Bones of Contention.
Moderator: Moderators
Bones of Contention.
Post #1Creationist 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.
Post #61
quote="perfessor"
"1) No one is "theoretically bound" by any theory. "
If true, give up your pet theories.
"Data is data."
Data may only be understood or interpreted in accordance with a theory about the data since there are no brute facts.
" 2) It is not a "racial" association, but a genetic one. "Race" is a concept with no particular scientific importance, except maybe to dog and flower breeders. "
If "race" is a concept with no particular scientific importance, then scientists can't decide what constitutes race, racial or racism in regard to human beings, fossilized or not.
3) "If I recall right, it is mitochondrial DNA that creates the most persistent marker. So henceforth I will call her "mitochondrial Eve", or mEve to distinguish her from bEve (biblical).
To be the sole female ancestor of the whole human race today, they have to be one and the same person, otherwise neo-Darwinist racial theorists are bound to associate mEve with the first people (Africans) to evolve from non-human apes.
" 4) Of the two, mEve and bEve, the mythological one is bEve. "
According to modern descendents of bEve, mEve only exists theoretically in a test tube and computer program.
"I will grant you this: mEve is something of a metaphor; it doesn't really make a lot of sense to adhere to the "single individual" idea, since it could just as well have been her mother, or grandmother, or most any other female in her tribal group. "
Yes, it's odd how geneticists can trace all human females back to African Eve but can't account for her own mother. Perhaps they didn't want to bring too much attention to the fact that neo-Darwinist racial theorists posit that African Eve's tribe originated from some species of non-human African apes.
"But the scientific evidence that "she" existed is very strong indeed. "
No doubt she did exist since she probably was named in honor of her grand maternal mother who was married to African Adam.
"5) Both "racist" and "sexist" now? The second half of the sentece sheds no light on the empty assertion, making this a double non sequitur. "
It's a "non-sequiter" to assume that African Eve ever existed without some African Adam tp have fathered her.
"6) There is no need to identify her partner. As far as the mDNA markers are concerned, he is irrelevant. "
Telling males that they are "irrelevent" is sexist.
"7) No need either to assume anything about his "racial stock" (your term not mine). To whatever extent she was human, he was too. By definition, they were of the same species, since they produced viable offspring."
How did such stalwart members of the human race evolve from a sub-human race of African apes though?
"Actually Jose, he did wheel out a dictionary definition of racism a few pages back. "
Very observant of you.
"Oddly enough, he never bothered to apply it to his own arguments though."
That's debatable.
"That was fun!"
I found our scientific exchange enjoyable also and look forward to our continued discussion of the facts.
"1) No one is "theoretically bound" by any theory. "
If true, give up your pet theories.
"Data is data."
Data may only be understood or interpreted in accordance with a theory about the data since there are no brute facts.
" 2) It is not a "racial" association, but a genetic one. "Race" is a concept with no particular scientific importance, except maybe to dog and flower breeders. "
If "race" is a concept with no particular scientific importance, then scientists can't decide what constitutes race, racial or racism in regard to human beings, fossilized or not.
3) "If I recall right, it is mitochondrial DNA that creates the most persistent marker. So henceforth I will call her "mitochondrial Eve", or mEve to distinguish her from bEve (biblical).
To be the sole female ancestor of the whole human race today, they have to be one and the same person, otherwise neo-Darwinist racial theorists are bound to associate mEve with the first people (Africans) to evolve from non-human apes.
" 4) Of the two, mEve and bEve, the mythological one is bEve. "
According to modern descendents of bEve, mEve only exists theoretically in a test tube and computer program.
"I will grant you this: mEve is something of a metaphor; it doesn't really make a lot of sense to adhere to the "single individual" idea, since it could just as well have been her mother, or grandmother, or most any other female in her tribal group. "
Yes, it's odd how geneticists can trace all human females back to African Eve but can't account for her own mother. Perhaps they didn't want to bring too much attention to the fact that neo-Darwinist racial theorists posit that African Eve's tribe originated from some species of non-human African apes.
"But the scientific evidence that "she" existed is very strong indeed. "
No doubt she did exist since she probably was named in honor of her grand maternal mother who was married to African Adam.
"5) Both "racist" and "sexist" now? The second half of the sentece sheds no light on the empty assertion, making this a double non sequitur. "
It's a "non-sequiter" to assume that African Eve ever existed without some African Adam tp have fathered her.
"6) There is no need to identify her partner. As far as the mDNA markers are concerned, he is irrelevant. "
Telling males that they are "irrelevent" is sexist.
"7) No need either to assume anything about his "racial stock" (your term not mine). To whatever extent she was human, he was too. By definition, they were of the same species, since they produced viable offspring."
How did such stalwart members of the human race evolve from a sub-human race of African apes though?
"Actually Jose, he did wheel out a dictionary definition of racism a few pages back. "
Very observant of you.
"Oddly enough, he never bothered to apply it to his own arguments though."
That's debatable.
"That was fun!"
I found our scientific exchange enjoyable also and look forward to our continued discussion of the facts.
Post #62
quote="McCulloch"
"The modern scientific consensus is not racist if they associate all humans with non-human primate ancestors."
Depends on one's definition of the human race and whether humans can be scientifiically divided up into different and sparate species just to please neo-Darwinist theorists about the origin of their species.
"The accusation may be correct if they only associated modern African humans with non-human primate ancestors, but they do not."
Why should direct associations of ancient or aboriginal Africans with some species of apes be ineligible for, or disqualified from, charges of racism? If I proposed a theory which stated that all modern racial and ethnic groups biologically descended from some Asian or European woman or tribe, wouldn't you consider that racist?
"Do you have any evidence that you are descendent from the Neandertals?"
I don't have any evidence that I'm not. What's wrong with having Neandertal ancestry other than being associated with cave-men? Do you prefer to be associated with African ape-men?
"The standard (non-racist) scientific consensus is that all modern humans are descended from African non-human primates."
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure and hat's off to the standard scientific consensus which may be racist or non-racist for all we know. Is there some scientific method of establishing whether a theory is racist or not?
"The Neandertals were also said to be descended from African non-human primates. "
That's just standard neo-Darwinist theoretical rhetoric. Prove it.
"The Neandertals are thought by the majority of scientists to have been a different species (ie they could not interbreed with modern H. Sapiens) which died out shortly after modern H. Sapiens settled in Europe."
Yavol, I know what the "majority" of scientists think. What do you think? Is there any evidence that Neandertal guys couldn't make it with Homo sapiens gals and reproduce inter-racial offspring or evolve into H. sapiens themselves after the Ice Age thawed out and they morphologically adapted to warmer climes? Think, man, think. Don't let other people tell you what to think.
"Unless you are a leading researcher in the field of anthropology please provide evidence for your contention that some leading researcher in the field of anthropology has published this new theory in a peer reviewed journal. This is the normally accepted way for controversial new ideas in science to be announced and tested."
Sure, sure. Haven't you read Thomas Khun's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" Peer review, indeed! When peer review was the criterion for scientific advances, Galilao, Giordano Bruno, Copernicus and Martin Luther were subject to ostracism and banishment.
"The modern scientific consensus is not racist if they associate all humans with non-human primate ancestors."
Depends on one's definition of the human race and whether humans can be scientifiically divided up into different and sparate species just to please neo-Darwinist theorists about the origin of their species.
"The accusation may be correct if they only associated modern African humans with non-human primate ancestors, but they do not."
Why should direct associations of ancient or aboriginal Africans with some species of apes be ineligible for, or disqualified from, charges of racism? If I proposed a theory which stated that all modern racial and ethnic groups biologically descended from some Asian or European woman or tribe, wouldn't you consider that racist?
"Do you have any evidence that you are descendent from the Neandertals?"
I don't have any evidence that I'm not. What's wrong with having Neandertal ancestry other than being associated with cave-men? Do you prefer to be associated with African ape-men?
"The standard (non-racist) scientific consensus is that all modern humans are descended from African non-human primates."
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure and hat's off to the standard scientific consensus which may be racist or non-racist for all we know. Is there some scientific method of establishing whether a theory is racist or not?
"The Neandertals were also said to be descended from African non-human primates. "
That's just standard neo-Darwinist theoretical rhetoric. Prove it.
"The Neandertals are thought by the majority of scientists to have been a different species (ie they could not interbreed with modern H. Sapiens) which died out shortly after modern H. Sapiens settled in Europe."
Yavol, I know what the "majority" of scientists think. What do you think? Is there any evidence that Neandertal guys couldn't make it with Homo sapiens gals and reproduce inter-racial offspring or evolve into H. sapiens themselves after the Ice Age thawed out and they morphologically adapted to warmer climes? Think, man, think. Don't let other people tell you what to think.
"Unless you are a leading researcher in the field of anthropology please provide evidence for your contention that some leading researcher in the field of anthropology has published this new theory in a peer reviewed journal. This is the normally accepted way for controversial new ideas in science to be announced and tested."
Sure, sure. Haven't you read Thomas Khun's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" Peer review, indeed! When peer review was the criterion for scientific advances, Galilao, Giordano Bruno, Copernicus and Martin Luther were subject to ostracism and banishment.
Post #63
It's as much a sign of respect for Western Asian, European and Middle Eastern people to acknowledge their Neandertal ancestry as it is for Chinese paleoanthroplogists to acknowledge their biological descent from Asian Homo erectus types, since most Asians, Middle East Arabs and Jews or Europeans don't resemble African apes in the the slightest.perfessor wrote:
Well! This is the most interesting thing you've said. Can you please elaborate - in what way are you Neandertal? Please elaborate, since this could make headlines.
Why do you think that neo-Darwinist theories postulate that only African people were the original descendents of apes?
Post #64
quote="USIncognito"
"I'm suppressing the urge to use words like idiot in my response, but since I'm only doing this for the benefit of lurkers, I'll stiffle myself. "
Self-suppresion is not good for your physical or mental health.
"The fact remains that not only blacks, browns and yellows considered sub-human prior to Origin in the form of the Conquistadors, the slave trade, colonization and government/colonial policies well into the 20th Century -- by good God fearing Christians while science has demonstrated just the opposite blows away any claim that evolutionary theory was the crucible for racism."
Is this little tirade part of the neo-Darwinst "scientific" theory of how human beings evolved from apes in Africa or something you just made up on the spur of the moment?
"This is called a red herring. "
Call it what you want, since neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution consist of nothing but calling different people separate species.
"Since you're talking about societies that supposedly were influenced by Origin and Descent - both of which were published over 1800 years since the time of Jesus, your objection is rendered moot. "
Since when were Pre-Christian societies infulenced by i]Origin[/i] and Descent ?
"In modern times the Taureg (nice choice VW) people of Chad (IIRC) are incredibly racist towards "black" Africans in a racial environment where I doubt your average American, Japanese or Swede could tell the difference. The point, as you so obtusely avoid, is that racism exists outside evolutionary theory."
I never attributed racism to neo-Darwinsm alone. Both Lubenow and I admit that racism existed prior to Darwinist theories and agree that neo-Darwinism merely lent scientific credence and justification to such beliefs.
"Could you please site the OED for your etymology of "racism?"
Sure. Lubenow's "Bones of Contention."
"I'll tell you what. Putting aside for a moment whether "racism" was coined as a term prior to 1943 (mid-point of WWII), how about you dig back and see comments from Southern Senators about slavery prior to the Civil War. Then get back to me about "racism" not existing prior to the mid-20th Century."
If you would like to discuss Senatorial racism, then start your own thread, since this one is about neo-Darwinist racism.
"Oh, and one more logical land mine you've jumped on. If Origin inspired racism, why did it take 90 odd years for the concept to "catch on?"
Because 'pollitical correctness' only took off about 25 years ago.
"I've had enough of this crap."
What crap?
"This troll is cutting into my beddy-bye time. "
Never let a troll disturb one's good night's rest.
"I do hope the lurkers out there though will notice the obfuscative tactics of Creationists as opposed to the efforts to fully inform and share information on the evolution side."
I'm sure that the gallery is not sleeping.
"I'm suppressing the urge to use words like idiot in my response, but since I'm only doing this for the benefit of lurkers, I'll stiffle myself. "
Self-suppresion is not good for your physical or mental health.
"The fact remains that not only blacks, browns and yellows considered sub-human prior to Origin in the form of the Conquistadors, the slave trade, colonization and government/colonial policies well into the 20th Century -- by good God fearing Christians while science has demonstrated just the opposite blows away any claim that evolutionary theory was the crucible for racism."
Is this little tirade part of the neo-Darwinst "scientific" theory of how human beings evolved from apes in Africa or something you just made up on the spur of the moment?
"This is called a red herring. "
Call it what you want, since neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution consist of nothing but calling different people separate species.
"Since you're talking about societies that supposedly were influenced by Origin and Descent - both of which were published over 1800 years since the time of Jesus, your objection is rendered moot. "
Since when were Pre-Christian societies infulenced by i]Origin[/i] and Descent ?
"In modern times the Taureg (nice choice VW) people of Chad (IIRC) are incredibly racist towards "black" Africans in a racial environment where I doubt your average American, Japanese or Swede could tell the difference. The point, as you so obtusely avoid, is that racism exists outside evolutionary theory."
I never attributed racism to neo-Darwinsm alone. Both Lubenow and I admit that racism existed prior to Darwinist theories and agree that neo-Darwinism merely lent scientific credence and justification to such beliefs.
"Could you please site the OED for your etymology of "racism?"
Sure. Lubenow's "Bones of Contention."
"I'll tell you what. Putting aside for a moment whether "racism" was coined as a term prior to 1943 (mid-point of WWII), how about you dig back and see comments from Southern Senators about slavery prior to the Civil War. Then get back to me about "racism" not existing prior to the mid-20th Century."
If you would like to discuss Senatorial racism, then start your own thread, since this one is about neo-Darwinist racism.
"Oh, and one more logical land mine you've jumped on. If Origin inspired racism, why did it take 90 odd years for the concept to "catch on?"
Because 'pollitical correctness' only took off about 25 years ago.
"I've had enough of this crap."
What crap?
"This troll is cutting into my beddy-bye time. "
Never let a troll disturb one's good night's rest.
"I do hope the lurkers out there though will notice the obfuscative tactics of Creationists as opposed to the efforts to fully inform and share information on the evolution side."
I'm sure that the gallery is not sleeping.
Post #65
Simply and utterly false.jcrawford wrote:Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are racist because they imply that all modern racial and ethnic groups only originated and 'evolved' from species of apes in Africa. If an evolutionary theory claimed that all the members of the present human race descended from some female ancestor in Asia or Europe, that would be a form of scientific racism also.
Since you ignore all attempts to correct your poor logic and bad understanding of language, I will again quote you the definition of racism for your enlightenment.
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Also, racialism is given to mean "racial prejudice or discrimination"
Under these definitions, no version of 'neo-Darwinism' as a scientific theory is racist, period. If you want to use your own private definition of racism, or Lubenow's, you might as well be talking to yourself.
Slander, or perhaps more accurately libel since we are communicating in written form, includes making false or defamatory statements or misrepresentations that convey an unjustly unfavorable impression. You have made false statements in order to convey the impression that neo-Darwinism is a racist theory and, by implication, those who accept these theories as racist. How is this not slanderous?No attempt is being made by Lubenow or I to slander any person since we believe that it is neo-Darwinist racist theories of human evolution which slander people and prefer not to indulge in ad hominem attacks.
I will also point out that you seem to confuse race with species. For example . . .
Again, false. You are, intentionally or unintentionally, misusing words.Call it what you want, since neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution consist of nothing but calling different people separate species.
I think we are all agreed that there are many and varied causes and justifications for racism, including religious doctrines.
Then this thread is about something that doesn't exist.If you would like to discuss Senatorial racism, then start your own thread, since this one is about neo-Darwinist racism.
You have yet to show in any way whatsoever that neo-Darwinism is among the causes of racism or is racist in any way whatsoever. If you would do some homework, you might be able to find examples of people who misuse evolution to justify racism. However, this would still not make evolution a racist theory, since a person misusing an idea to justify an end says nothing about the idea being misused. The same could be said of white Southerners, who distorted and misused the Bible in order to justify their racism. Would you consider the Bible a racist document, especially solely on the basis of how racist southerners used it?
You must logically show that the scientific theory of evolution has racism as a logical and necessary conclusion. You must use the usual and standard definitions, otherwise your argument is pointless and moot.
Good luck. I have no doubt you will keep trying, however ineffective your arguements to date have been.
Post #66
I have no pet theories. I merely deny that evolutionary theory has anything to do with racism, except perhaps if it is misunderstood and misapplied by those with other agendas.jcrawford wrote:If true, give up your pet theories.
You are correct. The "race" question is more in the realm of social science, rather than biological science.If "race" is a concept with no particular scientific importance, then scientists can't decide what constitutes race, racial or racism in regard to human beings, fossilized or not.
You seem to think that one generation was apes, and the next generation was humans. This is not what evolutionary theory says, and anyone who presents it as such is ignorant of the science involved.To be the sole female ancestor of the whole human race today, they have to be one and the same person, otherwise neo-Darwinist racial theorists are bound to associate mEve with the first people (Africans) to evolve from non-human apes.
Not true!! I have cloned her in my secret laboratory.According to modern descendents of bEve, mEve only exists theoretically in a test tube and computer program.
By your logic, George Washington only exists theoretically.
Yes, and it's a good thing that no one is asserting such a ridiculouly asinine idea.It's a "non-sequiter" to assume that African Eve ever existed without some African Adam tp have fathered her.
Now you are just being obtuse. Do you not even read the quotes you cut and paste? I never said her partner was irrelevant. I said,"6) There is no need to identify her partner. As far as the mDNA markers are concerned, he is irrelevant. "
Telling males that they are "irrelevent" is sexist.
Bold added so that even creationists can understand the intent and will be less likely to deceitfully misrepresent it.As far as the mDNA markers are concerned, he is irrelevant.
If you need an explanation for why mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, try doing a little actual science reading.
Now you are changing the subject, although I touched on this earlier in this post.How did such stalwart members of the human race evolve from a sub-human race of African apes though?
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Post #67
quote="micatala"
"According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
What is Webster's definition of race then, since "a particular race" could be the present human race in which evolutionary humanists exclude several human "species" from it.
"Also, racialism is given to mean "racial prejudice or discrimination" Under these definitions, no version of 'neo-Darwinism' as a scientific theory is racist, period. "
Any neo-Darwinist theory which classifies H. sapeins, neandertalis and erectus fossils as separate 'species" just because they look different is racist. Discrimination between 'species' is the hallmark of neo-Darwinist prejudice.
"If you want to use your own private definition of racism, or Lubenow's, you might as well be talking to yourself."
I'm using the 1996 edition of the American Oxford Dictionary for definitons of race, racial and racism.
"Slander, or perhaps more accurately libel since we are communicating in written form, includes making false or defamatory statements or misrepresentations that convey an unjustly unfavorable impression. You have made false statements in order to convey the impression that neo-Darwinism is a racist theory and, by implication, those who accept these theories as racist. How is this not slanderous?"
I haven't made any false statements though and have specifically excluded neo-Darwinist supporters from charges of racism.
"I will also point out that you seem to confuse race with species. For example . . .
I don't think I am confusing, misusing or abusing words such as race and species, either intentionally or unintentionally, since the terms are constantly confused, misused and abused by neo-Darwinsts who can't tell the difference between aboriginal members of the human race and a species of African apes.
"I think we are all agreed that there are many and varied causes and justifications for racism, including religious doctrines."
Agreed. Lubenow and I also agree that neo-Darwinist theories are not the original cause of racism, but merely a scientific form of it.
"You have yet to show in any way whatsoever that neo-Darwinism is among the causes of racism or is racist in any way whatsoever. "
It should be self-evident to anyone who reads Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" that neo-Darwinst theories are not among the causes of racism but are scientific justifications for teaching racial and racist beliefs about human origins in public schools.
"If you would do some homework, you might be able to find examples of people who misuse evolution to justify racism. However, this would still not make evolution a racist theory, since a person misusing an idea to justify an end says nothing about the idea being misused."
Any theory which sequences the evolutionary stages of the human race in either an ascending or descending order of biological origins and descent from sub-human species of African apes is still racist whether anyone uses, misuses or abuses it at all.
"The same could be said of white Southerners, who distorted and misused the Bible in order to justify their racism. Would you consider the Bible a racist document, especially solely on the basis of how racist southerners used it?"
The possibility or suggestion of religious racism shouldn't be confused with a form of scientific racism unless one considers creationism to be on the same scientific footing and par with neo-Darwinism.
"You must logically show that the scientific theory of evolution has racism as a logical and necessary conclusion. You must use the usual and standard definitions, otherwise your argument is pointless and moot."
Thanks for the advice.
"Good luck. I have no doubt you will keep trying, however ineffective your arguements to date have been."
Neo-Darwinists have be arguing their case ineffectively for over 100 years now and Lubenow has finally and effectively documented, shown and demonstrated the intrinsic racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's origins from a species of non-human African apes.
"According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
What is Webster's definition of race then, since "a particular race" could be the present human race in which evolutionary humanists exclude several human "species" from it.
"Also, racialism is given to mean "racial prejudice or discrimination" Under these definitions, no version of 'neo-Darwinism' as a scientific theory is racist, period. "
Any neo-Darwinist theory which classifies H. sapeins, neandertalis and erectus fossils as separate 'species" just because they look different is racist. Discrimination between 'species' is the hallmark of neo-Darwinist prejudice.
"If you want to use your own private definition of racism, or Lubenow's, you might as well be talking to yourself."
I'm using the 1996 edition of the American Oxford Dictionary for definitons of race, racial and racism.
"Slander, or perhaps more accurately libel since we are communicating in written form, includes making false or defamatory statements or misrepresentations that convey an unjustly unfavorable impression. You have made false statements in order to convey the impression that neo-Darwinism is a racist theory and, by implication, those who accept these theories as racist. How is this not slanderous?"
I haven't made any false statements though and have specifically excluded neo-Darwinist supporters from charges of racism.
"I will also point out that you seem to confuse race with species. For example . . .
Again, false. You are, intentionally or unintentionally, misusing words."Call it what you want, since neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution consist of nothing but calling different people separate species.
I don't think I am confusing, misusing or abusing words such as race and species, either intentionally or unintentionally, since the terms are constantly confused, misused and abused by neo-Darwinsts who can't tell the difference between aboriginal members of the human race and a species of African apes.
"I think we are all agreed that there are many and varied causes and justifications for racism, including religious doctrines."
Agreed. Lubenow and I also agree that neo-Darwinist theories are not the original cause of racism, but merely a scientific form of it.
"You have yet to show in any way whatsoever that neo-Darwinism is among the causes of racism or is racist in any way whatsoever. "
It should be self-evident to anyone who reads Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" that neo-Darwinst theories are not among the causes of racism but are scientific justifications for teaching racial and racist beliefs about human origins in public schools.
"If you would do some homework, you might be able to find examples of people who misuse evolution to justify racism. However, this would still not make evolution a racist theory, since a person misusing an idea to justify an end says nothing about the idea being misused."
Any theory which sequences the evolutionary stages of the human race in either an ascending or descending order of biological origins and descent from sub-human species of African apes is still racist whether anyone uses, misuses or abuses it at all.
"The same could be said of white Southerners, who distorted and misused the Bible in order to justify their racism. Would you consider the Bible a racist document, especially solely on the basis of how racist southerners used it?"
The possibility or suggestion of religious racism shouldn't be confused with a form of scientific racism unless one considers creationism to be on the same scientific footing and par with neo-Darwinism.
"You must logically show that the scientific theory of evolution has racism as a logical and necessary conclusion. You must use the usual and standard definitions, otherwise your argument is pointless and moot."
Thanks for the advice.
"Good luck. I have no doubt you will keep trying, however ineffective your arguements to date have been."
Neo-Darwinists have be arguing their case ineffectively for over 100 years now and Lubenow has finally and effectively documented, shown and demonstrated the intrinsic racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's origins from a species of non-human African apes.
Post #68
quote="perfessor"
Do you think social scientists should be the sole arbiters of whether neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's descent from non-human apes in Africa, are racist or not?
Doesn't evolutionist theory claim that H. sapiens in Africa evolved from H. ergaster (East African version of erectus) and that H. ergaster in turn evolved from H. rudolfensis who in turn evolved from H. habilis which is a mixed taxon of human and Australopithicine ape fossils? How else can the present human race be associated with African apes if not by dividing our human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' in order to accomodate Darwin's concept of the "Origin of Species?"
Lucky you! Does she look at all like Halle Berry?
"By your logic, George Washington only exists theoretically."
Historically would be more like it.
How does it help prove her existence if she had no human father?
"If you need an explanation for why mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, try doing a little actual science reading."
Lubenow satisfies my interest in DNA studies.
The origin and evolution of the human race from a sub-human race of African apes is the topic, though.
"You are correct. The "race" question is more in the realm of social science, rather than biological science."If "race" is a concept with no particular scientific importance, then scientists can't decide what constitutes race, racial or racism in regard to human beings, fossilized or not.
Do you think social scientists should be the sole arbiters of whether neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's descent from non-human apes in Africa, are racist or not?
"You seem to think that one generation was apes, and the next generation was humans. This is not what evolutionary theory says, and anyone who presents it as such is ignorant of the science involved."To be the sole female ancestor of the whole human race today, they have to be one and the same person, otherwise neo-Darwinist racial theorists are bound to associate mEve with the first people (Africans) to evolve from non-human apes.
Doesn't evolutionist theory claim that H. sapiens in Africa evolved from H. ergaster (East African version of erectus) and that H. ergaster in turn evolved from H. rudolfensis who in turn evolved from H. habilis which is a mixed taxon of human and Australopithicine ape fossils? How else can the present human race be associated with African apes if not by dividing our human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' in order to accomodate Darwin's concept of the "Origin of Species?"
"Not true!! I have cloned her in my secret laboratory."According to modern descendents of bEve, mEve only exists theoretically in a test tube and computer program.
Lucky you! Does she look at all like Halle Berry?
"By your logic, George Washington only exists theoretically."
Historically would be more like it.
"Yes, and it's a good thing that no one is asserting such a ridiculouly asinine idea."It's a "non-sequiter" to assume that African Eve ever existed without some African Adam tp have fathered her.
How does it help prove her existence if she had no human father?
"If you need an explanation for why mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, try doing a little actual science reading."
Lubenow satisfies my interest in DNA studies.
"Now you are changing the subject, although I touched on this earlier in this post."How did such stalwart members of the human race evolve from a sub-human race of African apes though?
The origin and evolution of the human race from a sub-human race of African apes is the topic, though.
Post #69
You are still confusing racism with biology. Evolutionary evidence shows quite clearly that we are descended from non-human primates, just as you say. Social scientists may want to talk about racial tensions that have evolved as humans diversified as we spread around the globe, but that's different from talking about who our ancestors were.jcrawford wrote:Do you think social scientists should be the sole arbiters of whether neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's descent from non-human apes in Africa, are racist or not?
Aha! You may have finally said something I can understand. Sure--we do refer to these different morphological forms as different species, just as we refer to Chihuahuas and Mastiffs as different breeds. If we knew them only from fossils, we'd call them different species, too, because we wouldn't be able to test their inter-fertility. But, remember: there was never any sudden break in "reproducing according to kind," or any sudden change from one species to another. Genetics doesn't work that way. These different species, as we call them, are simply different morphological forms along the way--ones that were reasonably stable for a long enough time that they could leave enough fossils for us to find them.jcrawford wrote:Doesn't evolutionist theory claim that H. sapiens in Africa evolved from H. ergaster (East African version of erectus) and that H. ergaster in turn evolved from H. rudolfensis who in turn evolved from H. habilis which is a mixed taxon of human and Australopithicine ape fossils? How else can the present human race be associated with African apes if not by dividing our human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' in order to accomodate Darwin's concept of the "Origin of Species?"
Huh? Of course she had a father who was the same species as she was. If mtEve was "human," so were her parents, her husband(s), her children, her siblings, etc. Just because mtDNA traces maternal lineage only does not mean that the paternal lineage was unrealistic or did not exist.jcrawford wrote:How does it help prove her [mtEve] existence if she had no human father?
Pity. If you'd learn some accurate genetics, instead of his fantasies, you wouldn't be stuck in this weird worldview.jcrawford wrote:Lubenow satisfies my interest in DNA studies.
Do you really want to know, or not? If you're willing to engage in a real discussion, we can do so. But, if you're going to hold up Lubenow as an example of some kind of expert, and ignore facts, then there's little point in talking about it. What do you think?jcrawford wrote:How did such stalwart members of the human race evolve from a sub-human race of African apes though?
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #70
Crawford, how do you explain "ring species" if you insist so ridiculously that each new species sprung full-fledged from another species?
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"
