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]

You're right, Cathar--the linguistic studies match the genetics, but since languages evolve faster than we do, it's hard to go very far back. The last matchup I saw was kind of like the genetic tree matched to several linguistic bushes that could not be unambiguously linked at the roots. There may well be much more linguistic data now, though, so my information is probably out of date.

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.

The racist nonsense is, indeed, a ruse. Unfortunately, I don't suspect the sanity of Lubenow. His argument and his strategy are too well planned. I think he's perfectly sane, but purposely and dishonestly misleading his audience.

[Cathar1950]

Do you think he is just trying to sell books to desperate creationist?
Ben Witherington III did a book on the Da Vinci Code. He mostly rattled on about stuff you can read in any beginners guide to church history.
He was just making a buck off the popularity of Brown's Da Vinci Code book. I think Elaine Pagels kind of kicked his butt. Of course I am sure some didn't see it that way.
I would think that the evolutionist would be the first to notice no merit in any kind of racial theories. It seems the genes often do not make up the so called racial differences, but environment. It is interesting that when populations move into a new area already inhabited by people they tend to look like the indigenous population even if there are genetic differences in the ancestors. Life is flexible unlike some people.

[Jose]

It seems the genes often do not make up the so called racial differences, but environment. It is interesting that when populations move into a new area already inhabited by people they tend to look like the indigenous population even if there are genetic differences in the ancestors.

There is some sense in what you say. The mutation rate is high enough to enable fairly rapid skin-color changes, albeit not always by the same mechanism... I say this from looking at what happens if you put me and my son out in the sun for a day. I turn red and peel. He turns brown. It's the Tarahumare genes he got from his mom that are responsible (I presume).

When humans were in Africa, we were all dark-skinned. High UV, more melanin. When we (well, "we" in quotes) migrated to the north (Scandinavia, Siberia, etc), the low UV selected for mutations that knocked out melanin production (at least, continuous production; there's still a tanning response in many Europeans). After migrating to Alaska, then down to Central America, light skin was again a disadvantage. Dark skin was selected for--but the vagaries of mutation resulted in kicking up the tanning response, rather than turning on continuous melanin production. So, I've got the pasty Scots skin, and my son has the robust Tarahumare tanning response. Pretty cool, really.

But that's just skin color, which is not enough to determine "race." If we look at plants, where "races" are well defined, they are almost, but not quite, subspecies. With corn, the three major US races are the Flints, Dents, and Pops. Flints and Dents have to do with the characteristics of the kernels, about which I can't say much more. The Pops are the popcorns. With rice, the main races are the long-grain and short-grain rices, which have fairly significant differences. And so it goes. Genetic separation, not quite enough to form species, defines "races" where there's no goofy human emotion involved.

With humans, though, there's so much emotion that it's better to look at the genetic data and conclude that what we've called "races" is hogwash. The real issue is "ethnic tension," where skin color is enough to define different ethnicities. People like to call them "races" to avoid the embarrasment of fighting over a difference as trivial as the difference between a yellow or black Labrador retriever. So are religious differences in the absence of significant physical variation. There are evolutionary reasons for this, of course, but those who base their True Morality on these kinds of foundations don't much care for them.

[Cathar1950]

I got the same scott skin. Burn like a baby.
I think it is pretty cool myself this ability to adapt.
Your above discourse seems pretty much what the sciences seem to be saying from the data.

[jcrawford]

The data lump us all together, destroying the common perception of what "race" is.

There's nothing wrong with geneticists "lumping" all members of the human race together genetically Jose, since that is what the creationist model presumes at the outset, knowing that all human beings are equally descended from one genetic and racial stock of human ancestors, namely, Adam and Eve. What you fail to realize though, is that neo-Darwinist geneticists prejudicially develop their theoretical models and diagrams for the sole purpose of trying to substaniate and 'scientifically' prove neo-Darwinst racial theories about the human races descent from African people and great apes. You must understand Jose, that genetics is only a science and like all 'sciences,' if left unchecked to itself, with no public monitoring and criticism, it may become capable of saying and doing anything.

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.

The data only provides support for neo-Darwinist racial beleifs that the human race evolved out of Africa and bioologically descended from a race of African apes. Whether neo-Darwinism is a religious belief or not, I will leave to the good sense and determination of the mullahs, priests, rabbis and other pastors of this world.

[Cathar1950]

For the last time there are no neo-Darwinist racial beliefs.

You must understand Jose, that genetics is only a science and like all 'sciences,' if left unchecked to itself, with no public monitoring and criticism, it may become capable of saying and doing anything.

I hope your not monitoring. You will be wasting their time and money.
Eve was about 120,000 years ago Adam was about 60,000.
I doubt they even dated.

What you fail to realize though, is that neo-Darwinist geneticists prejudicially develop their theoretical models and diagrams for the sole purpose of trying to substaniate and 'scientifically' prove neo-Darwinst racial theories about the human races descent from African people and great apes.

No one is doing that but you. All people came out of Africa.
We and the apes descended from a common ancestor.

[jcrawford]

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.

Tracing Semitic languages back to Africa may be a form of scientific, cultural and historical racism in and of itself, since every knows that all Semitic people originated in the Middle East and only migrated to Africa in order to sustain their historical way of life.

[jcrawford]

For the last time there are no neo-Darwinist racial beliefs.

Neither are there any neo-Darwinist ancestral 'species' of the human race which might have accidently mutated from African people or great African apes.

Eve was about 120,000 years ago Adam was about 60,000.
I doubt they even dated.

Who are you talking about here? African Adam and Eve or biblical Adam and Eve? Don't get them confused now, as neo-Darwinist race theorists are wont to have you do.

All people came out of Africa. We and the apes descended from a common ancestor.

You sound like a religious professer here, Cathar1950. Where's your 'scientific' evidence in support of such religious bs?

[Cathar1950]

We didn't mutate from Africans they are our ancesters and relatives.
They are us.
I am not getting the the two adam and eve's mixed up. One is a Myth
The other is Just names given to the to the genetic trail named after the Bible stories.
I is not religious dispite you silly claims.
The only bs I see is your constaint parroting neo-Darwinist race theorists over and over again. As I read BoC I noticed he uses what he calls
begging the question. (That is acording to ML) having a bias and looking for something and finding it.
You sound like the old farts at the bar.
Some are even my friends others are relatives. Most are Republicans.
Bless their little minds and hearts.
By the way LM is wrong the bible doesn't say it is the word of God.
But I like gospel bluegrass so we all got our falts I guess.

[micatala]

Where's your 'scientific' evidence in support of such religious bs?

Where's yours? You haven't shown us any credible evidence in 22 pages.

All you have put forward is Lubenow, who we have seen is [url =http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... ght=#33092] not qualified [/url] and not credible.

Your response to this was to either ignore the problems pointed out, make unsubstantiated accusations of bias on the part of evolutionary biologists in refusing to allow non-evolutionary viewpoints to be published, and make unsubstantiated claims about the quality of Lubenow's work.

In other words, you don't have any scientific evidence to support your false contention.

Neither are there any neo-Darwinist ancestral 'species' of the human race which might have accidently mutated from African people or great African apes.

You have been shown the fossils. You have claimed that Lubenow is a fossil expert. How do you explain that we have fossils that show gradual change over millions of years from chimp-like species to homo sapiens?

The fossil evidence, of course, is irrelevant to your charges of racism, as you haven't shown neo-Darwinism meets any of your multiple and conflicting defintions of racism. You have refused to apply a single, unambiguous defintion of racism, and I have already explained how your contention is false, based on any reasonable definition of racism you wish to use.