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]

The ole dbl post.

hehe was wondering what the F was going on

[jcrawford]

jcrawford,

You have posted an identical thread in 4 forums ( that I found...I admit
I didn't do an exhaustive search ). In none of them have you presented
any evidence to support your claims. You merely assert that it's true.

No one has yet to present any evidence in support of their claims. All you do is "assert" evolution is true. When are you going to present some specific human fossils as proof of human evolution?

[jcrawford]

I really don't know why you people are bothering to engage this guy. There are more productive and informative topics on this board. Heh...like, all of them. Seriously, you people need to recognize when you're getting your chain yanked, and just move on.

Move on? Isn't that the name of some radical left-wing Marxist, humanist, secular and socialist political organization with a neo-Darwinist racial agenda to undermine all American Judeo-Christian and Islamic values and virtues at every given media opportunity?

[jcrawford]

jcrawford,

I disagree, the term troll does apply to you. It is not necessarily a pleasant term, but what you are doing is neither informative, nor a debate.

Simply calling or labeling your opponents trolls serves no other purpose than admitting that you have no valid, rational and scientific arguments to present in opposition to their intelligent conclusions.

[jcrawford]

Finally... This is Lubenow's (and jcrawford's) own misconception of the theory of natural selection. There are no value judgements involved...no one is sitting in judgement of the mutations ( thats more in the theology realm ). When things are described in terms of fitness, it's a value neutral term.

So you admit that neo-Darwinst racial 'theorists' have no values or morals. Good.

This is where Lubenow equates superiority with fitness, incorrectly.
The last three sentences are more or less correct. Having incorrectly
ascribed a perjorative conotation to "fitness", he is now free to use it
liberally. Lame attempt at lameness.

A rather lame attempt on your part to refute Lubenow's thesis of inherent racism in all neo-Darwinist racial theories of human descent from non-human African ape ancestors in Africa.

Still no human fossils to present in support of such racist theories?

[jcrawford]

Many people have bothered to cull your argument down to a selective use of a broad definition of race to suit your argument.

Doesn't 'natural selection' allow for "a selective use of a broad definition of race" to suit one's argument. Don't tell me that neo-Darwinst race theorists are the only people who have been naturally selected to tell other folks what a 'natural selection' is.

The term "human race" is used to convey the ubiquity of humans, not as a scientific definition. This is used much in the same way as mankind.

Don't forget to include womankind in our non-scientific definition of the human race. Too bad that neo-Darwinist race-theorists don't consider all of our human ancestors to be part of our human race, but have divided them up into different and separate 'species' for no other reason than to associate the first African 'species' of humankind with non-human ancestors of primordial African apes and monkeys.

[The Happy Humanist]

All: Please observe my refusal to rise to the bait. Now go thou and do likewise.

[Chimp]

The fossil record is irrelevant in this case...your argument hinges on the
assertion that the theory of natural selection is racist. All your other comments
assertions and repetitions are not relevant. The meat of your argument
appears to be tofu.

It is clear that you do not understand the theory enough to provide a
reasonable argument.

[jcrawford]

All: Please observe my refusal to rise to the bait. Now go thou and do likewise.

Sure, sure. Rise to the occasion and get thee hence in abject debate defeat and concession to Lubenow's contentions of evolutionary racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist 'scientific' theories of African peoples genetic descent from some mysterious common ancestor of non-human African apes once upon a time in ancient Africa.

You know what the neo-Darwinist African Eve model of human evolution states, don't you? It says that we are all genetic descendents of some African Homo sapiens woman by the mythical name of Eve who lived in Africa 100 - 200 tya. If that's the case, then any old African Homo sapiens sapiens like me or Lubenow can claim African ancestry from beautiful African human beings while at the same time denying that either their or our previous human ancestors originally originated from some neo-Darwinist ancestors of hairy black or brown African apes.

[jcrawford]

The fossil record is irrelevant in this case...

If the fossil record is irrelevant in the case of human descent from another species, then all DNA tests performed on any fossils of any species are also irrelevant. You can't have your fossil record and eat your DNA cake based on them too! You can run from neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution, but you can't hide behind manipulative strategies which make a 'switch and bait' fossil shell game out of science.

your argument hinges on the assertion that the theory of natural selection is racist.

Not only is the theory of 'natural selection' racist, but the division and classification of fossilized members of the past human race into 'different and separate species' is racist also.

All your other comments assertions and repetitions are not relevant. The meat of your argument appears to be tofu.

Your repetitive comments and assertions are irrelevant to the present discussion of present-day human beings and their original human ancestors, since the meat of your argument seems to be based on neo-Darwinist racial theories about the biological and genetic origins of the whole human race from an ancestral race of extinct monkeys, gorillas and chimpanzees.

It is clear that you do not understand the theory enough to provide a reasonable argument.

Why don't you explain to our audience what the neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution from African ape ancestors really say then, since you seem to think that you are as much of an expert on the human fossil record and neo-Darwinist theories of evolution as Lubenow is. Give it a shot, won't you? Lest we all realize that you don't even know what Homos you're talking about.