Scientific Racism and Supremacy.

QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"You are aware, of course, people actually saw the thing go off?"

According to their own "theories," the "thing" only went "off" so many "calculated" light years ago and didn't occur within known human history. Light years are different than earth years, you know, and one can't confuse earth time with space time and still maintain a human perspective on one's Christian sanity.

"Do you have any reasonable reasons for denying the distance calculations and the speed of light calculations? Are you able to do the math?"

The "math" is obviously more easy to follow for some people than God's Commandments.

"You are aware of all these things, yet you disbelieve the evidence. The human mind is a strange thing."

Wonderfully strange and completely rebellious.

"And the folks who devined the nature of atomic decay and its timing used the same information and the same suppositions about the existential quality of time to figure out that under certain circumstances a chain reaction could take place and, in mere theory of course, result in a substantial conversion of matter to energy but. . . . after listening to you, they must be all ivory head professors who know nothing of the real world, and we can just forget about worrying about the atomic bomb, right?"

Not at all. Don't fall into the common trap of associating and identifying theories of nuclear fusion with Einsteinian concepts of time and space. Greater scientific mortals than thou have trodden that path to Hell and have died to regret it.

"OK folks, there you have it. You want to deny the findings of science, you've got to play with time and space and distort them in strange and marvelous ways just to get away from the otherwise logical conclusions that the earth and universe have accumulated several billion years worth of events since they were created by God."

Who says that the earth and universe have accumulated several billion years worth of events since they were created by God? You? Are you going to present such "logical conclusions " to God (or Saint Peter) upon your application for entrance past the pearly gates of Heaven?

"I'm very sorry you don't like the way God made the species different, one from another. Such a shame all the animals aren't as smart as we are. Such a shame that some of them are closer to being smarter than we are compared to the others. How unfair of God to make things the way He did. Because, you know, your complaint is not against those who make it their life's work to find out what the evidence says God did, but God who did it that way."

Your complaint is not against me then, but against God, Himself.

C'est la vie et muerte.

 

Getting back on track, isn't it even a little racist when evolutionists theorize that the first truly human women on earth (Homo sapiens, African Eve) were originally formed in Africa by genetically mutating African apes over one hundred thousand years ago?

Why can't or don't geneticists trace the ancestry of any female members of the human race back to Asian Eve, European Eve, Middle Eastern Eve, European Eve or American Eve?

Is it because evolutionist theory of the "origin of species" needs to geographically locate and racially associate the first fully formed women, with more ape-like "species" in Africa in order to further demonstrate their fossil and genetic descent from four-footed non-human primates?

If that's not a racial or racist theory, I don't know of a more scientific one.

 

It's both racist and sexist genetics and math which account for geneticists telling all members of the human race that the first fully formed human beings on earth appeared in Africa in the form of a woman whom theoretical evolutionists claim was a genetic descendant of mutant African apes.

African Eve theorists use biblical Eve in their devious attempts to model human origins on because all descendants of Adam and Eve are entirely human. The problem with African Eve is that African Adam (or Adams) can neither be scientifically identified nor classified as equal members of the current human race or even as a "species," since according to evolutionst theory, there is always some possibility of different human "species" successfully interbreeding.

 

Scientists aren't sexist because they study Y chromosomes and X chromosomes, but evolutionary geneticists are being both sexist and racist when they leave out African Adam in their desperate attempt to associate all modern women with African Eve's sub-human and ape-like African ancestors instead of the real Adam and Eve.

Since evo geneticists can't even determine whether all of African Eve's daughters were procreated by the same "Homo sapiens" father, there is no scientific evidence or reason to believe that one of these Adamic fathers of the present human race wasn't Homo ergaster.

 

The crux of the matter is that evolutionary geneticists model African Eve after Adam and Eve just to claim that all living people are descended from one woman of the original human race in order to avoid charges of racism in the Mulitiregional Continuity model. They need to show an evolutionary disconnect between Neandertals and today's Europeans, and to connect everyone's ancestry with an African woman whose tribe evolved from a former species in order to prove the ancestry of the human race from a non-human species of African primates.

The theory is still racist and sexist even if the theorists believe they have "genetic" evidence to prove or support it.

 

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"They all emphasize that "mitochondrial eve" is not the first woman."

They also conveniently de-emphasize the neo-Darwinist theory that the first women to evolve from a species of African apes were Africans!

"She would merely be our last common female ancestor."

How else could neo-Darwinist theorists associate and connect non-Africans with African women who descended from apes?

"Maybe you should tell us what they told you that was about, just to make sure they didn't lie to you about that, too."

A paraphrase of my understanding of Lubenow’s main thesis may be summarized as follows:

Even with scientific evidence to support it, any neo-Darwinist theory of human origins, evolution and common descent is racist because it associates, discriminates, and is prejudiced against members of the human race and their human ancestors (fossils or not) by grading, categorizing and classifying them as different and separate species of African Apes in the Hominidae family. It also theoretically associates and identifies (as a species) the original African people as the only humans to have directly evolved from a species of non-human African apes.

"Many scientists thought that Neandertals were just a variety of H. sapiens, until DNA tests showed that they were too different to be the same species."

Such DNA tests only prove that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, human evolution and common descent from apes, are racist, since evolutionists can't scientifically differentiate or distinguish between ancestral members of the human race and other primate species. Neo-Darwinists only classify the fossil remains of our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' in order to justify their attempt to prove their Darwinist theories of the origin of species. Since all human beings (dead or alive) constitute the one and only human race, dividing the fossil remains of our ancestors up into different and separate "species" is a form of scientific racism.

 

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Mitochondrial Eve wouldn't be the first woman, or even close to the first woman."

Who was the first woman then, if not Adam's Eve? Don't tell me you subscribe to the neo-Darwinist racist theory that the first African woman was a highly evolved descendent of apes!

"The Africans at that time were no closer to modern Africans than they are to us."

That's only according to racist theories of human evolution which claim that African people "at that time" were evolving from the more ape-like Homo erectus species in Africa.

"In one sense, all humans are apes."

Only in a racist sense.

"In another, all members of Homo are humans."

If all members of Homo are humans, (full and equal members of the whole interfertile human race) why do racist neo-Darwinists classify Neandertals and Homo erectus as a different and separate 'species' of humans, if not only to apply Darwin's theory of the origin of species by evolution to human beings?

"Hence, you've got the wrong idea if you think scientists see any member of Homo as an ape."

Why do neo-Darwinist racists include people in the primate family of Hominidae then?

"Many scientists thought that Neandertals were just a variety of H. sapiens, until DNA tests showed that they were too different to be the same species."

Racist DNA tests would also show that Homo ergaster and erectus were not the same species as Neandertals or Homo sapiens, yet racist neo-Darwinists have no problem with African Eve evolving from another species.

"As you might know, humans comprised several species at one time, and we now know that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals, although perhaps the most closely related two species among humans, are quite different genetically, much more than any two humans alive today."

That's only according to neo-Darwinst racist theories of human evolution, since the only true test of human interfertility must be conducted in present time.

"This is very good evidence that the two populations did not interbreed, the key to classifying sexually-reproducing organisms as different species."

That's not evidence. That's hearsay.

 

QUOT = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Please read this carefully. "Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve."

How do you know, since mtDNA Eve and Adam's Eve are both claimed to be the same woman whom all human beings living today are descended from and the only difference is that one was created in the image and likeness of God and the other is claimed by neo Darwinst race theorists to have evolved from sub-human species whose image was more ape-like than human.

"She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor. Eve came a long time before that."

Which Eve who came first or last are you talking about?

"What do you mean by "more ape-like"? Never hear H. erectus referred to that way."

If H. erectus species directly evolved from Australopithicine apes, as a different species which didn't interbreed with H. sapiens, but later evolved into sapiens, how could erectus look more human than ape-like? Evo artists always draw erectus as half-human, half ape in order to 'show' their evolution from apes.

"This is kind of an emotional subject for you, isn't it?"

No more than a scientific and racist subject.

"Different species of humans probably were not interfertile."

Probably? It's only because neo-Darwinist racial theorists artificially label various populations of the human race as different and separate "species" in the first place, that any question of their racial interfertility comes up!

"At least DNA evidence indicates that Neandertals and humans were not interfertile even though they lived in the same areas for many thousands of years."

Whether that's true or not doesn't change the fact that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa are still racist.

"I don't know any racist neo-Darwinians, although Carlton Coon (who asserted that H. sapiens had biological subspecies) was sometimes labeled as such."

I don't know any racist neo-Darwinists either, nor do I think Carlton Coon was a racist just because he tried to apply Darwin's racist theory of human origins and evolution from species of African apes to so-called human "species."

[QUOTE Crawford]Why do neo-Darwinist racists include people in the primate family of Hominidae then?[/QUOTE]

"For the same reason the creationist Carl Linneaus (the guy who invented the present binomial naming system for organisms) said that he probably should have classified apes and humans in the same genus; he couldn't find a character by which to distinguish them."

If Carl Linneaus "couldn't find a character by which to distinguish" human beings and apes, it's no wonder that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution from African apes are so racist.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape."
Carol Linneaus, the founder of modern taxonomy.

All Carl or any other intelligent human taxonomist would have to do in order to distinguish between Man and Ape is explain the generic differences between the two genera so as not to racially identify any members of the human race as apes in accordance with a racist taxonomic system. It shouldn't be too difficult and any non-racist taxonomist worth his or her biological salt ought to be able to come up with something, or creationists will forever be able to accuse botanists like Carl Linneaus of developing racist systems of biological phylogenies.

"How are racist DNA tests different than liberal DNA tests?"

Racist DNA tests try to prove that some of our ancestral fathers were a different "species" and not simply various and diverse racial members of the whole human race.

"Well, we don't have DNA for them, but I'd be very surprised if they were closer to us than Neandertals."

Would they be more in the image and likeness of Australopithicine apes then?

"Karl, she likely was a different species."

A different species of what?

"Nope. DNA analysis."

Only DNA analysis in support of neo-darwinist racial theories of human evolution from a species of non-human African apes.

"Humans enthusiastically share genes in every population we know about. And yet humans and Neandertals lived close by for millenia and seem to have not interbred at all."

Only according to racial DNA tests supporting the racist African Eve model of human evolution.

 

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve.... Because there were humans before her. She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor. Eve came a long time before that."

Since mtDNA tests don't trace human ancestry further back than Eve, how can you be genetically certain there were any women before her without resorting to racist theories of older fossils showing African Eve's evolution from a species of non-human primates?

[Barbarian on Karl's emotional reaction to the idea that he's related to Africans:]
"This is kind of an emotional subject for you, isn't it? I was thinking racism had something to do with it. Why are you so offended by the idea that your ancestors might be Africans?"

I'm only offended by a neo-Darwinist racist theory which associates and relates a population of African people (African Eve's tribe) with a sub-human species of African apes.

"Linneaus was a creationist. As you know, many racists today are creationists."

That's why racist taxonomies and biological nomenclature concerning the specific origins of any members of the human race shouldn't be taught in public schools.

[On "mitochondrial Eve"]

"Karl, she likely was a different species... of human."

Dividing African members of the human race into "different species" is a form of scientific racism.

 

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve.... Because there were humans before her. She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor."

Who was African Eve's mother then, since if she was not the first woman in Africa, she must have been a daughter of Adam and Eve.

"The Bill of Rights prohibits creationism from being taught in schools."

Creationism has nothing to do with the neo-Darwinist racism being taught in public schools today in the name of science.