And I don’t mean to sound condescending, but I will point out the obvious: Anthropological measurements don’t prove that we all “come from the water.” Homologous features don’t prove that one species came from another. Similarly, DNA markers don’t prove the “fact” of evolution. What do they prove exactly? Only this, that there are similarities between some species, that there are similarities between DNA, that there are similarities (and differences) between anthropological measurements. That’s all. The same method for reaching the conclusions you’ve posited here are also used by people who claim that the earth is going to end in 2012. They’re basing their data on one set of evidence: the Mayan calendar. Does the fact that the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012 mean the earth is going to end. No. All it means is that the Mayan Calendar runs out in 2012. Nothing more. You can’t tell these folks that, though. Because they already “know” what the data means. Get it? The same is true of Darwinism.

Darwinism is philosophy dressed up to look like science. That’s all it is. Darwinism isn’t falsifiable in any way shape or form. It has made predictions, but ultimately is untestable because (conveniently) its mechanisms take too long for us to observe in real time to see, if, in fact, they are capable of producing the effects posited by Darwinists. This is one reason it has survived for as long as it has. Another reason it has survived is the fact that Creationists have overstated their own case and have made some pretty silly statements about Darwinism, thus tainting their own credibility. Called “theory” only by the very “rightwing fringe,” it is accepted as irrefutable fact by elitist left, intellectuals, and other so-called “smart” people. This is why it will never be replaced by anything else. When you assume that “A” is the case, a priori, then everything you find becomes an “evidence” for the that which you assume. This is Darwinism at its core. Also, when your philosophy has co-opted public education at every level, the mainstream media, and every “respected” peer reviewed scientific journal, it’s not too difficult to see how Darwinism will never be dethroned as the reigning king of materialist philosophy. So I wouldn’t be too worried about Troglodad’s article ruining it for everyone.

everything alive on the earth – slugs, trees, humans, bacteria, different-looking humans – is *as evolved* as every other lifeform, because they’ve been evolving for exactly the same amount of time

they just evolved for different things is all. black people and white people evolved for different amounts of sun (based on where on the earth they lived)

and yes people tried to use evolution to justify all sorts of awful shit, but that actually stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory, just like the one you seem to have

also it’s not like “darwinism” gave them the idea to enslave black people, it was merely an excuse some of them clung onto in order to avoid admitting to themselves that they were human garbage. darwin ain’t never hurt nobody

@Troglodad: you are trying to play a “win-win” game; Evolution is either racist or false…implying that, either God is real or white people are more evolved. Neither of these claims are true. Go and read Richar Dawkin’s book “The Greatest Show on Earth” if you want to see dozen of evidences for truthfulness of Evolution.
–
As for “lucy”, she is from East Africa(from my country, Ethiopia). She is popular in the scientific community that her hip is some how a transition between human and other apes(evidence for bi-pedal). But, she is not the mother of all human being.She is not a black lady either. She was clearly a monkey, if u like. There is no scientific evidence about her color:she could be a “white monkey”. There are many similar branches, contemporary to Lucy, still discovered in East Africa.The story is more complex than you claim. please read more about evolution before you make silly clams about it.
The evolution of color is very recent science; and the only explanation so far available is the exposure to sun light. you are white not because u evolve more, but because u live far from direct sun light/equator.
—
the point is: you can use Evolution for racist purpose; but,this doesn’t make God/gods real(only ancient mythologies, as in bible, make him real). I am a black guy who like to face the fact and live with it.

But when I moved to a sort of mid-sized city, I made friends with some black people and got to know many people who belonged in a gang. To tell you the truth, most of my white friends were the ones who ended up joining a gang.

While in college I found many groups of people who didn’t seem to have one black person in their circle of friends. I was hanging out with the Technology groupies. We all liked video games (like, not love). We would have LAN parties on occassion and to be honest, it was some of the most fun I’ve had in a while. It was the people, not the game, that made it fun.

Ironic that most of us in our circle of friends believed in God. Or is it?

One last comment on evolution, and then I promise to address your point: anyone that possesses the ability to think logically (even with no “biology” degree) can see that the mere foundation of scientific discovery rests wholly on the Scientific Method. However, Evolution has somehow been given a pass, and has erroneously (and intentionally in my opinion) been given the “scientific” stamp of approval.

To address your point: I say the “scientific” hoodwinkery in question may in part be a result of the “white, bearded, round glasses wearing, ‘pipe-smoking’” elitists’ wish to believe that they are the most highly “evolved” humans. I believe Hitler is a prime, however extreme, example. I would not purport that Darwinists inherently hold Hitler’s warped view of humanity, but Hitler drew his deductions from the same logical path that you are currently bringing to light. After all, native Africans are still savages, right (sarcasm intended)? As Bob stated, “anyone who understands evolutionary biology [KNOWS]”…If only you and I could could “evolve” to that level of understanding.

“UNGA BUNGA!”

But you’re right; to quote Bob, as “anyone who understands evolutionary biology knows,” it is inherently racist. Bob takes the opposite position, which is laudable, but ultimately inconsistent with large scale evolution.