Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Race, shmace — we’re all the same!

Posted in Uncategorized by Kathy on September 26, 2009

Back before Darwin, the term “race” used to mean people of a different country — for example, the English race versus the French race. Then with the popularization of evolution, and specifically the racist tome Descent of Man, there was the idea that man evolved from animals (specifically, the apes), and that some people (those with white skin) were more evolved than others (those with dark skin). Australian aborigines were actually hunted, stuffed, and mounted in museums as animals, although as animals that were almost human. Early proponents of evolution even theorized that the three “races” (Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid) each evolved separately from three different types of apes or monkeys. While few if any evolutionists will trumpet such ideas today, racism is deeply entrenched in our culture, in large part due to the century or so of such teaching, which culminated in the eugenics movement in America and elsewhere, and the Holocaust in Germany.

It is considered a racial slur to call Barack Obama a monkey, but not George W. Bush. This has its roots in evolution. It would be a slur to say a man was like any animal, but it is not considered racist to call a man a jack-ass.

While the evolutionists have softened their stance on race, they still say that the races took tens of thousands of years to develop. Many people think that today — that people of different racial groups must be vastly different or widely separated. But that’s simply false, and here’s a picture as proof:

two tone twins

This is a picture of a father, mother, and twin girls. The parents’ mothers were both white and their fathers were both black. So, one generation was “pure” white and “pure” black, and then the next generation was mid-brown, and the youngest generation again became lighter and darker than their parents. Although the girls look the same to me, as far as facial features go, based on skin color alone, they would be classified as different races — races that supposedly are widely divided by thousands of generations and tens of thousands of years. Hmm — doesn’t look like that to me!

Of course, this comes as no surprise to those who believe the Bible, because we’re all descended from Adam, and the New Testament reiterates that God has made “from one blood” all the nations of the earth.


18 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Ken Kendall said, on October 1, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    I could not agree more. Who cares about race. They only thing I care about when it comes to race, is how sad it makes me that humans do hurt each other based on race.

    I write a blog about love and marriage. Specifically how men can better love their wives. I hope you will check it out.



    • Kathy said, on October 1, 2009 at 11:03 pm

      Ken, as an avid reader of “What Women Never Hear” I have read your blog, and posted it on my facebook profile, so that the men that I know might see it and likewise read it. 🙂

  2. lloyd roberts said, on October 4, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    How in the world is it possible to have an intelligent debate with the likes of “Kathy’s” around.
    How can she possibly be so naive as to use these two babies, who picked up different genes from their grandparents, as evidence to support her views?
    If we are all from the same source, then how come we can look at a skeleton and tell what race it belongs to?
    Do your homework!

    • Kathy said, on October 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm

      By your logic, since we can tell from a skeleton whether the person was male or female, then that is proof that males and females come from different sources.

      What evidence do you have of us all being from different sources?

      • lloyd roberts said, on October 5, 2009 at 5:04 am

        Thanks for responding but you are playing with me.
        From the skeleton we can tell if it is Male or female and determine the race, among other things. Here’s some reading that might help.


        As for the origin of the human species and indeed if we are more than one species, the jury is clearly out.
        Best to keep an open mind on such a sensitive and important issue, if we are ever to find the answer.

        • Kathy said, on October 5, 2009 at 2:51 pm

          Yes, I was playing with you, since your first comment merited no better response. The URL was interesting, but I learned all that by watching CSI. 😉

          The fact that humans all over the globe can interbreed seems to be excellent evidence that we are all in fact one species. Besides the fact of “mitochondrial Eve” and “y-chromosome Adam,” which indicate common ancestry to all the human race; plus the “Out of Africa” theory which indicates that humans spread out to populate the earth from a single point. This is not “proof” of the story in the Bible, but it does support it, and does not undermine it. It does, however, seem to undermine your doubt of all humans being from “the same source”. From what I’ve read of evolutionary theory, most if not all theorists would agree that we all came from the same basic “stock” — although evolutionists and creationists would disagree with the timeline.

          Your link shows no evidence of us all being from different sources. Do you have any evidence of that? The two facts concerning assigning race to a skeleton were a straighter femur bone for Negroids, and the nose holes of the various races.

          Just for a moment, assume that the Bible is accurate — that God created a single man and a single woman, from whom all other humans came; and that a global catastrophe wiped out all humans except for a few; and that at some point after the catastrophe, the people were separated by language “according to their father.” We don’t know how large these groups might have been, but it seems pretty apparent that the different groups would have intermarried and become, well, inbred, producing children who had similar features (a Grecian nose, as an example; dark skin; blue eyes; straight or curly hair, etc.), because the parents could only pass along the genes they had (for dark or light skin, for brown or blue eyes, for straight or curved femur bones, or for the shape of the nose hole in the skull) — thus a large gene pool was split up into several much smaller ones, and certain characteristics would become predominant, and then given enough time, the people would become “races” and the familial characteristics would become characteristics of the races (sort of like hemophilia was indicative of being of royal blood in Europe).

          Now, what will you do if the little white girl in this picture has a square nose hole in her skull, and/or a straight femur? Or the little black girl has a not-straight femur and/or a triangular nose hole? Or some other mixing of so-called racial features? And what of people who have characteristics of people of another race?

          • lloyd roberts said, on October 7, 2009 at 8:41 am

            OK, another low blow (CSI).
            I can take it.
            Nice theory and very possible but in my view does not explain the “vast” differences in the human population.
            They must have been separated by more than language. They must have been separated into blacks, whites, pigmies, slanted eyes, etc.
            Makes absolutely no sense to me.
            Your last para is a good one.
            Race mixing surely does muddy the water.
            However, have you visited Australia or Papua New Guinea?
            There is no way the indigenous people in these places come from the same source as me or for that matter, you.
            I understand about theorists and what they largely agree on.
            But some are driven by their own agendas and see what they want to see, while others cannot imagine what they can’t see. I’ve watched the theories evolve over some 40+ years. Each theory was the “flavour of the month” and definitive until a new bone was discovered.
            Relatively recent discoveries in China put the same source/Africa theory in some doubt.
            Give us another 100 years of discovery and what we believe today will be totally blown out of the water.
            My logical brain tells me there is no way we all come from the same source.
            Oh, we may have mutated from a common source millions/hundreds of million years ago but that is irrelevant to the modern debate.
            Many different branches of potential humans and near-humans, maybe an infinite number of branches, evolved. Many were similar but different. Most died out one way or another.
            What we see today are the survivors.
            Sure, race mixing has confused matters somewhat but, in my not so humble opinion, if one takes the helicopter view, we are a collection of very different people.
            Anyway, race mixing is a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s unlikely there was much race mixing a million years ago. The distances between the races/strains/species/tribes, call them what you will, would have precluded it.
            Give us another 1000 years and we’ll see the result of real race mixing. However, I doubt there will ever be significant race mixing with the pigmies in Africa.

            As for proof, don’t ask me for proof. I have no proof. Just like you and all the theorists have no proof.
            That’s why we call them theorists.
            They develop elaborate theories based on meagre findings.
            As for your obvious religious beliefs (dare I go there), you have my respect but that is simply not enough of an explanation for all that exists in the universe.
            We are all looking for THE answer and religion provides a convenient answer for some.
            Not for me.
            We need to do a lot more looking.

            • Kathy said, on October 7, 2009 at 8:15 pm

              Lloyd, I am impressed. No, I’m not being sarcastic. Usually at this point in the conversation, my opponent takes to ad hominem attacks, or some similar low attacks, rather than keeping conversation not just rational but polite. Thank you, sir.

              The CSI wasn’t intended to be a low blow, but reading the description of forensics reminded of a few episodes in which they had to process humans in various stages of decomposition, and I remembered that Grissom was an expert in bugs — so it brought all that back. The link was interesting, but did not have information about origins, which is the salient point.

              In regards to “vast” differences among humans, this article says differently: “The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize race in other species,” Templeton said. “In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There’s lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it’s basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor.”

              Another (creationist) document says, “All people can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the ‘races’ are small. In fact, the DNA differences are almost trivial. The DNA of any two people in the world typically differs by just 0.2%.2 Of this, only 6% (i.e. a minuscule 0.012%) can be linked to ‘racial’ categories; the rest is ‘within race’ variation.” Two paragraphs later, it says that virtually all evolutionists agree that all humans have the same origin.

              I quote evolutionists, not because I agree with their position (obviously, because I’m a creationist), but to show that even those who disagree with me on other issues agree with me on this issue, and do not agree with you. The latter link I included is a much larger discussion on how all the races could have come from a single source — namely, Adam & Eve, and later Noah and his offspring. It may offer more insight into the problems that prevent you from agreeing with almost all evolutionists and creationists, in that everybody came from the same basic stock.

              Oh, we may have mutated from a common source millions/hundreds of million years ago but that is irrelevant to the modern debate.
              Actually, evolutionists typically put “Mitochondrial Eve” as living at most 800,000 years ago, and as recently as 70,000 years ago. (Creationists would point out that this age range is based on assumptions of genetic change and mutation; but when today’s observed mutation rates are used, M. Eve would have lived only about 6-7,000 years ago.) The Talk Origins website, which is most certainly anti-creationist, puts M. Eve as living around 200,000 years ago, and says, “The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact (unless something like a multiple-origins theory of human evolution i.e. the human species arose independently in different geographically separated populations, and that the present-day ease of interbreeding is the result of a remarkable convergent evolution, is true. Few people subscribe to the multiple-origins theory, and the Mitochondrial Eve observation is a refutation of multiple-origins).”

              So, just in case “proof” is too strong a word — do you have any evidence of Aborigines evolving separately from all the rest of us humans? One of the most virulently anti-creationists websites attests to the fact that there really was a woman in the past who is a maternal ancestor for every single person on the planet — Aborigines included. You mentioned new discoveries in China — could you cite some sources about those?

              Of course, I do not agree with the “Out of Africa” theory — I merely pointed to that as a quick evidence of common ancestry — so would not be shaken from my belief in common ancestry even if/when the OoA theory is discarded.

              They develop elaborate theories based on meagre findings.
              Agreed! I recently likened evolutionary theories to finding three pieces of a 1000-pc puzzle, and declaring with certainty what the entire puzzle picture was. We often see a few fossil bones put forth as “proof” or “evidence” of evolution — and often these bones are collected from a wide range (one recent find of a so-called human ancestor was reconstructed from 3 toe bones that were found a few miles from the rest of the bones that were put together as one creature). The evidence is put forth with much fanfare, but is withdrawn as a fraud with great silence.

              Anyway, race mixing is a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s unlikely there was much race mixing a million years ago. The distances between the races/strains/species/tribes, call them what you will, would have precluded it.
              Again, agreed. But again, the fact that the races can mix so easily is either evidence of common ancestry and a single species, or else is an amazing coincidence (not otherwise seen in nature). I would think it would take more faith to believe that humans could arise from non-humans not just once but in multiple locations, and yet be able to thoroughly and completely interbreed. Darwin’s famous finches that evolutionists make much of, show that isolated species can quickly lose the ability to mate with the parent stock, much less with other daughter stocks. Amazing, in the light of evolution, then, that Aborigines would not have become unable to interbreed with the rest of us, isolated as they were — and particularly more so, if they actually arose independently of other humans.

              An Aborigine, “Pastor George also told of a dance performed for countless generations by his people after a funeral. One dancer has a black cockatoo feather, the other a white one. The black-feathered one also has a rainbow-coloured mock serpent attached to his heel. At the end, someone hits the serpent on the head with a stick and the serpent breaks away from the heel, at which the dancer leaps for joy.” This is amazingly reminiscent of the Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. “

              • lloyd roberts said, on October 8, 2009 at 2:47 pm

                I’m not sure I can continue this.
                Very time consuming as I am sure you will attest.
                I regret the use of “vast” although I see the observed differences as highly significant.
                Sorry, no evidence either, not my field, but even if I did it could easily be refuted.
                Here’s a teaser. Obviously needs more research.
                That we can interbreed is interesting but I think it is dangerous to draw conclusions about origins because we can interbreed. I believe we are the result of a “roll of the dice” where only those that could interbreed survived. The ability to interbreed is a good reason not to kill off ALL of your enemies.
                I have a problem with “a woman…..maternal ancestor” theory. Again, makes no sense except for the Adam and Eve theory and that makes no sense to me either.
                Btw, I don’t buy the humans evolving from apes theory, makes no sense, although it doesn’t offend me in the least. I would have absolutely no problem with that if it were proven to be true.
                (It’s more likely that apes evolved from humans given how some of us behave!).
                I don’t want to convince you of anything. Just give you my views.
                It’s been fun.
                Thanks for your time.

                • Kathy said, on October 10, 2009 at 12:24 am

                  I have problems with most of the <a href="http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers"methods of dating — in short, that they are based on assumptions which cannot be proved; and they are subjective — the scientists tell the labs what dates they expect, and the lab returns dates within the range; any dates that do not occur within the predetermined “correct” range are discarded as inaccurate.

                  It’s intriguing to me that you don’t accept that humans evolved from apes, nor that humans were created. I’ve never met anyone who did not believe one or the other. How do you account for the human species (singular or multiple, as you wish)? Where did we come from? How did we arrive on this planet — aliens? You’ve said before that you thought the different races had different origins; I’ve heard that the early evolutionists thought that the three races evolved separately from three different types of apes. Since you don’t believe humans evolved from apes, where did the multiple early humans come from?

                  Why does the Adam and Eve theory “make no sense”?

                  You’ve sparked my curiosity. 🙂

                  • lloyd roberts said, on October 11, 2009 at 10:32 am

                    Like I said, everyone has an agenda. Everyone interprets the data to suit his/her own agenda.

                    Accounting for EVERYTHING that exists is the problem. Humans are only a small part of the problem.
                    I don’t believe in aliens.
                    To believe in Adam & Eve, one has to believe in God.
                    That an all-knowing,
                    all-powerful, all-loving,
                    all-everything God would display such trivial human traits as punishing non-believers, performing silly miracles (maybe David Copperfield is God), playing childish games like not revealing him/herself to us, allowing us to kill each other over who knows the “real” God, even allowing us to think that s/he favors one competitor (e.g. a sports team) over another, is absolutely ridiculous and beyond befief. A real God would not be so petty, would not display such uniquely human traits.

                    Ok, here goes.
                    It’s been said, if an infinite number of monkeys, sat at an infinite number of typewriters, for an infinite amount of time, one of those monkeys would type an error free version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
                    When earth was formed (not created) the conditions at the time allowed for every conceivable molecular structure to emerge from the primordial soup. Most would evolve into non-existence. Some would beat the odds and evolve into all sorts of living things, including various animal species and some would eventually, evolve into human species. This process was going on all over the planet. Obviously, some parts of the planet were more conducive to this process than others.
                    Most potential humans died out over time for one reason or another. Some, even though they were a little bit different and at different stages of their own evolution, were actually able to interbreed.
                    And so, we have what we see today.
                    The anthropologists and all the other -ologists will spend their lifetimes trying to sort it all out but they never will.
                    The question is not where did humans come from but rather where did the universe come from.
                    Who knows!
                    I sincerely doubt we will ever know.
                    If it is possible for God to be eternal and have no beginning, then it is possible for the universe to have no beginning.
                    Maybe God is right under our noses. Maybe the Universe is God.

  3. Kathy said, on October 12, 2009 at 1:58 am

    Ok, starting a new thread since the old one was getting ridiculously small to type in! 🙂

    I find it odd that you complain that God has not revealed Himself. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the strongest atheists I’ve ever heard of, admits that when one looks at the universe, one has a sense of awe and wonder, and that it makes one want to worship a Creator! (He said this in “The God Delusion” debate.) He more or less admitted to having to struggle to be an atheist, when viewing the majesty and splendor of (I would say) creation. Yet he remains an atheist, because to admit otherwise would mean he would have to bow to the Creator, which he will not do. His pride prevents him from accepting the solution which even he admits is natural.

    So, I take issue with your assertion that God has not revealed Himself, when even Richard Dawkins admits it… yet refuses to admit it.

    As regards the “infinite” monkeys typing — we are not dealing with an infinite amount of time! The law of entropy states that we are wearing out (or may I say, “waxing old, as doth a garment” — Ps. 102:25, Heb. 1:11 — isn’t it odd that the ancient Psalm writer knew about the second law of thermodynamics? and that the writer of Hebrews [who was living at a time in which the scholars of the day thought that the universe was eternal] quoted this true statement as well?). This link also gives the likelihood (or rather, the lack thereof) of life arising by chance — the late Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted:
    Now imagine 1050 blind persons [that’s 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion people—standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

    There are a few things I’d like to say about “every conceivable molecular structure” being formed from a “primordial soup”. First from this page, in talking about patterns, and the possibility of things evolving due to chance: A good example of this can be found in the exclusively ‘left-handed’ amino acids found in proteins (coded by genes in DNA built with exclusively ‘right-handed’ sugars), even though synthesizing amino acids in a laboratory produces a 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms (a racemate). In living organisms, not only are hundreds of amino acids which compose an average size protein exclusively ‘left-handed’, they have also managed to avoid all the other kinds of non-peptide reactions amino acids would have undergone in a hypothetical ‘primordial soup’. A racemate is worthless in building enzymes and other biological materials. Therefore the useful outcomes can be specified. Of the astronomically large number of possible reaction products, a minuscule subset is purposefully generated in living cells.

    <a href="http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, said, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

    Secondly, something very interesting was recently pointed out to me. Based on the fossil record and evolutionists’ presumptions, evolutionists declare that Prokaryotes are … the only life on Earth for most of its history — from 3.5 to 1.5 billion years ago. Protists joined them at least 1.5 bya, and animals and plants were latecomers at less than .55 bya. Now isn’t that interesting? Supposedly bacteria, which can reproduce every 20 minutes under ideal conditions (but probably take longer to reproduce under most conditions — probably hours, perhaps days), were all alone for some two billion years, then came protists (other tiny things with fast reproduction times) for another billion years. So, for about 3 billion years, reproducing every day (probably several times a day), these billions of bacteria, with all their potential for rapid mutation, with their rapid reproduction… did nothing… produced nothing… evolved into nothing. Yet, all of a sudden, 500 million years ago, BOOM, they start evolving into an explosion of plants and animals with such a vast variety of features, colors, and types to boggle the mind. How is that possible? Essentially NO CHANGE for 3,000,000,000 years, and then within a fraction of that time, suddenly change of every sort imaginable (yet with no undisputed transitional fossils). That’s just intriguing. You’d *think* that there would be a lot more change in all those years with all those fast-reproducing bacteria, but there’s not. Yet there *is* (supposedly) even faster change with much slower reproduction times, with humans evolving from protists in about 1/6 of the time that life supposedly evolved from non-life.

    • lloyd roberts said, on October 13, 2009 at 6:15 am

      I generally have respect for Dawkins’ views although I think I am with Lewontin on ‘adaptation’, but come on, he’s no more of an authority on God than you or I, unless of course you have spoken to Him.
      As for Lewontin, he has admitted to placing blind faith in ‘materialism’. That’s all I’ll say about that.
      Hoyle is entitled to his views.
      We don’t know there was no change for 3bil years. Maybe all relevant evidence has been destroyed. Maybe turned into oil.
      You use the word ‘supposedly’ a lot.

      There are far more capable people than me, such as you, to debate this issue. They debate because they have strong views and because they have the ability.

      Lewontin did not become a ‘materialist’ because of his environment. He was born a ‘materialist’. Yet he argues that environmental factors are more relevant than inherited ones.
      It’s a very entertaining debate, views are entrenched and
      the debate will go on and on and on.

      • lloyd roberts said, on October 13, 2009 at 8:50 am

        The danger of taking quotes out of context.

        “”The reason for opposition to scientific accounts of our origins, according to Lewontin, is not that people are ignorant of facts, but that they have not learned to think from the right starting point. In his words, “The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of. . . . Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.” What the public needs to learn is that, like it or not, “We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of material relations among material entities.” In a word, the public needs to accept materialism, which means that they must put God (whom Lewontin calls the “Supreme Extraterrestrial”) in the trash can of history where such myths belong.””

        Here’s the full article.


      • Kathy said, on October 30, 2009 at 8:10 pm

        We don’t know there was no change for 3bil years. Maybe all relevant evidence has been destroyed. Maybe turned into oil.

        You use the word “maybe” a lot. 🙂

        Basically, we have a bunch of stuff in the ground with no history (other than the Bible, which you discount) to tell us how it got there. Every explanation about what happened in the past without eye witnesses is a guess — it may be correct or incorrect; it may be a very good guess, but it is still a guess.

        All of the arguments from evolution about evolution insist on the fossil record showing ages of the earth. They got their long ages from looking at layers of the earth, and assuming that one layer equaled one year. They still more or less use that same assumption, although they add to it circular reasoning — they “know” what age a fossil is by what layer of rock it’s buried in, and they “know” the age of the rock by seeing which fossils it contains. More recently, they’ve added in radiometric dating, which we’ve already discussed, which has its own assumptions and problems.

        But, back to the original issue — that of the origin of the human races. The other day, my children were watching 101 Dalmatians, and that made me think about the different breeds of dogs. There are huge dogs like Great Danes, and tiny dogs like teacup poodles. There are dogs with sharp, pointed muzzles (like Collies), and dogs with short, squatty muzzles (like pugs). There are dogs of all different colors, fur length (or even hairless), curly or straight fur, as well as spotted and single-colored dogs. Then there are the wild dogs, like wolves, coyotes, and dingoes. Creationists and evolutionists alike agree that these were all originally the same species, which diversified into the several species (although they would disagree about the time line involved). If this huge genetic diversity could arise in canines, why could not a much lesser degree of diversity (skin color, hair color and texture, eye color, nose hole, femur length, etc.) arise in humans, without the need for multiple human ancestors? Check out pictures of dog skulls to see a little bit of the intra-species variety that exists in dogs.

        • lloyd roberts said, on November 1, 2009 at 7:19 am

          Nice to hear from you again but I have to say that you are rambling.
          As far as I know, most if not ALL domestic animals were purposefully bred for their peculiar characteristics. They did not evolve. The bow you draw makes no sense.
          What happened to Lewontin?
          Have you discarded him?
          Go on believing in your God.
          As for me, the search for the truth is only beginning and I intend to keep on searching.

    • John said, on July 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm

      “He more or less admitted to having to struggle to be an atheist, when viewing the majesty and splendor of (I would say) creation. Yet he remains an atheist, because to admit otherwise would mean he would have to bow to the Creator, which he will not do. His pride prevents him from accepting the solution which even he admits is natural.”

      Just randomly bumped into this blog and stumbled upon this post and couldn’t not make a comment. Jesus (excuse the expression). No, Richard Dawkins never said he must struggle to be an atheist, that it is pride that makes him one or that a god is a natural solution.

      He’s said that nature is beautiful and that life superficially appears designed. That’s it. What is it about creationists and misinterpretation of everything evolutionary biologists say?

      First, Dawkins is not an evolutionary biologist. Second, have you watched “The God Delusion Debate” that I referenced? If not, then you have no idea whether what I said was accurate or not. The sentence of mine right before the section you quoted [“Richard Dawkins…admits that when one looks at the universe, one has a sense of awe and wonder, and that it makes one want to worship a Creator”] was paraphrased from that debate; the rest — the part you quoted — is my commentary.


  4. Dyan Bruneau said, on February 23, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Very interesting comments. I have been looking for a book to enlighten me on the changes that have been accuring in forensic anthropology. When the remains are found of a human, it has been pretty easy to determine” this is a male, or female of a certain race” What will the race mixing do to this area of expertise? I contacted author Joan Roughgarden to get her insight on it and to see if she knew of any books out as yet on this subject, so far I haven’t heard of any? I majored in criminal justice and have been self taught into genetic, forensics and addictions. I also read a lot about black history and slave narratives, which gives me more of an insight to the mixing during slavery. At that time there was black and white, more than most realize but also Indian/black, irish/black and spanish/black. I do realize that in some small areas, they have the “bottle neck genes” that establish certain characteristics. With the population of mixed children rising more and more lately, what will this do to established profiles? Geneticall we are many millions of year of genetic DNA but we seemed to be more concerned about our Phynotype more than Genotype? I have read that studies are saying that mixed children seem to be more intelligent than their counterparts? My understanding of this is sort of like Mendals crossing of the two peas, he got a highbred. If you cross two roses you get a high bred, usually more beautiful than the parents. From my stand point, the mixing of races can only be a benefit to man kind?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: