Evolution is a racist doctrine

Based on your message regarding trees and branching, you clearly know that folks are not saying that primates came from tree shrews, and you also understand why they would not say that.You've also been warned about that your continued deliberate falsehoods are to be punished with suspensions. So at this point, everyone knows that your goal is to get kicked out of here permanently. I suspect you will get your wish, so I am saying goodbye now.

Curiously I note that this has nothing to do with YOUR topic "Evolution is a racist doctrine" and that you failed utterly to answer my questions on Message 288:

quote:

---

... so how can evolution be racist when "being better" depends of which ecological conditions is involved?

​

• black mice "better adapted" than tan mice on lava beds
  -- vs --
• tan mice "better adapted" than black mice on sandy soil
  -- vs --
• black mice equally adapted as tan mice on green moss covered ground?

​

Is one race/variety superior to the other?

---

Is evolution 'racist' because black mice are 'superior' to tan mice on lava beds?Or is evolution 'racist' because tan mice are 'superior' to black mice on tan soil?Which is it oh great purveyor of misinformation?(correct answer: neither, because evolution is not racist)Enjoy

The first interesting thing on this thread! Do you have any more context for our graphic? I found the website, but there is little explanation for how they present it, and I am very curious which Ethiopian fossils they are classifying as H. antecessor. I've only ever seen this applied to Spanish fossils.

This is one of my go-to sites, as they keep updating with new information. There's an "email me" link, so I would do that.Enjoyps thanks for the wrist link

In case it helps make sense of some of what Davidjay says, he doesn't understand the difference between a tree showing descent, like the one you just showed: And a tree showing classification relationships, like this one that caused him to conclude that primates are descended from bats:

I do not understand the distinction you're making - those trees are both showing descent. And the one which you claim led to DavidJay's confusion about bats doesn't include any bats. His confusion about bats had nothing to do with that graphic. It was spurred by Chiroptera's mentioned of the (outdated) theory that bats are closely related to primates:

quote:

---

However, Archonta is a clade that includes bats (ahem!) assuming that bats are that closely related to primates.

---

My reading is that he sees the evolutionary model as proposing some sort of Grand Chain of Being. The branching he bangs on about seems to involve some kind of superior organism sprouting out of the inferior organisms below. The inferior organisms remain, but now there are superior branches of organims above them. From these, in turn, bud off new, superior branches, until we have a hierarchy of organisms with (presumably) humans at the top.Hence the continual demand to know what animals we branched off from. He's looking for the living species from which the superior human branch budded off.That's the most sense I can make of it, anyway.

Honestly, I think he understands the concepts just fine. He is just playing stupid to get a rise out of everyone. His posts don't read like he is engaged in dialog. They are just troll babble. Nothing more.

I guess I have more faith in people's honesty, but less in their reading comprehension skills.

Sorry, I meant tree shrews. Here's the diagram again: Here's the paragraph from the Scientific American article (Introducing the Treeshrews: They Don't All Live in Trees and They Aren't Close to Shrews) that appears beneath the diagram:

quote:

---

Treeshrews might not be part of Primates, but they do share anatomical characters (in the skeleton and in numerous organ systems) with primates as well as with the so-called flying lemurs (Dermoptera). The idea that they’re part of the placental group Euarchonta is therefore universally accepted more or less (read on). Some molecular studies suggest an especially close relationship between treeshrews and flying lemurs (Murphy et al. 2001, Olson et al. 2005, Springer et al. 2007, Prasad et al. 2008, Asher et al. 2009). This hypothesis has become quite popular and the clade that contains the two has been termed Sundatheria (Olson et al. 2005) or Paraprimates (Springer et al. 2007). ‘Sundatheria’ refers to the idea that these mammals are strongly associated with Sundaland, the biogeographical region that incorporates Borneo, Sumatra, peninsula Malaysia and the adjacent continental shelf region that would have been exposed during times of low sea level.

---

To my reading it is representing it as a diagram of classification. Davidjay noted that this paragraph says that tree shrews are part of Euarchonta, then saw in the diagram (he thought) that primates are descended from Euarchonta, and so concluded that primates are descended from tree shrews. I don't claim to have it right, deciphering Davidjay is challenging, but that's how I was looking at it.

No offense evolutionists your grapgh isa total joke and should be a total embarassment for you.It is not a flow chart, it doesn;t show human ancestry according to evolutionists...... as even apes and humans are not connected.... but side by side...according to your silly cousins or brothers dementyia branching.Evolution is suppose to show ancestry and where we came from, and you evolutionists DONT KNOW.... and just excuse your ignorance with artists sketches and classifications of supposed ancestors who are extinct, as no transition species have ever been found.Evolution is a con and a lie.... only for the gullible and those that are intimidated into their belief systemPlease reLOOK at that insane grapgh or branching

If you don't have the scientific background to read and understand that chart, its not the fault of science...You seem to have "weaponized" ignorance, and that's not a very useful weapon.

No one with intelligence can deny the absolute worthliness of that graph.Trying to support its ignorance is truly pathetic.Evolutionists have classification charts, or groupings of so called classed or nomenclature to describe a certain type of KINDS or SPECIES..these do exist which is why the **** and *********** ridicuolousness enters in.... as artists conceptions are not proof of evolution.An ancestry chart, as with humans connects up parents with kids... Children have ancestors.Evolutionists CAN NOT answer who their ancestors were and get very very very upset when you mention that a *** or a ********** is not our ancestor.They try tosay chimps and apes were not ancestors..... but when faced with who were the ancestors of apes and chimps, they grind to a STOP.They have no idea, no answer... they are SPEECHLESSS and VOID and IGNORANT and afraid to mention ofr theorise any kind that mutated into us or into primates.And it makes them truly angry, even though they are not mad at themselves and their ignorance and inability to pin point our ancestor and so turn on the questioner as the problem.As befoe, so again.The chart is bogus as hell.Learn what a ancestrial flow chart is.....Grand Parent-Parents-ChildrenWho was our ancestor, who was the ancestor of the primates ?If you dont answer I shall report you for not carrying on this discussion.

David, you are telling stupid lies again.Whom do you hope to deceive?

Report away.And don't forget to mention that you've been avoiding responding to my archaeological evidence disproving the flood for over a month in spite of repeated prodding.

And your spelling and grammar skills are an embarrassment to everyone. RAZD already provided a more comprehensive graph showing human ancestry. My guess is that was a little too complicated for you. So I attempted to provide a more simplified version in the hopes you could comprehend it more easily. Guess I was wrong. Actually, we do. See all previous posts on the topic. Actually, evolution is a fact. Only the profanely stupid can't seem to comprehend the concepts. As evidenced by your babble. Just re-looked. Makes sense to me.Oh, and learn to spell 'graph'.This calls for another facepalm: P.S. Yes everyone, I know I am just feeding Christian Troll-boy. But I was bored this morning.