Racial Evolution 101.1

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by jcrawford, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"

    - Charles Darwin, "THE DESCENT of MAN, and Selection in Relation to Sex." Princeton University Press, 1981, Chapter 1, Page 10
    =====================

    1 Is Charles Darwin using the terms 'races' and 'species' of 'men' interchangeably here according to "whichever term may be applied" by the reader or is there a definite biological distinction between human 'races' and 'species?'

    2 Did Charles Darwin confuse "races" with "species" when he applied his evolutionary thesis to Humankind?

    3 Are there separate and distinct Human 'species' or did Charles Darwin just imagine there were based on his perception of different and separate Human races?

    4 Why would Charles Darwin imagine that separate and distinct human species ever existed in Human history if modern-day biologists have proved that humanity can't be divided racially?

    5 Are Charles Darwin's racial theories of Human evolution merely an intellectual aberration or mutation in the mainstream of Human thought, development and progress in history?
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rather than trying to pick quotes out that you can use to slander Darwin instead of arguing on the facts, why do you not just sit down and read the chapter you keep quoting from. Or have you already read it? Probably not. There is a fair amount of evidence, though quite old and dated, that support the evolution of man. Even without any of those pesky fossils for which you still will not give me a citation for your assertion that scientists have quit using the fossil record to demonstrate the evolution of man. Where is my citation? Does it exist?

    http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-01.html

    If you get interested, the whole book is at
    http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/
     
  3. Yelsew2

    Yelsew2
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show us the links that establish that man was a "this" but do to a specific change, he is now a "that".

    Satisfy our minds that such an evolutionary change has actually occured....even once!

    With as many learned people trying to find such a link or such an evolutionary change, as there are, it seems highly unlikely that even the smallest shred of evidence could elude the hunt. Yet, no convincing evidence is presented. WHY IS THAT?
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Satisfy our minds that such an evolutionary change has actually occured....even once!"

    Sure, I'll start with two. Let me know what you think of them and I can offer more later.

    For transitions at the level of the species, I offer you
    Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    This paper will tell you about a transition at the species level. This gives you your one time that it occurred.

    Now, lest someone argue that it is just variation within a "kind" (what exactly is a "kind" anyway. Do you have a definition so that we can look around and tell which creatures are the same "kind" and which are comeletely unrelated?) I will give you a higher transitional. This is the evolution of mammals from reptiles. No one can argue that this is variation within a "kind." I will post a link to a different thread on this board because I have some formatting that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. This will give you a second. Actually, it will be quite a few more than a second because there is a large series of transitionals. This is the kind of evidence the evolution predicts will be found, and has. Anyone want to offer some specific objections?

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html?

    If this is satisfactory, I can start digging out other transitional series and examples of speciation. I can also start delving into human specific things if you like.
     
  5. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTEOTW:

    "There is a fair amount of evidence, though quite old and dated, that support the evolution of man. Even without any of those pesky fossils for which you still will not give me a citation for your assertion that scientists have quit using the fossil record to demonstrate the evolution of man. Where is my citation? Does it exist?"
    ==========

    What "old and dated" evidence are your referring to that support the evolution of Humans?

    Neandertal Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man and Rhodesian Man? Taung?

    If Human fossil specimens like KNM-ER 1470, the Laetoli Footprints and the Kanopoi (KP 271) arm fragment look "fully Human" then which 'transitional fossil' would you care to exhibit as indisputable 'scientific evidence' of non-human African animals mutating into Humans?

    Darwinian animism seems to have survived in darkest Africa due to supernatural selection.
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "If Human fossil specimens like KNM-ER 1470, the Laetoli Footprints and the Kanopoi (KP 271) arm fragment look "fully Human""

    This should be good. Convince me that Homo rudolfensis (KNM-ER 1470) looks fully human.

    Here is a good webpage giving you the characteristics of Homo rudolfensis for you to begin your comparison.

    http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/rudolfensis.html

    And this one will give you some general characteristics of several different hominids.

    http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Hrudolfensis.html

    As for your list.

    Neandertal Man - Almost like modern man but enough differences to tell us they were not the same as modern humans. Why did you list this?

    Piltdown Man - A hoax, never that widely believed that was finally overturned by scientists themselves. I have never offered Piltdown Man as evidence, so why do you bring it up?

    Java Man - a Homo erectus find. Why do you bring it up? I don't see the point.

    Peking Man - A Sinanthropus fossil. Why do you have a problem with this?

    Rhodesian Man - A possible transistional between Homo erectus and modern man. Thanks for bringing it up. But why did you mention it?

    Taung - An Australopithecus fossil. Why did you bring this one up?

    I do not see how an of the hominids or fossils you mentioned help your case but I am looking forward to hearing how Homo rudolfensis is "fully Human."
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now a few days ago someone, I thought it was you, made the same post claiming there was a problem because the modern looking human footprints. What exactly does this mean? It means that the footprints showed a bipedal gait well enough evolved to be indistinguishable from a modern footprint. Now in response, I gave a long list of skeletal characteristics that showed that Australiopithicus had a modern, bipedal gait. This included the shape of the leg bones, the construction of the knee, the construction of the pelvis, the curvature of the spine, and the location of the hole through which the spinal cord attaches. I may have had others. But you seem to have forgotten or ignored that since you have again posted the footprints as a problem. They are not.
     
  8. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTEOTW:

    "I do not see how an of the hominids or fossils you mentioned help your case but I am looking forward to hearing how Homo rudolfensis is fully Human."
    ===========

    I don't see why any of those fossil specimens were ever presented to the public as 'examples' of human evolution either when they are nothing but a mixture of fossilized ape and human remains and half of them were fraudulent representations to begin with.

    If KNM-1470 isn't fully human then it must be fully ape. Take your choice. There ain't no half-human apes or ape-like Humans except in your imagination. There never was any Human race other than the Human Race and all historical Human remains are all members of one Human species.

    Anyone trying to divide Humanity into separate historical species and sub-species is simply applying Darwinian racial theories to our modern Human ancestors.
     
  9. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Russell H. Tuttle strongly disagrees with you.
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's be clear. Tuttle thinks that another Australiopithicus than A. afarensis or an early Homo genus creature made the print. You'll have to do better than that to make this a problem.

    Gee, we got the wrong species of Australiopithicus in his view. Wow? He still thinks we evolved from apes.
     
  11. Brett

    Brett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amazing how you, with no training whatsoever in evolutionary/biological sciences or archaology, are nonetheless better able to interpret fossil finds than qualified scientists! Truly impressive.

    This sentences illustrates how your side must literally fabricate problems with fossils in order to prove your feel-good notion than we did not evolve. I implore you to show me ANY evidence that any fossils determined by scientists to be a human ancestor are actually human bones mixed with ape bones.
     
  12. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not according to his book on 'Primate Origins and Evolution."
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what did Tuttle say they were in this book? I'd bet a steak dinnr it was not Homo sapiens. Please tell us. Otherwise I'll stand by the statement that he thinks it was a species of Australiopithicus other than A. afarensis.

    I also do not think that you can prove your assertion that all these were mixtures of human and ape fossils. In fact, I do not think you can show that for any of them.

    "If KNM-1470 isn't fully human then it must be fully ape."

    No, I want you to tell me and why. Quit avoiding the question. I know that humans are apes so I can answer both and be right. You have to choose one or the other. So choose and justify your choice with facts.
     
  14. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it is amazing isn't it? Something like the little boy who saw that the Emporer was wearing no clothes at all. Many qualified scientists dispute the claims and findings of evolutionary theorists because they realize that Darwin's original theories were based on a philosophical tautology.

    The Koobi Fora fossils are a good example of human and ape fossils being confused with each other as well are many of those found at Olduvai Gorge in the 1970's. They even found some pig teeth there that didn't quite fit into their evolutionary time-scale.

    Just do a google.
     
  15. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTE;

    "I know that humans are apes so I can answer both and be right. You have to choose one or the other. So choose and justify your choice with facts."
    =======

    Why do you think you and I are apes? Whatever happened to your humanity?
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Humanity is different. Our morphology makes us apes. If we are not apes, what are we?

    Please document for us this widespread mixing of ape and human fossils. Or any of the other things I keep asking you to document. Like a citation showing scientist have abandoned the fossil record.
     
  17. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    "If we are not apes, what are we?" Hmmmm. Good question. Depends on one's socio-economic and cultural classification of things. The Hundoos have their class system and the Darwinian biologists have theirs. If one starts out by classifying man as an animal then it's pretty hard to escape that definitional premise.

    Why not classify ourselves as Humanus classus?
    Man, the classifier. A unique and undifferentiated species.

    Mixing human and animal remains occurs all the time in anthropaleontology as evidenced by the confusion over the human and ape fossils discovered at Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge.

    Please see Racial Evolution 101 for a scientific citation of the abandonment of the human fossil record as a reliable source of data for human evolution.
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must have missed it. Why don't you give me a link.
     
  19. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are among the last repies to my OP on Racial Evolution 101.
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why you are an ape.

    I'll just list some of the easy to see characteristics.

    You have five well developed fingers and toes per limb. You toes are prehensile. You have very dexterous hands. You have only two nipples for lactation and they are on your chest rather than your abdomen. You have similar dentation including five pointed molars. You have thin hair across your body. You claws have been flattened into fingernails while your fingers have fingerprints. You can get AIDS. The toxin of the male funnel spider will kill you. You cannot make vitamin C for yourself. You tail has been reduced to a stub of bones underneath your skin. You have a disposition towards some form of bipedalism. You have a relatively large brain for your body size.

    Mot of these traits are unique to primates and apes or apes individually. Only an ape would share them all. So you are, after all, an ape.
     

Share This Page

Loading...