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.

[jcrawford]

Lubenow on Racism: (From Bones of Contention, BakerBooks, 2004)

Racism centers around three elements. First, racism always involves differences in population groups. Often the differences involving racism are ethnic, tribal, cultural, or even religious. Racism is not about the differences that are found among individuals. The popular word for those differences is the term diversity.

I have no problem with this qualification of racism, although, one must ask why Lubenow does this. We all know what racism is.

If "we all know what racism is," why try to refute Lubenow's thesis that all neo-Darwinist theories, scenarios and models of human origins and evolution are racist without even having read his revolutionary thesis?

Second, the crucial factor in racism is “inherent superiority.” Throughout most of history, this “inherent” superiority was based on some vague belief that one’s own group was for some reason superior to others.

Again he is stating the obvious.

What is not obvious to you apparently is that neo-Darwinist divisions of the past human race into different and separate 'species' based on the progressive evolution of humans out of 'primitive' non-human African apes is inherently racist because it first associates the 'primitiveness' of African apes with 'primitive' African people and vice-versa.

[Chimp]

Forgive me, Chimp. I didn't word my repsonse to your intelligent question properly. I should have said: Yes, and I can also prove that the theory of natural selection specifically ascribes human superiority and supremacy to those human 'species' who managed to survive ancestral extinction.

Sorry to have given you the impression that I was misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the basic mechanisms of the theory of evolution as the basis for my claim. Forgive?

Nothing to forgive, but you still haven't proved anything.

Your superiority claim is no different than Lubenow's thin air claim.
By thin air, I mean from whence it came.
Primitive is a synonym for early, first, that which came before.

[palmera]

What is not obvious to you apparently is that neo-Darwinist divisions of the past human race into different and separate 'species' based on the progressive evolution of humans out of 'primitive' non-human African apes is inherently racist because it first associates the 'primitiveness' of African apes with 'primitive' African people and vice-versa.

You're twisting neo-darwinist theory into something it's not. Tracing back the evolution of humans isn't racists. Associating the first humans with other primates through evolutionary processes is not racist. Neo-Darwinism doesn't claim that africans are primitive like apes. What it does hold is that the development of homo-sapiens begins in Africa and over time spreads out into the middle east, then west through Europe and eastward toward the pacific. The races ("race" by the way is a misnomer, and is not a useful word in biology anymore because it's been proven to be false in theory) are not separated by superiority, but by where the crop up over the course of time- which tells us about climatic effects on humans and allows us to trace human movement and evolution over the course of time and space. Neo-Darwinism is not racist and your author is simply trying to make a name for himself by attacking certain scientific principles which do not flow with certain beliefs held by some christians.

[micatala]

FYI for palmera.

I can't recall if you made any posts to this thread already, but j has repeated over and over almost verbatim this contention in, and has refused to aknowledge exactly the rationale you have given why his is a totally ridiculous and unfounded assertion. He also refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of the word racism, or to apply it in practice in any way to his own assertions.

If you haven't already, you could spend some time reading through the whole thing (which unfortunately is very long) to see the kinds of tactics used by j and the thoroughness (IMV) with which this assertion has already been repeatedly refuted.

[jcrawford]

Forgive me, Chimp. I didn't word my repsonse to your intelligent question properly. I should have said: Yes, and I can also prove that the theory of natural selection specifically ascribes human superiority and supremacy to those human 'species' who managed to survive ancestral extinction.

Sorry to have given you the impression that I was misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the basic mechanisms of the theory of evolution as the basis for my claim. Forgive?

Nothing to forgive, but you still haven't proved anything.

Your superiority claim is no different than Lubenow's thin air claim.
By thin air, I mean from whence it came.
Primitive is a synonym for early, first, that which came before.

Lubenow's thesis claims, documents and demonstrates how highly civilized members of the human race, namely neo-Darwinist members of the 'species' of Homo sapiens, use 'brain size,' tool-making ability and other culture artifacts to determine, distinguish and classify the original African people as a "primitive" 'species" of the human race which originated and evolved from non-human ancestors of modern primates in Africa. Meanwhile, they consider all 'early' and 'archaic' Homo sapiens in Africa, Asia and Europe to be extinct sub-species of the human race who didn't evolve into anything except beautiful African Eve from whom we are all supposed to be genetically descended.

What could be a more primitive myth or racist theory than that?

[jcrawford]

What is not obvious to you apparently is that neo-Darwinist divisions of the past human race into different and separate 'species' based on the progressive evolution of humans out of 'primitive' non-human African apes is inherently racist because it first associates the 'primitiveness' of African apes with 'primitive' African people and vice-versa.

You're twisting neo-darwinist theory into something it's not. Tracing back the evolution of humans isn't racists. Associating the first humans with other primates through evolutionary processes is not racist. Neo-Darwinism doesn't claim that africans are primitive like apes.

Chimp just finished explaining how "primitive" means first, primary, prior, 'a priori' or aboriginal, and now you want to tell us that the first descendents of non-human primates in Africa weren't primarily the first African people on earth to evolve from the first non-human primates to ever mutate into people in accordance with laws of 'natural selection?'

If the first African apes to split off into the genetic beginnings of the human race in Africa 5-7 million years ago weren't "primitive," and the first people to actually appear on earth in 'Africa,' in human form weren't a 'primitive' form of humanity, what do you think the words, "first, primitive, original and primary" mean then?

What it does hold is that the development of homo-sapiens begins in Africa and over time spreads out into the middle east, then west through Europe and eastward toward the pacific.

That's only the 'African Eve Model' of all current Homo sapiens descent from another full and equal Homo sapiens woman in Africa and has no more to do with evolution from another 'species' than the biblical model of Adam and Eve does. Your'e not going to tell me that beautiful African Eve and her tribe or race of African human beings were actually descendents of some prior or former ancestral 'species' of more primitive human beings whom neo-Darwinists label and classify as Homo erectus, habilis or rudolfensis, are you? The H. habilis taxon is full of australopithicine ape fossils and KNM-ER 1470 shows that H. rudolfensis was fully human almost 2mya. Really, palmera, you ought to get a copy of the human fossil record from Lubenow. Otherwise, you may be ranked as a rank amateur regarding human evolution according to the fossil record.

[jcrawford]

The races ("race" by the way is a misnomer, and is not a useful word in biology anymore because it's been proven to be false in theory) are not separated by superiority, but by where the crop up over the course of time- which tells us about climatic effects on humans and allows us to trace human movement and evolution over the course of time and space.

If "race is a misnomer" and "is not a useful word in biology anymore because it's been proven to be false in theory," why do neo-Darwinist supporters continue to refer to a "useless misnomer" and word which has been proven to be false in theory," when defending their racist theories? Who proved it "to be false in theory" in the first place? Neo-Darwinist race theorists of human 'species' originating and evolving from a non-human race of African apes?

Neo-Darwinism is not racist and your author is simply trying to make a name for himself by attacking certain scientific principles which do not flow with certain beliefs held by some christians.

Prove it.

[jcrawford]

FYI for palmera.

I can't recall if you made any posts to this thread already, but j has repeated over and over almost verbatim this contention in, and has refused to aknowledge exactly the rationale you have given why his is a totally ridiculous and unfounded assertion. He also refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of the word racism, or to apply it in practice in any way to his own assertions.

That's an obvious lie since I have already posted the Oxford Dictionary's definitions of race and racism, as well as Lubenow's insight into the nature of modern racism in the form of neo-Darwinim upon whose published thesis I rest my case.

If you haven't already, you could spend some time reading through the whole thing (which unfortunately is very long) to see the kinds of tactics used by j and the thoroughness (IMV) with which this assertion has already been repeatedly refuted.

Ho, ho, ho. You've got a long way to go in repeatedly refuting a scholar named Lubenow.

[Chimp]

Jcrawford,

You haven't made any coherent rebuttal to my disection of the passages
from Lubenow's book. "Did so" doesn't qualify as an adequate rebuttal.

Here's some reading on mitochondrial eve...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

I doubt you read the other link I posted in the CA schools thread so
for completeness I'll post it here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr05.html

[micatala]

micatala:
He also refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of the word racism, or to apply it in practice in any way to his own assertions.

jcrawford:
That's an obvious lie since I have already posted the Oxford Dictionary's definitions of race and racism, as well as Lubenow's insight into the nature of modern racism in the form of neo-Darwinim upon whose published thesis I rest my case.

At first, you posted a definition that was really 8 conflicting definitions and you refused to specify which of the 8 you were using.

In addition, simply posting the definition doesn't do any good if you refuse to use it appropriately, according to its actual meaning and usage, or if you refuse to use it consistently in the same manner, but change defintions on the fly in order to suit your purpose of falsely slandering evolutionary biology.

If you really would rest your case, that would be fine with me.