Human "species"

[recidivist]

My favorite denial of evolution is how atheists willfully misrepresent Darwin's views on race, even to the point of blindly twisting the meaning of what he wrote into something else.

But it's the same old story. Cowards only accept what makes them comfortable and has been sanctioned by state institutions. Whether that's a church authority or secular government makes no difference.

 

[Bells]

My favorite denial of evolution is how atheists willfully misrepresent Darwin's views on race, even to the point of blindly twisting the meaning of what he wrote into something else.

But it's the same old story. Cowards only accept what makes them comfortable and has been sanctioned by state institutions. Whether that's a church authority or secular government makes no difference.

Yes..

And the Klan really were fighting the loss of morality with the "symbol" of the cross...



Your comment is moot as Darwin saw non-whties as human beings and he was an abolitionist as he believed that no human being should be bought or sold.. His racism does not diminish evolution or his understanding of it.

 

[recidivist]

I agree. Racism is wrong, because the state told me so.

How humans evolved and continue to evolve must remain a complete mystery...

 

[James R]

How humans evolved and continue to evolve must remain a complete mystery...

Huh?

 

[recidivist]

Huh?

As in there must be some catalyst for evolutionary change, not just in the world but in our internal biology, and that means any attempt to classify a static, unchanging 'human race' to which all feel they can belong must inevitably be doomed to fail.

Ergo, races exist, JamesR, for a reason.

 

[James R]

recidivist:

I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

Isn't defining "the human race" as simple as asking who can mate with who to produce viable offspring, just the same as defining any species?

Are you saying you can't be sure who is human and who is, say, a chimpanzee?

 

[Bells]

I agree. Racism is wrong, because the state told me so.

Do you think racism is right?

How humans evolved and continue to evolve must remain a complete mystery...

Only if you are the type to believe that Nessie is proof of God creating everything and Dinosaur's co-existing with man...

:shrug:

As in there must be some catalyst for evolutionary change, not just in the world but in our internal biology, and that means any attempt to classify a static, unchanging 'human race' to which all feel they can belong must inevitably be doomed to fail.

Ergo, races exist, JamesR, for a reason.

But we are still human with the exact same physiology. We are the exact same species with the only difference being in how we look.

Race exists solely for racists to feel superior and better about themselves.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Why?How? How are these kids going to survive in the real world?

And we talk about how isolated the N. Korean people are from reality. Meanwhile, indoctrination goes on in our backwards yard.

I think people should rise up and demand their tax dollars not be spent teaching stupid! ...And it gets worse...Yes, it does get worse still..:bawl: I think people should rise up and demand their tax dollars not be spent teaching stupid!

And here's the curriculum to train the voters of tomorrow.

My favorite denial of evolution is how atheists willfully misrepresent Darwin's views

So you're saying atheism is the alternative to fundamentalism.

And "athesists willfully misrepresent Darwin's views" is a rational reply to Bells' evidence.

... on race, even to the point of blindly twisting the meaning of what he wrote into something else.

And you've come to speak on behalf of Darwin's writings. Because atheists live in a world of denial about what Darwin wrote.

And when it comes to race, you're going to compare, say, Linnaeus to, say, George Wallace.

But it's the same old story. Cowards only accept what makes them comfortable and has been sanctioned by state institutions.

So the atheists and the state institutions are cowards, and the people who fill their children's heads with lies are brave.

Whether that's a church authority or secular government makes no difference.

So, authority in general is cowardly, and churches who exercise authority are on the same footing as atheists, and all three of them are twisting Darwin, in order to take the coward's view, such as George Wallace's, on race.

I agree. Racism is wrong, because the state told me so.

George Wallace was the state. He told you that?

How humans evolved and continue to evolve must remain a complete mystery...

In the states like Wallace's? Or are you preparing to digest for us what Darwin said, so we can rid ourselves of the cowardly atheist-church-state misreadings of his actual works?

As in there must be some catalyst for evolutionary change,

And since you're promoting Darwin's actual writings, you've come to tell us what he says that catalyst is.

not just in the world but in our internal biology,

According to George Wallace or Charles Darwin?

and that means any attempt to classify a static, unchanging 'human race' to which all feel they can belong must inevitably be doomed to fail.

Which is why George Wallace took such a activist role in promoting the education. Sounds like a textbook on history.


That sums up what Bells showed us pretty well. Thanks for the demo.

Ergo, races exist, JamesR, for a reason.

Sure. So one can teach the other a lesson.

 

[billvon]

Ergo, races exist, JamesR, for a reason.

That they do! Indeed, they are quite excellent proof of how evolutionary pressures drive changes to phenotypes.

 

[spidergoat]

As in there must be some catalyst for evolutionary change, not just in the world but in our internal biology, and that means any attempt to classify a static, unchanging 'human race' to which all feel they can belong must inevitably be doomed to fail.

Ergo, races exist, JamesR, for a reason.

Humanity is not static, nor does it contain races. It contains variation.

 

[spidergoat]

My favorite denial of evolution is how atheists willfully misrepresent Darwin's views on race, even to the point of blindly twisting the meaning of what he wrote into something else.

But it's the same old story. Cowards only accept what makes them comfortable and has been sanctioned by state institutions. Whether that's a church authority or secular government makes no difference.

Who cares? Darwin was not a God. When he was right, he was right, when he was wrong, he was wrong.

 

[recidivist]

Isn't defining "the human race" as simple as asking who can mate with who to produce viable offspring, just the same as defining any species?

Apart from the fact that you cannot mate with a dog, are you, in all other respects, identical? Why is it that there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they cannot breed with, and yet still there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they can breed with?

Hint: evolution. The gradual accumulation of small, physical changes over long periods of time.

It's an act of your own will that you choose to define humanity in the way you do, and so you cannot, without hypocrisy, reject definitions by others that are also an act of their will.

Homo Sapien means man of knowledge.The definition of what it means to be human has never simply been a case of ability to breed:

Humans have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience,[7][8][9] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".[10]

Are you saying you can't be sure who is human and who is, say, a chimpanzee?

No. After all it is you who is saying that were it possible for chimpanzees to interbreed with humans they would be considered human themselves.

Evolution would clearly go into reverse.

So you're saying atheism is the alternative to fundamentalism.

No, I'm saying both are driven by authority, one secular the other religious, but in both cases it is the overriding social imperative to conform and fit in. Ultimately its about survival which is why such opinions, when they are nothing more than state-sanctioned propaganda, expose the weak and cowardly.

And you've come to speak on behalf of Darwin's writings. Because atheists live in a world of denial about what Darwin wrote

Darwin's words are clear, they don't need any qualification from me. The question is why do atheists distort or ameliorate his opinions on race but accept them unquestionably on other animals when they are clearly backed by scientific fact and archaeological evidence?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)

But we are still human with the exact same physiology.

That would be clones my dear. No such thing exists in nature.

Race exists solely for racists to feel superior and better about themselves.

No my dear, races exist as Bilvon stated, as an accumulation of evolutionary change. An interesting question, though, is was there ever was a singular starting point to begin with?

Humanity is not static, nor does it contain races. It contains variation.

Yes, variations between individuals and groups (races).

Who cares? Darwin was not a God. When he was right, he was right, when he was wrong, he was wrong.

So he was right when he applied his theory to animals, but wrong when he applied it to humans?

Aren't humans also animals? If they are, how do they differ or are they all identical?

 

[recidivist]

Implying that I am sympathetic to the Nazis is another breach of the site rules. Just so you know.

That's interesting, since JamesR clearly states that being human is based upon nothing more than an ability to interbreed devoid of any civilizing values or ethics.

It only seems a small step from there to considering humans the same as rats or pigs.

 

[James R]

recidivist:

I'm not quite sure what it is that you're attempting to argue here. I find it difficult to follow your line of reasoning.

Apart from the fact that you cannot mate with a dog, are you, in all other respects, identical?

Clearly not. Are you claiming that dogs and humans belong to the same species? Because I thought I had fairly clearly defined the term "species" for you.

According to my definition, dogs and humans are not the same species because they cannot interbreed to produce offspring capable of reproducing themselves.

Why is it that there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they cannot breed with, and yet still there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they can breed with?

Humans can't breed with any other animals, as far as I am aware. Can you give me an example of another animal that a human can breed with such that the resultant child can itself produce offspring?

Hint: evolution. The gradual accumulation of small, physical changes over long periods of time.

I'm familiar with evolution.

It's an act of your own will that you choose to define humanity in the way you do, and so you cannot, without hypocrisy, reject definitions by others that are also an act of their will.

If I use the standard definition of "species" and you use a bizarre, idiosyncratic one all of your own, which nobody else in the world uses, then I think I can safely reject your definition, even though you arrived at it through an act of your will.

Homo Sapien means man of knowledge.The definition of what it means to be human has never simply been a case of who can breed with whom

I think you're confusing "human" with "person". They are not synonymous. Being human really is just a matter of who can breed with whom.

Are you saying you can't be sure who is human and who is, say, a chimpanzee?

No. After all it is you who is saying that were it possible for chimpanzees to interbreed with humans they would be considered human themselves.

Yes, of course. That's the definition of what we mean by the term "species".

Evolution would clearly go into reverse.

What on earth would it mean for evolution to "go into reverse". What is "forwards" for evolution? As far as I am aware, evolution doesn't have a direction.

No, I'm saying [religion and atheism] are driven by authority, one secular the other religious, but in both cases it is the overriding social imperative to conform and fit in. Ultimately its about survival which is why such opinions, when they are nothing more than state-sanctioned propaganda, expose the weak and cowardly.

Last time I checked, the US, at least, had a Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits a state-sanctioned establishment of religion.

And you've come to speak on behalf of Darwin's writings. Because atheists live in a world of denial about what Darwin wrote...

Not at all. Darwin was in some ways a man of his era. He shared many of the unconcious racist views of his peers.

What is your argument, exactly? If Darwin was a racist then evolution is wrong? How would that follow?

Darwin's words are clear, they don't need any qualification from me. The question is why do atheists distort or ameliorate his opinions on race but accept them unquestionably on other animals when they are clearly backed by scientific fact and archaeological evidence?

What, exactly, are you claiming is distorted? I can't tell.

But we are still human with the exact same physiology.

That would be clones my dear. No such thing exists in nature.

Aren't identical twins clones?

No my dear, races exist as Bilvon stated, as an accumulation of evolutionary change. An interesting question, though, is was there ever was a singular starting point to begin with?

Race, in its common usage, has little to do with biology and a lot to do with superficial factors and cultural labels.

And starting point for what?

That's interesting, since JamesR clearly states that being human is based upon nothing more than an ability to interbreed devoid of any civilizing values or ethics.

It only seems a small step from there to considering humans the same as rats or pigs.

In the sense of being just one more species, humans are the same as rats and pigs. In fact, we're very closely related to both rats and pigs.

 

[spidergoat]

...

Yes, variations between individuals and groups (races).


So he was right when he applied his theory to animals, but wrong when he applied it to humans?

Aren't humans also animals? If they are, how do they differ or are they all identical?

No, these variations do not constitute a sub-species. Darwin didn't know how to analyze DNA, which reveals relationships hidden by mere appearance.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Apart from the fact that you cannot mate with a dog, are you, in all other respects, identical? Why is it that there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they cannot breed with, and yet still there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they can breed with?

Hint: evolution. The gradual accumulation of small, physical changes over long periods of time.

Homo Sapien means man of knowledge.The definition of what it means to be human has never simply been a case of ability to breed:
:
:
:
Aren't humans also animals? If they are, how do they differ or are they all identical?

Evolution, as it applies to origin of a species, particularly under the pressures of natural selection and the dynamics of opening and closing niches, has nothing to do with this. You are overlooking the more fundamental cause for variation, as contributed by programmed randomizing effects of sexual reproduction, particularly crossover during meiosis.

It's an act of your own will that you choose to define humanity in the way you do, and so you cannot, without hypocrisy, reject definitions by others that are also an act of their will.

You just got through dismissing atheism as authoritarian, and forming some bizarre connection between atheists, churches and governments. It isn't just hypocrisy as you define it that's at play, but a kind hypocrisy that attaches to hyperbole.

 

[Aqueous Id]

That's interesting, since JamesR clearly states that being human is based upon nothing more than an ability to interbreed devoid of any civilizing values or ethics.

It only seems a small step from there to considering humans the same as rats or pigs.

Humans have not changed genetically (as a species) since before acculturation or the development of ethics. What were they then? Rats and pigs? Breeders?

How are rats and pigs different than kittens and puppies? Some are cuter than others?

What kind of ethic distinguishes that one creature as superior to another? Can you empathize with a crying kitten? How about a squealing pig?

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

 

[recidivist]

I'm not quite sure what it is that you're attempting to argue here. I find it difficult to follow your line of reasoning

That's because you are adhering to politically correct ideas of what the word human means.

Humans can't breed with any other animals, as far as I am aware. Can you give me an example of another animal that a human can breed with such that the resultant child can itself produce offspring?

That was my mistake, when I referred to humans breeding with other animals I should have written other humans.

I think you're confusing "human" with "person". They are not synonymous. Being human really is just a matter of who can breed with whom.

Are you saying there are humans who are not people? Are you saying there are humans who are not homo sapien?

How do you define the term hominid?

Not at all. Darwin was in some ways a man of his era. He shared many of the unconcious racist views of his peers.

What is your argument, exactly? If Darwin was a racist then evolution is wrong? How would that follow?

Your responding to Aquaeous ID here, but nevermind. If he was racist, he must also have been speciest, but there is no evidence he was. He simply viewed humanity with the same objective detatchment he viewed other animals. That his opinions have become unfashionable has nothing to do with their validity.

What on earth would it mean for evolution to "go into reverse". What is "forwards" for evolution? As far as I am aware, evolution doesn't have a direction.

I would say millions of years of fossilized evidence contradict you.

Last time I checked, the US, at least, had a Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits a state-sanctioned establishment of religion.

Rights are state sanctioned propaganda; they don't exist in nature. It beggars belief that you believe in something which is plainly a social construct whilst simultaneously denying that human evolution has a direction which is clearly visible in the fossil record.

Aren't identical twins clones?

No, they're identical twins.

In the sense of being just one more species, humans are the same as rats and pigs. In fact, we're very closely related to both rats and pigs.

Consider your responses:

we're very closely related to both rats and pigs.

As far as I am aware, evolution doesn't have a direction.

It's kind of hard to talk about the relationships between things when they are in a state of perpetual, directionless chaos, as you claim human evolution is.

 

[spidergoat]

Directionless doesn't mean chaos.

 

[leopold]

Directionless doesn't mean chaos.

actually it's the best one word description of chaos i've ever heard.