Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Evolution teaches that the first human to evolve from dumb animals was a black African.

No, that's wrong, too. He did (correctly) predict that the earliest humans would have been in Africa, but he said nothing about them being black.

We only have YE creationism to blame for the foolish idea that blacks are genetically inferior. It's no accident that YE creationism is most commonly found in states where the Klan was most powerful.

As I said, many YE creationists have rejected the founding premise of YE creationism. But few of them are willing to denounce the racism of their founders.

[marke]

Marke: Evolution teaches that the first human to evolve from dumb animals was a black African.

No, that's wrong, too. He did (correctly) predict that the earliest humans would have been in Africa, but he said nothing about them being black.

Marke: Did Darwin claim the firs humans humans that evolved from dumb animals were white men in Africa?

[marke]

We only have YE creationism to blame for the foolish idea that blacks are genetically inferior. It's no accident that YE creationism is most commonly found in states where the Klan was most powerful.

Marke: I agree that many southern democrats who supported slavery and the KKK claimed also to be Christian. However most northern white abolitionists who opposed racism and slavery also claimed to be Christian. Blaming racism on Christians or Christianity is a perversion and misrepresentation of what true Christianity teaches.

[marke]

As I said, many YE creationists have rejected the founding premise of YE creationism. But few of them are willing to denounce the racism of their founders.

Marke: Sinners who do not believe that God created all humans from the same blood that flowed in Adam's veins thus making them all brethren are in ignorance and rebellion against God.

[The Barbarian]

As I said, many YE creationists have rejected the founding premise of YE creationism. But few of them are willing to denounce the racism of their founders.

Marke: Sinners who do not believe that God created all humans from the same blood that flowed in Adam's veins thus making them all brethren are in ignorance and rebellion against God.

There have been creationist polygenists, but mostly they take the traditional YE position that blacks became genetically inferior after descending from Adam.

[The Barbarian]

We only have YE creationism to blame for the foolish idea that blacks are genetically inferior. It's no accident that YE creationism is most commonly found in states where the Klan was most powerful.

Marke: I agree that many southern democrats who supported slavery and the KKK claimed also to be Christian.

They were YE creationists by the 1960s, but that doesn't mean they aren't Christians. Just not very good ones.

However most northern white abolitionists who opposed racism and slavery also claimed to be Christian. Blaming racism on Christians or Christianity is a perversion and misrepresentation of what true Christianity teaches.

It's an error. Sometimes, it's a sin. And it's definitely a misrepresentation of Christianity.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Evolution teaches that the first human to evolve from dumb animals was a black African.

No, that's wrong, too. He did (correctly) predict that the earliest humans would have been in Africa, but he said nothing about them being black.

Marke: Did Darwin claim the firs humans humans that evolved from dumb animals were white men in Africa?

He didn't say that early human ancestors were dumb. And far as I know, he never speculated on what color they were.

A much-debated question in Darwin’s time was the puzzling diversity of humanity. Did the various races emerge independently of one another? That view, known as “polygenism,” was popular among members of the Anthropological Society of London, which Richards describes as an “out-and-out racist” organization. The Society supported the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, and its leader, a speech therapist named James Hunt, declared that we “know that the Races of Europe have now much in their mental and moral nature which the races of Africa have not got.” Others, including Darwin, argued that all races shared a common origin, a view known as “monogenism.” But monogenists still had to explain what caused the diversity seen today. This is where sexual selection comes in. Darwin argued that differing judgements of attractiveness held the key; he believed that men of one tribe or group were naturally most attracted to members of their own tribe. He wrote that “the differences between the tribes, at first very slight, would gradually and inevitably be increased to a greater and greater degree.” Few of Darwin’s readers found this plausible, says Richards, because they imagined European ideals of beauty to be universal; they simply couldn’t imagine, for example, “that black skin could be attractive to anyone,” she says.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180977091/

The article is worth reading. It explains why Darwin's ideas of sexual selection have become accepted by modern biologists, although even his fellow evolutionist of the time had difficulty with accepting it.

[marke]

As I said, many YE creationists have rejected the founding premise of YE creationism. But few of them are willing to denounce the racism of their founders.

Marke: Sinners who do not believe that God created all humans from the same blood that flowed in Adam's veins thus making them all brethren are in ignorance and rebellion against God.

There have been creationist polygenists, but mostly they take the traditional YE position that blacks became genetically inferior after descending from Adam.

Marke: Dishonestly slandering all Christians by wickedly and unjustly suggesting they are racists is a common trait of ungodly racist democrats.

[marke]

Marke: Evolution teaches that the first human to evolve from dumb animals was a black African.

No, that's wrong, too. He did (correctly) predict that the earliest humans would have been in Africa, but he said nothing about them being black.

Marke: Did Darwin claim the firs humans humans that evolved from dumb animals were white men in Africa?

He didn't say that early human ancestors were dumb. And far as I know, he never speculated on what color they were.

A much-debated question in Darwin’s time was the puzzling diversity of humanity. Did the various races emerge independently of one another? That view, known as “polygenism,” was popular among members of the Anthropological Society of London, which Richards describes as an “out-and-out racist” organization. The Society supported the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, and its leader, a speech therapist named James Hunt, declared that we “know that the Races of Europe have now much in their mental and moral nature which the races of Africa have not got.” Others, including Darwin, argued that all races shared a common origin, a view known as “monogenism.” But monogenists still had to explain what caused the diversity seen today. This is where sexual selection comes in. Darwin argued that differing judgements of attractiveness held the key; he believed that men of one tribe or group were naturally most attracted to members of their own tribe. He wrote that “the differences between the tribes, at first very slight, would gradually and inevitably be increased to a greater and greater degree.” Few of Darwin’s readers found this plausible, says Richards, because they imagined European ideals of beauty to be universal; they simply couldn’t imagine, for example, “that black skin could be attractive to anyone,” she says.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180977091/

The article is worth reading. It explains why Darwin's ideas of sexual selection have become accepted by modern biologists, although even his fellow evolutionist of the time had difficulty with accepting it.

Marke: Many true Christians recognized that Darwin's erroneous musings were those of an unregenerate mind in rebellion against God.

[Clownboat]

Marke: I totally disagree with what Morris is alleged to have said about blacks.

What you happen to agree with or disagree with is uninteresting and unneeded in debate. Morris still said and did what he did, but moving on...

Marke: The brightest and most vehement evolutionists defended evolution in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial with 'proofs' that have all since been thoroughly debunked.

How quickly you have forgotten that evolution is a fact and is something we observe. No amount of name calling will make this go away, yet here you are on a debate forum no less, throwing insults at long dead people in place of even trying to show that you are correct and evolution doesn't happen.

What really gets me is that you must insert some special rapid form of evolution, a form that would make biologists blush to get from 2 beetles on an ark to the roughly 400,000 species we now have.
It's as if you are saying:
Beetles can't evolve to 400,000 species over millions of years! That can only happen over a few thousand years!
How do you come to terms with this?