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.

[Chimp]

I have explained to you how the theory of natural selection cannot be
racist, because it fails to ascribe superiority, which according to Lubenow
is a requirement for racism.

Can you prove natural selection does or attempts to ascribe superiority,
or even inferiority on a population?


Maybe this more precise description...

Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution; it is defined as differential reproductive success of pre- existing classes of genetic variants in the gene pool.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... tml#natsel

[jcrawford]

I have explained to you how the theory of natural selection cannot be racist, because it fails to ascribe superiority, which according to Lubenow is a requirement for racism.

Your 'explanation' has been scientifically refuted and falsified by Lubenow's own theory of the intrinsic racism and racial 'superiority' inherent in all neo-darwinist theories on human origins, evolution and biological descent from African ape and monkey ancestors.

Can you prove natural selection does or attempts to ascribe superiority, or even inferiority on a population?

No, but I can prove that the theory of natural selection ascribes human superiority and supremacy to those human 'species' who managed to survive ancestral extinction.

[QED]

So here I have provided an example of a biological advantage which would not be so obviously linked to the sort of superiority you accuse neo-darwinism of.

...the problem with attributing genetic advantages and disadvantages to evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic mutations and 'natural selection' is that when theoretically applied to human beings and the fossil remains of their human ancestors, the resulting taxonomic phylogenies become a scientific form of racial classification regarding the human ancestors and origins of the whole human race.

Setting aside the perceived 'problem' for one moment, I need to know if you accept that the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it. Do you accept this as a fact?

[jcrawford]

...the problem with attributing genetic advantages and disadvantages to evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic mutations and 'natural selection' is that when theoretically applied to human beings and the fossil remains of their human ancestors, the resulting taxonomic phylogenies become a scientific form of racial classification regarding the human ancestors and origins of the whole human race.

Setting aside the perceived 'problem' for one moment, I need to know if you accept that the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it. Do you accept this as a fact?

I don't accept any such "neo-Darwinist" theories or theoretical "mechanisms" as being in the least applicable to any present or past members of the human family, the human race or humankind, for the simple reason that human evolution from other 'species' is neither capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated. Thus do 'scientific' concepts and theories of human evolution forever remain the domain of neo-Darwinist race theorists about the origins of the human race on earth.

[QED]

Setting aside the perceived 'problem' for one moment, I need to know if you accept that the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it. Do you accept this as a fact?

I don't accept any such "neo-Darwinist" theories or theoretical "mechanisms" as being in the least applicable to any present or past members of the human family, the human race or humankind, for the simple reason that human evolution from other 'species' is neither capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated. Thus do 'scientific' concepts and theories of human evolution forever remain the domain of neo-Darwinist race theorists about the origins of the human race on earth.

OK, you don't want to answer my question claiming that it lies outside the scope of your argument. Obviously we can ignore any specific application of the theory and talk about it purely as a thought experiment. Then I can ask you the same question again: do you accept that the theory you call the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it? Now you can tell me that you don't understand the theory or you can say that you understand it but don't think it could work or you can answer the question with a straight yes or no, but you can't say you won't answer because it's not capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated, because I'm only asking you about a thought-experiment.

[Jose]

My, my, my. Such activity. Look away for a few hours, and zappo! Too many new posts to deal with. Yikes.

Rather than thinking of evolution as some kind of Force that drives species to superiority, think of it as a process that creates genetic variation, and the species that exist now are the ones that didn't get wiped out. They happened to be adequate at what they did, so they survived.

All right. Evolution is a creative process that "creates" genetic variation. Would it be unscientific to ask what causes this creative process to be able to 'create' anything in the first place? Otherwise it may sound like we are talking about our own version of creationism.

Sorry to have to partially contradict you, Jose, but it appears some confusion might arise over your wording. The evolutionary process doesn't really 'create' anything from nothing - it uses the genetic material already in the parents and varies through meiosis the traits passed on from the parents to the offspring.

To be more explicit: as I see it, the key to evolution is genetic mutation. Without it, there cannot be new alleles to reassort by meiosis. Nor, for that matter, could there ever be evolution in prokaryotes, which have no meiosis. Therefore, the critical bit about evolution is "creating" genetic variation by mutation. This is just what you say it is: starting with existing genetic material and modifying it. You know, GATC--> GACC and stuff like that. So, we're talking about the same thing, but I'm looking one step away from the step you're looking at.

I guess it was confusing to use the word "create." That seems, in some circles, to conjure up intelligent creators. Unintelligent processes can create things too, such as erosion creating a gully. Similarly, random chemical damage followed by sloppy repair can create changes in DNA sequence.

You may also be assuming that evolutionary theory implies that "humans are the pinnacle of evolution," that we are "at the top of the evolutionary ladder." There is no such ladder. There is no pinnacle of evolution.

If there are no 'stages, steps or grades' in Homo sapiens sapiens account of human origins and evolution out of African apes to actually observe then, why did you say that some of our human ancestors couldn't even speak? And if your human 'species' is not the "pinnacle" of evolutionist theory, then on what basis could you possibly object to our being labeled and classified as Archaic or Early Homo sapiens who could speak?

You may note, upon re-reading, that I did not say there are no stages, steps, or grades. I said there is no "evolutionary ladder," referring to the common notion that "ladders" go "up," and that the thing at the top of the ladder got there by progressing from the bottom and going to the top. If you want to use the ladder analogy, it is very clear that evolution can go down just as well as it can go up.

As for our ancestors that could not speak, look at the data on the Nariokotome boy, whose cervical vertebrae have too small a channel for the nerve bundle that H. sapiens has, the function of which is to control the chest muscles carefully enough to enable speech as we know it. The reason for referring to this species as erectus, rather than by the same name we give our species, sapiens, is that there are anatomical differences. But, if you like, you may refer to those ancestors as "archaic" humans, and you may, if you like, pretend to be one.

Rather, there is variation in the ability to do things--like fly, breathe underwater, or photosynthesize, activities at which we are really lousy. By these three criteria, we are not at all superior. We are better at thinking and arguing, but in some environments, that's not a very useful trait.

Who are "we," Jose, according to your three criteria?

Sorry. It's a difficult thing, this misplaced referent. I had thought it would be evident from content who "we" might be. The "we" is our species. Unless you are remarkably different from me, I suspect that "we" are both pretty lousy at flying unaided, or breathing underwater unaided, or carrying out photosynthesis. By those criteria, The Human Race, which some would call "the pinnacle of evolution" are terribly badly designed. Indeed, for the third of these characteristics, duckweed or algae--a mere pond scum--is superior to humans.

[jcrawford]

OK, you don't want to answer my question claiming that it lies outside the scope of your argument. Obviously we can ignore any specific application of the theory and talk about it purely as a thought experiment. Then I can ask you the same question again: do you accept that the theory you call the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it? Now you can tell me that you don't understand the theory or you can say that you understand it but don't think it could work or you can answer the question with a straight yes or no, but you can't say you won't answer because it's not capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated, because I'm only asking you about a thought-experiment.

I'm sorry, QED, but for the sake of argument, I don't think neo-Darwinist theories or so-called 'mechanisms' of tooth sharpening or tooth blunting apply to members of the present or past human race. From Lubenow's POV, and expertise, the documented human fossil record to date, shows no sign of human evolution but rather falsifies the theory, and numerous historical fossil fraud presentations from Piltdown Man to Homo habilis cause he and I to conclude that neo-Darwinist theories about the origins of the human race in Africa out of African ape ancestors are a scientific form of racial mythology and superiority.

[jcrawford]

You may note, upon re-reading, that I did not say there are no stages, steps, or grades. I said there is no "evolutionary ladder," referring to the common notion that "ladders" go "up," and that the thing at the top of the ladder got there by progressing from the bottom and going to the top. If you want to use the ladder analogy, it is very clear that evolution can go down just as well as it can go up.

Evolution going down the ladder, the steps, the stages, or grades of complexity in organisms would be devolution, since evolutionist theory is about how simple celled critters progressively developed into multi-celled ones ad infinitum until we arrive at the supreme pinnacle of evolutionary processing, Man; neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens sapiens, who account for the human race's origins by racially theorizing that some African ape ancestors genetically mutated into the first 'species' of aboriginal African people by 'natural selection' once upon a time in Africa.

[Chimp]

Can you prove natural selection does or attempts to ascribe superiority, or even inferiority on a population?

No, but I can prove that the theory of natural selection ascribes human superiority and supremacy to those human 'species' who managed to survive ancestral extinction.

You're contradicting yourself here...the theory of natural selection applies to
all organisms. If you can't prove it ascribes superiority/inferiority to a
population, then you can't prove it.

Misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the basic mechanisms of the theory
of evolution is the basis for your claim.

[jcrawford]

As for our ancestors that could not speak, look at the data on the Nariokotome boy, whose cervical vertebrae have too small a channel for the nerve bundle that H. sapiens has, the function of which is to control the chest muscles carefully enough to enable speech as we know it.

Since I don't have the data on the Nariokotome boy, I suggest you look at the data on Homo rudolfensis KNM-ER 1470, which indicates that the cranial cavity of 1470 shows evidence of Broca's area for muscular speech control. As one leading evolutionist has already stated, "If having the brains to speak is the issue, apparently Homo had it from the beginning." (Lubenow, 2004)

KNM-ER 1470 is really an interesting specimen since it is dated about 2mya and has a 'modern' skull morphology. You know - thin cranial walls, high-domed and gracile. Sort of in-between a chimp and a modern Homo like you and I, since its cranial interior capacity is about 800 cc.

Only trouble is, it's an African fossil, so to identify, label, classify or even associate it with a non-human species of African apes who certainly couldn't speak, as neo-Dars originally did, seems to be another evidential case of neo-Darwinist supremacist race theories at work.