Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
@Roots Oceanic .......
Stop dancing around the questions......
All the fruit fly experiments describe reproductive behavior not the emergence of a new species........
You cannot sit here and claim that humans evolved from reptiles and apes and then act like humans are not continuing to evolve.......Charles Darwin wrote: »the sterility of species when first crossed, and that of their hybrid offspring, cannot have been acquired…by the preservation of successive profitable degrees of sterility
As he subsequently noted “it could clearly have been of no advantage to such separated species to have been rendered mutually sterile, and consequently this could not have been effected through natural selection”........
So since you suggest that natural selection is responsible for this "speciation", bucking the laws of the theory of evolution......
I am wondering why you hold such egalitarian views about humans.....
Has the theory of evolution excluded humans????Roots Oceanic wrote: »My theory is that whites will become extinct over time.
But that's the same ? white folks say in reverse......
Why should I believe your theory over theirs?????
-
All the fruit fly experiments describe reproductive behavior not the emergence of a new species........
I'm not talking about experiments; I'm talking about observed instances of speciation in the wild, like that of mojavensis and arizonae which was not a result of any experimentation.
There are instances of speciation observed in labs, too. But the emergence of a new species comes from a genetic change that affects reproduction so the two are tied, whether in a lab or in the wild.You cannot sit here and claim that humans evolved from reptiles and apes and then act like humans are not continuing to evolve.......
We are continuing to evolve but as I've told you once before, we are evolving as one species.But that's the same ? white folks say in reverse......
Why should I believe your theory over theirs?????
As I've said before, I should have worded that better. What I meant was not that one race is inherently superior (which seperates my theory from that of white racism/supremacy) but that melanin in all people will make a "return" so to speak. That does not mean that humans are able to be seperated into subspecies by race, though. That theory might be wrong but if it does turn out to be inaccurate, that does not make evolution false so the comment really has no place here. -
@bambu
I see that you're online and you may have been working on a reply while I was editing my comment. Just want to let you know that I did do some editing so look over it before you comment. -
The thing is that you claim we are evolving as one species......
But then say whites will lose the evolutionary process.....
While white evolutionists say blacks will lose in this process......
Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......
So if I were to believe the theory of evolution......
Should I subscribe to your theory where whites are defects......
Or the other that says blacks are less evolved???? -
You're free to believe what you wish. That's the joy of being an individual.
-
Keep dancing brother............
-
Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with ? sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a3
-
Keep dancing brother............
I don't dance, brother man. I just pull up my pants and do the rockaway. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »What I meant was not that one race is inherently superior (which seperates my theory from that of white racism/supremacy)Roots Oceanic wrote: »My theory is that whites will become extinct over time.
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce
And this process has been used effectively to describe survival of the fittest amongst human beings.... -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Accepting the out of Africa evolutionary theory, whites are more "evolved".......
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce
And this process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst human beings....
Yeah and all humans are still one species.
By "whites" I mean people with low amounts of melanin; What was being said is that higher amounts of melanin in people will become the norm so in a way, people with low amounts will no longer exist. Again, not necessarily saying that people with more melanin are superior or that people with low amounts are inferior but that higher amounts of melanin will make a comeback. -
In other words the process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst humans and their various continental origins or ethnicity/race.....
-
In other words the process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst humans and their various continental origins or ethnicity/race.....
Survival of the fittest exists but not in the way that makes one race superior over another. The "fittest" could be determined by technological innovations, territorial advantage, etc. etc. amongst other things. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »In other words the process has been used to describe survival of the fittest amongst humans and their various continental origins or ethnicity/race.....
Survival of the fittest exists but not in the way that makes one race superior over another. The "fittest" could be determined by technological innovations, territorial advantage, etc. etc. amongst other things.A prerequisite for natural selection to result in adaptive evolution, novel traits and speciation, is the presence of heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences.
By the definition of fitness, individuals with greater fitness are more likely to contribute offspring to the next generation, while individuals with lesser fitness are more likely to die early or fail to reproduce. -
Yeah, fitness:
The quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task
This can occur between any group of people, within or without the same race. It does not make one entire race superior over another. -
That's not what your European counterparts think.........
You have an extremely egalitarian view of evolution.......
After all.....
Somebody has to lose under this "survival of the fittest"
Your fellow European evolutionists don't share this trait......
"Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles
Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,
Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To
deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and
White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social
organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ."
-
That's not what your European counterparts think.........
Your fellow European evolutionists don't share this trait......
"Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles
Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,
Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To
deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and
White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social
organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ."
You're quoting from a book that has been highly criticized by (black and white) experts of their fields. I've told you this before.
Rushton has been criticised for his use of r/K selection theory to explain alleged differences between his identified "races". Evolutionary Biologist Joseph L. Graves (2002) notes that the theory had long lacked support and had been invalidated before Rushton's book was written. According to Graves, Rushton's claim (still present in the third edition and without any acknowledgement of counter-evidence), that r- and K-life history theory was 'a basic principle of modern evolutionary theory' "supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas."[11]
Lieberman (2001), noting that many animal species do not follow the predictions of r/K theory, has criticised Rushton's classification of arctic conditions as more "stable" than tropical ones, and also his selection of very few environments compared to the variety that human beings have occupied.[12] Brace, in a comment to the same piece, writes that Northern mice, foxes, and deer are not better endowed intellectually than their tropical relatives, and the same is true for virtually all other animals with Arctic and tropical representatives.[12]
Rushton's claims that variations in IQ and behaviour can be predicted and found from his application of r/K selection theory has also received criticism. Scott MacEachern (2006) criticised Rushton's assertion that mental deficits are visible in an evolutionary context, with such cognitive differences existing prehistorically as well. According to MacEachern, an examination of the archaeological record does not support this assertion. As such, regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.[13]
Peregrine et al. (2003) argued, even though using "three versions of the ‘race’ variable, each representing one of the apparent definitions that Rushton used", that "Rushton’s predictions do not find much support, regardless of how ‘race’ is operationalized." They used data from the "186-society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample" and found no statistical support for the predicted associations between "race" and behavior.[14]Francisco Gil-White, wrote of Peregrine's work: "The authors are not doing justice to their own findings. It is not true that "Rushton’s predictions do not find much support"; what is true is that Rushton’s predictions are completely contradicted."[15]
Psychologist David P. Barash notes that r- and K-selection may have some validity when considering the so-called demographic transition, whereby economic development characteristically leads to reduced family size and other K traits. "But this is a pan-human phenomenon, a flexible, adaptive response to changed environmental conditions of lowered mortality and greater pay-off attendant upon concentrating parental investment in a smaller number of offspring [...] Rushton wields r- and K-selection as a Procrustean bed, doing what he can to make the available data fit[...]. Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book."[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#r.2FK_theory_as_an_explanation_for_the_data
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml -
The fact that Rushton and other evolutionary scientists who study human genetics have been highly criticized does not remove the fact that his views are supported throughout science as well as mass-culture worldwide.....
And your personal theory is eerily similar to what has been described as racial prejudice dripping like pus......
-
If all you are going to do is regurgitate the same failed arguments and run around in circles, I'm going to assume you are trolling and will end the debate.
-
The fact that Rushton and other evolutionary scientists who study human genetics have been highly criticized does not remove the fact that his views are supported..
Supported by racists.. and people like yourself, who are so hardpressed to find any argument to disprove evolution, they are willing to use anything they can find on the internet. -
Race, Evolution, and Behavior has been cited as an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting "Scientific racism". Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer.[7] The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidize the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »The fact that Rushton and other evolutionary scientists who study human genetics have been highly criticized does not remove the fact that his views are supported..
Supported by racists.. and people like yourself, who are so hardpressed to find any argument to disprove evolution, they are willing to use anything they can find on the internet.
Hardly.....
This argument is supported by various evolution scientists and unwillingly by ignorant people like West Brooklyn that have blindly accepted far-fetched evolution science...... -
Alright.
-
Exhibit A.....
Did early matings with Neanderthals increase our ability to fight disease?
"Our ancestors’ liaisons with Neanderthals and Denisovans may have made them less susceptible to local infections, proposes Stanford immunologist Laurent Abi-Rached, giving them a survival advantage as they migrated out of Africa to Europe and Asia. “Breeding with our evolutionary cousins may have facilitated the spread of modern humans by preventing them from getting sick.”"
http://www.livescience.com/15754-neanderthals-immunity-boost-humans.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jan-feb/80#.UMuc3IaQ8sc -
Plus your vestigiality failed via @Whar....They are vestigal in humans.
They are tied to fear responses in animals and in humans. But in humans they serve no purpose since they no longer are tied to standing hair on its end to increase size. Same with the response to cold.
Vestigal means that a structure has lost its ancestral function. The Coccyx is vestigal in human since we no longer have a tail however it is still the anchor for some muscles around the pelvis.
You have to use the word it is defined by biology not as you wish it to be defined.
goose bumps = Debunked
"Goose bumps in humans, however, have taken on a new role. Like flushing, another thermoregulatory mechanism, they have become linked with emotional responses - notably fear, rage or the pleasure, say, of listening to beautiful music. This serves as a signal to others and may also heighten emotional reactions: there is some evidence, for instance, that a music-induced frisson causes changes of activity in the brain that are associated with pleasure."
Pineal gland = Debunked
And now for your viewing pleasure.....
Human tailbones = Debunked....
Tailbones???
Dr. Menton corrected the erroneous statements of Darwinian scientists that the human tailbone was a vestigial structure and noted that “all true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail” (Menton 1994). Rather than leaving the reader with the impression that the coccyx has no real function in human beings, Dr. Menton points out “that most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the ‘inescapable fact’ of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the ? ” (Menton 1994).
Next???
-
Thats a convo you will have to continue with Whar. You and I have already been down that road before.
This discussion has been closed.