Bones of Contention.

[jcrawford]

Creationist professor Marvin Lubenow contends in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that all neo-Darwinist theories about the origins and evolution of the human race are a scientific form of racism. Being somewhat familiar with the several claims, arguments and ramifications of his thesis, I am prepared to defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to debate and substantiate their claim to the contrary.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

There's a heap of evidence that suggests that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evoltution and common descent are a form of scientific racism, especially when backed up and supported by so-called "scientific evidence."

Where is this heap of evidence?
It is not any kind of Racism! If there is a common descent how could that be racist? Is he sugesting we don\t have a common descent? Now that might be Racist but I suggest he is talking out of his butt.

Glad to hear you say that since no creationist worth his or her salt will ever agree to sit on the same phylogenetic branch that neo-Darwinists have created for other members of the Hominidae family.

Well your sitting there anyway. Join the human race. lol

[jcrawford]

quote="USIncognito"

"Evolutionary theory states that all humans are Homo sapiens. The whole human race did indeed evolve from non-sapiens Homo species which are still human."

Which "non-sapiens Homo species" of humans did the whole human race indeed evolve from according to neo-Darwinist racial theories of the human race's origins and evolution?

"The whole concept of race and ethnicity as we know it is based more on archaeology and since we can all interbreed, has no basis in science. "

Why divide the whole human race into different and separate species then, if not only to show how some species of apes progressively evolved into human species? Don't you realize that calling African people apes is racist?

"I'd suggest you get a copy of Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, to understand that while, in 1850, a English woman and a Tasmanian man, while seperated by millenia of evolution could still have been set loose with a typwriter, gun, herd of sheep and sewing maching and not only produced children, but thrived."

You'll be equally amused by Lubenow's many references to, and quotes from, Jared Diamond, especially in reference to Englishmen/women and Tasmanians.

"Race is a construct of ego, archaeology and superficial differences. "

So evolutionist "science" has nothing to contribute to our biological understanding of race.

"The proper term is "species," of which all humans belong to one. "

You're just substituting human concepts of "species" for race, since scientists can't, will not or don't define the difference.

"Race is a way of hypersubdifferentiation (OED - if I just coined that word, I want credit!) of a species. "

I'll give you credit for coining a new word if you'll give Lubenow credit for unearthing and discovering the latent racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and common descent from African apes. since "species" is just a way of "hypersubdifferentiating" the whole human race.

"And to address the tangental point you were attempting to make - saying that humans evolved (all humans, not just the black ones) from African apes is sound scientific theory, not racism. "

Sound scientific theory can still be racist even when sound scientific theorists deny the inherent racism in their "scientific" theories.

"The fossil evidence points to modern Homo sapiens evolving not from dispersed Homo Erectus' in Java (no slight against Indonesians) or in China (no slight against NORINCO), but from an African population of Homos who were evolved from Australipithicines who evolved from earlier more ape like species in Africa - all humans. How is that racist?"

You just slighted many Javanese, Chinese and Australian paleoanthropologists.

[Cathar1950]

Why divide the whole human race into different and separate species then, if not only to show how some species of apes progressively evolved into human species? Don't you realize that calling African people apes is racist?

Who is calling African people apes? That is the stupid!
We are all African! Get it?

I'll give you credit for coining a new word if you'll give Lubenow credit for unearthing and discovering the latent racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and common descent from African apes. since "species" is just a way of "hypersubdifferentiating" the whole human race.

He didn't unearth anything, or discover crap, well maybe crap.
He is a crack-pot. I am being kind.
Now if he is talking "social darwinism", ok it is racist. Maybe he dosn't know the difference.

You're just substituting human concepts of "species" for race, since scientists can't, will not or don't define the difference

.

Your the only one doing the substituting.

[jcrawford]

quote="USIncognito"

"Are you John Crawford from Christian Forums? "

Of course. There is only one John Crawford on the Internet so far who can successfully charge neo-Darwinist theories of human orgins, evolution and common descent as being intrinsically and inherently racist, just as there is only one Marvin Lubenow who has dared published such a thesis.

"Racism in English in 2005 means discrimination or hatred based on superficial differences like skin color, hair or epicanthal eye folds. It's not based on the discernable phylogenetic or claudistic differences that make, say, a merganser different from a cormorant."

I prefer the 1996 American edition of the Oxford Dictionary's definition of racism which of course is based on Oxford's definition of race. Would you care to scientifically define race for our audience?

"And this might be my latching on to a red herring on your part, but as a Creationist, I thought you didn't believe in Homo neanderthalus or Homo erectus. According to your belief, they shouldn't exist at all, much less be present in the fossil record - so why are you using them in your futile attempt to portray evolutionary theory as racist? I hope (against hope) that you've noticed most evolution advocates don't use centaurs and shedu in their arguments against creationism."

Confusion is the hallmark of neo-darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and common descent.

"Saying that species Homo comes from a consestor of species Pan or species Gorilla is racist? Pithy, yet worthless comments do not a cogent response make."

Pithy, yet worthless aspersions cast upon an African race of people, are not worthy of scientific investigation.

"If only I didn't think you were John Crawford from CF, I'd think your parody of Creationists were a riot... "

But I am jc of CF fame. What's riotous about that?

"I'll tell you what. Let's see which is more overtly racist. - Evolutinary theory demonstrates that humans and our fellow apes shared a common ancestor 7-20 million years ago, and that we share a lot of the same basic characteristics with Orangatans, Gorillas and Chimps and Bonobos - as well as our early Homo ancestors. or... - The Bible says that black people are cursed because of Ham's incestuous conduct with a drunken Noah and therefore should be enslaved (see the Baptist split in the 1800s) or kept impoverished and seperated from white Christian folk (see Jim Crow). "

I don't know which is more overtly racist, but in any event, neither should be taught in public schools.

"I hate to turn any discussion of a serious issue (despite how tenuous the hold on "seriousness" is has) into a he said/she said, but given how Southern, Evangelical, institutional racism was such a part of the South in America even 40 years ago - much less it's residual effects to this day - I am constantly amazed when Creationists who come out of that religious tradition try and label evolutionary theory as racist."

What's amazing about that? If neo-Darwinist theorists can recognize the inherent racism inerent in "Southern, Evangelical, institutional racism that was such a part of the South in America even 40 years ago," why can't similar and other Christians recognize the inherent racism in neo-Darwinist theories about African people evolving from apes, especially when they are familiar with Lubenow's thesis that all neo-Darwinist theories are racist.

[Nyril]

Of course. There is only one John Crawford on the Internet so far who can successfully charge neo-Darwinist theories of human orgins, evolution and common descent as being intrinsically and inherently racist, just as there is only one Marvin Lubenow who has dared published such a thesis.

Could you please apply your massive intellect to discovering the proper function of this board's "quote" feature? Your posts appear to be one large block of text that highlighted quotes would turn into a roadmap. Simply highlight the section you wish to quote with your mouse, and click "quote" at the top.

I prefer the 1996 American edition of the Oxford Dictionary's definition of racism which of course is based on Oxford's definition of race. Would you care to scientifically define race for our audience?

Could you be so kind as to highlight this for us? Perhaps type it out if you can't find an online version? I've looked over the three pages and didn't see it. I'll admit, I could have missed it.

As for a scientific definition of race, several people have done this for you.

A "race" is a subdivision of a species, somewhere between "variety" and "subspecies." Since there are no clear criteria for boundaries between these different subdivisions, so it's kinda hard to talk about them and really be on the same wavelength.

Race is a construct of ego, archaeology and superficial differences... Race is a way of hypersubdifferentiation (OED - if I just coined that word, I want credit!) of a species. We use methods other than that used by Biology to differentiate between "races." Finns, Slovaks and Irishmen are all "white" but are differentiated by language and culture into the equally useless - in biological terms - groupings of "ethnicity." Similarly, Italians, Iranians and Koreans have dark hair and light skin, but we devide them ethnically based on language, culture and superficial physical traits.

Does this help you understand what we're talking about when we mean "race"?

Confusion is the hallmark of neo-darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and common descent.

Since when? In what way? Could you direct my attention to such instances where this is true please?

Pithy, yet worthless aspersions cast upon an African race of people, are not worthy of scientific investigation.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

[Cathar1950]

The infamous and humble jcrawford wrote:

Of course. There is only one John Crawford on the Internet so far who can successfully charge neo-Darwinist theories of human orgins, evolution and common descent as being intrinsically and inherently racist, just as there is only one Marvin Lubenow who has dared published such a thesis.

You have not successfully done anything. You have made a charge which is compleat nonsense. At the best you might be mixing neo-darwinism with social-darwininsm out of ignorance. You have no grasp of anything
resembling reason. If I was Marvin Lubenow I wouldn't dare show my face at the local cafe. He is an idiot!

Confusion is the hallmark of neo-darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and common descent.

I think Lubenow is confused and delusional.

I don't know which is more overtly racist, but in any event, neither should be taught in public schools.

You shouldn't even be allowed near a school.
All people have a common African ancestry it has nothing to do with race.
I belive your racist in you remarks and thinking and are projecting your garbage towards evolutionary theory where you lack the understanding and reasoning abilities of a 2nd grade student.
I am going to bed. It is like talking to a drunk.
Sorry folks if I broke any rules.

[jcrawford]

quote="Jose"

"Thanks for the reply, jcrawford! I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here, on the basis of different definitions of the words, "race" and "species." They are not used as precisely in conversational English as in science. Being a science geek, I use the biological definitions."

Being a religious "geek." I prefer to refer to racial variations when discussing full and equal membership in the human race instead of neo-Darwinist racist distinctions of different and separate human "species."

"In conversational English, we refer to The Human Race. Technically, based on genetics, that's incorrect. We are The Human Species."

Since when did geneticists get the legal right to redefine certain members of the human race as different and separate "species" based on neo-Darwinist racism?

"A "race" is a subdivision of a species, somewhere between "variety" and "subspecies."

Is that your own private definition of race, or is it part of some neo-Darwinist scientific consensus?

"Since there are no clear criteria for boundaries between these different subdivisions, so it's kinda hard to talk about them and really be on the same wavelength."

That's right. Creationists regard all human beings and human fossils to be members of one human race but neo-Darwinist racists divide our one human race into different and separate 'species' for the sole purpose of relating and connecting our race to some species of African apes. In order to do so, they have to theorize that some original tribe or "species" of African people closely resembled some species of African apes, and that's racist.

"As an example, I'll consider rice. "

Forget about rice. We're talking about the origins of African-American people here.

"If you think that evolutionists attempt "to divide the whole human race into different and separate species," then you're in error. Evolutionists agree that humans are one species."

That's a bold-faced lie and you know it. Neo-Darwinsts don't even consider our European and Middle Eastern Neandertal ancestors to be human enough to procreate with African Homo sapiens.

"The mitochondrial DNA studies that you so disparage trace the maternal lineage of the humans who were in the study (as you said--they don't trace paternal lineage). They show degrees of genetic divergence. Obviously, brothers and sisters of the same family will have more DNA sequence similarity than two "unrelated" people whose ancestors are from different continents. That's part of why they look different. The surprise is that there is more DNA sequence diversity in African humans than in humans from every other part of the world combined. Now, the data--the DNA sequences from these people--are Fact. It's not some evolutionist-racist agenda. You could collect DNA and sequence it and get the same results. The question is this: how do we interpret this Fact? Creationists prefer to say the "study is flawed," and pretend the evolutionary conclusions can't be true. What about offering some kind of creationist interpretation that explains the data? Creationists have no problem with microevolution occurring, or with speciation occurring since the 8000 species got off the ark, and diversified into the current million+. So, they should be able to offer a reasonable explanation. What's yours?"

Scientific evidence which supports a racist theory of human origins, evolution and common descent is just that, racist evidence.

"Among the things that the data tell me is that our notion of "race" in humans is incorrect. According to the DNA sequence data, it looks like most humans in the world are the same race, regardless of skin color or facial features. There may be different races in Africa, but I'm not really willing to conclude that this is true, based on the data. That is: the data are inherently anti-racist. They indicate that we should lump everyone we've thought of as "different races" into one, single race. That kinda makes "racism" difficult, wouldn't you say?"

Yes, especially when scientific definitions of racism and race are shortcoming. That's why creationists will win this debate.

"That's why I said before that what people typically call "racial tension" is actually "ethnic" tension. It is culture-based distrust of people who are different. The difference can be skin color, warpaint, religion, funny hats, whatever you like. We develop these cultural differences to determine who is "part of our group" and who is not--and we aren't so sure we like those guys in the other groups. This seems to be a human instinct, which you would say god gave us (uhhh...in order to hate other religions?), and which I would say is a result of evolutionary selection due to fighting over scarce resources. But it's independent of "race," and operates between groups of the same "race" that have cultural differences."

Are you speaking as a scientist now (neo-darwinist or other) or just making things up?

"Nor do I express hostility toward Christian scholars. I express exhaustion and exasperation that people insist on misrepresenting the data, and weaving into it some kind of wacky notion that it's anti-social. Again, I would ask that you explain just what you mean here. How can evolutionary theory have anything to do with racism? You've made a logical leap here that, to me, makes no sense."

At least you admit that you will listen to reason and not automatically jump to logical neo-Darwinst conclusions before the facts are all in.

"The evolution of humans from non-human primates is no different than the evolution of any other group of plants or animals. "

That's as prejudiced an assumption as e'er I did hear tell.

"There is some ancestral population. It gets split into sub-populations--in our case, probably by different groups wandering off in different directions. Mutations happen--after all, they cannot be prevented. The groups eventually become different. When they re-encounter each other thousands of years later, they either co-exist peacefully, or they fight over resources. With us, it looks like we fought over resources, so the ones whose genes we inherited are the ones who didn't like different groups."

And you want to say that's not a racist theory?

"There were a variety of changes along the way that were significant enough to warrant calling different groups of ancestors different species. But so what? The ancestor of corn is teosinte, but no one seems overly concerned about that. H. erectus was a different species from H. sapiens, even if H. sapiens came into existence from one of the scattered populations of H. erectus acquiring a few genetic changes that made them better hunters and better fighters. The most important may have been larger openings in the upper vertebrae, to allow more nerves to control the lungs, and thus enable speech for the first time. But again, there's no racism here. It's just divergence among different groups--just like dogs or horses or chickens have diverged into different breeds from the ancestral variety.

I suppose you could say that H. sapiens was, at some stage, a "race" of H. erectus, and that sincce this race was a better fighter, they out-competed their predecessors. It took a long time for them to do so throughout Africa and Asia, but they managed eventually."

At least you are identifying some species of humans (H. erectus) as members of a human race here. Never let it be said that neo-Darwinists aren't human.

"Racism is the belief by one group that it is better than another. "

Isn't that what neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens claim against creationist members of the human race?

"Racism is a thought pattern, which one can abandon simply by choosing to. "

So is evolutionism.

"Competition" is what happens in any ecological setting, among many groups of plants and animals."

Natural competition between creationists and evolutionists is to be expected then.

[jcrawford]

quote="Jose"

"Do you imply that most people are descended from African pre-human primates, but creationists are not? "

To the same extent that neo-Darwinists imply that all people are descended from African pre-human primates. By what system of logic can neo-Darwinist claim that our common human ancestors were not created by God?

"So...let me see if I've got this right. There are ordinary humans, H. sapiens, and there are creationists, H. creationismus. Is that it? It's an interesting idea. Thanks!"

You're welcome since when did neo-Darwinists get to do all the defining? H. creationensis would be more in keeping with neo-Darwinist Latinized nomenclature.

"You may call it racist, if you like, but you'd be using an incorrect definition of the term. That's up to you, of course. But tell me...how would you interpret the data? Let's forget about Lubenow, since he's not here discussing this. Let's hear your take on it--you know, using logic and stuff."

Sure. What specific data might you wish to discuss?

"I love it. Thanks! If you'll read my prior post, you'll see that I'm using the definitions of the terms. But, as you've said, "race" is a slippery term, for which there are no boundaries. I'd prefer to consider all humans a single race, in which case "The Human Race" would be accurate. But I think the genetic divergences could be deep enough that there could be races, but not the ones you think. Scandinavians and Eritreans would be the same race. Think about that for a bit."

I prefer to think of human beings and human fossils in terms of racial varieties of one human race, thank you.

"Remember the definition of species: "a group of plants or animals that can interbreed and have fertile offspring."

Same definition as race, since all members of the human race can interbreed and have fertile offspring. The only reason neo-Darwinists insist on designating some human fossils as different and separate 'species' is to try to associate them with some extinct species of African apes in accordance with Darwin's racist theory of the origin of human "species."

"Humans are a species. "

Prove it. You're just talking about scientific nomenclature here, since everyone knows that people comprise the whole human race and the human 'race' can't be subdivided into species, even though neo-Darwinists claim that a human 'species' can be sub-divided into races.

Too bad that neo-Darwinists don't have a good explanation or definition of race and don't seem to know what they are talking about.

[McCulloch]

jcrawford,

I am confused. I have not read Marvin Lubenow but I know a bit about what biologists call evolution and what people of faith call creation. I really don't know what the term race means but I have a reasonable understanding of what racism is. I don't think that this conversation can be productive until we can agree on terms.

Species (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.

Homo Sapiens the only surviving hominid; species to which modern man belongs; bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain volume at least 1400 cc.

Note: Homo Sapiens is one species.

Human being any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage.

Human race all of the living human inhabitants of the earth.

Note: Homo Sapiens is the only extant species in the Human race. Also note that the word race in the term "Human race" contradicts the definition of race below. Such is one of the many inconsistencies in the English language. Human race includes all of the species in the family Hominidae while race is a subdivision of a species. This may be one reason why scientists tend not to use the term Human race. It is inexact and could be misleading. It is similar to the term "American". An American is usually defined as a citizen of the United States of America, even if that citizen's home is in Hawaii, a place not on either of North or South America. However, North American means someone who is a citizen of one of the countries occupying the North American continent, USA, Canada, Mexico, some include Greenland and two small islands belonging to France. Using the normally accepted meaning of language, one would expect that North Americans would be a subset of Americans. It is not the case. Neither does the human race fit within the normally accepted definition of race.

Race

• people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock
• (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species

Racist discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.

Evolution (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.

There's a heap of evidence that suggests that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evoltution and common descent are a form of scientific racism, especially when backed up and supported by so-called "scientific evidence."

Now, either you are using a different set of definitions or you are reading a different version of evolution than I.

If you are using a different set of definitions, please post them so that we will not be confused by different sets of definitions.

[Nyril]

At this point, I express my right to declare jcrawford a troll. He is trolling. He is playacting people, nobody could deliberately be acting like this. He takes amusment in our angry responses, knowing that he can toy with our emotions like a kid dancing a puppet.

Here is my evidence for that:

That's a bold-faced lie and you know it. Neo-Darwinsts don't even consider our European and Middle Eastern Neandertal ancestors to be human enough to procreate with African Homo sapiens.

Every single answer in his post boils down to this succent version you'll find inside of it.

And you want to say that's not a racist theory?

He's spent every post so far essentially saying, "I know you are, but what am I?".

I prefer to refer to racial variations when discussing full and equal membership in the human race instead of neo-Darwinist racist distinctions of different and separate human "species."

Since when did geneticists get the legal right to redefine certain members of the human race as different and separate "species" based on neo-Darwinist racism?

Are you speaking as a scientist now (neo-darwinist or other) or just making things up?

At least you admit that you will listen to reason and not automatically jump to logical neo-Darwinst conclusions before the facts are all in.

At least you are identifying some species of humans (H. erectus) as members of a human race here. Never let it be said that neo-Darwinists aren't human.

That's as prejudiced an assumption as e'er I did hear tell.

The only reason neo-Darwinists insist on designating some human fossils as different and separate 'species' is to try to associate them with some extinct species of African apes in accordance with Darwin's racist theory of the origin of human "species."

To the same extent that neo-Darwinists imply that all people are descended from African pre-human primates. By what system of logic can neo-Darwinist claim that our common human ancestors were not created by God?

He goes out of his way to call people that support evolution "Neo-Darwinists", he just ignores anything you post and will turn around and say, "You can't be right because neo-darwinists are all racists, why can't they be as accepting as creationists?".

I'll admit to you jcrawford, I see how you win debates. Your fellow debaters give up in disgust and leave.