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.

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

"This again begs the question, which has been asked repeatedly, how are you deciding which fossils represent humans and which do not?. Is homo habilis human? "

Despite being labeled under the genus Homo, Lubenow says that H. habilis is a false taxon becase it includes a jumble of human and Australopithicine ape bones.

"Is Turkana boy? Why or why not? "

Yes, "Turkana boy" is definately human, since if matured he would have grown to six feet tall.

"What about Lucy? Is a chimp human? why or why not?"

Since there are no "human chimps," Lucy was definately a 3.5 foot chimp.

"Is a chimp who lived 100,000 years ago human?"

Of course not.

"Why or why not?"

Is a living chimp today human?

"You have refused, even though it has been explained that you should be able to do it, to say how evolution is a racist theory without having a definition of race. "

No, I haven't, since I have Oxford's definiton of race and neo-Darwinist racial theorists don't have a scientific definiton of their own. That's why they keep substituting different 'species' for simple human racial diversity and variety in the human fossil record.

"Which of these 8 are you using?"

All of them.

"You have accused evolutionists of not being able to define race. Specify exactly what you mean by race."

Oxford spells out a better definition of race than either of us could.

"Then say exactly what you mean by the human race."

All the people who have ever lived on earth, notwithstanding their neo-Darwinist racial division into 'different and separate species.'

[jcrawford]

Quantifying and categorizing doesn't specifically denote racism,
especially considering we are talking about species, not races.

Quantifying and categorizing the ancestors of our human race into different and separate 'species' is racist because neo-Darwinists have no basis for classifying any of our human ancestors as 'species' other than a racist proclivity to associate and identify aboriginal African people with some ancestor of African apes.

Neo-Darwinist theorists deny that the first African people were fully human just like they deny that Neandertal people were full and equal members of the human race. The only reason they continue to call Neandertals and the first African people on earth "different and separate species," is to be able to include the whole human race in Charles Darwin's original theses about the origin of 'species' and his subsequent racial tract about the descent of man from some primordial form or "common" ancestor of modern African apes.

[perfessor]

"Which of these 8 (definitions of race) are you using?"

All of them.

An interesting and very telling admission. All 8 definitions are different.

[micatala]

"This again begs the question, which has been asked repeatedly, how are you deciding which fossils represent humans and which do not?. Is homo habilis human? "

Despite being labeled under the genus Homo, Lubenow says that H. habilis is a false taxon becase it includes a jumble of human and Australopithicine ape bones.

An interesting, but very likely false, hypothesis.

"Is Turkana boy? Why or why not? "

Yes, "Turkana boy" is definately human, since if matured he would have grown to six feet tall.

So if a dwarf member of the current human race only grows to 3 feet tall, you would say he is not human? C'mon. YOu haven't answered the question in the slightest. You are just dodging.

Maybe I need to be more explicit. If presented with a fossil that may or may not be human, what criteria would you use to decide if it is human or not? So far, it seems you are saying anything approximately six feet tall with two legs works. I believe there are some birds that would meet this criteria.

"What about Lucy? Is a chimp human? why or why not?"

Since there are no "human chimps," Lucy was definately a 3.5 foot chimp.

"Is a chimp who lived 100,000 years ago human?"

Of course not.

"Why or why not?"

Is a living chimp today human?

Well, you are the one who said since fossils are not alive and we cannot directly observe whether they can mate with each other or not, we thus cannot tell whether species are different or not. Can you prove that a chimp that lived 100,000 years could not 'make it' (using your phraseology) with a homo erectus or neanderthal of 100,000 years ago?

Yes, we could surmise that since chimps today cannot mate with humans, they probably could not in the past. However, according to your logic, we would not be able to conclude that an extinct primate and an ancient hominid could not mate. Unless you can actually give us some objective, detailed criteria for how you distinguish between extinct species, it seems to me your logic leads to the conclusion that all extinct species are actually one species.

"Then say exactly what you mean by the human race."

All the people who have ever lived on earth, notwithstanding their neo-Darwinist racial division into 'different and separate species.'

Reiterating your non-answer. It seems you have no idea and are just dodging or bluffing.

Basically, it seems you don't want to acknowledge that you might be descended from a non-human ancestor. You have said that evolutionists are denigrating all members of the current human race by suggesting this is true.

Consider this analogy. Suppose my grandfather was a mafia hit man, having knocked off 72 people over the course of his career. I might have a number of reactions to this fact. I might be appalled and ashamed. I might try to deny that it is true. On the other hand, I might think it kind of neat, or at least interesting. Or, I might not care one whit. How I react is up to me, and says nothing about the fact of his being a notorious criminal.

NOw, if a historian who was working on a book on the history of the mob documented my grandfather's career, provided names of many of his victims, who in the organization he took orders from, where he lived etc., and made what had been a family secret public for the first time, I again might have some of the same reactions.

If I was appalled at the idea of my ancestors life, I might be angry at the historian, and wish that he had not published his book. I might create my own history of my grandfather's life, more in tune with my own predispostitions or the image I would like to have of my grandfather. I might even sue the historian to 'take it back,' and accuse him of libel.

However, the judge and jury who might hear this case would be very unlikely to conclude that the historian had 'denigrated' me in any way, unless it could be shown that he or she deliberately made statements of a denigrating nature. Just reporting the facts and providing an objective explanation of my grandfather's life would no way, no how be considered denigrating in any way.

The same thing is happening here. You (and Lubenow) are so averse to the idea that you are descended from a non-human species that you are making wild accusations, accusing evolutionists of racism, when all they are doing are reporting the facts of the fossil record, and providing the best objective explanation they can of how the record got to be the way it is. I can understand your uncomfortableness with this idea, and why you would hope that this could not possibly be true. But the fact remains, there is really no grounds for a complaint. It is clear the accusations you and Lubenow make are as groundless as mine would be against the historian.

[jcrawford]

"Which of these 8 (definitions of race) are you using?"

All of them.

An interesting and very telling admission. All 8 definitions are different.

Use whichever one you think is appropriate for the occasion or any combination of them when suitable.

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

An interesting, but very likely false, hypothesis.

More likely than a false taxon?

So if a dwarf member of the current human race only grows to 3 feet tall, you would say he is not human?

Of course not, since only neo-Darwinist racial theories allow for 3 foot chimpanzee bones in their magic Homo habilis taxon.

Maybe I need to be more explicit. If presented with a fossil that may or may not be human, what criteria would you use to decide if it is human or not?

I just go by what human fossil experts such as Lubenow say.

Unless you can actually give us some objective, detailed criteria for how you distinguish between extinct species, it seems to me your logic leads to the conclusion that all extinct species are actually one species.

Yes, that is Lubenow's thesis since there is no way for neo-Darwinist theorists to physically test the fossil remains of our distant human ancestors for inter-fertility. Lubenow documents how many evolutionists are coming to the conclusion that all so-called different Homo 'species' are really one varied and diversified 'species' of human beings within the whole human race of our human ancestors.

Basically, it seems you don't want to acknowledge that you might be descended from a non-human ancestor. You have said that evolutionists are denigrating all members of the current human race by suggesting this is true.

Correct.

Consider this analogy. Suppose my grandfather was a mafia hit man, having knocked off 72 people over the course of his career. I might have a number of reactions to this fact. I might be appalled and ashamed. I might try to deny that it is true. On the other hand, I might think it kind of neat, or at least interesting. Or, I might not care one whit. How I react is up to me, and says nothing about the fact of his being a notorious criminal.

Correct, but you've already pre-supposed that your grandfather was a notorius criminal and expect us to believe you.

NOw, if a historian who was working on a book on the history of the mob documented my grandfather's career, provided names of many of his victims, who in the organization he took orders from, where he lived etc., and made what had been a family secret public for the first time, I again might have some of the same reactions.

You're mixing apples and oranges here because it can't be historically documented that your grandfather was an ape.

The same thing is happening here. You (and Lubenow) are so averse to the idea that you are descended from a non-human species that you are making wild accusations, accusing evolutionists of racism, when all they are doing are reporting the facts of the fossil record, and providing the best objective explanation they can of how the record got to be the way it is. I can understand your uncomfortableness with this idea, and why you would hope that this could not possibly be true. But the fact remains, there is really no grounds for a complaint. It is clear the accusations you and Lubenow make are as groundless as mine would be against the historian.

Your analogy fails to take into account the fact that Lubenow, as an expert on the human fossil record, as documented in his seminal work, "Bones of Contention," reveals the racially prejudiced assumptions inherent in neo-Darwinist theories which associate and reduce some of our human ancestors to a primitive 'species' of hominids whose family's share common ancestry with great African apes, monkeys and chimpanzees.

Unfortunately, for neo-Darwinist theories, the first 'species' of the human race is identified and labeled as Homo habilis, an African race or tribe of human beings whom neo-Darwinist theorists continue to insist to this day, resembled a race of Australopithicine apes.

[perfessor]

"Which of these 8 (definitions of race) are you using?"

All of them.

An interesting and very telling admission. All 8 definitions are different.

Use whichever one you think is appropriate for the occasion or any combination of them when suitable.

No jc, you are dodging yet again.

This is your thread; the assertion of racism is yours; the burden of proof is on you; and you must pick one and only one definition to use, and stick with it.

It really is almost funny watching you dance.

I just go by what human fossil experts such as Lubenow say.

Are you his sock puppet?

[McCulloch]

Your analogy fails to take into account the fact that Lubenow, as an expert on the human fossil record, as documented in his seminal work, "Bones of Contention," reveals the racially prejudiced assumptions inherent in neo-Darwinist theories which associate and reduce some of our human ancestors to a primitive 'species' of hominids whose family's share common ancestry with great African apes, monkeys and chimpanzees.

Now you are bringing in Lubenow's credentials as a part of the evidence supporting the allegation of racism. Is Lubenow a recognized expert on human fossil records? Who recognizes him as such? How many peer reviewed scientific journals has his hypotheses been published in? What has the been the reaction of his peers? Why is he presented as a leading expert in this field when the leading experts in this field have more advanced degrees than he does?
If a scientific theory was proven to be racist, that does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. Science is not supposed to work that way. Science is supposed to be objective. Why don't you try to prove "neo-Darwinism" is incorrect rather than try to prove that it is racist?

[micatala]

Lubenow documents how many evolutionists are coming to the conclusion that all so-called different Homo 'species' are really one varied and diversified 'species' of human beings within the whole human race of our human ancestors.

Leaving Lubenow's lack of credibility as a fossil expert aside, you have still not answered the very plain questions posed.

As has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if main stream evolutionary biology is right or wrong about the particular classifications it makes, the simple act of making the classifications is not racism.

By your logic, if I simply observe a black person and make the comment that "she is a black person" I would be racist in your eyes because I have made a classification based on observable phenomenon.

Even if I was wrong in my classification, and the person wasn't really black but was native american, I would still not be racist, not by any of the definitions of racism that have been offered by either you or the others on this thread.

You're mixing apples and oranges here because it can't be historically documented that your grandfather was an ape.

No, you are dodging yet again in a rather ridiculous fashion.

If you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming fossil evidence that there were numerous hominid species living for millions of year before modern humans, that is not going to stop the court from considering it. Your charges of racism will still be found groundless.

Your analogy fails to take into account the fact that Lubenow, as an expert on the human fossil record, as documented in his seminal work, "Bones of Contention," reveals the racially prejudiced assumptions inherent in neo-Darwinist theories which associate and reduce some of our human ancestors to a primitive 'species' of hominids whose family's share common ancestry with great African apes, monkeys and chimpanzees.

Sorry, you haven't identified through 11 pages of thread any such racist assumptions or motivations. Evolutionary biologists have made no racist assumptions. You and Lubenow simply assert that they do to further your own purpose of slandering them.

You still have identified no bonified oppression or ill treatment, other than your not wanting to accept the overwhelming evidence that humans evolved from non-human species.

Quote:
Unless you can actually give us some objective, detailed criteria for how you distinguish between extinct species, it seems to me your logic leads to the conclusion that all extinct species are actually one species.

jcrawford:
Yes, that is Lubenow's thesis since there is no way for neo-Darwinist theorists to physically test the fossil remains of our distant human ancestors for inter-fertility. Lubenow documents how many evolutionists are coming to the conclusion that all so-called different Homo 'species' are really one varied and diversified 'species' of human beings within the whole human race of our human ancestors.

I see. So you and Lubenow are seriously saying austrelopithicus and hominids and trilobites are all one species, and anyone who asserts they are not is a racist.

By the way, did you recall that even if all the species are one species you still have not shown that this would be racism?

[jcrawford]

quote="perfessor"

No jc, you are dodging yet again. This is your thread; the assertion of racism is yours; the burden of proof is on you; and you must pick one and only one definition to use, and stick with it.

Not really, since multiple definitions of words are quite common in English dictionaries.

It really is almost funny watching you dance.

"Almost funny," is not as funny as watching supporters of neo-Darwinist racial theories dance.

Are you his (Lubenow's) sock puppet?

No more than you may be an unwitting puppet of neo-Darwinist racial theorists.