p. paniscus ) roughly 6.4 million years ago. They are the most closely related species to us outside of our genus. That’s why we look very similar and have a lot of the same mannerisms and social cues. We are both part of the Hominini tribe.

This link has 81 scientific papers that have been published , and potentially all peer reviewed, laying out the genetic connections pinpointing to our ancestor 6.4mya.

You mentioned monkey. I’m not sure if you meant primate or if you were alluding to the taxonomic category of simians such as the Macaca radiata. Our ancestors split sometime around 29 million years ago.

So if by unused traits you meant something like the tailbone , well we’ve still had it for over 29 million years. Though by us, meaning humans, as the Homo genus we’ve had it still for a few hundred thousand years.

I’m assuming you’re meaning something like natural instincts. For example, humans get turned on. It’s natural. It’s a hormonal and genetic byproduct of our species. But we have evolved to the point that our emotional intelligence and cognitive processes allows us to choose “ natural man or spiritual man “ paths. We can learn to override it and instead not objectify others.

so if you’re more specific I can also give a better answer.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

The definition of theory is a collection of IDEAS intended to explain something (the theory of evolution for example). Nothing about a theory is based on facts. A fact would be that the sun is very hot. We know this, it has been proven. Evolution has not.

Oh, you believe in God? That's awesome.

However, God does not need 'science' to prove His existence. Evidence of God is everywhere and all around us. Just look at the plants and the trees and the stars...

That’s the way laypeople often misuse the words. From a scientific use of words that’s not what theory means. Theory and law are both based on facts, observations and studies. Laws are facts accompanied by duplicating tests. Theories are facts based on evidence that goes beyond duplication. Laws predict what happens. Theories predict why. A theory does not mean it’s a hypothesis. Theories don’t become laws. They are separated by their intent.

 

[Tanj]

Feel free to comment on this. There are no mechanisms for macroevolution -

The article up to the last paragraph is a reasonable summation of the field. The last paragraph is garbage

My comment: This study confirms my previous claims about factors affecting phenotypes of organisms and observed changes in nature. Alterations in organisms are based on epigenetic factors and designed mechanisms mediated by nutrition, stress, climate and other environmental factors.

This is one of the many factors. The fact it exists doesn't suddenly make all the other findings disappear.

Even one addition or deletion of one methyl group on a gene might have a significant influence on cell activity and identity.

Unlikely. Methylation has a quantitative, additive effect. Also because it differs from cell to cell it's just as likely that a new methylation event in one cell is counterbalanced by one in the cell next door.

Also, what if I have a mutation and the methylation site is swapped out completely, making methylation at that site impossible?

Random mutations or natural selection have no role in biodiversity.

Complete and utter garbage completely made up out of nothing and in no way related to anything to do with any epigenetics, which, by the way base methylation is just one part.

There are no mechanisms for large scale evolution. Everything points to God’s design and creation.

Another throw away nonsense line in no way supported by any aspect of epigenetics, or any other part of biology, or the rest of the article.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Share your wisdom, wise one.

Did you skip biology in HS?