Progressive's science contrary to progressive's ideology?

[Zoogster]

Progressives seem to want to have thier cake and eat it too. They push for anti religous goals such as gay marriage, men and women having same roles etc. They want to push the notion that everyone is equal, but that evolution is also our roots. Let me show the irony of this:

According to evolution and the science behind it we are far from equal. In fact according to the science of evolution the ancestry of humans was not a direct transition from one species to the next but a gradual seperation from the more primative ancestry. Human ancestors originating from Africa from primates that existed there. Some of these 'people' proceeded to move further and further away from Africa becoming thier own unique gene pool while others proceeded to remain in Africa continuing to mix with their primative ancestry.

So this would mean that those that were further from Africa would have began to evolve seperately from the ancestor while those that remained were still continuing to remain geneticly similar through breeding with the ancestor.

Since people intermarry with neighbors, and have wars where they rape and capture eachother nobody was truly totaly seperate and distinct, and would be mixed with those they lived near, but those living the furthest from the primative ancestor would be the most removed contuing to evolve quite seperately at a much faster pace.

To further complicate things it is believed quite likely that the already distinct 'Neanderthal' (which actualy had a larger brain than current man) didn't necessarily go extinct through competition, but was absorbed by the ancestors of man they lived near. The Neanderthals existed in European areas mainly, as well as in parts of current East Asia.However this is not certain.

Regardless man would evolve seperately. While those still at the source of human ancestry would still be mixing with the ancestor not becoming distinct and seperate for tens of thousands of years after the original groups  ventured far from Africa, and thus be vastly behind in development and evolution. They would still be stronger and more robust on par with the apes in physical potential, and yet not mentaly evolved as those far and distant in harsher climates had become to survive in intellectual potential.

Following this to it's conclusion would mean that those of  Sub-Saharan African descent prior to the colonization in the the ninteenth century (where they would gain as much European ancestry as African) they would have been tens of thousands of years removed in evolution.

While those in the far reaches of eastern Asia (oriental areas) and northern Europe would have been the most removed and evolved the furthest from thier ancestry. How they evolved would have been dependent on how they applied themselves and what genes gained favored..While those locations in between would be mixes of early and later migrations out of Africa.

Thus according to evolution mixing with those least removed from the ancestors of modern man (most recent inhabitants of Africa) would be akin to going thousands of years backwards in evolution.

Race is often described in modern terminolgy as color, yet genetics are quite seperate in that one's color while attributed to genetics is only a minute aspect of the science and one's genetics could be removed significantly from what any color designation would imply. Meaning that color alone would be a poor measure from which to determine genes and therefore race. Yet it along with bone structer and even further DNA can be used to assess ancestry.

So according to the science progressives teach in school we are not equal, yet according to Christianity's interpretation we are closer to being equal. Yet progressives like the ideology of equality, and trust in science which proves otherwise.

Also if evolution is accurate then men and women are also far from equal in that both are designed for quite different roles. Yet religion, especialy chrisitanity agrees wholy with this point. So naturaly, fullfilling those roles should leave one more content in life than striving to do the role the other has evolved further in(or was designed for). These roles are clearly defined in conservative views, which are quite contrary to those of progressives.

So obviously the progressives science is quite conflicting with thier ideology and viewpoints. Eating thier cake and having it too?(the original way of saying 'have your cake and eat it too' but makes more sense)

Comments not concerning belief or non belief in evolution and instead commenting on progressive viewpoints ( which we call liberal democrats ironicly) would be appreciated.

[Standing Wolf]

...progressives like the ideology of equality, and trust in science which proves otherwise.

1.) The vast majority of self-styled "progressives" are statist parasites. They like to jibber-jabber about equality, but abhor egalitarianism in practice.
2.) Your notions of evolution could use an infusion of science.

[meinbruder]

Comments not concerning belief or non belief in evolution and instead commenting on progressive viewpoints ( which we call liberal democrats ironicly) would be appreciated.

Anytime I hear someone claim to be progressive, they usually turn out to be socialist at the least and communist at the worst.  Either way they seem to think I need help in living my life for my own benefit.  The one thing that P!$$s me off about the left is the attitude that Im to stupid for my own good.

On the other hand, maybe I shouldnt feed this particular troll.
}:)>

[Zoogster]

I am not a troll, and I think everyone should be treated equal under the law.
This was only a first post because it was not appropriate for THR.

[cosine]

Hey, don't pile on the guy right away. I don't think he's a troll. It seems like a serious question. He posted this at THR, and I suggested he post it here. I'm interested in seeing what kind of discussion it creates.

[Zoogster]

This is according to science in evolution. Not according to me. I may have put a different  angle to highlight its incompatibility than is taught in the classroom but it is the same 'facts' as taught in the classroom. It coincides entirely with science. Even with the tracing of DNA and trying to map out the migration of early humans according to science.

I simply put it in this light to show the perspectives of those most reliant on this science for moral authority have an ideology conflicting with thier stated and taught facts. As well as to highlight that even according to it the 'conservative' way of life is more in tune with science than the progressives that try to use it to further political agendas.

[meinbruder]

Hey, don't pile on the guy right away. I don't think he's a troll. It seems like a serious question. He posted this at THR, and I suggested he post it here. I'm interested in seeing what kind of discussion it creates.

Science?  Backed up by evolution?  Not according to zoogster?  Mapped and traced by DNA?  If zoogster would care to post the citations, Ill have a look.

Cosine, all due respect to a senior member, where did you find this creature? 

People are people; all of us are in one puddle of DNA.  Not long ago there was an item on Yahoo about the DNA difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, it claimed less then three percent.  How many members have dogs?  How many members know there are a dozen blood types for dogs?  People have four! 

Politics aside, your pet seems to think that distance from Mother Africa and the level of sunlight have differentiated our species.  Mule Fritters!! 

I guess I should run over to THR and repost my comments
}:)>

[roscoe]

Let me count the ways:

Some of these 'people' proceeded to move further and further away from Africa becoming thier own unique gene pool while others proceeded to remain in Africa continuing to mix with their primative ancestry.

WRONG! Once speciation occurs no genetic admixture can occur. Also, the earliest appearance of modern humans is in Africa, not elsewhere.

To further complicate things it is believed quite likely that the already distinct 'Neanderthal' (which actualy had a larger brain than current man) didn't necessarily go extinct through competition, but was absorbed by the ancestors of man they lived near.

WRONG! - per the most recent genetic analyses of the Neandertal genome.

They would still be stronger and more robust on par with the apes in physical potential, and yet not mentaly evolved as those far and distant in harsher climates had become to survive in intellectual potential.

WRONG! See admixture discussion above, but you are revealing your personal beliefs.

Following this to it's conclusion would mean that those of  Sub-Saharan African descent prior to the colonization in the the ninteenth century (where they would gain as much European ancestry as African) they would have been tens of thousands of years removed in evolution.

WRONG! Plus, that sentence make NO sense!

Thus according to evolution mixing with those least removed from the ancestors of modern man (most recent inhabitants of Africa) would be akin to going thousands of years backwards in evolution.

WRONG! See above.

So according to the science progressives teach in school we are not equal,

WRONG! That is not what science 'teaches'.

Also if evolution is accurate then men and women are also far from equal in that both are designed for quite different roles.

Wow! You got one right! As much as I want to have babies, I just haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus gonna gestate? in a box? But, as much as you might want to believe it, differences do not equal superiority in intellectual arenas.

Sorry for contradicting you, but you obviously have no idea what scientists do, or how science works, or how it disseminates information, or much knowledge of human biology. You may keep complaining that science is warping the minds of the young, but when you want a treatment for cancer, or electricity to heat your house, or the ability to get on a plane to visit relatives, you may be sure that science delivered the goods.

People (progressives and conservatives alike) teach science because it WORKS! If a scientist makes an arror, which happens all the time, it can be corrected because everything is open in science. What happens when two religious beliefs contradict each other? You can check your history books for the pleasant ways in which that is resolved.

[meinbruder]

Roscoe, steady there, we seem to be on the same side here but I would like to see the analysis of the Neanderthal of which you speak.  Can you PM me?

In the meantime, THR has locked the thread so I can make no comment over there.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=236953
}:)>

[cosine]

Cosine, all due respect to a senior member, where did you find this creature? 

Oh, I don't mind the question. As I mentioned, I first saw this post on THR. I have my own problems with some of what he wrote, but I don't mind learning more (because I'm sure there are folks here who can better refute what he wrote than me).

Besides, the only reason I'm a senior member is because I'm a blabbermouth.

[Zoogster]

WRONG! Once speciation occurs no genetic admixture can occur.

Then how do you explain hybrids? Such as occurs between numerous species creating often sterile but just as often fertile offspring. In fact animals with different numbers of chromosomes even make fertile hybrids a percentage of the time.

Wow! You got one right! As much as I want to have babies, I just haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus gonna gestate? in a box? But, as much as you might want to believe it, differences do not equal superiority in intellectual arenas.

As this was the only other comment with an argument attached...
The point would be that women are designed more instinctive to be nurturing and maternal in thier own way along with other clear interdependent emotional needs with men. Men are naturaly more aggressive and protective and generaly assume leadership, have wider ranges and play a less direct role in parenting and development in young in the animal world.  If you believe in evolution, then the social interactions of the apes should interest you, according to scientists the closest living relative to humans is the pygmy chimpanzee. You see quite a contrasting role by choice and by need between the sexes, quite similar in fact to the roles of the sexes in our early documented history.

[meinbruder]

Cosine, all due respect to a senior member, where did you find this creature? 

Besides, the only reason I'm a senior member is because I'm a blabbermouth.

I tend to run on myself.  I did learn to stop petting stray cats a long time ago, now I need to stop petting stray dogs.
We have a full house.
}:)>

[Zoogster]

Roscoe, steady there, we seem to be on the same side here but I would like to see the analysis of the Neanderthal of which you speak.

'In 1997, Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans& Neanderthals are not our ancestors." Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings. However, supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point to recent studies indicating non-African nuclear DNA heritage dating to one MYA, as well as apparent hybrid fossils found in Portugal and elsewhere, in rebuttal to the prevailing view.'

Directly from wikipedia which as you know must be taken with a grain of salt but generaly gets straightened to the general consensus on hot button topics.

However the specifics on these theories change with the wind as various sides gain ground using 'proof' that coincides with thier own theory.

[meinbruder]

Directly from wikipedia which as you know must be taken with a grain of salt but generaly gets straightened to the general consensus on hot button topics.

However the specifics on these theories change with the wind as various sides gain ground using 'proof' that coincides with thier own theory.

Zoogster, post a few credible links!  Until then Meinbruder has left the building! 

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with a keyboard and Internet connection.  It is far less a credible source than my dogs spoor.  At least I can tell the health of the beast from the droppings! 
}:)>

[roscoe]

Then how do you explain hybrids? Such as occurs between numerous species creating often sterile but just as often fertile offspring.

Wrong, again. The standard definition of a species is of reproductive isolation. Hybrids are sterile. The fact that one mule out of 1,000,000 (literally) is fertile does not change the fact that species do not interbreed in nature. Only in rare and unusual circumstances (typically in a lab, or by a mule breeder) do different species even get a chance to interbreed, and the offspring are virtually always sterile. Your entire thesis rests on this point, and it is simply wrong. That means that every conclusion you based it on is wrong, hence, your entire argument is wrong.

I am very interested in primate social behavior, and I would be the first to argue that many behavioral differences between men and women are biologically driven. There is an evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon called evolutionary psychology, or sociobiology. But, as I said, such differences do not equate to intellectual superiority, something you implied.

However, I was mainly calling attention to your complete misunderstanding of the origin of races, the differences between the races, the significance of the differences, and your understanding of the concept of race itself. This appears to be a result of not knowing much biology.

Incidentally, the closest relative to humans is not the pigmy chimpanzee, properly called the bonobo. Rather, it is the common ancestor of the bonobo and the common chimpanzee. They only split about 2.5 million years ago and we shared a common ancestor with their line about 5-7 million years ago.

It is only a peripheral point, and not even relevent to your thesis, but you cite Stoneking's research, which is almost 10 years old - a lifetime in genetics research. Check the most recent work here from the Law­rence Ber­k­e­ley Na­tion­al La­b­o­ra­to­ry, and the Joint Ge­nome In­s­ti­tute, showing how interbreeding is now viewed:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061115_neanderthal.htm
"Sa­id Ru­bin, While una­ble to de­fin­i­tive­ly con­clude that in­ter­breed­ing be­tween the two spe­cies of hu­mans did not oc­cur, anal­y­sis... sug­gests the low like­li­hood of it hav­ing oc­curred at any apprecia­ble lev­el. "
The original article abstract is viewable at Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5802/1113

[Zoogster]

Wrong, again. The standard definition of a species is of reproductive isolation. Hybrids are sterile. The fact that one mule out of 1,000,000 (literally) is fertile does not change the fact that species do not interbreed in nature. Only in rare and unusual circumstances (typically in a lab, or by a mule breeder) do different species interbreed. Your entire thesis rests on this point, and it is simply wrong. That means that every conclusion you based it on is wrong, hence, your entire argument is wrong.

http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-mammals.html lists a number of hybrids, some of which are often fertile, such as lion/tiger hybrids.

I am very interested in primate social behavior, and I would be the first to argue that many behavioral differences between men and women are biologically driven. There is an evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon called evolutionary psychology, or sociobiology. But, as I said, such differences do not equate to intellectual superiority, something you implied.

I never implied intellectual superiority in one sex or the other, that was in regards to evolution and different populations that evolved more intelligently through adaption.

However, I was mainly calling attention to your complete misunderstanding of the origin of races, the differences between the races, the significance of the differences, and you understanding of the concept of race itself. This appears to be a result of not knowing much biology.

I am quite familiar with biology and understand the difference in races. I also know in modern times we are far more alike than in any time in previous history due to modern transportation and modern nations viewing thier identity through nationality instead of more localized divided identies. This allows people to intermingle far more freely. Most regions on earth have mixed with people from distant lands in recent centuries. So modern use of the term 'race' often refers to ones  identity based on color or cultural/politcal status in nations, with only a loose adherance to genetics or none at all.

Incidentally, the closest relative to humans is not the pigmy chimpanzee, properly called the bonobo. Rather, it is the common ancestor of the bonobo and the common chimpanzee. They only split about 2.5 million years ago and we shared a common ancestor with their line about 5-7 million years ago.

I believe I said "living" and "relative", quite different from a no longer living 'common ancestor'.
As for the name, pygmy chimp, or Bonobo are both common usage.

[BryanP]

I know conservatives whose knowledge of science interferes with their conservatism as well.

A friend of mine is a serious conservative.  As in "Rush, Liddy?  Those commie bastards."  He's hard core.  Except when it comes to the deforestation of the South American rain forests.  Then suddenly he switches sides and moans about all those rare plant species being destroyed every day.

But then he's a biochemist by trade.   

Personally, I find that people believe science that supports their existing opinions and discount science that is in opposition to their opinions.  The laymans (and politicians) approach to science: "If the data don't support your desired results, then find some new data."

[LAK]

Meinbruder

Anytime I hear someone claim to be progressive, they usually turn out to be socialist at the least and communist at the worst

I'll agree with that one right off.

---------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Perd Hapley]

People are people; all of us are in one puddle of DNA. 

You pro-life zealots drive me nuts! 

[Jamisjockey]

I'll only address one part of this post:
True equality means we all have a level playing field.  No special treatment.  Progressive is just the new term for socialist.

[roscoe]

http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-mammals.html lists a number of hybrids, some of which are often fertile, such as lion/tiger hybrids.

You made my point. Those hybrids you read about were made under artificial curcumstances. Your notion that the human ancestor was cross-fertilizing with a primitive ancestor of a different species is hardly worth further discussion.

Homo erectus was the first hominid to get out of Africa, at ~1.8 million years ago. That species was a fully obligate biped with our modern body structure (except for brain size), with sophisticated stone tools, a complex organized hunting structure, had long-range planning, and was adaptable to a variety of environments. Are you suggesting that this animal was mating with older hominid species that were already extinct (and which ones?), or with chimpanzees or bonobos? Either idea is preposterous. Do Africans mate with chimpanzees today? Because for Homo erectus to do so would require the same outrageous circumstances. If earlier species interbred (which they did not), it wouldn't even matter since H. erectus was the first to leave Africa, and any subsequent humans would stem from that gene pool.

I should add that you haven't even addressed the critical point that Africa is where modern human fossils, and complex stone tools appeared FIRST! If these Africans were so primitive as to be mating outside their species, how can you account for Herto, at 150,000 ybp, Klasies River Mouth (120,000 ybp), and Omo (195,000 ybp), all of which are the earlies modern humans, and all of which are in Africa? We don't even have modern humans in Europe for another 1000,000 years.

You basically dug up Carleton Coon's old hypotheses and added the preposterous cross-species fertilization. Even Carleton Coon didn't propose such an absurd idea.

This type of argumant is nothing other than some very unfortunate people looking for a justification to treat other people as lessers. You can go back to Genesis 9:25, or Carleton Coon, but it all amounts to the same thing, and they are all equally invalid.

[Eleven Mike]

I'm not defending or refuting Zoogster's points, but I want to clarify one thing.  Unless I misunderstand, Zoogster DOES NOT believe in evolution.  He is arguing that an evolutionary point of view leads inevitably to racism and sexism.  Whether you agree with this or not, let us understand that Zoogster is not proposing a racial or sexual hierarchy, he is claiming that a Christian, creationist viewpoint is more conducive to racial and sexual equality.

Creationists, and I count myself as one, frequently point out the racist and sexist "science" that Darwin's theories were used to support for about the first hundred years since Origin of the Species.  As I'm not that familiar with the issue, I won't get into it, I just wish to explain what I think is going on with Zoogster's comments. 

[roscoe]

And my point is that he is wrong about that. No one in evolutionary science has done that since Carleton Coon, and he was kicked out of the presidency of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists for it. He was wrong, and people knew it at the time, and before. Has science been misused in its history? Well, sure, as has every other school of thought in human history. But the nice thing about science is that it is self-correcting, since by its very nature all data and analytic techniques must be made explicit for others to test.

To make a legitimate critique of something as complex as evolutionary science, one has to understand it. In this case, that condition was not met.

[LAK]

So where are all the "missing links"? Is evolution not a continual process? Where are all the half-apes? 

-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[roscoe]

Australopithecus afarensis was bipedal and arboreal, with human-like lower limbs and long chimp-like arms. It had a chimp-like face but human-like teeth and a larger brain. 3.4-3.0 million years ago

Homo habilis was also bipedal and arboreal, with a bigger brain yet, and even more human-like teeth. 2.5-2.0 million years ago

Homo erectus was a full biped with an even bigger brain, and virtually modern teeth. 1.8-.4 million years ago.

Do you want me to also include pictures? The links are not missing - that is just a phrase people use when they don't have all the information.