Bones of Contentions.

It may be hard for others to follow this logic unless you supply a clear statement of what "racicism" means as it is being used here.Also in each paragraph the statments are made that such and such is a form of racism. This are simple assertions. There is not logic presented to show why one should be convinced that the assertions made are reasonable.It is probably sensible to make them as assertions to get the thread going. Now it is time to take each one and be clear on just why one would think of things like describing the evolution of H. sapians and it's ancestors and cousins as racism when others might see it as a simple statment of what we, at this time, understand the facts to be.

I think, though no one else has asked directly, that we do need to know what you and Lubenow are using for a definition of racist. Others seem to be asking indirectly by discussing different ideas of what may or may not be racist.There will probably be multiple meanings for the word and it is necessary for us all to come to some agreement on the terms used before the discussion can continue.Mirriam webster online gives: (Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary)
racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- racist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjectiveCould you connect this definition to the statements you made to show how it applies?

It may be that a century ago race and species were used interchangably that is no longer the case. In fact, this next statement of yours is in direct conflict with the above one. There has been much, recent discussion of 'race' in the literature and we have had a discussion of it here. The geneticists (and I don't think in this case it is evolutionary biologists as much as geneticists but it maybe both) are pointing out that there is not a good genetic determination of race (which I guess means the evolutionists would agree).Why is it a "problem" if evolutionists don't define race and how can they be called racist if they don't even define the term?Thanks for suppling the AO definitions in a subsequent post. Now can you logically connect those to evolutionary theory?As noted above, geneticist are specifically denying that your definition 2 of racism:
(2 the theory that human abilities, etc., are determined by race.)
is true.Your definition 1b is a personal matter not one of an area of scientific study.The contention that definition 1 applies because we not that some other species (species not races) have gone extinct isn't sensible to me. Could you elaborate further on Lubenow's logic?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-25-2005 11:04 AM

Your statement of evolutionary theory is correct. In fact, I think most of the basic statements have been correct. However, you then attempting to draw conclusions which are not well founded.H. sapiens spread from a relatively small population about 60k years ago. Geographic separatation, accidents of founder populations and the local selective pressures have in that short time produced local populations with general tendancies to some traits. (e.g., skin color, lung capacity etc.)However, there hasn't been anything like enough time to move anywhere down the path of speciation between these populations. In addition, the local advantages don't allow any sensible classification of one group being 'better' than any other.When the genetic variations of these groups are compared we find that some groups have much more variation than others. We also find that the amount of variation within any geographically "isolated" group (remember they haven't been separated very long) is not all that great but still greater than the spread of variation that can be allocated between the different groups.In other words; we appear to have developed from a small group (1,000's of individuals) that was living only some 10,000's of years ago. This group carried some degree of genetic variation.Smaller groups migrated from this and while doing so acquired some genetic differences. At the same time, because they were a subpopulation they carred less total variation than the population they split from.In some locations, by accident of small populations and/or selective advantages, the populations have some recognizable characteristics. (stocky body, tall thin body, eye folds etc.)If these populations were left and isolated then there is every expecation that they would speciate. However, they have not been separated any where near long enough.There is not hint that any of the populations is clearly 'better' than any other except for a few characteristics that are advanages in the local environment. An inuit is 'better' than a zulu tribesman if they are both living in the high arctic from a heat retention point of view. A sickle cell carrying african is 'better' than a northern european in an area of endemic malaria.I'll not go back up the thread an go over the relative brain size thing except to say that Jar is an wrong as you are but in different ways with this small clarification of why I think that.Jar is wrong in at least a bit of the ways you have suggested. You are wrong because you seem to suggest that if the relative brain size between a population average 50 kg and a brain size of 600 cc and one of 75 kg and a brain size of 1500 cc shows an probable intellectural superiority of the later then we can decide that an individual with body mass of 70 kg and a brain of 1350 cc is superior to one with a 70 kg mass and a brain of 1300 cc.It is pretty darned clear that structure of the brain also enters into it. It is also pretty clear that different individuals carry rather different talents. The rough characterization of brain size/body mass groups does not allow such fine distinctions.There are also some very interesting mysteries here. Our form, including brain size has changed only a modest amount in 200,000 years. We made some significant jumps ahead in less than the last 100,000. Was this simply because the time was right? Or were there some structural changes that don't preserve well?

There seems to be some confusion about the mitrochondrial eve. I'm not a biologist so I might only add to it but let me try.Let's pick a simplified example. All humans are in some small tribe and it happens that there are only 10 females in the tribe at some time. Five of them have 3 sons each and 5 have 3 daughters.In the next generation all the females are decendents of only the latter 5 original females. Let's say that all the female descendants of 3 of the original 10 happen to have all sons in this generation. Now all of the females are decendants of only 2 of the original females. If this happens once more then finally all of the females will be descendents of only 1 of our original 10 females.Note that it is females that are the special descendents of that "eve". Some males may be descendents of one of the other 9 females.Of course, after this point everyone is a descendent of the "eve" because we have to have a mother in there somewhere.This is not totally guarenteed at all, IMHO, it depends on the population begin small enough at some point that the statistical fluctuations at birth allow for cutting off of a mitrochrondial line of descent.The same thing can happen in the Y chromosome lineage. And it appears that it has. Just at a very much different point in time.

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

I'm afraid I don't follow this. You say those who carry genes for the larger olfactory bulb produce more offspring (implicitly because they are better at smelling ). Thus there must be some, perhaps very slight, correlation between bulb size and sense of smell and that this is subject to selection.How can there be any selection if there isn't any correlation? If no selection (N or sexual) why did homo brains enlarge so agressively and in such a mostly steady way over some millions of years?Isn't that the point that you are arguing against?

You can not tell that from the picture of the modern human skull you supplied. How did you conclude that? You do understand that the degree of similarity is not determined by looking at them, right?

You need to understand that your analogy is not, in any way, appropriate for the real situation. Your thought that you have refuted anything is wrong.It is true that you would be suspect of RAZD's lottery under the circumstances described. However, those are NOT the circumstances that evolutionary theory is talking about.Perhaps you should understand it before you think you will have any chance of actually critisizing it.ABE I presume you mean there are limits if no mutations are allowed. Do you think that anyone is suggesting that there have been no mutations in the homo genome in 5 million and more years?If you are including mutations please supply the evidence that indicates these limits.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-13-2005 01:29 AM