Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism.

Unfortunately though, when applied to human beings and our human ancestors, evolutionist theories of multiple human 'specie's become unwittingly, inherently and inexorably racist by denying human origins and descent from any other geographic location or people than in Africa. The African Eve Model is especially racist because it presumes (without acceptable evidence) that modern Asians, Europeans and others could not possibly have evolved from early or archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe because more 'highly advanced and evolved' Homo sapiens (read genetic superiority here) like African Eve's tribe migrated out of Africa causing all other 'sub-species' of human beings all over the world to become extinct. If that isn't a scientific scenario for racial conquest of the world by neo-Dawinist ape-lovers, I can't think of a more racist script. </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, you do not have to like the diagnosis. You may think that there are racial implications. You may find it disconcerting. But the simple truth is that evolution is the only diagnosis that fits all the symptoms we see in life. From similarities between the species to their nested heirarchies to their biogeography to their genetics to their fossil history. No other idea or theory can explain what we observe. So it does not matter if you dislike the diagnosis. It does not matter if you find it racist. It is the only answer that fits the evidence. Sorry.

 

I am not saying that it does not matter to me what you think.

Let's try this again.

After a few hundred posts from you repeating the same thing over and over, we all understand that you and your little friend Lub think that evolution is a racist theory. We get it. Move on. But the point is that there are no other theories out there that fully account for the vast set of observations on which evolution is based. So as long as you don't have a better theory with which to replace evolution, it is inconsequential that you are of the opinion that it is racist.

 

Who is being discriminated against? No one!

As long is there is no theory that better explains the data that we see, evolution is the only game in down. You can cry racist all you want. It is not presenting a better theory, it is only trying to distract from the truth.

 

You know, I'm probably going to be sorry about this, but I have to ask how in the world is the idea that mankind originated in Africa racist?

You might as well say that young earth creationism is racist because man originated in the Middle East. You might as well say that it's racist to say that my ancestors came from Germany and Slovakia when that is the truth!

 

Near as I can figure, jcrawford, while denying that there is such a thing as race, nevertheless associates one particular race with an entire continent. So, if you say his ancestors came from that continent you are saying that he is, at least partly, that race.

That would make you the racist.

 

I understand some of it.

I do not agree that all people that believe in the evolutionary monkey god believe that they are being racial in their theology.

However, some of the comments made about genetic material in Humans is scary.

 

Since the original creation of the Garden of Eden was washed away in the Flood, creationists don't say that humankind originated in the Middle East but that the current human race is descended from three families who disembarked from the Ark.

It's no more racist to say that your ancestors came from Europe than it is for Asians and Africans to say that their ancestors came from their part of the world. What is racist though, are the neo-Darwinist theories of natural selection that modern Asians and Europeans descended from an African family whose tribe or ethnic group evolved from the ancestors of African apes.

Since there is no scientific or mutual agreement about the 'evidence' supporting such neo-Darwinist theories about the ethnic origins of different people around the world, the theories remain a scientific form of racism until proven otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]At this point, since you have a mantra that you can repeat regardless of its lack of a connection ot reality or relevance in the discussion, letting you know what science really says would do no good would it?

The genetic evidence shows that there has been ongoing gene flow both into and out of Africa since the days of H. erectus. Is that not what you were indicating above that you wish that they would say? Well they do. Just you and Lub have not been paying attention. Genetic markers make very good indicators to trace migrations and there has been repeated exchanges between Africa, Europe and Asia for quite a long time.

You might even be ineterested to know that in Volume 431 of Nature, last year, Rohde et al. show where it appears that the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today actually lived in Asia.

But somehow I doubt that any of that will cause you to abandon your mantra.

 

You say there is only one human race and there are several races which are human....how is that not a contradiction of terms?

If all races are the same race, the human race, then there can only be one race, not many races. If one race is many races, then singular is plural - no, this "theory" of yours contradicts itself.

That's just it - the Neanderthals, whom you claim to be some "ethnic" race, are not our ancestors, any more than your cousin is your ancestor.

However, just as you and your cousin have common ancestors, so do Neanderthals and homo sapiens - and those ancestors have been traced to Africa. Therefore, even if you could've claimed Neanderthal descent, Africa would still figure into your heritage, but perhaps more distantly.

You are not claiming that evolutionary biologists of this century and those who accept their theories are 'scientific racists'?

Actually, evolutionist theory doesn't preclude descent from other geographic locations, just that the further back in time you go, the closer to Africa. Evolutionists trace the Neanderthals' ancestors back to Africa as well so claiming descent from them is still descent from Africa.

Actually you are misunderstanding here - evolutionary biologists are not saying that moderm man could not possibly have evolved from others, they are simply saying the genetic evidence is that they did not. They do not all claim that the later African immigrants were superior or that they "caused" the others to go extinct - the cause is unknown (could've been inferior warfare, could've been luck, could've been the hand of God, dunno).

That is simply untrue. In one post alone (my 2nd to last on page one), I gave you six links to various studies. If you follow the footnotes on them, then the footnotes on those, you'll get a ton of studies which concur on that point and the point that Neanderthal DNA is not a paternal match (there are markers on the Y-chromosone) and the matches they find (and don't find) among modern men all over the world lead back to Africa.

 

Hmmm . . . scientists noting that some species flourished while other went extinct is discrimination. Why not just consider it an objective recording of what happened?

 

Why put the words "studies" and "footnotes" in quotes as though they do not exist? If you'd only click on the links, you could read the studies for your own self. There are sufficient citations in the footnotes to find the hardcopies if you have a problem with crediting information published on the internet.

The studies are based on evolutionary theory which shows that DNA is inherited and when there are mutations (new variations) in the DNA, these mutations may be passed to subsequent generations but are never passed to prior generations.

As you seem reluctant to click, here is the C&P first paragraph: