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.

[Jose]

Given the nature of BB's, I'm talking to everyone. But to answer your question less glibly, I was mostly describing my experience here. I've learned a lot of things I wouldn't have if I'd stuck to talking only with my fellow science-geek friends.

And thanks, chimp! Maybe we can butt heads in the near future. ...reminds me of a photo of my Tae Kwon Do mentor breaking a stack of 10 concrete blocks with his head. ouch.

[Cathar1950]

I was pretty sure he wasn't talking about me.
I think Jose bought his votes. I have nothing to base this on not even faith.
I don't know if any of my arguments are right.
Sometimes it is obvious some others are wrong.
I see a lot of Theist being uncivil and sometimes they are funny.
For a Atheist Lotan is really funny sometimes and insightful.
sin-is-fun can be a riot.
Hey folks the bones of contention cam in today. I am looking forward to an hour of reading.
ST88 wrote:

Wait a second, here. I'm a bit confused on why you think the theory is racist. Before, you were saying that the theory is racist because Lubenow concludes different lineages for different ethnicities. Now you're saying that it's racist because of the entire race's ancestors being apes. Leaving aside the truth of either of those statements, what is it -- exactly you find racist about the theory?

It has confused me also and I was trying to pay attention.
I think your getting his drift.
ST88 wrote:

You appear to be suggesting that because races other than Africans must have necessarily evolved from Africans, it follows that the subsequent races are thought of as "more evolved"; is this it? Are you claiming that Asians, for example, are thought of as "more evolved" than Africans because the Asian plains were populated later in human history

Bingo! I told you it was a Racist theory just under the surface.
Jose(the buyer of awards) wrote:

The "hypersensitivity" to which you refer is simply the astonishment that anyone can be as wacky as Lubenow, and actually invent goofy ideas like "scientific racism," especially when doing so requires inventing a private definition of racism. There's no concern at all about the "charge" of scientific racism--because such a thing simply does not exist. The concern is that people can be so seriously misled by Lubenow, who is little but a charlatan.

That almost brought tears to my eyes.
Look at John Edwards on the sci-fi channel. I am glad they took him off.
His book does have an attractive cover.

[jcrawford]

You appear to be suggesting that because races other than Africans must have necessarily evolved from Africans, it follows that the subsequent races are thought of as "more evolved"; is this it?

Neither Lubenow nor I subscribe to either the social construct or scientific concept of different and separate races or 'species' within our one and only historic human race. We just maintain that any neo-Darwinist theory or model of human evolution out of Africa is a form of scientific racism because it only associates Homo sapiens Asians and Europeans 'by Homo sapiens descent' with a prior, fully human, Homo sapiens, African woman who belonged to some African tribe which neo-Darwinist theory claims to have biologically evolved and aboriginally descended from common ancestors of modern African monkeys and apes. In other words, neo-Darwinist theorists want you to believe that we all descended from ape ancestors because the original African people did. Since Lubenow and I don't believe that the original African people on earth did evolve and descend from African ape ancestors, there is no basis for claiming (by association) that any other full and equal members of the human race did either.

Fortunately, for modern African, Asian and European people today, Lubenow presents 371 specimens of the human fossil record as evidence for the falsification of neo-Darwinst racial theories of human evolution out of Africa, and exposes all such neo-Darwinist race theories as being nothing more than a modern form of scientific racism.

Are you claiming that Asians, for example, are thought of as "more evolved" than Africans because the Asian plains were populated later in human history?

No. Lubenow simply shows how the human fossil record itself shows and demonstrates that any so-called "scientific' theory of Asian or European evolution or descent from either African people or apes is both demonstrably false and racist in either ideology or theory.

[Cathar1950]

Despite what ever he thinks of the fossil records. Genetics point's to all of us coming out of Africa.
Among other evidence. It isn't just fossils anymore.
The science of evolution has grown beyond a few bones of contention.

[jcrawford]

Still, it wasn't your idea, nor was it mine, nor was it the idea of any Darwinist of any flavor. It started with Linneaus.

True, but what started with Linneaus might end with Linneaus, should non-Darwinist biologists choose to classify human beings under such human taxonomic labels as the Human Kingdom, the Human Race and the Human Family, instead of arbitrarily subsuming all people under archaic, extinct and obsolete animal, ape and species labels. Get my genetic drift here?

Still, there are enough differences to warrant classifying the other apes as different species from us--which, according to your definition, is racism.

It's not my definition of racism since I'm only using the American Edition of the Oxford dictionary as a reference for understanding the meaning of such words as racism and race. If you don't have an Oxford Dictionary handy, I'll be glad to post their entries for race and racism for you, upon request.

You can't have it both ways, and say that classifying some of our relatives as other species is racism, while at the same time insisting that others of our relatives are a different kind of life-form. Either they're all part of the Human Race, or it's not "racism" to call them different species. Make up your mind.

Jose, while it may be racist to call a species of African chimpanzees 'non-human apes,' it is currently illegal for any employee of the United States government to call any member of the human race a non-human ape, whether that person works for the government of the United States of America or not.

We have our own taxonomic classification. It's called "humans."

I suppose you are referring to the genus of Homo here. How quaint and obsolete that humans are classified under the neo-darwinist family of Great Apes instead of vice-versa. Just invert your family tree and you'll have apes sharing a few physical characteristics with you. In other words, work backwards, and you'll soon arrive at the conclusion that the amimal world is digressively composed of your own physical characterists and elements.

Unfortunately, the characteristics that define the animal kingdom, the eutherian mammals, the primates, and the hominidae also happen to fit us.

Fortunately, it all depends on which end of the looking glass one is peering into. Just because the Bible says that God created animals before humans doesn't mean that it's true, does it?

[jcrawford]

There's no biological reason to pretend that we are somehow "special" just because we can have philosophical discussions. That idea is based on ancient peoples' attempts to understand their world, in the absence of any scientific information.

Jose, you are revealing your prejudices against "ancient people" here, which probably reflects on, and is due to, your neo-Darwinist biases against some of the 'ancient' ancestors of our human race, since there is every biological and psychological reason in the world to think of our individual and unique human selves as being special. After all, what other animal can talk, speak or write as eloquently as you and I, Jose?
What other animal besides us, Jose, even knows that it is classified as an animal by animals like us, Jose? Good grief! Why do some people say that man is the most dangerous animal on the planet, anyway?

Seen from the viewpoint of >2000 years ago, sure, people seem special. Seen from the viewpoint of genetic and molecular analysis, we're just one of many slight variations on the general theme of living things. Far from bothering me because I've "lost my special purpose," that information helps me understand other life forms much better, and gives me a much deeper understanding of my real place in the universe.

You've just replaced your "special purpose" with "a much deeper understanding of your real place in the universe," which seems to have some 'special' meaning to you.

[jcrawford]

Despite what ever he thinks of the fossil records. Genetics point's to all of us coming out of Africa.
Among other evidence. It isn't just fossils anymore.
The science of evolution has grown beyond a few bones of contention.

Simply saying that "Genetics point's to all of us coming out of Africa," is no different from, but equal to, on an intellectual level, as saying that Genesis points to all of us descending from Adam and Eve instead of African Eve.

Simple assertions, without evidential proof to substantiate such claims, amount to nothing more than one form of religious belief or another.

[Sender]

Despite what ever he thinks of the fossil records. Genetics point's to all of us coming out of Africa.
Among other evidence. It isn't just fossils anymore.
The science of evolution has grown beyond a few bones of contention.

Simply saying that "Genetics point's to all of us coming out of Africa," is no different from, but equal to, on an intellectual level, as saying that Genesis points to all of us descending from Adam and Eve instead of African Eve.

Simple assertions, without evidential proof to substantiate such claims, amount to nothing more than one form of religious belief or another.

Yeah, what he said.

[Jose]

Despite what ever he thinks of the fossil records. Genetics point's to all of us coming out of Africa.
Among other evidence. It isn't just fossils anymore.
The science of evolution has grown beyond a few bones of contention.

Simply saying that "Genetics point's to all of us coming out of Africa," is no different from, but equal to, on an intellectual level, as saying that Genesis points to all of us descending from Adam and Eve instead of African Eve.

Simple assertions, without evidential proof to substantiate such claims, amount to nothing more than one form of religious belief or another.

Well, saying "genetics points to us all coming out of Africa" is a simple shorthand for this:

The vertical lines are proportional to the degree of difference in DNA sequences; the horizontal lines simply spread the vertical lines apart, but connect the most similar sequences or groups of sequences. It's pretty clear that the most sequence diversity is among Africans, while most non-Africans are pretty darned similar. Now, you can conclude what you like from this--and you've given your opinion earlier in this thread--but these are the data. If you believe that each species reproduces according to its kind, and if you don't deny the fact that mutations happen, then you have little choice but to accept the genetic evidence for African origins of the current human population.

And, as I've noted before, the group on the right includes most non-Africans and a bunch of Africans, which is the genetic data that indicate that this group of Africans and nearly everyone else in the world are the same race. That is: evolution and genetics argue strongly against the weird notion that "evolution is racist." The data lump us all together, destroying the common perception of what "race" is.

I guess we assumed you knew these data, since you've commented on them so often. Apparently you had not seen them, if you say the data are no more than religious belief.

[Cathar1950]

Yeah what he said.
Nice graph I was looking for one.
Then there is linguistic evolution and studies. The graph kind of looks a lot
like the one you have.
I would have to hook up my scanner.
But I am sure any search engine can find many examples.
I did read this article about semitic languages and how they go back to Africa and the populations got separated by the Sahara.
There has been a number of tv programs on the History Channel, The Discovery Channel, TLC, PBS, and National Geographic just in case you don't want to read. It seem with so much different evidence pointing to the same conclusion it makes you suspect the sanity of some guy bitching about a few bones that he selected to bitch about. The racist crap is just
a ruse.