Few want to hear this but … Darwinism made racism science

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 19, 2022

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Racism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A retired surgeon offers some thoughts about John West’s Darwin Day in America (2014, second edition):

At first glance, it might seem that whether we believe in evolution as a purely material, unguided process should make no difference to values or morality. Yet, in his 2007 book Darwin Day in America: How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, Discovery Institute’s John West looks at the question more deeply and shows otherwise. In a nearly encyclopedic manner, he documents the numerous impacts Darwinism has had in the public square. It has had a distinctively destructive effect on our society. Dr. West provides a plethora of examples in each chapter of how Darwinism has changed the courts, the schools, the medical establishment, the conduct of the scientific community, and, indeed, the man on the street.
A War of Worldviews
As the book shows, Darwinism is a Weltanschauung at war with the Judeo-Christian theistic system on which Western civilization and scientific inquiry are based. Many of Dr. West’s examples were unknown to me, and will be news to many other readers. In a skillful and scholarly fashion, he unearths the contest between faith and “science,” while providing references for any claims that he makes. The book is divided into sections, with each oriented around a specific theme. I’ll be as brief as possible in this two-part review.
Kenneth Feucht, “Darwinism and the “So What?” Question: John West’s Darwin Day in America” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 25, 2022)

See, some of us go well back into the 1950s. Darwinism was conveyed in the culture in a way that reinforced racism (like, there were three human “races,” did you know?). As it happened, most of us had little contact with the other two.

For reasons familiar to anyone who follows human psychology, our group was supposed to be the smartest. We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we.

That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…

Most of the legal issues around “race” that we addressed in those days were complicated by Indigenous status or women’s rights (or lack thereof), which is not the same thing as “race.” It was a legal issue in Canada who was or wasn’t entitled to be considered a “registered” Indigenous person and what benefits that such a status did or did not confer. It really didn’t affect our overall assumptions about “race” in general. The implicit assumptions around such ideas were conveyed in the culture.

Comments

And just thinking about it, this pathology is the complement of this one: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/what-blocks-new-ideas-in-science/ -QQuerius_{April 29, 2022
April
04
Apr
29
29
2022
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @131,
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. . . . The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
In addition to opening the door to eugenics and "genetic hygiene," Darwin's quotes in Descent of Man reveal his egregious racism. The fact is that William Wilberforce in the UK and the abolitionists in the U.S. did not go along with the racist narrative. Even earlier, there was transition from opportunistic commercial slavery to "race-based" slavery (using an arbitrary definition of race), and with Darwin's help, to "scientific racism." For example,
Yet, the system of racialized chattel slavery that had fully matured on plantations in the Americas by the 18th century was at an extreme end of a continuum in slave systems of coercion, dehumanization, and violence. Racism justified and buttressed this system more fully perhaps than it has with any slave system. Yet, racism is an idea that changed over time. As with any historical idea, it must be contextualized rather than treated as a transhistorical essence that does not change across centuries. Early 17th-century English racism looked very different than the elaborately imagined scientific racism of the late 19th century. Scientific racism did not emerge among Europeans until the late 18th century and racial thinking was rarely articulated in depth before that point. https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-268
Concealed in the discussion about slavery under term, "the Americas," was the leading role played by Portugal in Brazil, where indigenous people were enslaved at first, later followed by Africans. Brazil led the Americas in the number of Africans enslaved. Also usually forgotten was the lucrative involvement by the northeastern shipowners in the U.S. It's a pity that Darwin's horrible ideas are still being protected by the scientific establishment. -QQuerius_{April 28, 2022
April
04
Apr
28
28
2022
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

F/N: We must remember, Darwin's other book on Evolution, Descent of Man, 1871, ch 6:
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence [--> onward, of course lies, My Struggle], and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
This extension of the concept, "favoured races" as found in the subtitle of Origin of Species, brings out an inherent moral hazard in Darwin's thought, which sadly opened the door to what would follow. Regrettably, this was posed in a context of explanation of missing links:
EVEN if it be granted that the difference between man and his nearest allies is as great in corporeal structure as some naturalists maintain, and although we must grant that the difference between them is immense in mental power, yet the facts given in the earlier chapters appear to declare, in the plainest manner, that man is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that connecting-links have not hitherto been discovered . . .
Unfortunately, no resources were posed to address this, and instead the frame of thought gave an open invitation to racism dressed up in the lab coat as say the sad fate of Ota Benga will demonstrate. The intractable problems of evolutionary ethics fall into this context. That which can have in it no IS capable of bearing the weight of ought inevitably so relativises and subjectivises moral government that it invites the inference that ethics is grand delusion and is fair game for manipulation through nihilistic will to power. Ironically, such an oil of vitriol also eats ever on, including rationality, knowledge, logic. Such opens the door to nihilism as Plato long since warned about as a cultural consequence of domination of the intellectual culture by evolutionary materialism. Yes, this is nothing new, it was understood in the aftermath of the collapse of Athens through the general context of the Peloponnesian war. A sobering lesson of history:
Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: "nature" (here, mechanical, blind necessity), "chance" (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
So, yes, Darwin opened a fateful door. KFkairosfocus_{April 28, 2022
April
04
Apr
28
28
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @128,
I trust that going forward, you will take such debates to more appropriate fora and will actually refocus here on UD’s focal matters. The sad, dangerous state of our civilisation more than warrants such a refocussing.
Indeed! And by not recognizing the principles, rationalizations, and sources behind such travesties as plantation slavery ensures its functional equivalents to continue unabated in the form of the de facto slavery due to the U.S. government under multiple Democrat and Republican administrations! They have ALL been obviously unwilling to even consider terminating (a) "Undocumented migration" in favor of streamlining legal immigration (b) H-1B visa abuses for technical workers held hostage to immediate deportation (c) Labor law exemptions for inhumane treatment of farm labor (d) Well-known abusive warehouse and delivery service practices (e) Unabated commercial monetization of brutal offshore sweatshops. They simply blame the other party and pretend to care in exchange for large campaign contributions. The key perspective is in the words de facto and the concept of Darwinism has been broadly applied to ethnicities, social policy, and economics with predictable and dehumanizing results. -QQuerius_{April 28, 2022
April
04
Apr
28
28
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Believe whatever stupid apologetics you want. But don’t expect serious scholars to agree. –RAM
buffoon noun buf·foon | Definition of buffoon 1: a ludicrous figure : CLOWN 2: a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person acting like a ridiculous buffoonSandy_{April 28, 2022
April
04
Apr
28
28
2022
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

Ram, we both know this is the pivotal text, one that has a long history within Judaism [down to today] that holds that it is about a specific individual rather than Israel as a whole, i.e. messiah as wounded healer, rejected David like hero and sin bearer who is unjustly judicially murdered or lynched among actual malefactors and buried with the rich but after making his soul a sin offering prolongs his days and the will of the Lord prospers in his hands to the point where kings of the nations do him homage. I cited the above after your persistent doubling down, to show that your pose is not a balanced one. Indeed, the omission from reading cycle itself speaks to a broader pattern of imbalance. I trust that going forward, you will take such debates to more appropriate fora and will actually refocus here on UD's focal matters. The sad, dangerous state of our civilisation more than warrants such a refocussing. KFkairosfocus_{April 27, 2022
April
04
Apr
27
27
2022
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

RAM @126, Likewise. So, why not instead contribute discussion pertinent to the OP about Darwinism and racism? -QQuerius_{April 27, 2022
April
04
Apr
27
27
2022
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Querius: angry Haha. Rashi Rashi is akin to Archer Gleason. Hehe. Hehehe. Believe whatever stupid apologetics you want. But don't expect serious scholars to agree. --RAMram_{April 27, 2022
April
04
Apr
27
27
2022
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

RAM/Bill (however you prefer), Kairosfocus apparently wanted to demonstrate that he's familiar with the biblical arguments, but has repeatedly requested that "extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD."
P.S. read all of the surrounding context of Isaiah 53. “My servant” is Jacob/Israel.
Yes, Kairosfocus actually did mention Rashi's interpretation in his reply to your angry posts. So, why not instead contribute discussion pertinent to the OP about Darwinism and racism? -QQuerius_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Bill Why don't you say what you want to say? Tell us what you believe and why. Do that before attacking everybody else.Silver Asiatic_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

KF, So you do want to have a Bible study here? P.S. read all of the surrounding context of Isaiah 53. "My servant" is Jacob/Israel. No wonder Christians are so misguided about the Hebrew scriptures. --Billram_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Ram, you full well know that UD is not where there would be a relevant panel of experts and it is also clear there are other venues with such. That in itself raises serious questions about your repeated attempts to push such here when just on a first point we can see that there is serious, take pause, thought behind what you obviously oppose. KF PS, For example, the 2nd linked at 106 above notes of Isa 53, part of the Tanakh:
Isaiah 53 does not appear in synagogue calendar readings. But its obscurity, its presence in the shadows, and the silence surrounding it shouts its importance. Its omission from the synagogue readings points to its uniqueness. One Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: “Because of the Christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths…the omission is deliberate and striking.”1 Why is the omission so striking? Because when we finish the cycle of readings for the year, we haven’t really finished it. We’ve left out a portion of our own prophets ostensibly because of what Christians think about it. Why has the Christian interpretation of Jewish Scripture placed regulations on what is or is not read in synagogues around the world? But it isn’t only because of the Christian interpretation that the Isaiah passage is omitted. After all, the services from which it is omitted aren’t for Christian ears. So the problem is not what Christians think of the passage—it’s what Jewish people might think . . . . Some of the first written interpretations or targums (ancient paraphrases on biblical texts) see this passage as referring to an individual servant, the Messiah, who would suffer. Messianic Jewish Talmudist, Rachmiel Frydland, recounts: Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God’s Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century c.e., begins with the simple and worthy words: Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).2 We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud: What is his [the Messiah’s] name? The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Sanhedrin 98b) Similarly, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14 in the Midrash Rabbah it states: He is speaking of the King Messiah: “Come hither,” draw near to the throne; “and eat of the bread,” that is, the bread of the kingdom; “and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,” this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.” The Zohar, in its interpretation of Isaiah 53, points to the Messiah as well: There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.” (Zohar II, 212a) The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages.
Of course, Rashi introduced a different, collective understanding of the passage. That same linked goes on to comment:
Rashi believed that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimhi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later—including Maimonides—realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretations. The objections these rabbis put forth to Rashi’s view were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, “He was despised and rejected … he was pierced for our transgressions … he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.” Third, they noted verse eight of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel: By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:8) But, were the Jewish people ever “cut off from the land of the living?” Absolutely not! God promises that Israel will live forever: If this fixed order [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. (Jeremiah 31:36) Likewise, this interpretation makes nonsense of the phrase, “for the transgression of my people he was stricken,” since “my people” clearly means the Jewish people. If verse eight refers to Israel, then are we to read that Israel is stricken for Israel because of Israel’s sin? How can the sin-bearer and the sinner be the same? Likewise, how can Israel be the servant, the one who “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9)? Israel is not now, nor ever has been, without sin—the Scriptures are replete with examples of Israel’s disobedience. All of these inconsistencies troubled many rabbis, and they expressed their opinions concerning Rashi’s view. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Iben Crispin of Cordova, who lived in the 14th century, said of the Israel-as-servant interpretation, it “distorts the passage from its natural meaning,” and that Isaiah 53 “was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not.”3
So, what is so controversial, that it is apparently deemed ill advised to have this text in regular readings? Oh, things like this. Y'nkow, text that reads like:
Isa 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. 8By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? 9And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
C 700 BC.kairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Fred Hickson @120, It would be helpful if you provided support for your assertions. For example,
There has been very little interest shown outside the Creationist community but oddly not much within it either.
But Jeanson's book published in 2022 is already sold out and due for a second printing this summer. So, what information to the contrary did you base your statements on?
Seems he makes some basic biological errors.
Really? Such as what? -QQuerius_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

I see there are references to Nathaniel Jeanson and his latest book. There has been very little interest shown outside the Creationist community but oddly not much within it either. I did notice some discussion elsewhere, but at a religious themed site. Even there, commenters were generally dismissive. Seems he makes some basic biological errors.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

SA: You’re not a theist Um, well, yes I am. Where did you get the delusional idea that I'm not a "theist." Keep up, man. :D (Kind of a proof that you're not really paying close attention.) Peace --RAMram_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

KF: Ram, extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD or other places where there will not be a relevant panel of experts. You are entirely free to not participate. P.S. I'm an expert. --RAMram_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @116, Thanks for the references.
The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that “races” represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history.
Yes, exactly! But people don't "follow the science" when it's politically inconvenient and incompatible with their ideology. We're far more related than anyone thinks and Darwinism certainly rationalized and promoted the worst forms of racism. I finished Jeanson's book last night. Fascinating, especially when one can map these to historical events and linguistic changes! -QQuerius_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

F/N: Some grist for the mill https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics
People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations. Early studies of human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic gradients, or clines. A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity is accounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. In general, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). These results show that when individuals are sampled from around the globe, the pattern seen is not a matter of discrete clusters – but rather gradients in genetic variation (gradual geographic variations in allele frequencies) that extend over the entire world. Therefore,there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or "races." The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that "races" represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. An exception may be genes where different selection regimes have acted in different geographical regions. However, even in those cases, the genetic discontinuities seen are generally not "racial" or continental in nature but depend on historical and cultural factors that are more local in nature’ (Serre and Pääbo 2004: 1683-1684).
KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

JHolo @113, Yes, I've read that as well. That many other humans lived at the time of mitochondrial "Eve" and Y-chromosomal "Adam" and that all other lineages somehow became extinct except for one. Or maybe humans evolved any number of times and became extinct only to re-evolve again. Or maybe human-like beings evolved from remote taxons such as long-lived octopuses that evolved adaptations to terrestrial life such as Octopus paxarbolis. (smile) But, this is all speculation without any actual evidence. -QQuerius_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

We have a fact and an assumption combined. I stay only with fact . It's safer. 1. Scientific fact that stand by itself : All people today are the descendants of only one man and one woman. Nothing new: Bible said so for 3000 years . 2. Assumption made by evolutionists : Man and woman lived in different times. Speculation based on other speculations that are based on biggest speculation that evolution is true . :)) I stay with fact 1 that can be proved now and here by any lab while assumption 2 is ...just a speculation.Lieutenant Commander Data_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

I haven’t really read extensively on the mitochondrial Eve and the Y chromosome Adam, so please correct me if I have something wrong. In both cases they look at the current variation in mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA, and extrapolate backwards based on estimated mutation rates and the average time-span of a generation to arrive at a most recent common ancestor. Let’s, simply for the sake of argument, assume that this was 10,000 years ago for both. But this doesn’t mean that these were the only two humans around at the time. At the time of the mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam, there was still a large population of humans. If we used the variation in DNA of the mitochondria and Y chromosome from the population that existed 10,000 years ago, and followed the same analysis, we would come up with a second Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam, several thousand years earlier than the dates estimated for the Adam and Eve calculated from the perspective of the modern era. And this could likely be repeated for hundreds of additional iterations.JHolo_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Back to considerations regarding Darwinism and racism, Jeanson's book typically follows a pattern like this: a. I was always taught in school that (something regarding race and migration) . . . but it turns out from DNA evidence that this is absolutely not the case. b. Here's what the DNA evidence shows . . . c. So let's see whether we can trace where the historical (name of people group) ended up or was distributed. Refer to the following color plates . . . d. But there's a confounding factor. Here's what it seems to show, and here's some additional evidence . . . Last night, I read about the dispersal of the Jewish people into some very surprising places. Hint: "black Jews." Also note that Moses married a Ethiopian (i.e. black) woman. Evidence compiled by Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen indicates the switch from patrilineality to matrilineality in Judaism took place in the first century C.E. But remember that this is only half the story. The Y-chromosome traces only paternal migration. From what I've read elsewhere, maternal mitochondrial DNA migration can be and often is different. Of course, skin color and other characteristics can vary dramatically between generations of heterozygous individuals. Also, dark or light skin and other "racial" characteristics is not unique to a particular Y lineage despite popular misconceptions and racism. Y chromosome data can also be used as a genetic clock. However, mutation rates of Y DNA are highly controversial due to the collision between genetic data with the evolutionary narrative. Here's a back-of-the-envelope computation based on a paper from 2000 that indicates a rate of 175 mutations per generation in the human diploid genome. I was taught in college that it was 100-150 mutations per generation. Since then, many other estimates have appeared and evolutionists speculate that mutation rates "musta" depended on climate and undiscovered factors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461236/ Since the Y chromosome has about 1/5th the number of genes of the X chromosome . . . 175/(46 x 5) = 0.76 mutations for each Y length per generation, but sex-linked traits seem to indicate a Y-chromosome mutation rate of 4x that of its X pair, we get 0.76 x 4 = 3.04 Y-chromosome mutations per generation. Dr. Jeanson arrives at the same number, 3, of Y mutations per generation using a different method involving human genetic diversity. The result is that the data indicates a Y-chromosomal "Adam" within less than 10,000 years (Jeanson suggests 6,000 years). -QQuerius_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Ram, I have pointed you to where you may reasonably engage the matter, and to what is central, including to the matter of credibility which you are so quick to try to trash, do I need to elaborate from the two links on a silenced text? And, as we both know, going to the central text, central since the 30's AD is most definitely not a deflection; Do you want me to point to Ac 8:26 ff? That is enough for my purpose. KFkairosfocus_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

Ram
Thanks for your frank admission of your view of Jewish scholars.
Orthodox Jews are theists. You're not a theist and, in fact, are filled with ridicule and contempt against them. So I'm just noting that your hostility is directed against your own people and what you've called "your Scriptures". Do you think anyone wants to take up a debate with a guy who can't get his own categories straight and will not be transparent on his own deconstruction of the Scriptures?
Your bronze-age, anthropomorphic religion ...
All of the Jewish prophets say that they spoke with God, or God spoke to them. There are dozens of miracles that you have to explain away. In the end, there's nothing sacred about the deconstructed Bible and why should anybody be interested in what the post-modernist, atheist Jews have to say anyway? If you believe in what the Hebrew scriptures say, as Jews have done since they were written - in the miracles from the time of Moses to the prayers of deliverance in the Psalms, then that's theism. If you reject all of that, then the Bible is just a cultural artifact filled with false, mythological tales and all the Jews, including the Jewish scholars of today, who believe otherwise must be ignorant or deluded in your view.Silver Asiatic_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

KF: I suggest to you that there is adequate warrant for seeing in say Isa 52 – 53, a clear predictive prophecy of a specific individual person rejected suffering servant messiah Debates like this become haunted by pitfalls and polarisation for the amateur. I'm not an amateur. Are you? You are free to make your case. Let's get it on video. I noticed you deflecting from Isaiah 7. Let's discuss 7 and 52, 53 (and beyond.) When do you want to do a live Youtube discussion? Awaiting your reply. -RAMram_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

KF: Ram, extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD... Which is why I'm inviting all takers a Youtube live discussion. Including you. All the best --Ramram_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

Q, pivotally, it was the Ukrainian steppes. KFkairosfocus_{April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Ram, extended Bible debates are not advisable at UD or other places where there will not be a relevant panel of experts. You have been directed elsewhere. However, I suggest to you that there is adequate warrant for seeing in say Isa 52 - 53, a clear predictive prophecy of a specific individual person rejected suffering servant messiah who is wounded healer, deliverer and saviour, who makes his soul an offering [e.g. a nation is a soul-less collective and the multiple messiah candidates suggested, here find fusion much as evening and morning star], is cut off and yet prolongs his days, being honoured by kings up to and including George III's famous reaction to Handel's Messiah. Debates like this become haunted by pitfalls and polarisation for the amateur. I am sure we both know that Isa 52 - 3 is the pivotal text, start here for example and here onward regarding marginalisation. I simply note for record in hope that you will carry discussion on such matters to more appropriate fora. KFkairosfocus_{April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

Christians are usually very reluctant to discuss the "New Testament" with Hebrew scholars. It's understandable. As a starter, we can just limit the discussion to Isaiah 7. Any takers? We can go live. Nothing will be edited. --RAMram_{April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

SA: You want to try to prove to me how ignorant and deluded the Jews are? Wow. Thanks for your frank admission of your view of Jewish scholars. Are you accepting my invitation? That's a yes or no question. --RAMram_{April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply