Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know a bit about the "Out of Africa" teachings but I dont see the so-called "dilemma" that nebulous1 speaks of.
As far as I can see, the data supports the "Africa" idea but here is much to learn yet and it may be 100s of years before science can pin it down to the very spot on the map where humans are from.
I know I sure dont see a problem with the "Out of Africa" teachings as far as the bible goes
The bible never tells us where the Man was at when he was first made , so why not say it was Africa too?...
My views of the whole Evolution/Genesis debate are:
That I dont have a problem with evolution at all.
I dont think it stands against my Holy Bible in any way at all.
That the teachings of evolution give us a very good eyewitness to the early history of life on this world.
That in many ways, the book of Genesis and the teachings of evolution are talking about the same history.
The point of view of the bible is one of Faith, and that the text deals with the role of God in His creation.
The point of view of evolution is one of just the listing of different events in history.
I don't see the two works as in any type of contradiction with each other, rather I see them as both helping the modern reader become informed as to what life as like long ago and how we come to be the people we are.
I know a bit about the "Out of Africa" teachings but I dont see the so-called "dilemma" that nebulous1 speaks of.
As far as I can see, the data supports the "Africa" idea but here is much to learn yet and it may be 100s of years before science can pin it down to the very spot on the map where humans are from.
I know I sure dont see a problem with the "Out of Africa" teachings as far as the bible goes
The bible never tells us where the Man was at when he was first made , so why not say it was Africa too?...
Nobody really needs to look at any data regarding whether or not evolution brought us out of Africa. Just look at all the science text books, journals and magazines and the pics and illustrations tell it all as to what science thinks about origins. Just to look at the African tells you we all descended from them since they clearly resemble closest to the apes of that region. Ever shake an African's hand and feel how leathery it is? Is this not proof? Both science and present day physical proof have taught us these things. The argument over data is stupid when you consider what is nothing more than rational and observable hand on experience we see in these living transitions.
Just to look at the African tells you we all descended from them since they clearly resemble closest to the apes of that region. Ever shake an African's hand and feel how leathery it is? Is this not proof?
Nobody really needs to look at any data regarding whether or not evolution brought us out of Africa. Just look at all the science text books, journals and magazines and the pics and illustrations tell it all as to what science thinks about origins. Just to look at the African tells you we all descended from them since they clearly resemble closest to the apes of that region. Ever shake an African's hand and feel how leathery it is? Is this not proof? Both science and present day physical proof have taught us these things. The argument over data is stupid when you consider what is nothing more than rational and observable hand on experience we see in these living transitions.
More incorrect information here. To say that we are descended from Africans suggests that Africans are less evolved than we are. This is not true. I'm not sure where you get the idea that all Africans have leathery palms (I know plenty of white folks with rough palms and I've shaken hands with many black folks with nice soft silky plams!). To say that Africans are dark skinned because they more closely resemble apes assumes that early humans were also dark skinned (something that is to my knowledge unknown). Lastly, whether you intended it or not, this is a somewhat culturally insensitive comment...just saying.
Instead, we share a common ancestor and descendants of that ancestor migrated across continents. From here, the various groups of early humans were separated by geography and continued to evolve based on their environment. Any differences we see between groups of modern humans is a result of what on the part of the earth that group settled in. This is known as divergent evolution.
The Africans subgroup of early humans evolved to have dark skin to protect them from the sun. Conversely, the subgroup of early humans that settled in Northern Europe did not need such protection and the evolutionary process resulted in them having a relatively pale skin color.
Hope this clear things up for you and you are able to avoid making ignorant and misguided statements in the future!
More incorrect information here. To say that we are descended from Africans suggests that Africans are less evolved than we are. This is not true. I'm not sure where you get the idea that all Africans have leathery palms (I know plenty of white folks with rough palms and I've shaken hands with many black folks with nice soft silky plams!). To say that Africans are dark skinned because they more closely resemble apes assumes that early humans were also dark skinned (something that is to my knowledge unknown). Lastly, whether you intended it or not, this is a somewhat culturally insensitive comment...just saying.
Instead, we share a common ancestor and descendants of that ancestor migrated across continents. From here, the various groups of early humans were separated by geography and continued to evolve based on their environment. Any differences we see between groups of modern humans is a result of what on the part of the earth that group settled in. This is known as divergent evolution.
The Africans subgroup of early humans evolved to have dark skin to protect them from the sun. Conversely, the subgroup of early humans that settled in Northern Europe did not need such protection and the evolutionary process resulted in them having a relatively pale skin color.
Hope this clear things up for you and you are able to avoid making ignorant and misguided statements in the future!
Actually...Darwin was a raging racist. Evolution smacks of eugenics. So yeah...he did think that black people were more closely related to apes.
Actually...Darwin was a raging racist. Evolution smacks of eugenics. So yeah...he did think that black people were more closely related to apes.
So when are you (and those others here like you) going to come to the realization that evolution != Darwin anymore, and hasn't for a very very long time?
We've come a long way since 1838, please catch up.
Actually...Darwin was a raging racist. Evolution smacks of eugenics. So yeah...he did think that black people were more closely related to apes.
This a non-sequitur...this discussion has nothing to do with Darwin's personal beliefs. Furthermore, Darwin lived between 1809-1182 where people's misunderstanding of race lead to what we perceive today as racist and culturally insensitive ideas. I don't think that is being argued.
Arizona1's comments were made this morning, not in the 1800s. What is their excuse?
I think "raging racist" is a bit of an overstatement (see above), and that whole whole evolution leads to eugenics statement has been shown not to hold much water either.
Actually...Darwin was a raging racist. Evolution smacks of eugenics. So yeah...he did think that black people were more closely related to apes.
Can you please cite your source regarding this? I've read a lot of Darwin and hadn't run across that.
I know that some misguided people used Darwin's theory of natural selection for bad purposes (i.e. eugenics). There are bad people everywhere. Sometimes they use science to further their plans, and other times they use religion, but that doesn't make science (or religion, for that matter) inherently evil.
At this point I think we've pretty much beaten the proverbial dead horse and I don't see it getting any better.
You guys will continue to cling to your fairy tale, we'll continue to argue against it...you'll throw some barbs at us...insult us.....etc....we'll just get more worked up.
Instead I'm done with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Actually...Darwin was a raging racist. Evolution smacks of eugenics. So yeah...he did think that black people were more closely related to apes.
That didn't take long.
I'm still waiting for your definition of "specie". We're all ready to provide you with the specific evidence you required, or with explanations of why the question is based on a misunderstanding of the ToE (I suspect the latter, based on your typical "fish to bird" comment). All we need is a bit more clarifications, a little effort on your part (a simple google-copy-paste if you prefer).
[I'm going on holiday tomorrow though, and I'm not sure how much internet access I'll have. My answer may thus be delayed. But hey, Proverbs 19:11]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
