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 #71
When used in the context of "racism" and "racist", race would only refer to the usual races of humans referred to as black, white, asian, etc. We tend to classify people into races simply by skin color. As such, race is not a biological or even scientific classification, even though the skin color characteristics are genetically determined. As evolutionary biologists have discovered, there is more genetic diversity within each of the races than there is between the races. This mean, for example, that two white men and a black man might be such that the genetic differences between the white men have a good possibility of being greater than the genetic differences between the black man and either of the white men. As has been pointed out before, this means evolutionary biology actually provides evidence to debunk racist beliefs.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."
jcrawford:
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.
Evolutionary biology does not include the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities" nor the idea or belief that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Therefore Lubenow's contention is completely and utterly false.
In fact, the contention doesn't even make sense, since evolutionary biology is about describing and explaining what happens in the biological realm, not about beliefs people may have on the basis of biological classifications.
Thus, your contention that you have made no false statements is also false. Thus, so is your contention that you have not engaged in slander, your disengenuous statements to the effect that you do not ascribe racism to the individuals who consider evolution to be true not-withstanding. The latter statement you make is ludicrous. If someone claimed the asic tenets of Christianity were racist, and then tried to say that they were not accusing individuals who believe the basic tenets of Christianity to be true of racism, they would likely be called a liar by many Christians, and rightly so.
Post #72
quote="Jose"
We can't test the inter-fertility of African human fossils either so there is no way to detrmine that they were a different species.
Thank you. You just demolished neo-Darwinist racial theories of the human race's origins and evolution from another species!
I think Lubenow is more of an expert on the human fossil record than either of us are, and that a real discussion of it is only possible when one is familiar with the scientific documentation he presents in support of his thesis.
"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. "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?"
We can't test the inter-fertility of African human fossils either so there is no way to detrmine that they were a different 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?
Thank you. You just demolished neo-Darwinist racial theories of the human race's origins and evolution from another species!
"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?
I think Lubenow is more of an expert on the human fossil record than either of us are, and that a real discussion of it is only possible when one is familiar with the scientific documentation he presents in support of his thesis.
Post #73
I don't say that each new species of human beings in Africa "sprung full-fledged from another species." Neo-Darwinists do.steen wrote:Crawford, how do you explain "ring species" if you insist so ridiculously that each new species sprung full-fledged from another species?
-
USIncognito
- Apprentice
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:17 am
Post #74
I'll take advice from trolls for what it's worth. I'll still reply for the sake of the lurkers though.jcrawford wrote:Self-suppresion is not good for your physical or mental health.
I wrote:"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."
Man you're a bad troll. You assert that racism stems from evolutionary theory, and yet racism existed for millenia before Darwin. When confronted with that fact you offer a red herring? Dude, you suck at this trolling business.jcrawford wrote: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?
me banging my head against a wall wrote:"This is called a red herring. "
You've been corrected on this previously so I'm going to call you out for lying or trolling - your choice as to which you want to own up to. All humans are H. sapiens meaning we are all the same species. How you can twist that around into a Bizarroworld interpretation meaning the opposite is beyond me... troll..jcrawford wrote:Call it what you want, since neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution consist of nothing but calling different people separate species.
whoops there goes another rubber tree plant wrote:"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. "
They aren't you troll. Racism predates Origin by millenia. The entire concept of "barbarians" is based on an "us" vs. "them" mentality. How about you address why the Bible was used to justify slavery in the U.S. south - and this is after the publication of Origin - and led to the split between Northern and Southern Baptists?jcrawford wrote:Since when were Pre-Christian societies infulenced by i]Origin[/i] and Descent ?
I wrote:"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."
Oh please. Your Jedi troll tricks won't work on us. The OP is predicated on racism and evolutionary theory being intractably linked, but racism existed for millenia before Origins, are supported by scripture like the Bible and Koran and is actually repudiated by genuine science and not crackpot perversions of it like "social darwinism," etc.jcrawford wrote: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.
I realize you're a lost case troll, but for those lurkers and readers out there, please check out Guns, Germs and Steel for how Europeans came to dominate the world as opposed to other people based on geography, botany and biogeography. The author's position is fully within the evolutionary framework, but doesn't once appeal to racism, and in fact decries it.
me with my head hurting wrote:"Could you please site the OED for your etymology of "racism?"
How about you just take 3 minutes and type a summary of his definition for us rather than sending us on a wild goose chase? Can you do that troll?jcrawford wrote:Sure. Lubenow's "Bones of Contention."
I wrote:"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."
Nice, but ineffective dodge troll. Will you answer the question or not? You claim that racism is based on "Darwinism," and yet the justifications for slavery existed prior to the publication of Origins and were based on the Bible.jcrawford wrote:If you would like to discuss Senatorial racism, then start your own thread, since this one is about neo-Darwinist racism.
No one has replied to my post about D. James Kennedy's "sermon" on evolution airing on this weeks Coral Ridge Hour, but I'll note the same thing about troll Crawford's thread here in that it's nothing more than a red herring since it doesn't address the evidences for common desent in the least bit, but tries to offer a weak metaphysical argument that does nothing to address the reality of the situation.
Mao Tse Tung doesn't make Turkana Boy go away....
Post #75
quote="micatala"
"When used in the context of "racism" and "racist", race would only refer to the usual races of humans referred to as black, white, asian, etc. We tend to classify people into races simply by skin color. As such, race is not a biological or even scientific classification, even though the skin color characteristics are genetically determined. "
My understanding of Lubenow's thesis is that dividing and classifying fossil members of the human race as different and separate 'species' is a form of scientific racism, since there is only one human race with racial diversification and variety within it.
"As evolutionary biologists have discovered, there is more genetic diversity within each of the races than there is between the races. "
You said that "race is not a biological or even scientific classification, even though the skin color characteristics are genetically determined."
"This mean, for example, that two white men and a black man might be such that the genetic differences between the white men have a good possibility of being greater than the genetic differences between the black man and either of the white men."
Are you saying that geneticists consider "white men" and "black men" as constituting two human races?
"As has been pointed out before, this means evolutionary biology actually provides evidence to debunk racist beliefs."
That would depend on what evolutionary biology defines 'race' as.
"Evolutionary biology does not include the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities" nor the idea or belief that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
How do evolutionists determine the race or species of human fossils then?
"Therefore Lubenow's contention is completely and utterly false. In fact, the contention doesn't even make sense, since evolutionary biology is about describing and explaining what happens in the biological realm, not about beliefs people may have on the basis of biological classifications."
What is the basis for classifying different fossil members of the human race as separate 'species' then?
"Thus, your contention that you have made no false statements is also false. Thus, so is your contention that you have not engaged in slander, your disengenuous statements to the effect that you do not ascribe racism to the individuals who consider evolution to be true not-withstanding. The latter statement you make is ludicrous. If someone claimed the asic tenets of Christianity were racist, and then tried to say that they were not accusing individuals who believe the basic tenets of Christianity to be true of racism, they would likely be called a liar by many Christians, and rightly so."
If a theory can be called 'scientific' when most subscribers to, and believers in, such a theory may not be called scientists, why can't the same theory be called racist without the same subscribers and believers being called racists?
"When used in the context of "racism" and "racist", race would only refer to the usual races of humans referred to as black, white, asian, etc. We tend to classify people into races simply by skin color. As such, race is not a biological or even scientific classification, even though the skin color characteristics are genetically determined. "
My understanding of Lubenow's thesis is that dividing and classifying fossil members of the human race as different and separate 'species' is a form of scientific racism, since there is only one human race with racial diversification and variety within it.
"As evolutionary biologists have discovered, there is more genetic diversity within each of the races than there is between the races. "
You said that "race is not a biological or even scientific classification, even though the skin color characteristics are genetically determined."
"This mean, for example, that two white men and a black man might be such that the genetic differences between the white men have a good possibility of being greater than the genetic differences between the black man and either of the white men."
Are you saying that geneticists consider "white men" and "black men" as constituting two human races?
"As has been pointed out before, this means evolutionary biology actually provides evidence to debunk racist beliefs."
That would depend on what evolutionary biology defines 'race' as.
"Evolutionary biology does not include the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities" nor the idea or belief that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
How do evolutionists determine the race or species of human fossils then?
"Therefore Lubenow's contention is completely and utterly false. In fact, the contention doesn't even make sense, since evolutionary biology is about describing and explaining what happens in the biological realm, not about beliefs people may have on the basis of biological classifications."
What is the basis for classifying different fossil members of the human race as separate 'species' then?
"Thus, your contention that you have made no false statements is also false. Thus, so is your contention that you have not engaged in slander, your disengenuous statements to the effect that you do not ascribe racism to the individuals who consider evolution to be true not-withstanding. The latter statement you make is ludicrous. If someone claimed the asic tenets of Christianity were racist, and then tried to say that they were not accusing individuals who believe the basic tenets of Christianity to be true of racism, they would likely be called a liar by many Christians, and rightly so."
If a theory can be called 'scientific' when most subscribers to, and believers in, such a theory may not be called scientists, why can't the same theory be called racist without the same subscribers and believers being called racists?
Post #76
quote="USIncognito"
"You assert that racism stems from evolutionary theory,"
No, I don't. Evolutionary theory stems from racism.
"All humans are H. sapiens meaning we are all the same species."
You seem to be inferring that H. neandertalis and erectus fossils are not human.
"Racism predates Origin by millenia. "
We all know that. How else could Darwin have concocted "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man?"
"The point, as you so obtusely avoid, is that racism exists outside evolutionary theory."
No, I don't, since Lubenow only claims that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are intrinsically racist too.
"I realize you're a lost case troll, but for those lurkers and readers out there, please check out Guns, Germs and Steel for how Europeans came to dominate the world as opposed to other people based on geography, botany and biogeography. The author's position is fully within the evolutionary framework, but doesn't once appeal to racism, and in fact decries it."
While they are checking out "Guns, Germs and Steel," they might as well as well check out "Bones of Contention" for more information about Jared Diamond and the human fossil record.
"You claim that racism is based on "Darwinism," and yet the justifications for slavery existed prior to the publication of Origins and were based on the Bible."
I don't claim that racism is based on Darwinism. Lubenow and I merely contend that Darwinism and neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution out of some species of non-human African apes are racist theories.
"Mao Tse Tung doesn't make Turkana Boy go away.... "
Both Mao Tse Tung (H. sapiens) and Turkana Boy (H. erectus) were full and equal members of the human race and should not racially be classified as separate species.
"You assert that racism stems from evolutionary theory,"
No, I don't. Evolutionary theory stems from racism.
"All humans are H. sapiens meaning we are all the same species."
You seem to be inferring that H. neandertalis and erectus fossils are not human.
"Racism predates Origin by millenia. "
We all know that. How else could Darwin have concocted "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man?"
"The point, as you so obtusely avoid, is that racism exists outside evolutionary theory."
No, I don't, since Lubenow only claims that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are intrinsically racist too.
"I realize you're a lost case troll, but for those lurkers and readers out there, please check out Guns, Germs and Steel for how Europeans came to dominate the world as opposed to other people based on geography, botany and biogeography. The author's position is fully within the evolutionary framework, but doesn't once appeal to racism, and in fact decries it."
While they are checking out "Guns, Germs and Steel," they might as well as well check out "Bones of Contention" for more information about Jared Diamond and the human fossil record.
"You claim that racism is based on "Darwinism," and yet the justifications for slavery existed prior to the publication of Origins and were based on the Bible."
I don't claim that racism is based on Darwinism. Lubenow and I merely contend that Darwinism and neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution out of some species of non-human African apes are racist theories.
"Mao Tse Tung doesn't make Turkana Boy go away.... "
Both Mao Tse Tung (H. sapiens) and Turkana Boy (H. erectus) were full and equal members of the human race and should not racially be classified as separate species.
Post #77
Not only an unsubstantiated assertion, also false.jcrawford wrote:No, I don't. Evolutionary theory stems from racism.
Evolutionary theory is an explanation of the observational data we see about life, both past and present. Those who developed the theory were simply trying to explain the observable data.
Some of them may have actually been racists, I don't know. But in any case, the theory does not stem from racism, it was created to explain the observable data.
As has been pointed out, species is a separate classification from race. By any definition of species, the races we refer to today are not separate species.My understanding of Lubenow's thesis is that dividing and classifying fossil members of the human race as different and separate 'species' is a form of scientific racism, since there is only one human race with racial diversification and variety within it.
By your logic, anyone who makes any distinctions between species that existed in the past would be racist.
You are again abusing words by ascribing the word racist, which has connotations of hatred, racial superiority, and oppression, to those who make scientific classifications based on observable data.
Also, according to your logic, anyone who even attempts to determine which fossils represent species which are human and which represent other species besides Homo Sapiens is a racist. Ludicrous. Is it racist to to classify fossil bears as different than fossil primates?
How do you classify which fossils are human and which are not?
The logical conclusion to your thinking is that scientists should never try to classify fossils into species.
Even if evolutionary biologists are wrong about how they have classified fossil hominids into different species, this would not make them racist, nor the theory racist.
Post #78
quote="micatala"
"Evolutionary theory is an explanation of the observational data we see about life, both past and present."
It's a racist explanation.
"Those who developed the theory were simply trying to explain the observable data. "
There is no observable data of human evolution.
We know that. Classifying human fossils as separate species is racist because it infers they were not members of the human race.
"By any definition of species, the races we refer to today are not separate species."
Niether were any races in the past separate species.
"By your logic, anyone who makes any distinctions between species that existed in the past would be racist. "
That is correct.
"You are again abusing words by ascribing the word racist, which has connotations of hatred, racial superiority, and oppression, to those who make scientific classifications based on observable data. "
Scientific racism establishes Homo sapiens superiorty over all other human "species" in the past and oppresses their descendents.
"Also, according to your logic, anyone who even attempts to determine which fossils represent species which are human and which represent other species besides Homo Sapiens is a racist.
Correct.
"Is it racist to to classify fossil bears as different than fossil primates?"
Bears don't have civil rights.
"How do you classify which fossils are human and which are not? The logical conclusion to your thinking is that scientists should never try to classify fossils into species."
It's racist to classify human fossils into species.
"Even if evolutionary biologists are wrong about how they have classified fossil hominids into different species, this would not make them racist, nor the theory racist."
Since the theory is about the origin of the human race, any division of it's members into different and separate 'species' is racist.
"Evolutionary theory is an explanation of the observational data we see about life, both past and present."
It's a racist explanation.
"Those who developed the theory were simply trying to explain the observable data. "
There is no observable data of human evolution.
"As has been pointed out, species is a separate classification from race. "My understanding of Lubenow's thesis is that dividing and classifying fossil members of the human race as different and separate 'species' is a form of scientific racism, since there is only one human race with racial diversification and variety within it.
We know that. Classifying human fossils as separate species is racist because it infers they were not members of the human race.
"By any definition of species, the races we refer to today are not separate species."
Niether were any races in the past separate species.
"By your logic, anyone who makes any distinctions between species that existed in the past would be racist. "
That is correct.
"You are again abusing words by ascribing the word racist, which has connotations of hatred, racial superiority, and oppression, to those who make scientific classifications based on observable data. "
Scientific racism establishes Homo sapiens superiorty over all other human "species" in the past and oppresses their descendents.
"Also, according to your logic, anyone who even attempts to determine which fossils represent species which are human and which represent other species besides Homo Sapiens is a racist.
Correct.
"Is it racist to to classify fossil bears as different than fossil primates?"
Bears don't have civil rights.
"How do you classify which fossils are human and which are not? The logical conclusion to your thinking is that scientists should never try to classify fossils into species."
It's racist to classify human fossils into species.
"Even if evolutionary biologists are wrong about how they have classified fossil hominids into different species, this would not make them racist, nor the theory racist."
Since the theory is about the origin of the human race, any division of it's members into different and separate 'species' is racist.
Post #79
Sorry, just because you and Lubenow say so does not make it so.jcrawford wrote: It's a racist explanation.
False again. There is quite a bit of fossil evidence, not to mention the DNA, including mitochondrial DNA, evidence previously cited. You are again making an unsubstantiated assertion. I can only assume you refuse to acknowledge any evidence which doesn't fit your pet theory.micatala:
"Those who developed the theory were simply trying to explain the observable data. "
jcrawford:
There is no observable data of human evolution.
You are again abusing words.micatala:
"As has been pointed out, species is a separate classification from race. "
jcrawford:
We know that. Classifying human fossils as separate species is racist because it infers they were not members of the human race.
You haven't said how you decide which fossils represent human individuals and which not. You have simply arbitrarily, as far as I can see, assigned all or some large proportion of ancient hominid species to the "human race". Which fossils represent members of the human race and which not, and how are you making the assignment?
Well, then you are a racist by your own wierd definition, since you have decided in your own mind that some fossils represent humans and some do not. The only difference is that you have included a larger group of fossils in those that are human."How do you classify which fossils are human and which are not? The logical conclusion to your thinking is that scientists should never try to classify fossils into species."
It's racist to classify human fossils into species.
Evolutionary biologists have developed a large literature on hominid fossils and have been up front about how they have classified these fossils into different species. If you want to classify some of these as the same species, say how you are deciding why, and how you decide which ones you are not going to include.
More twisting of words. I didn't say races did not exist, either in the present or the past. I merely said the classification of race was not a scientific classification. Species is a separate classification and is scientific. Niether have I said there were races in past species. You seem to refuse to understand that race and species do not mean the same thing.micatala:
"By any definition of species, the races we refer to today are not separate species."
jcrawford:
Niether were any races in the past separate species.
Another false statement. Again, there is no such thing as scientific racism. Also, evolution as a theory does nothing to oppress anyone, either human or non-human, past or present. Evolution does not really consider "superiority of species" as a concept at all, certainly in no way that gives rights to some and not to others. Evolutionary biologists simply attempt to describe characteristics of various species, as part of what they do.Scientific racism establishes Homo sapiens superiorty over all other human "species" in the past and oppresses their descendents.
You say that any attempt to classify "human fossils" into different species is racist, although I don't see that you have said how you decide which fossils represent humans and which do not. Whether you say this or not, as I have said above, you are a racist by your own bizarre definition of racism, since whatever private criteria you apply, you are still engaged in an attempt at classification into species (unless you want to say that all life on earth consists of one species).
Post #80
Since there never were "neo-Darwinist racial theories" there was never anything to demolish. I've simply pointed out that evolution always works by each species "reproducing according to its kind," but that mutations and selection result in the "kind" changing over time. That's all. Humans evolved from earlier species, which evolved from earlier species, and so on to the beginning of life.jcrawford wrote:Thank you. You just demolished neo-Darwinist racial theories of the human race's origins and evolution from another species!Jose wrote: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?
It's no different from our distinctions between Latin, French, Spanish, Portugese, and Italian. They are clearly different. The extant languages are clearly the descendents of Latin. Each changed slowly over time. They became different because they were geographically separated. So, if Latin evolved into Italian (for example), is it "racist" to call Latin a different language from Italian? It is different, after all.
Similarly, our distant ancestors were different enough from us that we call them different.
You make the common mistake of assuming (I think) that "new species" appear by some kind of sudden event, in which something goes *pop* and voila, there's the new species. It doesn't work like that. Consequently, your arguments are irretrievably wrong.
In other words, you really don't want to discuss it. You just want to poke jabs at the science.jcrawford wrote:I think Lubenow is more of an expert on the human fossil record than either of us are, and that a real discussion of it is only possible when one is familiar with the scientific documentation he presents in support of his thesis.Jose wrote: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?
I rather disagree with you that Lubenow is an expert. He's an expert in his crackpot gibberish, but not in science, and not in human evolution, and not even in the basics of evolutionary mechanisms. He makes things up out of whole cloth, ignores the real science, and--if your arguments are any guide--changes the definitions of words in order to make his complaints sound like they mean something. It's really unfortunate that there are people like him who are so good at misleading others.
Panza llena, corazon contento
