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]

What is the basis for classifying different fossil members of the human race as separate 'species' then?

This is getting silly, but I'll respond anyway. This has all be said before, but maybe saying it a different way would help.

For starters, try reading The Wisdom of the Bones by Walker and Shipman. It describes the Nariokotome (Turkana) boy. You may, if you like, call his tribe the same species as your own; that's up to you. The current best explanation is that his type of human gave rise to our type of human, over the course of a million years or so.

Is he part of "the human race," or is his species different from us but still an ancestor? Well, look at the vertebral channels through which the spinal cord reaches from the brain to the lungs. In our flavor of humans, there's enough room for the elaborate neural wiring that allows us to modulate our breathing in order to achieve speech. In the Nariokotome boy, there was not enough room. Walker's conclusion is that he could not speak. His flavor of human could do what chimps do, and make noises and communicate by grunts, growls, signals, and actions, but they couldn't carry out conversation as we call it.

This is a pretty big difference between them and us. A few mutations and a bit of selection accounts for how we arose from them--by, as I have said before, "reproducing according to our kind." The kind changed.

OK. Now look at Lucy. She, too, is in our family tree. You are welcome to embrace her as your own species, as part of "the human race." She looks kinda different, though. Her ribcage is much wider. Her pelvis is much wider. She is much shorter. She didn't have the same way of standing and walking, and didn't have the butt-muscles we do, so couldn't run for long distances. Her anatomy is much like that of an orang, complete with the large gut required to digest plant material as a strict herbivore.

Nariokotome's flavor of human was shaped like us. They were hunters. Lucy's flavor of human was not shaped like us. They were herbivores. Again, it's up to you to call these people your same species, but there are enough morphological differences that it is highly unlikely that you and she would have been able to have offspring together.

You may, if you like, work farther backwards through our lineage. You'll get to the fish eventually. By your argument, and apparently your definition, these fish were the same species as you. As our ancestors, they should be part of "the human race." They look kinda different, though, and again, I'd be surprised if you could have offspring with one of their females. Fortunately, this is a thought-experiment only, since the opportunity for the test is long gone, but you can imagine how unlikely it would be.

Now, if you'd read up on some science--you know, a little genetics, a little evolution, and a little vocabulary--you would come to see how vacuous Lubenow's position is. There's no "racism" in thinking that you and a fish cannot have offspring, even if that fish is your ancestor. There's no "racism" in suggesting that non-speaking ancestors of ours might be different enough from us that they, too, would be unable to produce offspring with us. There's no racism in suggesting that Alberto Torcini would be unable to converse with Cicero. We're merely observing that time has passed, and changes have occurred. We've chosen to give names to different "timepoints" in the continuous series, in part so that we can talk about them conveniently.

[jcrawford]

What is the basis for classifying different fossil members of the human race as separate 'species' then?

This is getting silly, but I'll respond anyway. This has all be said before, but maybe saying it a different way would help.

For starters, try reading The Wisdom of the Bones by Walker and Shipman. It describes the Nariokotome (Turkana) boy. You may, if you like, call his tribe the same species as your own; that's up to you. The current best explanation is that his type of human gave rise to our type of human, over the course of a million years or so.

Is he part of "the human race," or is his species different from us but still an ancestor? Well, look at the vertebral channels through which the spinal cord reaches from the brain to the lungs. In our flavor of humans, there's enough room for the elaborate neural wiring that allows us to modulate our breathing in order to achieve speech. In the Nariokotome boy, there was not enough room. Walker's conclusion is that he could not speak. His flavor of human could do what chimps do, and make noises and communicate by grunts, growls, signals, and actions, but they couldn't carry out conversation as we call it.

This is a pretty big difference between them and us. A few mutations and a bit of selection accounts for how we arose from them--by, as I have said before, "reproducing according to our kind." The kind changed.

OK. Now look at Lucy. She, too, is in our family tree. You are welcome to embrace her as your own species, as part of "the human race." She looks kinda different, though. Her ribcage is much wider. Her pelvis is much wider. She is much shorter. She didn't have the same way of standing and walking, and didn't have the butt-muscles we do, so couldn't run for long distances. Her anatomy is much like that of an orang, complete with the large gut required to digest plant material as a strict herbivore.

Nariokotome's flavor of human was shaped like us. They were hunters. Lucy's flavor of human was not shaped like us. They were herbivores. Again, it's up to you to call these people your same species, but there are enough morphological differences that it is highly unlikely that you and she would have been able to have offspring together.

You may, if you like, work farther backwards through our lineage. You'll get to the fish eventually. By your argument, and apparently your definition, these fish were the same species as you. As our ancestors, they should be part of "the human race." They look kinda different, though, and again, I'd be surprised if you could have offspring with one of their females. Fortunately, this is a thought-experiment only, since the opportunity for the test is long gone, but you can imagine how unlikely it would be.

Now, if you'd read up on some science--you know, a little genetics, a little evolution, and a little vocabulary--you would come to see how vacuous Lubenow's position is. There's no "racism" in thinking that you and a fish cannot have offspring, even if that fish is your ancestor. There's no "racism" in suggesting that non-speaking ancestors of ours might be different enough from us that they, too, would be unable to produce offspring with us. There's no racism in suggesting that Alberto Torcini would be unable to converse with Cicero. We're merely observing that time has passed, and changes have occurred. We've chosen to give names to different "timepoints" in the continuous series, in part so that we can talk about them conveniently.

Sorry Jose: I just spent an hour replying to a previous post and was asked to log in again. Since this already happened once before and I lost that reply also, please forgive me if I go to another website until my frustration with this one has subsided.

[micatala]

Alas, I have had this problem. I now make a practice of copying long posts at least to the clipboard before hitting submit. I understand your crankiness.

[Jose]

Sorry Jose: I just spent an hour replying to a previous post and was asked to log in again. Since this already happened once before and I lost that reply also, please forgive me if I go to another website until my frustration with this one has subsided.

Yikes! I join micatala in offering my sympathies. It's really annoying when things like that happen. I often compose my posts in a separate word-processor file, then paste them into the BB. Take your time responding. I appreciate your setting this aside for a while, so we can keep the discussion fun.

[perfessor]

All right jcrawford, the time has come to call you out on the racism charge. You have repeatedly asserted that evolutionary theory is inherently racist, yet your only justification is a vague “because I say so” regarding classification of various ancient homonids. To you this is racism; I am going to ask you to put up or shut up.

To repeat a definition:

rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Examples of "because I say so" debating:

Classifying human fossils as separate species is racist because it infers they were not members of the human race.

Does not meet the standard of the definition. No "superiority" is claimed, no discrimination exists.

Scientific racism establishes Homo sapiens superiorty over all other human "species" in the past and oppresses their descendents.

You must explain this "oppression." The claim that science establishes H.S. superiority is your own inference. Science merely observes that some hominids that lived in the past are no longer alive today. To paraphrase jcrawford himself, "dead homonids don't have civil rights."

...it is a fact that creationist members of the human race did not evolve or descend from a non-human species of African apes.

Most curious. Are creationists a different species? I would really like to hear an explanation for this one.

In order for there to be racism, there must be active discrimination against some people on the basis of physical characteristics. For example – and this is important because is meets the definition you yourself posted – African-Americans in this country have in the past been victims of racial discrimination as follows (including but not limited to): denial of voting rights, denial of access to education, jobs, housing, public services, private establishments such as restaurants etc.

So I ask you to name the groups of individuals who are victimized by the prevalent taxonomy of the homonids. Also please describe in what way they are being victimized. Give concrete examples. And these must be present day people – I’m not going to be too sympathetic about denial of voting rights to neandertals, because they have been dead for some 30 thousand years, and for the most part dead people don’t vote (I come from Chicago , so there are always exceptions).

If, as you have implied, the Neandertal line is alive and well present day, then this counters your argument, since they are no longer classified as such and are granted all rights shared by other humans.

So again, I repeat: Give us details, give us data. Put up or shut up!

[jcrawford]

Alas, I have had this problem. I now make a practice of copying long posts at least to the clipboard before hitting submit. I understand your crankiness.

Thanks for your sympathy and sorry for your similar experiences. I'm going to use this short post to see that my original 'log-in' is operative.

[jcrawford]

Yikes! I join micatala in offering my sympathies. It's really annoying when things like that happen. I often compose my posts in a separate word-processor file, then paste them into the BB. Take your time responding. I appreciate your setting this aside for a while, so we can keep the discussion fun.

Likewise, thanks for your commiseration. My regrets for similar events. From now on I'm going to keep my posts short and will only reply to excerpts on long posts since I hop, skip and jump about to various other evo-creo debate boards and don't have time for wasting mine or yours.

I appreciate your enjoyment of our intellectual exchanges and assure you that I am having as much fun as you are, albeit the serious consequences of the current evo-creo/ID/racial debates. Now that our education president has come down on the side of equal time for ID, I wonder what he thinks of the inherent racism in all forms of Neo-Darwinist ideology.

I'll go on to "professer's" post now if you don't mind and hope that you can get your points back in after that. Remember, KISS. Keep It Short & Simple.

[jcrawford]

quote="perfessor"

"To repeat a definition:

rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
==============================

Give me a good definition of 'race,' since racism must be predicated upon a precise meaning of that term.

"Are creationists a different species? I would really like to hear an explanation for this one."

After you explain how Homo erectus and sapiens are different species.

"So I ask you to name the groups of individuals who are victimized by the prevalent taxonomy of the homonids. "

The whole present human race is being "victimized" by being labeled Homo sapiens by neo-Darwinst race theorists, especially when some of their human ancestors are labeled a different and separate 'species' entirely.

"Also please describe in what way they are being victimized. Give concrete examples. And these must be present day people – I’m not going to be too sympathetic about denial of voting rights to neandertals, because they have been dead for some 30 thousand years, and for the most part dead people don’t vote (I come from Chicago , so there are always exceptions)."

I appreciate your humor regarding the workings of the Democratic machine you have there in chi-town, but nevertheless, telling any Chicagoans that their distant and extinct relatives in Africa resembled the ancestors of some African apes might not garner too many votes for a politician, democratic or not.

"If, as you have implied, the Neandertal line is alive and well present day, then this counters your argument, since they are no longer classified as such and are granted all rights shared by other humans."

We're still not recognized by the U.S.A. as tribal descendents of the original Vikings though.

"So again, I repeat: Give us details, give us data. Put up or shut up!"

Read your Lubenow. Study Darwin. Get an education in the human fossil record.

[perfessor]

Give me a good definition of 'race,' since racism must be predicated upon a precise meaning of that term.

I sense that you are trying to dodge. We already have a working definition, provided by you. This is your thread, after all.

So I ask you to name the groups of individuals who are victimized by the prevalent taxonomy of the homonids. "

The whole present human race is being "victimized" by being labeled Homo sapiens by neo-Darwinst race theorists, especially when some of their human ancestors are labeled a different and separate 'species' entirely.

How precicesly? Details! Data! Otherwise it is just rubbish. Who is inconvenienced for the benefit of another race???

I appreciate your humor regarding the workings of the Democratic machine you have there in chi-town, but nevertheless, telling any Chicagoans that their distant and extinct relatives in Africa resembled the ancestors of some African apes might not garner too many votes for a politician, democratic or not.

You are dodging the issue. Who is suffering from racial discrimination? This is the simple question you must answer. The answer cannot be "everyone", by definition.

"If, as you have implied, the Neandertal line is alive and well present day, then this counters your argument, since they are no longer classified as such and are granted all rights shared by other humans."

We're still not recognized by the U.S.A. as tribal descendents of the original Vikings though.

In what way is this racial discrimination? Are vikings being denied voting rights? I'm one quarter viking, BTW, and I always vote at least once.

As I said before, this actually weakens your argument. First you complain that "neo-darwinists" are doing too much classifying, and now you say they don't do enough....

Read your Lubenow.

Er - he's not exactly my Lubenow...

Study Darwin. Get an education in the human fossil record.

As we all should.

Now: please answer the question from my earlier post. Who is being victimized by racial discrimination as a result of evolutionary theory?

[micatala]

Welcome back j. Hopefully we can all avoid the computer goblins for the forseeable future (I wonder if computer goblins evolve? ).

I would echo perferssers calls for some specifics on who is being discriminated against and how.

Give me a good definition of 'race,' since racism must be predicated upon a precise meaning of that term.

I have already offered what I think is a completely satisfactory definition of race here . Namely,

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.

We could consider other definitions, but the point is that it doesn't really matter what definition you use. If there is no discrimination or oppresion, there is no racism.

In addition, it has already been pointed out that, although the races we currently speak of have characteristics which are genetically determined, the concept of race itself is not an evolutionary concept. Thus, evolution and evolutionary biologists are not racist, at least not in the course of doing their scientific work (of course, if they are members of the Klan, that is another story, but that is unrelated to evolution or their work as biologists).

You should be able to answer how evolution is racist without quibbling about the definition of race. Alternatively, since you insist evolution is racist, then go ahead and give us your definition of race by which you come to that conclusion, and then explain with specifics how the racism is occuring with examples.

I'm now copying my post before sending, to foil those evil goblins.