CRT Breaks Everything

Author: Fruit_Inspector

Posts

Total: 165
#121
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
If a person has a tribalistic bent for their family, or clan, or nation. It 'really doesn't matter if the other guy's smarter, or stronger, what matters to someone with such a bent, is whether their 'own people can survive, or better thrive. Defeat their enemies, even if superior.

If we focus on 'groups, as worthy of interest, how is the racist wrong for focusing on his 'own group, as worthy of interest?

The point I mean is, if different groups are recognized to exist, and helping one group will 'not help other groups, assuming one believes in a zero sum game.
For example, the 'ratio of groups to one another, in a percentage, in a country.
Well, if groups can be identified as being 'singular to themselves, one can assume their interests are as well.
It always begins with your own family, and then loosely spirals outward to your neighbors and people who you perceive to be "likely allies".

If one chooses to ignore race, and decide we'll all be interbred into a breed, then there's little problem.
But if 'interests are recognized, races 'clarified. . . 'well.
Even in areas where people have nearly indistinguishable skin-tone variations (and even the same religion), OTHER "CATEGORIES" ARE INVENTED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE "DISCRIMINATION" OF "THE OTHER".

The shocking thing is that for some strange reason, "skin-tone" discrimination has been escalated to the highest-possible-crime, and other forms of discrimination have been arbitrarily tacked on, like "sexgender" and "ablebodiedness" and "religionandorcreed" among others, but other forms of discrimination have been ignored.

(IFF) YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE DISCRIMINATION A CRIME (THEN) ALL DISCRIMINATION SHOULD BE A CRIME

also,

"RACISM" IS A THOUGHT CRIME
#122
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It seems both of you believe it is reprehensible to make comments regarding the proximity of a particular race to monkeys on the evolutionary timescale. If every organism falls somewhere on this timescale, it seems appropriate to inquire as to where on that timescale certain groups of organisms fall

It is reprehensible. It requires not understanding evolution with certainty. 

That there is a 'top lifeform' is a (often religious) notion overlayed onto evolution. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no "higher lifeforms" - at least not in the sense you're arguing. There is only better adaptation for a given environment. Light skinned humans are adapted for a different environment that dark skinned humans - both are equal distant from an ape-like ancestor.

If someone is suggesting there could be no dark skin in their ancestral tree (and evolution is wrong), well, their racism and ignorance is showing.

#123
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Discriminating against criminals would also be a crime then.


How would a non-discriminating system work?



#124
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Natural Selection, is easy to understand, 'Evolution, more difficult.
Video was meant as joke.

Topic's author
#125
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
In my question, I was trying to avoid conclusions such as "top" or "higher" life forms and just look at the evolutionary timescale. So without commenting on quality or value, would it be accurate to say that evolutionists claim that monkeys evolved into dark-skinned Africans, and dark-skinned Africans evolved into other forms such as light-skinned Europeans?
#126
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
would it be accurate to say that evolutionists claim that monkeys evolved into dark-skinned Africans, and dark-skinned Africans evolved into other forms such as light-skinned Europeans?
Not quite. We didn't evolve from monkeys. It is thought that early man was predominately dark-skinned though.
Topic's author
#127
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was using monkeys in a general sense, but I will copy and paste my previous statement with "apes":

So without commenting on quality or value, would it be accurate to say that evolutionists claim that apes evolved into dark-skinned Africans, and dark-skinned Africans evolved into other forms such as light-skinned Europeans?
Assuming you don't take any issues with this statement, what is so reprehensible then about saying dark-skinned Africans are closer to apes on the evolutionary timescale than light-skinned Europeans? Isn't that just a statement that describes how humans evolved?
#128
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Assuming you don't take any issues with this statement, what is so reprehensible then about saying dark-skinned Africans are closer to apes on the evolutionary timescale than light-skinned Europeans? Isn't that just a statement that describes how humans evolved?
No. We are all the same species the same distance from our ape ancestor (which isn't a modern ape). Some of us have had different selective pressures which favored lighter skin.

To suggest dark skinned folks are 'closer to apes' first misunderstands the relationship between all humans and apes - we are not descended from modern apes. On top of that, it insinuates adaptation to a new environment is superior to being well adapted to a given environment. You might as well compare the relatedness (and superiority) of environments - it really doesn't make any sense.





#129
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Humans are one type of several living species of great apes. Humans evolved alongside orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. All of these share a common ancestor before about 7 million years ago.
Topic's author
#130
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Where did the first Homo sapiens arise?
#131
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I would guess you know the answer to that question - what is your point?
#132
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't 'know where humans arose, myself.

Topic's author
#133
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
If the first Homo sapiens arose in Africa, it seems we could presume they were dark-skinned.

Would it be true then that lighter-skinned Homo sapiens are a later form of our species in terms of the evolutionary timeline? We are not making any comment on what implications that might have. We are just trying to map out a small section of the evolutionary tree (or whatever imagery you like). 
#134
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If the first Homo sapiens arose in Africa, it seems we could presume they were dark-skinned.

Would it be true then that lighter-skinned Homo sapiens are a later form of our species in terms of the evolutionary timeline?
Africans would presumably be the closest to original homo sapiens in terms of genetics, but the furthest would probably be Polynesians since many Pacific Islands were only populated within the last 10,000 years. It is notable that native African DNA is the only population of modern humans that don't show genetic markers indicative of inter-species breeding with Neanderthals. Article 
As far as I can see, color has nothing to do with it, appropriate melanin levels are merely promoted by climate and geography.

#135
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
 Let's look at chimpanzees, the closest ape to us. They do have different skin tones but they're all different degrees of what we would consider dark skinned and their skin tends to darken with age, accounting for those differences.
Skin color in humans serves a purpose however, dark skin, that is more melanin, protects better against UV and is often found in people who live near or on the equator. Light skin helps with vitamin D synthesis and is often found in people far from the equator. Less UV radiation reaches those places and UV radiation is actually important in synthesizing vitamin D, therefore lighter skin that lets more through is important.
Now back to the chimpanzee, we share a common ancestor from about 7 million years ago, this adaptation of skin tone in humans emerged around 1 million years ago at the latest.
Topic's author
#136
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@K_Michael
@FLRW
If the first Homo sapiens arose in Africa, it seems we could presume they were dark-skinned.

Would it be true then that lighter-skinned Homo sapiens are a later form of our species in terms of the evolutionary timeline? We are not making any comment on what implications that might have. We are just trying to map out a small section of the evolutionary tree (or whatever imagery you like).
It seems that I cannot get a straight answer regarding the quoted section above. There is much talk about evolutionary characteristics and the purpose of skin color. But it seems there is some hesitation in stating what I have asked plainly.

Let's say we drew a timeline that started from the point of our common ape ancestor. As we move along the timeline, we would see various species in the Homo family. Eventually, we would reach the first Homo sapiens on that timeline, and they would presumably be dark-skinned African Homo sapiens. There would not be any light-skinned European Homo sapiens in existence yet. It wouldn't be until we move a little further down the timeline that we see light-skinned European Homo sapiens.

Is there anything that is factually incorrect about this statement from the evolutionary perspective?
Topic's author
#137
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@K_Michael
"Africans would presumably be the closest to original homo sapiens in terms of genetics"

I should note that this does seem to be a fairly clear answer, but with a lot of unnecessary qualifications. What do you see wrong with simply stating what should be obvious from an evolutionary standpoint?
#138
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Would it be true then that lighter-skinned Homo sapiens are a later form of our species in terms of the evolutionary timeline? We are not making any comment on what implications that might have. We are just trying to map out a small section of the evolutionary tree (or whatever imagery you like). 
Light skinned and dark skinned humans would be on the same branch of the tree.  Evolution doesn't recognize a difference between the two. 
Topic's author
#139
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you saying that evolutionary biologists would make no distinction between Homo sapiens from 100,000 years ago and Homo sapiens today?
#140
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No, I think his point is that the Africans of today, are not the Africans of 2 million years ago.
Europeans, Asians, Hispanics, aren't descended from modern Africans.

The out of Africa theory, posits that Africans, Europeans, Asians, Hispanics, are descended from 'ancient man, who coming from Africa where it's hot and sunny, many assume had black skin.
Though unless they've done a DNA test to prove that, I don't see why it couldn't be orange or blue skin.
I say that though, out of ignorance, I'm 'Not trying to say,  there's no way ancient humans were black.
#141
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I can't speak to what they would say about differences between modern humans and humans of 100k years ago. 

My point has been, from an evolutionary standpoint, modern human skin color is unimportant. Skin color doesn't differentiate humanity into different species.


#142
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Is there anything that is factually incorrect about this statement from the evolutionary perspective?
No
#143
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are you saying that evolutionary biologists would make no distinction between Homo sapiens from 100,000 years ago and Homo sapiens today?

So when did fossils finally first show fully modern humans with all representative features? It’s not an easy answer. One skull (but only one of several) from Omo Kibish looks much like a modern human at 195,000 years old, while another found in Nigeria’s Iwo Eleru cave, appears very archaic, but is only 13,000 years old. These discrepancies illustrate that the process wasn’t linear, reaching some single point after which all people were modern humans.
Topic's author
#144
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
But species themselves are an arbitrary and manmade category to differentiate between various points on a continuous progression of evolutionary changes. The different species in the Homo family did not just spontaneously appear.

Isn't it true that species are always evolving, even within their individual species? And isn't it also true that earlier forms of a particular species are "closer to" their predecessor species than later forms, at least in terms of their position on the continuous progression of gradual evolutionary changes?
#145
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But species themselves are an arbitrary and manmade category to differentiate between various points on a continuous progression of evolutionary changes. The different species in the Homo family did not just spontaneously appear.
This is word play. Two, four, plus, and equal are arbitrary and manmade too, but 2+2 still equals 4. 

Isn't it true that species are always evolving, even within their individual species? And isn't it also true that earlier forms of a particular species are "closer to" their predecessor species than later forms, at least in terms of their position on the continuous progression of gradual evolutionary changes?
Humans today are further removed in time from common ape ancestor than the earliest humans.

That being said, the point you're trying to make has no basis in evolution. The earliest modern humans were ...modern humans. Any attempted distinctions based on societal/cultural constructs (like skin color) are not evolution. 

Topic's author
#146
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
This is word play. Two, four, plus, and equal are arbitrary and manmade too, but 2+2 still equals 4. 
There is currently debate happening about whether there is one species of giraffe with nine subspecies, or if there are four species with five subspecies. However we resolve this debate depends on how we determine to set parameters on what constitutes a distinct species.

Are you really willing to say that the objective principles of mathematics are as arbitrary as the giraffe species debate?

That being said, the point you're trying to make has no basis in evolution. The earliest modern humans were ...modern humans. Any attempted distinctions based on societal/cultural constructs (like skin color) are not evolution
The point I am trying to make is that evolution is a continuous process that does not stop just because modern humans decide to categorize a particular organism. If modern humans have evolved from where we were 500 years ago, then we are further away from our common ape ancestor than humans 500 years ago. But you seem to be saying that species just jump into existence rather than gradually changing because there are no distinctions within species groups.
#147
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"Africans would presumably be the closest to original homo sapiens in terms of genetics"

I should note that this does seem to be a fairly clear answer, but with a lot of unnecessary qualifications. What do you see wrong with simply stating what should be obvious from an evolutionary standpoint?
The reason I caveated my statement is that I'm not sure. Although modern Africans live in the same geographical region as the original homo sapiens, African is a very broad term and some certain conditions would still result in evolution pressures. For all I know one specific tribe is almost completely unchanged for millions of years, other than recent contamination as they marry other tribes, but I don't have the knowledge to prove that. It could also be that although Africans are still the most similar visually to the original homo sapiens, they could have a more changed genotype than, as an example, Arabs, due to factors such as climate change, or exposure to new diseases, bacteria, and foods.
#148
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
Are you really willing to say that the objective principles of mathematics are as arbitrary as the giraffe species debate?
No, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of "species" cuts deeper than you may have realized. Every word we utter, every concept we think has an 'arbitrary and manmade' component to it. Might I suggest a smaller blade? ;-)

The point I am trying to make is that evolution is a continuous process that does not stop just because modern humans decide to categorize a particular organism. If modern humans have evolved from where we were 500 years ago, then we are further away from our common ape ancestor than humans 500 years ago. But you seem to be saying that species just jump into existence rather than gradually changing because there are no distinctions within species groups.
If you'd like to make a case for dark skinned humans and light skinned humans being different species with the relevant experts, have at it. Otherwise, you're questioning the wrong people and the status quo stands.
Topic's author
#149
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of "species" cuts deeper than you may have realized. Every word we utter, every concept we think has an 'arbitrary and manmade' component to it.
I don't think you realize the category error you made in comparing the objective principles of mathematics and numbers to the parameters we use to classify different types of organisms.


"If you'd like to make a case for dark skinned humans and light skinned humans being different species with the relevant experts, have at it."
That does not have anything to do with my point, since nowhere have I suggested that we split modern humans into different species based on skin color. Perhaps this is why we seem to be talking past each other. My point is that even organisms in the same species can be further along in the continuous evolutionary progression than earlier forms of that species. But you previously said something to refute the idea that we can say organisms in the same species can be said to be "closer" or "further" in the evolutionary progression:
Light skinned and dark skinned humans would be on the same branch of the tree. Evolution doesn't recognize a difference between the two.
It seems on this basis alone, you would reject the idea of peppered moths being an example of evolution, correct? Because evolution doesn't recognize a difference between light and dark members of the same species?
Topic's author
#150
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@K_Michael
Thanks for the clarification. This thread got off in the weeds a bit here so maybe I'll ask, did you happen to look at the article at all from my OP? Do you think that such an article has any reason to be in Scientific American, even as an opinion piece? My original purpose was to find agreement with evolutionists that the increasing popularity of Critical Race Theory is the mechanism that allowed such a poorly argued assertion to be considered for a scientific publication.