recidivist:
I'm not quite sure what it is that you're attempting to argue here. I find it difficult to follow your line of reasoning.
Apart from the fact that you cannot mate with a dog, are you, in all other respects, identical?
Clearly not. Are you claiming that dogs and humans belong to the same species? Because I thought I had fairly clearly defined the term "species" for you.
According to
my definition, dogs and humans are not the same species because they cannot interbreed to produce offspring capable of reproducing themselves.
Why is it that there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they cannot breed with, and yet still there are measurable physical differences between humans and the animals they can breed with?
Humans can't breed with any other animals, as far as I am aware. Can you give me an example of another animal that a human can breed with such that the resultant child can itself produce offspring?
Hint: evolution. The gradual accumulation of small, physical changes over long periods of time.
I'm familiar with evolution.
It's an act of your own will that you choose to define humanity in the way you do, and so you cannot, without hypocrisy, reject definitions by others that are also an act of their will.
If I use the standard definition of "species" and you use a bizarre, idiosyncratic one all of your own, which nobody else in the world uses, then I think I can safely reject your definition, even though you arrived at it through an act of your will.
Homo Sapien means man of knowledge.The definition of what it means to be human has never simply been a case of who can breed with whom
I think you're confusing "human" with "person". They are not synonymous. Being human really is just a matter of who can breed with whom.
Are you saying you can't be sure who is human and who is, say, a chimpanzee?
No. After all it is you who is saying that were it possible for chimpanzees to interbreed with humans they would be considered human themselves.
Yes, of course. That's the definition of what we mean by the term "species".
Evolution would clearly go into reverse.
What on earth would it mean for evolution to "go into reverse". What is "forwards" for evolution? As far as I am aware, evolution doesn't have a direction.
No, I'm saying [religion and atheism] are driven by authority, one secular the other religious, but in both cases it is the overriding social imperative to conform and fit in. Ultimately its about survival which is why such opinions, when they are nothing more than state-sanctioned propaganda, expose the weak and cowardly.
Last time I checked, the US, at least, had a Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits a state-sanctioned establishment of religion.
And you've come to speak on behalf of Darwin's writings. Because atheists live in a world of denial about what Darwin wrote...
Not at all. Darwin was in some ways a man of his era. He shared many of the unconcious racist views of his peers.
What is your argument, exactly? If Darwin was a racist then evolution is wrong? How would that follow?
Darwin's words are clear, they don't need any qualification from me. The question is why do atheists distort or ameliorate his opinions on race but accept them unquestionably on other animals when they are clearly backed by scientific fact and archaeological evidence?
What, exactly, are you claiming is distorted? I can't tell.
recidivist said:
Bells said:
But we are still human with the exact same physiology.
That would be clones my dear. No such thing exists in nature.
Aren't identical twins clones?
No my dear, races exist as Bilvon stated, as an accumulation of evolutionary change. An interesting question, though, is was there ever was a singular starting point to begin with?
Race, in its common usage, has little to do with biology and a lot to do with superficial factors and cultural labels.
And starting point for what?
That's interesting, since JamesR clearly states that being human is based upon nothing more than an ability to interbreed devoid of any civilizing values or ethics.
It only seems a small step from there to considering humans the same as rats or pigs.
In the sense of being just one more species, humans are the same as rats and pigs. In fact, we're very closely related to both rats and pigs.