Bones of Contentions.

Nope? You are leaving out some critical details here RAZD. The human evolutionary theory says that all the branches of advanced hominids (except the completely developed modern human line) failed in Step 2 or Step 3.Several branches of mutated transitional hominids were not able to survive - while the supposedly less intelligent monkeys and apes did just fine?While that is very convenient for the human evolutionary theory in terms of absence of "not fully mutated" individuals and genetic evidence we could measure, I have yet to hear any sound scenarios to explain it.Why would all the supposed lines of advanced but sub-human critters that had been so successful evolving from pure critters suddenly disappear from the gene pool? Every single one of them except mutated Mitochondrial Eve’s folks?What a shame all that supposed evidence disappeared - never to be seen again! Well, then something else must have completely extinguished all those supposed variant mutated distant cousin gene pools?What do you suppose completely eliminated all those alleged intermediate hominid gene pools, leaving only our homogenously pure human gene pools, pure monkey gene pools, and pure ape gene pools?Somehow, mysteriously dastardly events conveniently eliminated all the living transitional evidence that we could have readily observed and measured today!!! Hate when that happens!And why would we not see a multitude of various living intermediate forms for hundreds of other mammals? You will likely pass this off as — just because that’s the way it happened!Perhaps it is because they never existed! Let’s not forget the lack of present day evidence - the lack of support for brain size relation to intelligence - evidence that should be measurable among the billions of humans today if the common theory were true.Others have tried to dodge this by saying brain size had nothing to do with human evolution but that is counter to the commonly taught theory. Really? I’m confident the gallery can determine the validity of the arguments.Analytical Regards to Big Headed Hominids

"You do realise that the currently accepted theory is that all current humans of whatever "race" are descended from ancestors originating in Africa some 200,000 years ago, don't you?"Yes, and such a neo-Darwinist theory may be considered racist according to Professor Lubenow and myself."And mitochondrial eve was African, because all humans at the time were African?"That's why neo-Darwinst theories and the so-called "scientific evidence (fossil or genetic) to support them may be considered to be racist because such theories contend that the original African people (as represented by African Eve and her tribe) originated from some species of sub-human or non-human African apes.NB: Neo-Darwinists don't say that Europeans directly evolved from ape-like creatures in Africa but that they are naturally descended by normal sexual reproduction from a very human species of African people who did evolve from apes! If that's not a racist theory castigating and defaming all African people, I can't imagine what your definition of racism or race is.

What common theory?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"If we allow JCrawford's totally unsubstantiated claims to be true, i.e. that H. (sapiens) sapiens, H. (sapiens) neanderthalensis and H. erectus were all actually interbreeding interfertile members of the same species and that indigenous modern humans living in areas previously populated by H. erectus or H. neaderthalensis are in fact descended from those populations, then perhaps there is a case to be made that denying the humanity of those ancestors would be a form of racism as if one were claiming that black people in america must be descended from whites because the slaves imported from Africa were not really human and therefore could not have interbred."Hey, I like your analogy here. Couldn't have thunk up a better one myself."However since no one outside of JCrawford, Marvin Lubenow and his creationist followers is likely to accept the totally unevidenced foundations for his reasoning it all comes apart at the seams rather."Sort of like Humpety-Dumpety, huh, whom all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpety-Dumpety back together again.Read Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention." You'll get a psychological kick out of it, a spiritual high and a lot of scientific insight.

"Is it racist to distinguish between homo Sapiens and frogs?"No, but it's racist to call, label or classify any group of people sub-human frogs, pigs or apes. That's why neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and ancestry are racist. They first asociate aboriginal African people with apes and then claim that the whole human race is biologically descended from African men, women and children who were no different than you and I. Clever, huh?

"So you don't actually know what "neo-Darwinist definitions" you are talking about."Only to the extent that neo-Darwinists don't, won't or can't define or differentiate between a human race and species since they tend to divide the whole human race up into neatly compartmentalized species."So why exactly did you raise the issue?"To bring it to the world's attention."As for the rest if your answer is serious it confirms that your definition of "racism" is so far from the usual definition that there is really no point in discussing it."Other posters may be interested in disccusing various concepts of race and species."Indeed there's no point in using it except if you want to be misleading."Calling diversified fossil variations of the human race different and separate species may be equally "misleading."

It should be evident in the text Jar - brain size relation to intelligence.I believe there is near unanimous agreement that this relationship was at least partly responsible for the supposed evoluition from critter to man via incremental beneficial brain mutations.
No?

This is utterly false. Since one major definition of species is a population in which individuals can normally reproduce successfully H. sapiens is NOT divided up at all. Biologists clearly do not in any way suggest that H. sapiens are compartmentalized at all.In fact, genetic studies have recently been done to argue that there isn't a biological basis for race separation either.Your statement above could not be more wrong.If you wish to argue that all of the genus Homo are one species you need to give detailed reasons for doing so. From what evidence we can have they are more different than many separated species of other genera.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-03-2005 01:38 AM

quote:

---

Other posters may be interested in disccusing various concepts of race and species.

---

It's your concept that isn't worth discussing. Do you usually make sure that people fully understand that under your view using antibiotics is an act of racist genocide ?

quote:

---

Neo-Darwinists don't say that Europeans directly evolved from ape-like creatures in Africa but that they are naturally descended by normal sexual reproduction from a very human species of African people who did evolve from apes! If that's not a racist theory castigating and defaming all African people, I can't imagine what your definition of racism or race is.

---

I guess that your imagination missed the fact that racism is discrimination on the basis of race. However, if you really believe that Europeans and Asians are so awful that Africans should be insulted at the idea that they share a recent common ancestor it is likely that you are racist.

Do you have any evidence that the 'aboriginal African people', by which I presume you mean H. erectus, are not thought to be ancestral to all humans. Perhaps you mean one of the Australopithecines, in which case you still need to show some support for these being peculiarly ancestral to Africans rather than all modern humans.Exactly which currently extant group of people are you claiming is being classified as sub-human by evolutionary biology?TTFN,WK

jcrawford, you haven't got a clue what's going on, have you? All extant populations of humans evolved from a common ancestral group in Africa. Indigenous populations in Africa are as genetically different from the common ancestral group of humans as indigenous groups in Asia, Europe or Australia. None the ancestral group now exist, they have morphed into Australian aborigines or asiatics or Bantu or Hottentots or Europeans or any "race" one nominates.

On thinking some more it is apparent, the closer the common ancestor the more closely related and therefore the less different the races should be.In other words the multi-regional model favoured by Lubenow is more congenial to racism than the out-of-Africa model he calls racist. (The more so since much racism is directed against people of recent African descent - any hypothesis which minimises the African contribution to the modern gene pool is likely to be favoured by racists who discriminate against "blacks").

Indeed, perhaps the Aryan supremacists should focus on their neanderthal traits and persecute those with H. erectus or A. robustus like attributes.TTFN,WK

No. Where have you shown that is a common theory.I tried many pages ago to engage you in a discussion of just this issue.Perhaps this time you won't simply run away and we can move through this in a reasonable manner.First, would you agree that there are no indications that intellegence is required as a condition of evolution?Are plants intelegent?Are viruses intellegent?Are bacteria intelegent?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion