JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>Why they keep on insisting that men sprang from mud via apes
If you ever get that story correct, you will surprise me.
>and simultaneously reject the notion that human evolution isn't subject
>to gene dominance rules as are other critters
Of course human beings are subject to dominant/recessive rules. But
dominant/recessive rules have relatively little to do with evolution
and NOTHING to do with superiority (dominant genes can be harmful or
helpful, or somewhere in between).
>(which would lead eventually to a new and improved species)
>is puzzeling. To them
>there simply can never be a higher human form other than the one
>which currently occupies the earth.
I'm sure there could, though we might not consider it to be human.
More importantly, we cannot predict ANYTHING about what traits it
would have (though skin color is almost certainly NOT an important
>The logical conclusion to that argument is that evolution is static
>when it comes to humans,
Humans are probably MORE static than other species because we have
spread worldwide, adapt our environment to fit us (therefore reducing
the long term evolutionary events of a changing environment), and
interbreed with little regard to geography (thereby preventing
geographical isolation, which is a significant factor in more rapid
>which means that the argument of "one race,
>forever" contridicts the science of "liberals" themselves.
Race has NOTHING to do with evolution, since there is no biological
reality to race.
>If the ToE is in fact true, a new human species will eventually
Yes. But not likely in less than a few hundred thousand years or so,
by which time all of modern politics will be both obsolete and
>I wonder what would happen if, say 90% of the white population
>started wearing tee shirts with "NAAWP" in large letters on the
89% of the white population would wonder where the letter came from,
since most of us aren't racists like you and the nincompoop.