Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
wj
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 240 (225915)
07-24-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by CK
07-24-2005 5:14 AM


Re: Why?
Lubenow has a Master of Science with a major in anthorpology. At least one should do the courtesy of refuting his assertions with appropriate evidence. However I'm not sure if Jcrawford is conveying Lubenow's arguments accurately There doesn't appear to be any chain of logic in the argument so far and much of it seems to be based on an inaccurate understanding of the currently available evidence. For example, the current genetic evidence is that there was no exchange of genetic information between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens. And sapiens / erectus seems even more improbable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 07-24-2005 5:14 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 07-24-2005 6:34 AM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 240 (228387)
08-01-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jcrawford
08-01-2005 5:54 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
jcrawford has muttered this rubbish before:
How long do you think they can get away with associating and identifying aboriginal African people with an African species of apes while proclaiming themselves as pure biological descendents of some clever old Homo sapiens woman?
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? And mitochondrial eve was African, because all humans at the time were African?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 5:54 AM jcrawford has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 10:14 AM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 240 (229073)
08-03-2005 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by jcrawford
08-03-2005 12:19 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
jcrawford, you haven't got a clue what's going on, have you?
jcrawford writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jcrawford, posted 08-03-2005 12:19 AM jcrawford has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 6:40 AM wj has not replied
 Message 131 by jcrawford, posted 08-04-2005 2:19 AM wj has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 240 (229585)
08-04-2005 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jcrawford
08-04-2005 2:19 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
jcrawford writes:
Sounds like another neo-Darwinist racist theory to me since you left out common H. neandertalis descendents.
Sounds like some ignorant creationist pulp. There is no strong evidence that Neanderthals left any descendents. They were a separate species and the strong indications are that there is no Neanderthal genetic material in Homo sapiens sapins genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jcrawford, posted 08-04-2005 2:19 AM jcrawford has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by jcrawford, posted 08-06-2005 9:56 PM wj has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 240 (230633)
08-07-2005 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by jcrawford
08-06-2005 9:56 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
jcrawford writes:
Since when do creationists or other people who believe in the Bible or Koran have to take the racist theories of neo-Darwinist geneticists at their word? Wake up and smell the God-given creationist coffee or go down with the sinking ship of neo-Darwinist racism.
No, many creationists seem to rely on some rubbish about Noah's flood and sons of Ham being condemned to subservience and this being the justification for enslaving black Africans. Sounds like rationalisation of racist slavery to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by jcrawford, posted 08-06-2005 9:56 PM jcrawford has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 240 (230634)
08-07-2005 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by jcrawford
08-06-2005 10:10 PM


Re: What are you talking about?
jcrawford, you keep repeating this crap:
quote:
H. neandertalis descendants are being denied their common human ancestry and social heritage by neo-Darwinist biologists, psychologists and sociologists in public institutions which may be more culturally relevant and important than their getting a job with some neo-Darwinist corporation or Homo sapiens government institution.
Where are the descendents of H. neanderthalis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jcrawford, posted 08-06-2005 10:10 PM jcrawford has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024