Re: James Watson, Evolutionist & Racist Dirtbag (find "the real point")

On Oct 24, 7:08 am, Greg Guarino <g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:44:33 -0700, Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But we know you are in a state of rant because a major evolutionist
and Nobel winner was caught being the racist that we knew he always
was, like yourself and all evolutionists who believe apes first
morphed into men in Africa.

I challenge you to lay out, step by step, the logic that leads from
humans first developing in Africa to racism.


I already have. But I will do it again if you want to challenge that
logic "step by step"?

Let me know and I may need a few days in between posts.


Let me help clear up the question for you. The first modern humans
developed in Africa.

That is what I have been saying, according to the latest and most
definitive reports by Darwinian anthropologists. I have lost count as
to how many TalkOrigins Darwinists in this thread that deny this claim/
fact in one way or another. Why haven't you corrected them? Can I
count on you to correct them in the future?

I am a ten-thousand generation descendant of
those first modern humans. My recent ancestors were from Europe and,
asked my "race", people would say Caucasian.

Present-day Africans are *also* ten-thousand generation descendants of
those first modern humans. In order for racism to be a necessary
conclusion of evolution, you'll have to show why one set of
descendants *must* be superior to another according to evolutionary
theory.


False.

Because you are defining racism in a way to which I disagree.

Racism, while including 'superiority' beliefs, is not limited to such
beliefs. The racism I am showing is the indignity and moral outrage of
concluding for human evolution based on similarity to living apes.
Darwinists say that the similarities between apes and humans is
evidence of evolution, decent persons know instantly that this is not
science but gutter racism.


I can think of at least two possibilities:

1. Humans first developed in Africa, then migrated around the world.
But the isolation of populations was too recent (and not complete
enough) for cognitive differences to evolve. This, as far as I know,
is the common scientific position, and does not support racism based
on "brainpower".


Watson already let this cat out of the bag, confirming what we already
knew. This section of your message is now based on a premise or
definition of racism that I find irrelevant to the obvious racism of
human evolution so I will not comment any further.


2. Humans first developed in Africa, then migrated around the world.
The different populations then developed in different ways, including
cognitive abilities. You should note that even this position, which is
not the favored one and certainly not necessitated by evolutionary
theory, does not suggest *which* populations would become more
"advanced". Present-day Africans would be separated from the first
modern humans by the same time span and number of generations and thus
would have had an equal opportunity to "advance".

So #1 predicts equal average cognitive abilities among racial groups
and #2 predicts that some groups might get a little bit ahead, but the
ones ahead might just as easily be Africans. It certainly isn't
obvious to me why migration would, of necessity, be evolutionarily
favorable to staying in one place. In addition, Africa *isn't* "one
place". Those early humans migrated large distances around Africa
also.

So what I'm asking you for is logic; to wit, why the idea that the
first modern humans developed in Africa in any way suggests that
present-day Africans must be less cognitively developed than present-
day Europeans, all of whom descended from the same stock, over the
same period of time.

Weak protestations about particular people, including Darwin and
Watson, being racist will be recognized for the smokescreen that they
are. The theory transcends the beliefs of any individuals. Stick to
how the *theory* necessitates racial inferiority of modern Africans.

Greg Guarino


Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: James Watson, Evolutionist & Racist Dirtbag
    ... evolution is racist. ... happens when God is rejected as Creator and Africa is considered the ... Darwin didn't reject God as creator, and Africa is considered the place where the earliest humans evolved because that's where their closest relatives live. ... I also notice you are blaming "evolution" for this, not DNA, which Watson is best known for. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: James Watson, Evolutionist & Racist Dirtbag
    ... happens when God is rejected as Creator and Africa is considered the ... Cops think they are above the law and their racism ... Evolution and its orgins in Darwin's racist mind is ... Darwin originally based human evolution on: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: James Watson, Evolutionist & Racist Dirtbag (find "the real point")
    ... humans first developing in Africa to racism. ... concluding for human evolution based on similarity to living apes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: James Watson, Evolutionist & Racist Dirtbag (find "the real point")
    ... humans first developing in Africa to racism. ... anyone who understands evolution deny that modern humans started in ... those first modern humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Racism is The Fruit of Darwinism
    ... modern humans. ... populations and redskin potatoes in the same paragraph. ... racism of Darwin and his theory. ... Human evolution is gutter racism - not science. ...
    (talk.origins)