posted
A new study connects disbelief in evolution with greater prejudice.
quote:A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Stylianos Syropoulos, Uri Lifshin, Jeff Greenberg, Dylan E. Horner, Bernhard Leidner. Bigotry and the human–animal divide: (Dis)belief in human evolution and bigoted attitudes across different cultures.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2022
quote: Abstract The current investigation tested if people’s basic belief in the notion that human beings have developed from other animals (i.e., belief in evolution) can predict human-to-human prejudice and intergroup hostility. Using data from the American General Social Survey and Pew Research Center (Studies 1–4), and from three online samples (Studies 5, 7, 8) we tested this hypothesis across 45 countries, in diverse populations and religious settings, across time, in nationally representative data (N = 60,703), and with more comprehensive measures in online crowdsourced data (N = 2,846). Supporting the hypothesis, low belief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes, and support for discriminatory behaviors against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ), Blacks, and immigrants in the United States (Study 1), with higher ingroup biases, prejudicial attitudes toward outgroups, and less support for conflict resolution in samples collected from 19 Eastern European countries (Study 2), 25 Muslim countries (Study 3), and Israel (Study 4). Further, among Americans, lower belief in evolution was associated with greater prejudice and militaristic attitudes toward political outgroups (Study 5). Finally, perceived similarity to animals (a construct distinct from belief in evolution, Study 6) partially mediated the link between belief in evolution and prejudice (Studies 7 and 8), even when controlling for religious beliefs, political views, and other demographic variables, and were also observed for nondominant groups (i.e., religious and racial minorities). Overall, these findings highlight the importance of belief in human evolution as a potentially key individual-difference variable predicting racism and prejudice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's probably because a lot of creationists in the US tend to be Religious Right types who vote Republican. That said, the correlation is rather ironic considering how creationists bring up Darwin's of-his-time racist attitudes in order to discredit evolutionary theory.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A new study connects disbelief in evolution with greater prejudice.
quote:A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Stylianos Syropoulos, Uri Lifshin, Jeff Greenberg, Dylan E. Horner, Bernhard Leidner. Bigotry and the human–animal divide: (Dis)belief in human evolution and bigoted attitudes across different cultures.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2022
quote: Abstract The current investigation tested if people’s basic belief in the notion that human beings have developed from other animals (i.e., belief in evolution) can predict human-to-human prejudice and intergroup hostility. Using data from the American General Social Survey and Pew Research Center (Studies 1–4), and from three online samples (Studies 5, 7, 8) we tested this hypothesis across 45 countries, in diverse populations and religious settings, across time, in nationally representative data (N = 60,703), and with more comprehensive measures in online crowdsourced data (N = 2,846). Supporting the hypothesis, low belief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes, and support for discriminatory behaviors against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ), Blacks, and immigrants in the United States (Study 1), with higher ingroup biases, prejudicial attitudes toward outgroups, and less support for conflict resolution in samples collected from 19 Eastern European countries (Study 2), 25 Muslim countries (Study 3), and Israel (Study 4). Further, among Americans, lower belief in evolution was associated with greater prejudice and militaristic attitudes toward political outgroups (Study 5). Finally, perceived similarity to animals (a construct distinct from belief in evolution, Study 6) partially mediated the link between belief in evolution and prejudice (Studies 7 and 8), even when controlling for religious beliefs, political views, and other demographic variables, and were also observed for nondominant groups (i.e., religious and racial minorities). Overall, these findings highlight the importance of belief in human evolution as a potentially key individual-difference variable predicting racism and prejudice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
Are you a Jew? If so, as a Jew you should realize all the Miraculous victories and signs going on with Israel to this day, and Bible Prophecy most of all, Fulfilled in CHRIST, that will make you Realize how Real and Supernatural The Bible Is.
You can't tell me after the Holocaust and 2,000 years of exile, Israel being revived and defeated Multiple different enemies with no aircraft or experience, in 1948 is somehow a "coincidence" and the list goes even more on.
As a Hebrew you should realize that your/our ancestors had success versus many enemies because of their belief in GOD.
-------------------- Heyy Posts: 106 | From: Usa | Registered: Mar 2022
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It's probably because a lot of creationists in the US tend to be Religious Right types who vote Republican. That said, the correlation is rather ironic considering how creationists bring up Darwin's of-his-time racist attitudes in order to discredit evolutionary theory.
When it comes to evolution 31% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism, 22% believe in evolution guided by a supreme being and 32% in evolution due to natural processes. Among American scientists the numbers are 2%, 8% and 87%.
According to Wiki USA are among the nations in the West where acceptance among the general public for evolution are lowest
quote:A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.
One can also see differences between different religions and denominations within USA:
Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I for one am very skeptical of this study. For one thing, most, though not all, sociology studies conducted nowadays are heavily left-wing biased. In fact most scientific studies in general whether in soft sciences or hard studies are heavily funded and promoted by untrustworthy sources whose agenda is overtly that of humanist scientism. In fact I find this study to be funny considering how evolution as promoted by Charles Darwin was in fact very racist in origin with the belief in superior vs. inferior races while Christian doctrine taught that all humans share common descent from Adam and Eve who were created in God's image and thus all humans share the same dignity. Thus Christian doctrine is against the notion of 'race' which originates from Darwins concept of evolutionary "breeds" and "races".
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It's probably because a lot of creationists in the US tend to be Religious Right types who vote Republican. That said, the correlation is rather ironic considering how creationists bring up Darwin's of-his-time racist attitudes in order to discredit evolutionary theory.
Actually this is a common over-generalization. There are a good number of Democrat voters who are also creationists especially minority groups like African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Modern racism and its parent racialism was based on Darwinian notions. This is why for example during slavery, many slave owners used Darwin's book to justify slavery.
Many people are unware of the entire title of Darwin's book:
Who are the "favored" races?? LOL According to Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton who are both members of Scottish Rite Freemasonry (the British Illuminati) they are the most dominant imperialist races in particular the white race. This goes against the Christian doctrine that ALL humans are the race of man/Adam and that those nations favored by God are those that do his will.
This is why modern scientism which controls academia is itself rooted in religion a non-Christian rather sinister religion.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed evolutionary arguments have been used to justify things like slavery and racism, but also arguments based on certain readings of the Bible, so when people are looking for ways to excuse oppression and bad behavior they are prepared to corrupt both science and religion.
Polls like the one in the OP, will not be better than the kind of questions asked in it, and how representative and statistically significant the selection of respondents is. It also matters in which countries such polls are made.
What I find interesting is also the questions one can ask regarding the fifth post in this thread about the difference among adherents of different religions and denominations in their view of evolution. It would be interesting to follow-up those differences and see if there are correlations between these different religions acceptance of evolution and their followers tolerance of people with different skin color, ethnicity and similar. Are for example Buddhists more tolerant than Christians?
Another interesting question is also how does acceptance or rejection of evolution correspond with different levels of education? And how will that in turn affect peoples tolerance?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ When you say arguments based on certain readings of the bible, a more accurate assessment would be arguments based on certain perversions of the bible. For example the bible is actually against chattel slavery as in the capture and forced bondage of other people (except in war) and most of the rules for bondage was that of debt bondage which prisoners of war was included. The biblical argument that slave owners tried to use to justify African slaves was the Hamitic myth which claimed the children of Ham were cursed to servitude when actually Noah cursed Canaan which was fulfilled when the Canaanites were conquered by Israel.
So yes people in power will use anything including lies to justify their supremacy which unfortunately is the case with science. Science is a tool for humans to understand the universe but there are limits based on technology and our perceptions of the universe hence empirical knowledge. The problem is not science but scientism which is the belief that the tool of science is the end all be all. Even worse than that is the perversion or falsification of science that we saw with so-called COVID pandemic of 2020 and the so-called vaccines of 2021 which many are suffering from today. This is why science should always be scrutinized due to the propagation of pseudo-science. Bio-anthropology as a science was once dominated by the pseudo-science of racialism which still survives today. Pseudo-science is the not just the misappropriation of science but a tool in itself to pervert science for whatever agenda of the elites.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, all religions, political ideologies and science can be corrupted or used to justify things like war, opression or murder. In old times here where I live certain Bible passages (together with popular superstition) were used to justify the murder and torture of women accused of witchcraft. And the priests from the church often were rather active in the persecution of these witches, and also of the Sami people whose original religion and culture were supressed.
Christian (and muslim) ideas have been used to justify "holy" wars which only purpose were to promote the interests of the elites. Often these wars did not favor the ordinary people.
Still today we see different groups using religious arguments for violence.
Today here in Western Europe religion has become harder to use as an effective means to excert power. Instead different corruptions of science have become more common as tools of control.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to the correlation between acceptance of evolution and tolerance I think an important factor is also education. Well educated people, especially in the field of science tend to accept evolution. Same well educated people seldom show overt racism. So one can wonder if the tolerance maybe are more related to educational level than religion.
In USA Buddhists and Hindus are open to the idea of evolution. Many Asian immigrants are also relatively well educated. On top of that Buddhism and Hinduism have another view of time, and also about afterlife than many Christians and Muslims, and evolution are maybe easier to fit into their world view.
Belief in evolution seems also relative high among Jews (in USA and Western Europe) who also are relatively well educated. If they are more tolerant is maybe another matter.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes, all religions, political ideologies and science can be corrupted or used to justify things like war, oppression or murder. In old times here where I live certain Bible passages (together with popular superstition) were used to justify the murder and torture of women accused of witchcraft. And the priests from the church often were rather active in the persecution of these witches, and also of the Sami people whose original religion and culture were suppressed.
Actually witch-hunts in Europe began before Christian times starting in Rome and other Italian provinces of the Roman Empire. Many of these witches were folk healers and shamans that had the allegiance of plebes (common people) and against the Roman Patricians (elites). In fact while the bible is clear that the penalty of witchcraft was the same as adultery-- stoning, the Roman penalty for maleficarum (harmful magic) was burning at the stake. The same trend occurred in Christian times with most of the persecutions being instigated by lords and nobles and not the church initially. Ironically, the churches and clergy who were most involved in witch-hunts were the Protestant churches like Lutherans and Anglicans post Protestant reformation.
There's an excellent book by Max Dashu on the topic:
quote:Christian (and Muslim) ideas have been used to justify "holy" wars which only purpose were to promote the interests of the elites. Often these wars did not favor the ordinary people.
Christianity did not teach warfare at least not offensive warfare like Islam, hence the Islamic expansions of conquest known as al-Fatiha while the Crusades were a defensive reaction to the former.
quote:Still today we see different groups using religious arguments for violence.
Really? I only see one group, maybe two in the case of Israel. Most Christians around the world are persecuted because they do not have the means to fight back.
quote:Today here in Western Europe religion has become harder to use as an effective means to exert power. Instead different corruptions of science have become more common as tools of control.
Indeed, if you mean Christian religion then yes in Western Europe it has been impotent enough to where Islam has taken root but of course this was all by design of the powers who control Western countries. Even here in the U.S. where Christianity is still strong you never hear of any churches or Christian groups using violence or the threat there of yet even they are being persecuted by government forces. Have you heard of the U.S. State department monitoring traditional Catholics as a "terror threat"?! It is happening.
quote: When it comes to the correlation between acceptance of evolution and tolerance I think an important factor is also education. Well educated people, especially in the field of science tend to accept evolution. Same well educated people seldom show overt racism. So one can wonder if the tolerance maybe are more related to educational level than religion.
I disagree. I think there is little correlation since most (though not all) of the white supremacists that I have encountered in real life but especially in the internet were humanist secularist types who used evolutionary arguments for their reason while most whites who are against racism are traditional Christians who believe in equal human dignity. Really it depends on the values that person is being taught whether at home or elsewhere by other sources.
quote:In USA Buddhists and Hindus are open to the idea of evolution. Many Asian immigrants are also relatively well educated. On top of that Buddhism and Hinduism have another view of time, and also about afterlife than many Christians and Muslims, and evolution are maybe easier to fit into their world view.
Yes but people from such Asian cultures did not have traditions of racism like Western Europe had. Ironically most of the racism I see in Asia comes from countries that had the most Western influence especially Japan who racial ideas were shaped by their Nazi German allies, but even Korea and China who were influenced by communist-Soviet ideas of biological humanism.
quote:Belief in evolution seems also relative high among Jews (in USA and Western Europe) who also are relatively well educated. If they are more tolerant is maybe another matter.
Well the majority of those Jews are secular (like the communist Jews who founded the modern state of Israel) and attitudes may vary depending on the community. Most Jews I've encountered are not racist at least that I know of while you have others that are even in the state of Israel where Ashkenazi Jews would call darker Sephardim and Mizrahim "African monkeys" even though ironically they are closer to the original Judeans.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: orginally posted by Djehuti Actually witch-hunts in Europe began before Christian times starting in Rome and other Italian provinces of the Roman Empire. Many of these witches were folk healers and shamans that had the allegiance of plebes (common people) and against the Roman Patricians (elites). In fact while the bible is clear that the penalty of witchcraft was the same as adultery-- stoning, the Roman penalty for maleficarum (harmful magic) was burning at the stake. The same trend occurred in Christian times with most of the persecutions being instigated by lords and nobles and not the church initially. Ironically, the churches and clergy who were most involved in witch-hunts were the Protestant churches like Lutherans and Anglicans post Protestant reformation.
In my country the church was rather active in the witch hunt. But also other people participated with enthusiasm, everything from neighbors of the accused, to children who were tricked into accuse even their own relatives. So the processes had to some extent a popular anchoring in older beliefs that came to be clothed in a more Christian garb. Folk superstition was mixed with ecclesiastical arguments about the accused consorting with the Devil.
The commissions that investigated alleged cases of witchcraft included priests from the Swedish Lutheran Church, but also lay people. At the time, the king was head of the church, but the two kings who ruled when the witch trials were at their worst, were mostly too busy waging war on neighboring countries to get involved in any witch business.
Over time, both priests and other authorities came to think that the witch hunts were going too far and began to work to abolish them. The last "witch" in my country was executed in 1704. The witch hunts were worst between 1668 and about 1676.
In other countries, witch hunts continued well into the 18th century, and the last known case of someone being executed for witchcraft in Europe took place in Switzerland in 1782.
A good book about the subject is also Satans raseri (The Wrath of Satan) by history professor Bengt Ankarloo. Ankarloo also wrote his doctoral dissertation about the witch trials.
One can also read Witchcraft and Magic in Europe edited by Bengt Ankarloo, Stuart Clark and William Monter. It is a book series in six parts. Rather comprehensive.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti Really? I only see one group, maybe two in the case of Israel. Most Christians around the world are persecuted because they do not have the means to fight back.
Christians are rather lenient today not so often using religious arguments for violence. There are some exceptions though like The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. And there are of course muslim groups which use their religion as justification for acts of terror. Pure religious wars between countries are rare these days, even if some politicians throw in some words about God in their speeches now and then.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti
I disagree. I think there is little correlation since most (though not all) of the white supremacists that I have encountered in real life but especially in the internet were humanist secularist types who used evolutionary arguments for their reason while most whites who are against racism are traditional Christians who believe in equal human dignity. Really it depends on the values that person is being taught whether at home or elsewhere by other sources.
It also depends on country. Most anti racists I met here in Sweden are people leaning more to the left or to the middle. Most are secular. Among the racists and people who are anti immigration there are both people who justify their opinions with evolutionary arguments but also those who use conservative and Christian arguments. They see Christianity as an important part of the Swedish culture and that it is threatened by foreigners. Often they do not openly use pure racist arguments but more in line with a fear that Sweden will be overtaken by foreign elements and foreign religions (mostly Islam since many refugees and immigrants come from muslim countries). If one talks with them privately though, many of them reveal pure racist opinions using all kinds of slurs.
Many are also anti LBTQ and sometimes use Biblical arguments to why homosexuality and similar is wrong.
Those who openly and publicly express pure racist opinions and propaganda are rather few since there are laws here that forbid such expressions.
Both the racists and the anti immigrants are rather selective, they are mostly against non European immigration and especially against muslim immigration but also against African immigration. Many of them have no problem though with immigrants from East Asia or Southeast Asia. There are example where known racists have been married to Asian women. I seen example of that online too in other countries like in USA where some people had their homes decorated with confederate flags and who sympathized with the Clan still were married to Southeast Asian women.
Otherwise at least here in Sweden people are overall suspicious to muslims but also other religious people. Here to be very religious is seen a bit like a flaw, and very religious people can be seen as a bit irrational. So when secular people come in contact with immigrants who value religion as very important in their lives, cultural collisions can arise.
Many older Swedes also remember, or at least have heard of, older times when the Church was a part of an oppressive system that controlled ordinary peoples lives. Most people here do not want such times back. They accept and value some Christian traditions but they are unwilling to let Christianity, Islam or any other religion govern their lives.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to correlations between religiosity, acceptance of evolution, tolerance against minorities and views of violence it can be difficult to draw any certain conclusions. Many polls probably give an oversimplified picture of peoples opinions based on questions that can not cover the whole spectrum of peoples opinions and motivations.
To understand these kind of relations one must look at deeper cultural and historical contexts.
What I can say about my own place though, is that it is a quite secular country with high or at least moderate tolerance against minorities.
It is also a country that managed to stay out of war for 200 years. But admittedly the beginning of the peaceful period started already when the country was much more religious than today. The period with most wars (the 1600s) was the period when the king and his church ruled with absolute authority, at that time Sweden was a sort of mix between absolute monarchy and theocracy.
About evolution: The acceptance for evolution among ordinary people here is about 80 - 90% and nearly total among scientists. And it dominates our educational system especially in subjects like biology, anthropology, paleontology and similar. Biology is thought of making no real sense without understanding evolution as an important explanatory tool for understanding life on earth.
One can also mention that many Christians here accept evolution. And in England I think the Anglican church does so too. And the Catholic church supports evolution aided by a higher power.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually there has been a huge debate scene on Biblical slavery, and as far as I can tell no Creationist/Biblical Apologist has put forward a concrete argument disproving the biblical endorsement of slavery.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ When you say arguments based on certain readings of the bible, a more accurate assessment would be arguments based on certain perversions of the bible. For example the bible is actually against chattel slavery as in the capture and forced bondage of other people (except in war) and most of the rules for bondage was that of debt bondage which prisoners of war was included. The biblical argument that slave owners tried to use to justify African slaves was the Hamitic myth which claimed the children of Ham were cursed to servitude when actually Noah cursed Canaan which was fulfilled when the Canaanites were conquered by Israel.
So yes people in power will use anything including lies to justify their supremacy which unfortunately is the case with science. Science is a tool for humans to understand the universe but there are limits based on technology and our perceptions of the universe hence empirical knowledge. The problem is not science but scientism which is the belief that the tool of science is the end all be all. Even worse than that is the perversion or falsification of science that we saw with so-called COVID pandemic of 2020 and the so-called vaccines of 2021 which many are suffering from today. This is why science should always be scrutinized due to the propagation of pseudo-science. Bio-anthropology as a science was once dominated by the pseudo-science of racialism which still survives today. Pseudo-science is the not just the misappropriation of science but a tool in itself to pervert science for whatever agenda of the elites.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
First, is a confusion of translation where the Hebrew words abdut and abed respectively meaning servitude and servant tend to get translated as slavery and slave. Slavery of course is a type of servitude wherein the servant is a property and his service is unpaid. The Israelite traditions of servitude is based on debt bondage which is why Israelites can hold enemies in bondage as reparations for war (which was the tradition in all cultures) or why Israelites in debt can sell themselves or their children to repay it. It was common practice for Israelites to sell their daughters to wealthy families not because of debt but to bring income to the family as well as chance for those daughters to marry the sons of those families. If abdut is slavery, then Israelites would be selling themselves and their children into slavery left and right.
The second problem is Mishnah or traditional explanation of the Torah and other parts of the Old Testament. These traditional Jewish commentaries used to be used in the early church and by church fathers but was largely forgotten after the Renaissance and definitely by the Protestant Reformation. So without the Mishnah it became easier for persons to misinterpret or even pervert biblical practices to their own ends. Christians were not the only ones guilty of this even Jews who followed the Babylonian Talmud found ways to circumvent or pervert the old Mishnaic rules. So for example while Jews were forbidden from practicing chattel slavery by outright capturing people and forcing them into labor, the Babylonian Talmud says they are not prohibited from buying already captured people and selling them to others. Which is why the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was started and predominantly controlled by Sephardic Jews from Portugal and Spain. The Muslim religion was originally based on Arabic Christianity but later changed into a totalitarian practice based on servitude including slavery of unbelievers, and even Christian rulers during the Medieval period to later times began to adopt this practice of apology to conquer and enslave others who were not Christian despite no Christian docrine saying this.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Yeah but why not just come outright and say slavery is immoral? If the biblical god is the god who created the universe and where all of morality is supposed to come from why is he silent on saying slavery is immoral? Also, many scholars lke Joshua Bowen etc. who actually read the language and study the culture say that the biblical slavery is infact slavery
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Unfortunately the bible, and particularly the Torah, does not explain a lot of its commandments. The Mishnah does explain them as well as the early church fathers.
But basically the reason why it does not come out and say that slavery is immoral is because it depends on the situation. According to the Torah slavery is only immoral if imposed on innocent people while it can be used as punishment on nations who commit sins against people and ultimately against God. This is why for example the Israelites were justified in enslaving (some) of their Canaanite neighbors for crimes like child sacrifice and perverted sexual rites. Slavery was a form of punishment and is far more economically feasible than the systems of imprisonment we have today, where a criminal simply just gets clothed and fed by tax payers.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^I mean I feel like at this point you're just trying to justify/apologize for Judeo-Christian endorsement of slavery. Like I said there are scholars who actually read the language(s)(of the Middle East) and study the culture, and as far as I can tell the biblical slavery is slavery. I mean I could be wrong I don't study the culture and language, but the apologetic defense of the biblical lack of condemnation of slavery is very telling.
I mean Occams Razor says the simplist explanation is the Biblical Hebrews(Who were infact Cannanites themselves btw,) were no different than almost every culture on earth and saw nothing immoral about slavery....
Which again begs the question of the biblical god being the basis for morality.
Is slavery Moral? Even most people back in those days knew there was an aspect of immorality to enslaving someone, hence the prohibition of not enslaving your tribe or ethnic group that some cultures developed....really odd that the supposed creator of the universe is silent on such an issue.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't get me wrong the issue is pretty complicated, again the bible seems to be pretty ....How can I say it...contradictory or maybe "up in the air" about it...
The thing is Christianity did in fact play a large role in abolitionism, something I think most Atheist/Secular apologists either don't mention or give credit where its due.
So can I really with a straight face claim the biblical god, while not outright condemning slavery, did not at least inspire a movement to end it....at least from the Christians in the West..
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^I mean I feel like at this point you're just trying to justify/apologize for Judeo-Christian endorsement of slavery. Like I said there are scholars who actually read the language(s)(of the Middle East) and study the culture, and as far as I can tell the biblical slavery is slavery. I mean I could be wrong I don't study the culture and language, but the apologetic defense of the biblical lack of condemnation of slavery is very telling.
I agree with this, but keep in mind that systems of slavery have varied across the world. In some West African cultures for example, slavery worked more like indentured servitude then the system of slavery we saw in the colonial New World. Conservative Christian apologists may err in making the biblical Hebrews out to have been more palatable to modern morality than they actually were, but neither were they likely any worse than other Iron Age cultures of southwestern Asia.
posted
While I do agree with the general argument, and like I said Im not saying the issue is 100% against the morality of the bible, my position is that any and all forms of slavery is immoral and tbh. I find the apologizing for African slavery by Liberal historians to be just as morally lacking that Xtian defense of biblical slavery.
Thats just me and my opinion though...the way I see it slavery was just not seen as immoral by most people, like it is today
and if Im honest this is due in large part to Christian morality...so yeah...lol sorry if I sound contradictory...
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^I mean I feel like at this point you're just trying to justify/apologize for Judeo-Christian endorsement of slavery. Like I said there are scholars who actually read the language(s)(of the Middle East) and study the culture, and as far as I can tell the biblical slavery is slavery. I mean I could be wrong I don't study the culture and language, but the apologetic defense of the biblical lack of condemnation of slavery is very telling.
I agree with this, but keep in mind that systems of slavery have varied across the world. In some West African cultures for example, slavery worked more like indentured servitude then the system of slavery we saw in the colonial New World. Conservative Christian apologists may err in making the biblical Hebrews out to have been more palatable to modern morality than they actually were, but neither were they likely any worse than other Iron Age cultures of southwestern Asia.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari says: Thats just me and my opinion though...the way I see it slavery was just not seen as immoral by most people, like it is today and if Im honest this is due in large part to Christian morality...so yeah...lol sorry if I sound contradictory... . True & not really contradictory. Slavery was generally seen as acceptable by most players in the slave trade/pre abolition era, and those who profited from the institution, except for maybe the victims themselves and a few objectors who few paid attention to. The local "establishments" of the day, whether in Europe, Africa, or the Arab World all accepted and profited from slavery. And it stood to reason. WHile slavery was not profitable EVERYWHERE at ALL times, in general it was profitable for the purposes it was used for. If you want mass production of certain crops cheaply, then bludgeoned, brutalized slave labor was the profitable way to get them, with all kind of profitable spillovers, from manufacturing to to shipping across the board. Elsewhere if you wanted cheap labor for your projects, and warm bodies to sexually exploit for pleasure, slavery fit the bill too. Slavery was actually EXPANDING at the time Britain began its abolition campaign and Britain lost almost 2% of its GDP when it gave up slavery. It was the abolition campaign that primarily was responsible for slavery's demise. Note I said primarily, not solely or only, and that actually slavery was EXPANDING when the curtain came down on it. See Seymour Hersh's book Econocide for plenty of data.
One of the key things that made the campaign successful was that peoples consciences finally began to actually apply Christian teachings, either directly or by following through on the implications of such teaching. The Quakers were early pioneers, but eventually there was enough awakening of conscience when slavery's evils were exposed, exposure of the contradictions between the teachings of Christianity and the actual reality of slavery.
Eventually, in a back and forth, convoluted process that took decades, and that involved various parties and agendas and motives, the foundational awakening, rooted in awakened Christianity, succeeded in getting rid of slavery. Where they other factors? Sure, as already noted above, but the foundational campaign was rooted in that faith. Were there assorted Christians that opposed abolition? Sure, but the abolitionist movement fundamentally was a mass movement. The elites and establishments of the day, in the West and elsewhere, generally opposed abolition. This is why it took decades of lobbying and arm twisting in the British Parliament for example, and a Civil War in the US. Abolitionism was eventually successful enough that that it could leverage power to apply real world force- Union armies or British Anti-Slavery Squadron ships. Messy yes. Ultimately successful- yes also. See detailed scholarship such as Adam Hochschild's book Bury the Chains.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^I mean I feel like at this point you're just trying to justify/apologize for Judeo-Christian endorsement of slavery. Like I said there are scholars who actually read the language(s)(of the Middle East) and study the culture, and as far as I can tell the biblical slavery is slavery. I mean I could be wrong I don't study the culture and language, but the apologetic defense of the biblical lack of condemnation of slavery is very telling.
I mean Occams Razor says the simplist explanation is the Biblical Hebrews(Who were infact Cannanites themselves btw,) were no different than almost every culture on earth and saw nothing immoral about slavery....
Which again begs the question of the biblical god being the basis for morality.
Is slavery Moral? Even most people back in those days knew there was an aspect of immorality to enslaving someone, hence the prohibition of not enslaving your tribe or ethnic group that some cultures developed....really odd that the supposed creator of the universe is silent on such an issue.
Keep in mind a coupla things:
1- -First it was not God that created slavery but man. Slavery (as opposed to temporary types of voluntary labor) is a fundamental product of human corruption, greed etc. God did not “endorse” such at all, Man did, in defiance of God.
2- - If God’s laws were actually followed- American slavery as such would not have amounted to much. For example, one of the first verses pointed to by abolitionists were commandments against man-stealing. Man-stealing is done by small scale kidnapping or raids, or large scale warfare specifically aimed at the same or as a byproduct of wars to enhance the power, prestige and riches of the victors. The exact process mattered little to the actual black victims in chains at the end of the line. Bottom line was the same. The Ashanti Empire for example conducted some large scale wars to seize captives, as did numerous (not all) of the Muslim jihad operations in Western Africa. Even when slaves were not the primary objective, the victors, Muslim or non-Muslim, were only too happy to sell captives to the white man, or to Arabi masters within or outside of Africa.
Likewise most Jewish traders whether in America or North Africa didn’t really care how “the product” was obtained, nor did most European or Arab, or Black Muslim or “pagan” traders. African elites also didn’t really care about slavery as such- as long as they were profiting in some way. As black nationalist scholar Walter Rodney shows that some West African elites first put African captives to work on their agricultural holdings then later on sold them to Europeans (African Slavery and other Forms of Social Oppression on the Upper Guinea Coast- Walter Rodney 1966), locking in a double-profit. Quick sale or extended exploitation, the bottom line of the stolen humanity was the same.
3- - Third ancient Hebrew slavery was not the chattel slavery of the Americas, or (some) parts of the Muslim Middle East, and actually was an improvement in numerous aspects. Slaves then were more akin to America's indentured servants. Hebrew bond servants were actually to be freed after 6 years, and there were various protection against abuse, such as the maimed bondman gaining freedom. The 25 year jubilee also allowed for debt bondman and other release as well, and the runaway slave or bondman was not to be returned to his master. Ancient Hebrew laws, while certainly not perfect, would actually have undermined American slavery or Arab slavery such as the brutal chattel endured by the Zanj, in the brutal salt marshes of Muslim Iraq- site of one of the largest black slave rebellion in history. So when you say the Hebrews were no different than almost every culture on earth as regards slavery, you are not quite accurate.
4- - Fourth the Creator was not silent on slavery. From the beginning the dignity conferred on man by said Creator set a standard. Man violated that standard, and continues to do so. The Creator allowed slavery to continue, just as he allowed theft and murder to continue while he brought home such sin to the conscience of men. If the Creator had wanted to quickly eliminate slavery he would have had to liquidate man. When the conscience of man was exercised enough about the sin of slavery then effective action happened. The era of the laws against man-stealing and the 10 commandments etc (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness, etc etc) would also have eliminated slavery as such if said moral laws had been actually followed. Just the commandments: "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness" or "Thou shalt not kill" would eliminate most slavery. But men have not paid heed. The entity really "silent" or slavery is man, who has been repeatedly "silent" as regards stopping its sin and exploitation of their fellow men by slavery.
5- -Fifth atheists by the way have no shining testimony on "morality" as far as slave labor. The atheist record is even worse, as the massive misery of Stalin's gulags and Mao's "reeducation" camps attest. Just the gulag system's body count of dead slave laborers begins to approach the numbers of black slaves dying in the Middle Passage. And that's not even beginning to count the slave legions of smiling Chairman Mao, or other atheist regimes. Atheist dictator Pol Pol invoked his own brand of "morality" as he liquidated some 1-2 million of Cambodia's population, in building the "new" socialist man.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^I mean I feel like at this point you're just trying to justify/apologize for Judeo-Christian endorsement of slavery. Like I said there are scholars who actually read the language(s)(of the Middle East) and study the culture, and as far as I can tell the biblical slavery is slavery. I mean I could be wrong I don't study the culture and language, but the apologetic defense of the biblical lack of condemnation of slavery is very telling.
I don't know what you mean by "endorsement". Yes, there are some Christians who try to deny the biblical doctrine of actual slavery and instead point to debt bondage or indentured servitude, but slavery as in forced servitude due to loss of freedom and ownership by another was indeed practiced as a form of punishment imposed on certain people or individuals. That's not the same as what was practiced later by imperial nations let alone the Trans-Atlantic slavery.
quote:I mean Occams Razor says the simplest explanation is the Biblical Hebrews(Who were in fact Canaanites themselves btw,) were no different than almost every culture on earth and saw nothing immoral about slavery....
There is still debate as to the ethnic origins of the Hebrews whose own tradition says they came from Mesopotamia. But ironically the common morality in Mesopotamia and elsewhere is that a stronger state who wants to conquer another may enslave its inhabitants. That was NOT the morality of the bible whose Godly instructions says slavery was a punishment imposed on people who violate certain code of ethics that were considered abominable.
quote:Which again begs the question of the biblical god being the basis for morality.
I just stated what the morality of the biblical God was. It was not to enslave innocent people but only those guilty of certain violations.
quote:Is slavery Moral? Even most people back in those days knew there was an aspect of immorality to enslaving someone, hence the prohibition of not enslaving your tribe or ethnic group that some cultures developed....really odd that the supposed creator of the universe is silent on such an issue.
One may argue that the abolition of slavery completely even as a form of punishment and instead long term incarceration paid for by law abiding tax payers including victims of the criminal to be some how more "progressive" while others may agree that it is senseless. Indeed there are those who now argue to get abolish the death penalty even though that too is biblical no matter how heinous the criminals' acts are only for those criminals to be given comfortable living support by tax payers including the families of the victims.
So whose morality is superior? That of the god described in the bible or what so-called enlightened humans think to be "progressive"??
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A new study connects disbelief in evolution with greater prejudice.
quote:A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Stylianos Syropoulos, Uri Lifshin, Jeff Greenberg, Dylan E. Horner, Bernhard Leidner. Bigotry and the human–animal divide: (Dis)belief in human evolution and bigoted attitudes across different cultures.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2022
Belief in evolution is pretty much a standard thin among racists- you can see it online plenty. And of course leading racist scholars such as JP Rushton, are all strong "evo" followers. Darwin also was mentioned below, and his "racial" ranking of the human species. Followers and users of Darwin pioneered scientific racism, and of course the racist Thurd Reich relied heavily on various 'scientific' approaches, to demonstrate the evolution of inferior stocks. It should be noted however that Darwin has been misused in some cases, and he himself opposed slavery.
Nevertheless, if anything, you could say that a belief in evolution and its application based on race is a cornerstone of racism in the modern era, not religion so much. And the "scientific" approach as far as racism has not abated as in religion, but if anything, continues to grow.
^^from back in the "Matilda" era... lol
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some claim today's era is based on a kinder gentler, pro evolution progressivism that is moving away from race. However this is not the case at all. If anything there is a great deal of research on "race" - it just is not as open as the good old days.. if the book below is to be believed. Note the high irrelevance of religion in this arena. Various substantial debates are between pro-evolutionists..
Review Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini – review This article is more than 4 years old This timely book looks at the toxic origins of racism, which science continues to embrace
This is an urgent, important book. It contains a warning: you thought racism might be on its way out of science? That the arc of society, bending towards more progressive, tolerant values, had long banished the scientific search for ways in which one grouping of people is inherently more talented, clever or physically able than another? You thought wrong.
Race is a relatively recent concept, says science journalist Angela Saini, in Superior. One of the first uses was in the 16th century as a way to refer to a group of people from a family or tribe, it did not have the connotations it carries today. It largely did not refer to physical appearance or colour, for example. She explains that, even until the 18th century during the European Enlightenment, skin colour was thought to be a shifting quality based on geography: people living in hot places had darker skins, but if those people moved to colder climes it was thought their skin would get lighter in response.
The beginnings of race science seem to emerge with the Victorian frenzy for categorising life. Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, who developed the now familiar binomial nomenclature to classify living things (Homo sapiens, for example) , was among the first to start categorising humans in a way that we might call “racial”. Linnaeus laid out four categories in 1758 that corresponded to the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa, recognisable by their supposed characteristic colours: red, white, yellow and black. A generous person might argue that Linnaeus was just trying to do what taxonomists do, but Saini explains that his classifications went further than just appearance: Linnaeus described indigenous Americans not only as having straight black hair and wide nostrils, but also being of a subjugated nature, as if that were their natural state. He further included human sub-categories for monster-like and feral people.
'Men were above women and white races above others' Charles Darwin In an eye-opening section, Saini outlines just how many of the greatest lights of biology are implicated in the gradual accretion of ideas that we would now find unpalatable and unscientific. Even Charles Darwin fell for human categorisation, seeing “gradations between the ‘highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages’... Men were above women and white races above others.” Thomas Henry Huxley – Darwin’s bulldog and famed pugilistic defender of the theory of natural selection – was an out-and-out racist. Not all humans were created equal, he argued, and in an essay on the emancipation of black slaves, he wrote that the average white person had a bigger brain: “The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.”This all came hot on the heels of rampant European colonialism, one of the effects of which was a proliferation of gentleman scholars who also turned their hands to classification of what, for many of the conquering explorers, must have been a bewildering array of “different” humans. At the dawn of the 20th century, some of this rich diversity of people ended up in human zoos, such as those at the grand Colonial Exposition in Paris. Walking through the remains of one of these zoos a century later, Saini describes what once stood there as an “Edwardian Disneyland, not with little dolls, but actual people”. There were five replica villages representing colonies in north Africa and beyond. Millions of visitors came to gawp at this array of “different” people over the six months of the exposition while scientists recorded measurements of these exotic people – skin and eye colour, sizes of heads, height, what they ate – and, says Saini, “set the parameters for modern race science”.
That white people were at the top of the human hierarchy seemed axiomatic in the early 20th century, permeating plenty of the thinking biologists and anthropologists were doing, particularly in fields such as eugenics. That there was no robust evidence to support such sweeping claims hardly put a brake on their efforts. The nadir in the desperate search to find scientific reasons to justify dislike of the “other” came in the second world war, as researchers associated with the Nazis did their damnedest to prove the supposed superiority of their Aryan race.
After the war, things appeared to shift. Aghast at the horror in which race science and eugenics had been complicit, biologists and anthropologists in the west did their best to do what winners do: rewrite the narrative. Any research associated with these prejudicial ideas in the US and Britain was brushed under the carpet, university departments were renamed, scientists shifted into new fields. In 1950, Unesco even convened 100 scientists, policymakers and diplomats who put out a statement aimed at dismantling the idea of race, to put an end to racism and racist research: “Scientists have reached general agreement in recognising that mankind is one: that all men belong to the same species, Homo sapiens.” Good had won over evil.
In fact, argues Saini, race science never went away. Instead it festered in the shadows, funded by murky foundations and individuals with barely disguised links to white supremacists. This area of work even has its own peer-reviewed journal, which supposedly seeks to publish studies on the apparent differences between people. All in the name of academic freedom to conduct dispassionate inquiry into the human condition.
But for Saini, the motives are clear: they may hide behind academic titles and affiliations, but these researchers and their supporters are reaching for something, anything to reinforce the hierarchies they already believe exist and to establish what they see as the superiority of one group of people over another. Every new biological discipline is quickly co-opted to the task. Take genetics. In the 1994 book The Bell Curve, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein argued that African Americans were less intelligent than white Americans and that genetic differences between ethnicities were a big factor in that difference.
‘White supremacy’ is really about white degeneracy Keith Kahn-Harris Read more Scientists agree there is an important genetic component to intelligence. And research from the US in the 1980s – quoted in The Bell Curve – shows that if you ask people to self-identify their ethnicity and then measure, for example, educational attainment or IQ, you get different average levels between different ethnicities. However, this does not show that one ethnicity is genetically predisposed to be more intelligent than another. This is largely because the most up-to-date genetic sequencing work shows that African Americans have a substantial amount of European genetic ancestry – they could even be called African European Americans according to some geneticists. In Afro-Caribbeans, that European ancestry is even stronger. The upshot is that ethnicities are far more mixed than we can tell by appearances alone. Also, that the commonplace use of the word “ethnicity” simply does not map on to how geneticists think about ancestry.
Saini’s book asks its readers to face uncomfortable realities. She has form here. Her previous book, Inferior, was a powerful account of how the scientific establishment has misunderstood and mischaracterised women (and continues to). In Superior, she explains why we cannot afford complacency on race. Her spirited argument is meticulously researched and flecked with righteous anger.
There is hardly a better time for this book. Recent history has brought many of the so-called intellectual racists – Richard Spencer among a rogues’ gallery of others – and their shaky ideas to wider prominence. Authoritarian leaders around the world look to people like this and to their underlying race “scientists” to add intellectual ballast to their prejudice on issues ranging from equality to immigration. Whether or not research is sound seems to make little difference to white supremacists on the march for power. “Intellectual racism has always existed,” says Saini. “It is a toxic little seed at the heart of academia. However dead you might think it is, it needs only
<<SNIP excerpt>> ---------------------
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The problem is the ideology of scientism which is itself a kind of religion (and really based on another religion--occult Gnosticism but that's a whole other topic). Science is a tool or methodology used to understand the universe. It is not the be all end all like God almighty, but of course that is what atheists make it out to be. Unfortunately as I've already stated, because science is a tool, it can be and has often been as is now abused by authorities. In fact, I believe the study itself can be counted as an abuse since biased or flawed studies have become a dime a dozen in academia. Especially considering as you pointed out the racist history of Darwinian evolution.
It's funny because the demonic troll plaguing this forum accused me of being an 'evolutionist' just because I disagreed with his idiotic hyper-literal interpretation of the bible. It's idiots like him that make the bible look stupid and thus make scientism look sensible. Scientism is rooted in materialism because all science is based on empirical evidence constituted by experimental procedure and sense experience. All experimental procedures are limited by technology and all sense experience is limited to human perception, thus science itself is limited.
Now for Brandon and others I myself am not "against" evolution per say but I am skeptical. We know micro-evolution exists in the sense of minute genetic changes being made to populations and in the case of simple celled organisms like bacteria which whose populations die and propagate quickly to develop new strains, or that within species of animals like humans for example our morphology over time has changed to become more gracile. The issue of course is macro-evolution of the development of one species from another. Again, while I am not denying the possibility of such, I just haven't seen any hard evidence considering that we have not seen truly transitionary fossil evidence not to mention, the fossil hoaxes that have been perpetrated. This is the reason why I'm skeptical.
Also, as I've stated before the idea of evolution did not begin with Darwin but was postulated back in ancient times by thinkers from several cultures but the oldest recorded one comes from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Anaximander. In fact not just evolution, but even the eugenics practices associated with Darwin's cousin Francis Galton is rooted in ancient Greco-Roman notions of human selective breeding and infanticide of weak babies. So really these are all pagan beliefs at the source including the belief in superior and inferior ethne (peoples) which is the root of racism. Christianity including creationists do not subscribe to such beliefs that are against Christian doctrines of humans being made in God's image and thus human sanctity.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to evolution it is so far the theory with the best explanatory power when regarding the variety of life we see here on Earth. Most other explanations postulate the presense of some kind of supernatural creator or creators. That in it´s turn awakens questions about the nature of such creator since the creative force (or forces) are described somewhat differently in different religious systems. In the end it even awakes the question of if the creator him/herself is created and in that case by whom?
When it comes to the question of observing evolutionary processes, the problem is that, especially when it comes to more advanced life forms like ourselves, our generation spans are so long that direct observations are difficult. In the case of organisms with a shorter generation length, it is easier. A long-running experiment with E-coli bacteria has observed approximately 60,000 generations of development. During that time, such a radical development has taken place in terms of their metabolism that some of the researchers are in the process of defining some of the newly developed bacteria as a new species, or at least on the way to becoming a new species since E-coli are defined, among other things, by the ability to feed on certain substances.
If we recalculate 60,000 generations to human generations, we end up more than a million years back in time when the species Homo erectus was the dominant hominid.
Evolution is not the only theory that deals with long time spans. For example the theory of plate tectonics also deals with processes which takes millions, and even billions of years.
The issue of transitional fossils is also tricky because we are all sort of intermediate forms between our parents and children. Even if you had a complete fossil series of a species, it would be difficult to delineate where one species begins and another ends (something one can see in for example so called ring species). Unfortunately, the fossil record is quite patchy, especially when it comes to vertebrates (especially land animals) because most dead organisms are not preserved as fossils. Among microfossils, such as for example foraminifera, the record is somewhat more complete because they can sometimes be preserved over long periods in large quantities. And they also have short life spans producing many generations in shorter time.
Otherwise, we have fossils which show forms that combine the characteristics of different animal groups, such as the classical case of Archaeopteryx, which had both reptile-like features and bird features.
Paleontology is a rather complex science today and more and more interesting discoveries are made as new fossil-bearing layers are found all over the world.
I don't think it's even a coincidence that even in a religious country like the USA, about 95% of scientists believe that the theory of evolution provides the best explanation when it comes to our existence and when it comes to the variation of life we see around us, and of the variation and tendencies we see in the fossil record.
Then, of course, there is a middle ground where some believe that evolution is to some extent controlled by God (or an equivalent higher being).
There is a rather interesting and entertaining series of videos on YouTube where a biologist (at least according to him) explains some of the misunderstandings about the theory of evolution. He also reacts on different anti evolutionary videos
posted
The theory of Evolution as a science holds a rather good explanatory power to many biological phenomena. But as all science (and religion) it can be used for political purposes, which has been done. Just as religion once were used to justify war, conquest, oppression, forced conversions, forced labor and similar varieties, biology, in the form of racial science and certain kind of social evolutionism, have been used to practice and defend various types of oppression and genocide (the Holocaust is a very well known example).
Sometimes it has also not been possible to separate the motives, for example, colonialism contained elements of both scientific racism and the desire to Christianize and colonize. There were economical (often defended with racial arguments) and religious motifs. Even today, there are some pastors (although hopefully they are not common) who, for example, think that slavery was good for black Americans because it gave them the chance to receive the gospel. They were rescued from African paganism.
Some Christians also think that, for example, it was good for the native population of California to be forced into mission stations where they were subjected to forced labor, unsanitary conditions and sexual abuse (at least according to the book Missions of California: A Legacy of Genocide by Rupert Costo and Jeanette H. Costo). One of the founders and leading culprits of the mission system has even been declared a saint.
In many cases, certain peoples were subjected to both economic exploitation and religious oppression, which was then followed by exploitation based on, among other things, racial biological principles. It happened, for example, in the northern parts of my own country where the Sami population was first taxed for fur and other items, then they were forced into forced labor in silver mines. This was followed by the Church outlawing their original religious traditions. Some Noaidi (shamans) were even burned for not wanting to abandon their "pagan" ways. Later the state, backed by racial science tried in different ways to assimilate the Sami people, at the same time as it wanted to benefit from their land and industries such as hunting, fishing and reindeer husbandry.
So many times different ideologies have collaborated in terms of oppression and exploitation.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Archaeopteryx in that racists will use any pretext to justify their bigotry, even if a lot of the ones we encounter in the online anthro fandom present themselves as scientific. As for Christianity, it predates racialism by centuries as do the other Abrahamic religions, but you absolutely do have a lot of overlap between modern Christian nationalists on the one hand and White supremacists on the other (e.g. guys like Nick Fuentes and the KKK). Though, again, they'll appeal to anything to justify their horrible views.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The problem is the ideology of scientism which is itself a kind of religion (and really based on another religion--occult Gnosticism but that's a whole other topic). Science is a tool or methodology used to understand the universe. It is not the be all end all like God almighty, but of course that is what atheists make it out to be. Unfortunately as I've already stated, because science is a tool, it can be and has often been as is now abused by authorities. In fact, I believe the study itself can be counted as an abuse since biased or flawed studies have become a dime a dozen in academia. Especially considering as you pointed out the racist history of Darwinian evolution.
It's funny because the demonic troll plaguing this forum accused me of being an 'evolutionist' just because I disagreed with his idiotic hyper-literal interpretation of the bible. It's idiots like him that make the bible look stupid and thus make scientism look sensible. Scientism is rooted in materialism because all science is based on empirical evidence constituted by experimental procedure and sense experience. All experimental procedures are limited by technology and all sense experience is limited to human perception, thus science itself is limited.
Now for Brandon and others I myself am not "against" evolution per say but I am skeptical. We know micro-evolution exists in the sense of minute genetic changes being made to populations and in the case of simple celled organisms like bacteria which whose populations die and propagate quickly to develop new strains, or that within species of animals like humans for example our morphology over time has changed to become more gracile. The issue of course is macro-evolution of the development of one species from another. Again, while I am not denying the possibility of such, I just haven't seen any hard evidence considering that we have not seen truly transitionary fossil evidence not to mention, the fossil hoaxes that have been perpetrated. This is the reason why I'm skeptical.
Also, as I've stated before the idea of evolution did not begin with Darwin but was postulated back in ancient times by thinkers from several cultures but the oldest recorded one comes from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Anaximander. In fact not just evolution, but even the eugenics practices associated with Darwin's cousin Francis Galton is rooted in ancient Greco-Roman notions of human selective breeding and infanticide of weak babies. So really these are all pagan beliefs at the source including the belief in superior and inferior ethne (peoples) which is the root of racism. Christianity including creationists do not subscribe to such beliefs that are against Christian doctrines of humans being made in God's image and thus human sanctity.
Yes, too often scientism makes out as if it has all the answers. But does it? For example as we have oft pointed out on ES, the science shows that animals and people that live in warmer tropical climes, tend to have elongated limb proportions relatively speaking. Vice versa for the cold side of the house with various other intermediate patterns in between. Likewise plants in a salt water environment will over time, develop a higher tolerance for salt.
This is reasonable and good science. Most educated people of faith in the West have no problem with such, save for more extreme blinkered types. And various faith variants such as Old Earth models have long reconciled the matter of lengthy periods/eons needed for the earth's age or various processes to play out.
However, a key question is when you get beyond the routine workaday processes of biological adaptation into the realm of design and ultimate purposes. Sure salt-water plants may evolve/change, but what is the ultimate cause that set forward the plants, salt and water and their interaction, along with the planet they are on? What is the ultimate cause or intelligence that produced that complexity or outcome?
Below that are various intermediate phenomena science cannot satisfactorily explain, or where there are massive evidential gaps like the speciation issues mentioned above, or the complexity issue as to how random processes produce something as complex as the human brain or the universe. Science has not "resolved" such things despite bold claims in various quarters that are just as messianic in tone as the stereotypical cross waving medieval crusader. But entire libraries already groan with debate on such matters. They ain't gonna be solved in this thread or any other. lol
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The theory of Evolution as a science holds a rather good explanatory power to many biological phenomena. But as all science (and religion) it can be used for political purposes, which has been done. Just as religion once were used to justify war, conquest, oppression, forced conversions, forced labor and similar varieties, biology, in the form of racial science and certain kind of social evolutionism, have been used to practice and defend various types of oppression and genocide (the Holocaust is a very well known example).
Sometimes it has also not been possible to separate the motives, for example, colonialism contained elements of both scientific racism and the desire to Christianize and colonize. There were economical (often defended with racial arguments) and religious motifs. Even today, there are some pastors (although hopefully they are not common) who, for example, think that slavery was good for black Americans because it gave them the chance to receive the gospel. They were rescued from African paganism.
Some Christians also think that, for example, it was good for the native population of California to be forced into mission stations where they were subjected to forced labor, unsanitary conditions and sexual abuse (at least according to the book Missions of California: A Legacy of Genocide by Rupert Costo and Jeanette H. Costo). One of the founders and leading culprits of the mission system has even been declared a saint.
In many cases, certain peoples were subjected to both economic exploitation and religious oppression, which was then followed by exploitation based on, among other things, racial biological principles. It happened, for example, in the northern parts of my own country where the Sami population was first taxed for fur and other items, then they were forced into forced labor in silver mines. This was followed by the Church outlawing their original religious traditions. Some Noaidi (shamans) were even burned for not wanting to abandon their "pagan" ways. Later the state, backed by racial science tried in different ways to assimilate the Sami people, at the same time as it wanted to benefit from their land and industries such as hunting, fishing and reindeer husbandry.
So many times different ideologies have collaborated in terms of oppression and exploitation.
To this I would add that atheists and atheistic philosophies are just as bad or worse. Atheist Stalin for example murdered millions in his quest to seize the resources of ordinary people to build his particular atheist project. Ditto for "Chairman" Mao and smiling comrade Pol Pot in the killing fields of Cambodia. Most members of the Communist Parties under these regimes had to be atheists to qualify for party membership. Some may be "under the table" Taoists etc but all must accept and publicly affirm the tenets of atheism.
For example In addition to regulating its members’ religious beliefs and activities, the Chinese CCP is officially atheist and promotes atheism in schools and other spheres of public life. In speeches, President X i Jinping and other officials stress that CCP members must be “unyielding Marxist atheists.”
Stalin created a "League of Militant Godless" some 5.5 million strong, including 2.2 million party members. The Militant Godless, per Stalin were to "storm the heavens," ridicule and humiliate clergymen, and transform "superstitious" citizens into atheists.."
Thus one of the main qualifications of those carrying out various slave labor or forced migration atrocities was not simply that they followed a particular leader or party, but that they profess or support atheism.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed atheists in modern time (especially during the 20th century) have also done immense harm with millions of casualties. But one must also remember that the death toll during the 20th century became higher because the populations were bigger, and the technical development also contributed to that wars and persecution got worse and the dictators had more resources.
If one see old times warfare in relation to the technology and population density of its time a war like the 30 years war was as devastating as any modern war. The total death toll is estimated to between 4 and twelve million. As many as 20% of Europe´s population can have perished due to the war itself and adjacent starvation and sickness. That is a higher loss in percent than even World War Two. And that war was justified among other things by religious reasons (it actually came as a culmination of a longer time of religious conflict in Europe), even if the reality was much more complex, which for example is shown by protestant countries like Sweden and Denmark sometimes fighting each other, and that after 1635 Denmark-Norway actually fought on the side of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain.
Economy, power and other motivations was clad in a religious outfit in order to justify the war, and other kinds of oppression in Europe during that time.
Organised Atheism in a larger scale is a rather new phenomena while religion (and unfortunately also religious conflicts) have existed a very long time. Sometimes it seems that both Jews, Christians and Muslims often forgot, or ignored, the 5th commandment.
Oppression and war is equally bad whether conducted by religious leaders or atheist leaders.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Below that are various intermediate phenomena science cannot satisfactorily explain, or where there are massive evidential gaps like the speciation issues mentioned above, or the complexity issue as to how random processes produce something as complex as the human brain or the universe. Science has not "resolved" such things despite bold claims in various quarters that are just as messianic in tone as the stereotypical cross waving medieval crusader. But entire libraries already groan with debate on such matters. They ain't gonna be solved in this thread or any other. lol
Indeed there is gaps in many sciences including evolutionary biology. That is one of the reasons that science can be so exciting, being able to fill the gaps with knowledge (even if all gaps probably never will be filled). Some questions science can not resolve at all since it is beyond all scientific methods, questions like does any God(s) exist, what is the meaning of our existence and similar. Such questions most scientists often leave to philosophers and religious thinkers.
But questions like speciation and the different varieties of it, how complex behaviors arise and similar is the subject of intensive research. We'll see what future research comes up with. After all, research is constantly getting new tools (such as, for example, the new genetics) which hopefully will be able to provide more detailed answers to certain questions.
But the modern variant of Science is still only in it´s infancy. Still we have not even an answer to the fundamental question of whether there is life on other worlds or not.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The theory of Evolution as a science holds a rather good explanatory power to many biological phenomena. But as all science (and religion) it can be used for political purposes, which has been done. Just as religion once were used to justify war, conquest, oppression, forced conversions, forced labor and similar varieties, biology, in the form of racial science and certain kind of social evolutionism, have been used to practice and defend various types of oppression and genocide (the Holocaust is a very well known example).
Sometimes it has also not been possible to separate the motives, for example, colonialism contained elements of both scientific racism and the desire to Christianize and colonize. There were economical (often defended with racial arguments) and religious motifs. Even today, there are some pastors (although hopefully they are not common) who, for example, think that slavery was good for black Americans because it gave them the chance to receive the gospel. They were rescued from African paganism.
Some Christians also think that, for example, it was good for the native population of California to be forced into mission stations where they were subjected to forced labor, unsanitary conditions and sexual abuse (at least according to the book Missions of California: A Legacy of Genocide by Rupert Costo and Jeanette H. Costo). One of the founders and leading culprits of the mission system has even been declared a saint.
In many cases, certain peoples were subjected to both economic exploitation and religious oppression, which was then followed by exploitation based on, among other things, racial biological principles. It happened, for example, in the northern parts of my own country where the Sami population was first taxed for fur and other items, then they were forced into forced labor in silver mines. This was followed by the Church outlawing their original religious traditions. Some Noaidi (shamans) were even burned for not wanting to abandon their "pagan" ways. Later the state, backed by racial science tried in different ways to assimilate the Sami people, at the same time as it wanted to benefit from their land and industries such as hunting, fishing and reindeer husbandry.
So many times different ideologies have collaborated in terms of oppression and exploitation.
A difference should be made between a scientific thesis or religious doctrine and ideology of domination. I understand that there is a difference between the theory of evolution or biological change through time and Darwininan or rather Galtonian ideology of genetic domination and supremacy from which racial supremacy arises. Similarly there is a difference between spreading the gospel through preaching to those that would listen and banning witchcraft from Christian communities and nations to forcing non-Christian native children into Christian indoctrination schools and burning shamans from non-Christian communities (burning again is a Roman penalty NOT a biblical one)!! Obviously these acts are NOT Christian and do NOT reflect Christian doctrines but are acts of state imperialism weaponizing religion. Such has been the case ever since Rome adopted Christianity as a state religion and has been used as such ever since the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, and then the rise of Germanic and Anglo states post Protestant Reformation, which again was WORSE than what the actual Catholic Church did. Ironically, the Byzantium Empire in eastern Europe never had those issues, although they had other political issues. This is why Eastern Europe never had witch-hunts or at least any violent ones and pagans were not persecuted in their own lands but were invited to Christianity with incentives.
Thus there is always a difference between doxy (knowledge) and praxis (practice) whether in religion or science. As long as you have corrupt elites whose power is not kept in check, they will abuse their power by wicked praxis that differs from the actual doxy that they then give a distorted perverted view of.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: When it comes to the correlation between acceptance of evolution and tolerance I think an important factor is also education. Well educated people, especially in the field of science tend to accept evolution. Same well educated people seldom show overt racism. So one can wonder if the tolerance maybe are more related to educational level than religion.
In USA Buddhists and Hindus are open to the idea of evolution. Many Asian immigrants are also relatively well educated. On top of that Buddhism and Hinduism have another view of time, and also about afterlife than many Christians and Muslims, and evolution are maybe easier to fit into their world view.
Belief in evolution seems also relative high among Jews (in USA and Western Europe) who also are relatively well educated. If they are more tolerant is maybe another matter.
IMO these types of studies are misleading as scientists themselves are heavily involved in dictating socially accepted thought and socially accepted areas of inquiry, using language they themselves have cultivated and employed in their interactions with the Asian people you're mentioning (e.g. 'crackpot', 'superstitious', 'primitive', 'creationist', 'pseudoscience'). So these studies are not really measuring what people think with their own free choice and free will, as much as willingness of people to conform to western ideas and willingness to abandon beliefs that western intellectuals have historically been hostile to, and which western intellectuals refuse to co-exist with, as if to say, only western science is acceptable.
Just look at the so-called 'pseudo-science' section of wikipedia, which is a good example of how western intellectuals and their parrots online systematically disparage and sideline the beliefs and sciences practiced by non-Euro peoples, even though some of these have now accumulated enough scientific support to be treated as a valid areas of research. One example of this is acupoints of TCM (traditional Chinese medicine), which can be detected on the body with certain devices. Aside from these acupoints, there are also some works in the last couple of decades that have identified myofacial tissues running along the lengths of the human body, as correlating with (though not necessarily equating to) acupuncture meridians. The fact that such subjects are still in the pseudoscience section and disparaged in 'scientific' books as entirely arbitrary, betrays the fact that you cannot win against this establishment that actively seeks to police and protect the status quo, even where it's been proved wrong.
So, we see a large gap between science on the frontiers of the unknown, which often provides support for these things, and opinionated so-called intellectuals speaking and writing from their desks and offices, miles away from the frontiers of science where people are doing most of the hard work. It is the latter type (historians, professors, textbooks writers, science educators, museums. wiki editors) that acts as gatekeepers, by filtering what it gets from the former, and then it gives the public what it thinks is acceptable, while discarding things of interest that it considers unacceptable or threatening to the status quo.
So, when these types of questionnaires are published, it's not exactly convincing that they measure what they're claiming to measure, because people have never been given a free choice to choose between competing ideas, and because you can't make a free choice even if you've done your homework and sorted out this mess. Not if you want to have a career and if you want to fit in with certain groups.
It's funny that this is understood well in politics, where there is recognized a need for free and fair elections. There is no such thing as free and fair dissemination and discussion of the full spectrum of scientific knowledge. Given the history of how westerners have interacted with the religions and cultures of colonized people, scientists policing acceptable thought and then running their own evolution questionnaires on individuals with unknown credentials (as opposed to religious leaders more qualified to speak on behalf of their religion) is not all that different from the farce of movie studies running their own internal investigations on accused people, like Joss Whedon, etc as opposed to calling the cops. You can't be both a protector of the status quo and a neutral investigator.
Having said that, it's true that Buddhism and Hinduism include thought that can be interpreted as compatible with aspects of evolution through 'natural' means. This is presumably where some of these questionnaire results are coming from, when it comes to the Asian participants. But it's a mistake to interpret this as a compatibility between these religions and the larger ideology of Darwinian evolution, in the same way that people who run with superficial similarities elsewhere in religion (e.g. between Buddha and Jesus, Horus and Jesus, Krishna and Jesus, Odin and Hermes, etc) are generally mistaken.
There is also the question of the credibility of scientists to speak on matters of religion. Let's not forget it was scientists not too long ago who claimed there is a 'God' gene that explains susceptibility to religious ideas. This shows how clueless and patronizing publications on religion can be, that they would reduce religious experiences to the possession of a gene. And I bring this up specifically because I don't recognize their authority to determine who is a Christian. American Christians include evangelicals who see Trump as a savior sent by God, as well as megachurch preachers, and prosperity preachers, all whom are about the furthest you can get from being a follower of Jesus.
Posts: 8804 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once a Christian world view and explanations derived from the Bible was considered common knowledge also among scientists here in the West. In the early 1800s for example many geological features in Northern and Central Europe were interpreted as effects of the great flood. But gradually a reinterpretation of these features led first amateur scientists, and later professional scientists to realize that such features were most probably created by ice, big glaciers that once covered much larger areas than today. But it still took nearly 50 years before theories about one or many ice ages were accepted.
In the early 1900s geologists still had no good explanations on how mountains were formed, or why certain fossils were distributed in a certain way. There were some who noticed that the shape of continents fit into each other but one did not make so much of it. It was first when Alfred Wegener presented his ideas about continental drift and how all the continents once sat together, but then drifted apart that several geological phenomena seemed understandable. But it took until the 1960s and even later before geologists had accepted that the continents were moving and, moreover, began to understand how it happened. This led to the theories of plate tectonics that are prevalent today.
The theory of evolution also faced fierce resistance at the beginning both among biologists and among laymen. Gradually, the scientific community in the relevant sciences has accepted it, but there is still resistance among laymen and within some religious organizations. Other religious organisations have accepted evolution as an idea even if some say that it is governed by a deity.
It is interesting that the theory of evolution has met more resistance and become more debated also outside the guilds of professional sciencists than many other scientific theories. For example not many question the theories of gravitation or relativity. One does not hear so many complaints today about the teachings of plate tectonics (except among some young Earth creationists) or about Big bang theory or more fuzzy theories about quantum mechanics, or string theory and similar. These theories seem not to engage people in the same way as the theory of evolution does.
Probably is it because we feel that evolution concerns us on a deeper personal plan. After all it deals with our whole identity, where we came from and who our ancestors were. And it also collides with some peoples religious beliefs in a more direct way than many other scientific theories. On top of that it (or rather corruptions of it) has been used for political purposes, and different moralic aspects have been read into it.
One can also mention (as been touched upon already) that evolutionary thoughts had existed already in ancient Greece, in ancient India and among medieval Muslim thinkers so the idea was not totally new when people like Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin and later Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin put forward their evolutionary ideas.
Today there are in many cases a rift between religion and science. But not too long ago many scientists were religious, and some were even monks and priests like Gregor Mendel, William Buckland or Armand David just to mention a couple. Even Charles Darwin himself was a Christian even if some events made him loose his faith in later days. -------- Polls like the one in the OP can never give a complete picture of people's beliefs or worldview. It is difficult to know how representative it is, i.e. who has been asked. And how are the questions asked? Are the questions leading? If they were asked in a different way, would the result give a different picture of people's perception? How much do the respondents really know about the subject they are asked about, i.e. in this case about the theory of evolution?
Polls like this can just give a rough estimate of people's thoughts on a certain topic.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not mean to discuss the validity of evolution. I only meant to give context as far as how we got here, with the Asians sample giving those results and that it doesn't mean what they're portraying it to mean.
But if you want to discuss evolution, I will say this.
We will soon have more genomes of so-called archaics and thanks to the aDNA revolution in genetics, laypeople like you and me will be able to test the role of admixture with AMH in the emergence Neanderthals especially, but also in the emergence of other archaics.
Let's think about the gravity of what I've just said, for a second. We will be in a position to test directly if natural selection was more or less important than processes like admixture, in the emergence of Neanderthals. And thanks to the aDNA revolution, we will be able to do so without interference from the scientific establishment (see my previous post, to see what I mean with interference).
Let's see if Darwinian evolution makes it past this test.
Posts: 8804 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The theory of evolution has developed since the age of Darwin. In those days not much was known about genetics (Mendel worked in parallell with Darwin but at that time his genetics and Darwinian evolution was not combined). Today the concept of evolution has been expanded compared to Darwin's time and knowledge of several processes that control change and species formation has been added. Different types of hybridization and admixture have, for example, changed the view on speciation (both in animals and plants). We know more about different selection mechanisms today than what Darwin knew of.
We also know about more organisms in the fossil record than Darwin and his contemporaries did.
Just like several other theories, the theory of evolution has become more complex over time. We don't know everything about these mechanisms yet, but at the moment there is no really good alternative, unless you accept more or less supernatural explanations for the variety of organisms we see around us, or for the changes we see in the fossil record.
There are of course development paths that we have difficulty studying in detail because they have left no traces in the fossil record. What did the earliest organisms look like, for example? How exactly did the endosymbiotic processes happen which created the eukaryotic cell, and so on. The modern theory of evolution is only about 165 years old, it is a fairly young science that will of course be revised over time, like all science. Other sciences also change and develop. Thus, for example, today's plate tectonics does not look the same as Wegener's continental drift, it has evolved.
And if laymen can contribute with knowledge that furthers the knowledge about evolutionary processes it is of course a good thing. Remember that it was laymen that came with the first observations that gave rise to the theories about the ice age(s), and it was a non geologist who proposed the theory of continental drift which preceded plate tectonics.
Many other laymen have also contributed a lot in the fields of biology, paleontology and geology. It will probably be so in genetics too.
So one can of course discuss the validity of certain evolutionary processes, and overall about the changes we see over time regarding life on Earth. Just as we can discuss details and mechanisms regarding other sciences. What I find interesting though is that the theory of evolution seems to awake more feelings, especially among lay people, than other scientific theories. One have not heard so many hot discussions, and even legal proceedings about if other scientific theories shall be taught in school or not. Most people seem to accept that their kids learn about gravitation, or relativity theory and similar, but when it comes to evolution things seems more sensitive.
Even the poll in the OP tells about the sensitivity of the matter. How often do we see polls about if people accept theories about electromagnetism, or quarks or black holes?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reasonable points. But if Darwin's gradualism fails these tests in the area of human origins, I bet it won't end up in the garbage bin that is wiki's pseudo science section, where they will not hesitate to make unscrupulous entries for reasonable, if not valid ideas belonging to other cultures, that they don't know the first thing about. I bet people pointing out such failures of gradualism will simply get ignored, if they'll even be able to get their work published.
This is what I meant with 'protecting the status quo'. And that's where the aDNA revolution comes in.
But let's wait and see the aDNA results from different hominins. I'm especially looking forward to naledi and Sima de Los Huesus autosomal aDNA, for settling this. Naledi because they already show unusual physical signs possibly due to hybridization, and Sima de los Huesos to force out the AMH ancestry in Neanderthals, in the same way that Basal Eurasian was forced out of Stuttgart, and announced back in 2014, or how Population Y was forced out with the help of better quality native American genomes, especially Amazonian populations.
Posts: 8804 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to science evidence in the end will win, even if it can take time. It took about 50 years for continental drift / plate tectonics to be accepted, it took as long time for scientists to accept that there have been ice ages, and also evolutionary theory took time before it was accepted in the scientific community. If evidence for other evolutionary mechanisms and agents of change is put forward in a convincing way they will be accepted, even if it will take time.
Especially when it comes to archaic humans like Denisovans and Neanderthal one can ask if they at all were different species. I guess it depends on how one define species. Some define organisms who can get fertile offspring with each other as belonging to the same species. And it seems that AMH could get offspring with Neanderthals and Denisovans. They seem not have been so very different in several aspects. In that case we maybe must draw the line between modern humans and other species further back in time. So genetics can most probably help with that since humans can vary morphologically, also within what we call AHM. Maybe genetics can be a better indicator of who is related to whom, and in which way.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Otherwise as you say the new genetics have already given a lot of information. Up here in Scandinavia we have been able to identify different waves of immigrants who came after the ice age. We have also seen that farming was introduced by people who immigrated here. Also that these farmers got more or less replaced by steppe peoples who came more than 1000 years later. Such information would have been harder to obtain without genetics, even if it was hinted at already in the archaeological record.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
But I do want to draw attention to something in it. Notice that this is just one more example of how they're trying to avoid the obvious hints of the role of hybridization in the formation of archaics. Notice I said the role of hybridization in the formation of archaics (I'm not just talking about admixture between homo subspecies, which few serious people would deny today).
This is exactly why I spoke of the value of the aDNA revolution in my posts above, and why I blame them for hindering the progress of science and for trying to protect the status quo. It seems these people can't be trusted to do their jobs.
The researchers end their paper with a radical idea: They propose that the fossils, with their mix of archaic and Neanderthal-like traits, could have been late survivors of a group that was a source population in the Middle East for both late and early Neanderthals in Europe and Asia, they write today in Science.
That suggestion, however, has quickly drawn fire. Paleoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology says the fossils were too recent to represent the source population for Neanderthals, whose earliest known ancestors lived more than 400,000 years ago at Sima de los Huesos in Spain. "That's an overinterpretation of the fossil evidence," he says. Instead, he thinks the mix of archaic and Neanderthal traits may reflect regional variation, with Neanderthals living in the Middle East being different from the classic Neanderthals of Europe, or at least a hybrid mix of different groups. He adds that in his view, teeth are the most important body part for classifying a fossil, and "that tooth is like a Neanderthal tooth." New fossils reveal a strange-looking Neanderthal in Israel - Science 2021 https://www.science.org/content/article/new-fossils-reveal-strange-looking-neanderthal-israel
Looks like even Hublin noticed how unwarranted this reach is. Although Hublin himself also seems to only consider hybridization as an alternative explanation.
Posts: 8804 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intriguing. One can wonder over the exact line of descent for European Neanderthals, Asian Denisovans and older Archaic species. Some kind of humans have existed outside of Africa for nearly two million years, as the findings in for example Dmanisi in Georgia show. So do we know yet how all the varieties of Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, Denisovans and other species outside of Africa relate to each other, and to African species?
And even a hybrid species have ancestors which in their turn must descend from some older species.
There are still discussions going on between adherents to some kind of revised multi regional theories and those who propose a more pure OOA theory.
We might just see how far back we can find ancient DNA, and how we can connect that DNA with some of the fossils we find.
Someone once called paleoanthropology the soap opera of science, and one can somewhat agree, considering all the heated discussions, sensational statements, lost fossils and the like that we have seen over the years. One can only mention, for example, the discussions that have been held about Homo floresiensis and its eventual species affiliation.
Just one of many (often rather simplified) family trees of human species one can find online. New species are added now and then, like for example Homo luzonensis which is not shown here
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that is going to have to change about all those human lineage trees is that signs of AMH presence have to be pushed back to at least 500ky.
For one, AMH mtDNAs are preserved in the mtDNA pools of Neanderthals, and when those mtDNAs are put together like a puzzle, the date they get is 413ky, which means AMH cannot be younger than 413ky. This means that AMH are, in fact, older than fully formed Neanderthals, which date to ~130ky.
If you're interested you can read the paper below. Before you read the paper, I will give you the key to unlock the proper interpretation of the information it contains.
Here it begins. This is the correct interpretation that will help you understand everything I've said:
Since the earliest classifications and sub-divisions of the Palaeolithic (Lubbock 1865; de Mortillet 1867; Brueil 1912), prismatic (volumetric laminar) blade technology has been seen as a recent and sophisticated technological strategy. Originally seen as a hallmark of “modern behaviour” (see Mellars 1989; Mithen 1996), (...) Revisiting the ‘Big Deal about Blades’ a full contextualisation of prismatic (volumetri claminar) technology before Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage (MOIS) 5 https://www.theposthole.org/sites/theposthole.org/files/downloads/posthole_35_255.pdf
The last sentence above, the one that is cut off, is especially important. After the first phrase of the last sentence, the abstract goes downhill, quickly:
Originally seen as a hallmark of “modern behaviour” (see Mellars 1989; Mithen 1996), laminar technology has now been refuted as a technological strategy solely used by anatomically and behaviourally modern Homo sapiens (Bar-Yosef & Kuhn 1999; Henshilwood & Marean 2003). It is now evidenced throughout Neanderthal populations in Western Asia, and Europe, and their contemporaries in Africa. Revisiting the ‘Big Deal about Blades’ a full contextualisation of prismatic (volumetri claminar) technology before Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage (MOIS) 5 https://www.theposthole.org/sites/theposthole.org/files/downloads/posthole_35_255.pdf
So just be aware that from that point onward, the paper's usefulness is compromised. if you're interested in considering what I think, you should put the most weight on the first part of the abstract, which I have quoted above (not the second part, also quoted above), and after that, again, if you're interested in considering what I have said, you should go to fig 2, and fig 3, and you will understand the gist of my position.
You can then, if you're still interested, continue reading other articles on this subject, but know that you are not going to be helped by palaeontologists or geneticists on this subject (other than the clues they will give you unintentionally), and they are only going to confuse things if you don't keep what I've just said, in the forefront of your mind.
These three papers will get you started on this subject. There is no name for this subject, but we'll call it, 'sporadic hints of the Upper Palaeolithic, before the full blown and highly visible and materially rich Upper Palaeolithic known to science'.
posted
Thanks, seems interesting. If one has to push the AMH presence to at least 500ky it would perhaps not be totally surprising since their presence have already been pushed back several times.
Or one will discover that the archaic humans had a more complex behavior and technology than earlier believed, and that behaviors that was thought to be exclusive for AMH can be found also in for example Neanderthals, Denisovans and other archaics.
Different technologies and modern behaviors like bone tools, arts and others are all the time gradually pushed back in time.
I saw recently an article claiming that they maybe found the oldest Neanderthal engravings in a cave in France.
quote:Here we report on Neanderthal engravings on a cave wall at La Roche-Cotard (LRC) in central France, made more than 57±3 thousand years ago. Following human occupation, the cave was completely sealed by cold-period sediments, which prevented access until its discovery in the 19th century and first excavation in the early 20th century. The timing of the closure of the cave is based on 50 optically stimulated luminescence ages derived from sediment collected inside and from around the cave. The anthropogenic origin of the spatially-structured, non-figurative marks found within the cave is confirmed using taphonomic, traceological and experimental evidence. Cave closure occurred significantly before the regional arrival of H. sapiens, and all artefacts from within the cave are typical Mousterian lithics; in Western Europe these are uniquely attributed to H. neanderthalensis. We conclude that the LRC engravings are unambiguous examples of Neanderthal abstract design.
Since obviously AHM, Neanderthals and Denisovans could hybridize or mix with each other it is maybe a bit misleading to call them separate species. Maybe they are more to be looked at as local varietes, or subspecies, of one species. One can wonder though about species like Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis if they would have been able to produce fertile offspring with AHM, Neanderthals or Denisovans? And the older Homo erectus variants, how closely related were they?
As of now we have a lot of fossil humans but we do not always know exactly how they were related. Who was a direct ancestor to whom?
To sort out the concepts of how different groups were related, we need both genetics and paleoanthropology. We also need archeology to find out which technologies and which material cultures all these early hominids created. Geology and paleontology will further contribute to our knowledge about what kind of environment(s) they lived in and how that environment affected them. Which environmental factors contributed to physical/anatomical changes and which contributed to technological change?
What local adaptations do we see among different populations of hominins? Was for example the small sizes of Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis typical examples of island dwarfism such as we have seen in the fossil record concerning animals like elephants and hippos?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
To link back to the topic in the OP. It is interesting that some people accept evolution among bacteria and other microbes, and maybe also concerning some plants and animals. But when it concerns humans they find it harder to believe. But that of course raises the question of whether we humans have changed the rules of evolution. Can we with our intelligence steer our development in the desired direction? After all, we have controlled the evolution of our pets. How much do we control ourselves today? We have created our own environments where the external factors which influenced our early evolution are put out of play, for example predation by carnivores. In cold climates we can create warm environments, and we can filter water and cleanse our food from parasites, which also once might have heavily affected the evolution of our immune system.
Will we in the future create new types of humans whereof some are adapted to artificial environments?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure aDNA studies will have much of an effect on various bigots. They will simply tweak the same "evolutionary" framework to update the same bogus racist and other theories. aDNA show various migrations out of Africa? Sure, cuz you see homes, more "evolved" groups left at such and such a time compared to lesser cognitively evolved "backward" groups, and so on.
Back to the OP: One huge flaw in the study is that it is inconsistent with both current and historical data showing significant levels of prejudice in pro-evolutionists, continuing down today to the many racists that use evolutionary theory to justify their ideologies. Racism in the modern era depends heavily on “evolutionary” claims or theories, not so much religion. It is no accident that the book “he Bell Curve” is so beloved of various bigots. They are not going around waving bibles, but statistical charts.
Then there is “soft” racism which deems certain groups less worthy, less intelligent, less virtuous etc, but believers generally present a nicer front as opposed to the snarling bigot. Anti-racists have oft noted “soft” or “quieter” racism. It is not as visible or vocal as in the old days of legal segregation, and presents in seemingly “race-neutral” ways, now and historically. New highway being built? Route it through the black neighborhoods – bulldozing or chopping up once stable minority communities. Let them deal with the disruption while the new highways, lead to whiter suburbs, with better housing and job prospects. And a nice bonus is that “negro” areas can be walled off and partitioned off using street barriers, roads, dead end cul-de-sacs etc etc. Its all appears to be just “neutral” but happy result! Less negroes in certain places! Sweet! Who needs go around waving Confederate flags?
Like all-white or mostly all-white neighborhoods and schools? Avoid burning crosses or snarling epithets. Just quietly rig your zoning laws to eliminate or discourage moderate and affordable housing in your mostly white neighborhood. This rigging would of course tend to exclude minorities who have more moderate income levels and credit resources on the average. The zoning barriers mean they cannot afford to surmount the barriers to certain housing options. Presto, without burning a single cross, the careful behind the scenes rigging tends to produce a “purer” neighborhood, “cleansed” of pesky minorities seeking housing or attending those nice suburban schools. Or, a smiling real estate agent can “steer” said minorities away from the “purer” neighborhood, or the smiling banker can make it harder for blacks who just as credit-worthy as whites to get a mortgage. Or smiling white housing appraisers, can “mark down” their assessments if black people are living in a house as a recent case shows. Its all good.. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/09/1162103286/home-appraisal-racial-bias-black-homeowners-lawsuit
Various books give the details as to the deep levels of “polite” or “soft” racism. Some of it may not be explicit- but the bottom line is the same. See Edward Bonilla-Silva for example “Racism without Racists” or book- The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America- by Richard Rothstein.
If you are testing for levels of racism, bias etc then much work needs to be done on the “quiet” racism out there, and much of it might well be from pro-evolutionists. They may be just more polite about things.
Another more straightforward way of exploring the link (once more neutral descriptions of “evolution” were applied) would have been to narrow down the categories “evolution” and “prejudice.” For example it is more straightforward to ask thing like:
--Do you believe evolution created different races?
--Does evolution produce different traits in different races?
--Does evolution explain the intelligence of races?
--D you believe some races are more evolved to have higher intelligence of other races?
--Do you believe evolution explains the negative behavioral traits of some races?
--Does evolution make some people homosexuals?
--Does evolution make some people transgenders?
--Did groups like Jews evolve to have certain characteristics?
More focused questions like these can help pin down the link between “belief in evolution” and racism or prejudice, as much modern racism depends on "evolutionary" notions.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed some racists do use different kinds of pseudo evolutionary arguments. One can now and then read arguments claiming that humans got more intelligent on northern latitudes due to the challenges of a cold climate which demanded better planning of resources and invention of different technologies to fight cold climates, for example sturdier houses, better clothes and so on. Some even involve Neanderthals in their arguments, claiming that people in Europe got more intelligent due to mixing with Neanderthals.
In some groups one can see a sort of mix between religious and evolutionary arguments since bigots use whatever ammunition they can find to defend a racist world view. So some combine the curse of Ham with Darwin.
One could also ask some religious people questions like if they think that God created races differently. One sneaky form of racism has been used by one or another pastor who claimed that Black Americans where lucky when they got enslaved since it meant that they learned to know Jesus and the gospels.
So in polls one have to ask more pointed and detailed questions about how both evolutionary and religious thinking affect peoples view regarding issues of race and similar.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2815 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
One can now and then read arguments claiming that humans got more intelligent on northern latitudes due to the challenges of a cold climate which demanded better planning of resources and invention of different technologies to fight cold climates, for example sturdier houses, better clothes and so on. Some even involve Neanderthals in their arguments, claiming that people in Europe got more intelligent due to mixing with Neanderthals.
True & its not now and then. Its been over a century of such racist writings using "evolution" to buttress the various racist arguments, or memes. Darwin, while not as extreme as some others who used his work is just one of the better known proponents. As far as "cold climate" theories that's another BS variant and that too ties into various usages of "evolution." Hence belief in evolution is a primary cornerstone of modern racism.
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought Richard Weikart, German Studies Review Vol. 36, No. 3 (October 2013), pp. 537-556 (20 pages)
By examining Hitler's ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection. They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic