Bones of Contentions.

The prevailing theory of of human evolution has all of the races evolving from a common ancestor in direct line. There is no suggestion of one race being more "highly evolved" than another. The races all belong to the same species, there is more genetic variation within races than between races for characters associated with 'IQ", so where is the racism? Further, the fact that human evolutionary theory does not accept Biblical genealogy proves nothing - how is this racism? Once again the creationists are resorting to any tactics to win the day. This is profoundly unChristian. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

I will take your last objection first. Regarding "lying for Jesus", yes, I do think that is what is going on in "Bones of Contention"
The author accuses evolutionists of racism. This is a serious charge. Does he offer any evidence? No, just poorly founded assertions and misrepresentations about the prevailing thought of evolutionary biology. Misrepresenting someone's position is lying, I am sorry, there is no nicer way to put it. The "pattern" was set by the creationists - they constantly misquote, quote out of context, and set up evolutionary strawmen.Now, as to geographic isolation....Yes, of course this is a major (but not the only) mechanism for speciation. But what is the relevance to human races? Human races all belong to the same species. Whatever geographic isolation of the different races may have occured in the past, obviously it was not long enough (or complete enough) for genetic barriers to develop. That doesn't mean there wasn't some divergence in some superficial characters - skin pigmentation, for example - that aided adaptation to particular latitudes. But clearly being white skinned in the tropics isn't enough of a survival issue to create a genetic barrier between white and pigmented races.I don't understand your big deal about the mitochondrial Eve data. Yes, this is evidence for common ancestry in a direct line. And so what? This has been the prevailing human evolutionary thought for some time, and it is just another way of saying we are all the same species. It is what we would expect.On the "highly evolved" question, I think I already answered your response there. You appear to be confused about the role of geographic isolation in evolution. In general more genetic diversity is beneficial to survival. So when it comes to mating, there is a biological imperative to find a mate that is different from you. This is why kissing your sister isn't much fun. So we all have a built in "wanderlust" when it comes to selecting a mate. We desire someone who is different. The stranger from a foreign land will be desireable, particularly if they look exotic, because our bodies are telling us that they have different genes from us. Therefore for a genetic barrier to develop, there truly has to be some character that is crucial to survival (and reproduction) at issue. The ability (and desire) to reproduce with a wide variety of individuals is going to be conserved - it is not likely to change easily. So for geographic isolation to result in speciation it has to be relatively complete, exist for a long time (evolutionary time scale), and the two environments have to be different enough to select for radically different characters. Apparently these conditions have not occured for Homo sapiens sapiens.A final thought on "highly evolved" - you are making way too much of this. Modern evolutionary biologists do not think in terms of hierarchies - Man is not really a "higher animal" than a cockroach. We have both evolved to exploit certain niches in the environment and we both do very well at what we do. Think about it. (This is in no way a value judgement on the relative "worth" of man vs. cockroach - obviously from man's standpoint, a cockroach is... well, a cockroach).

You summerized the book. I took your summary at its word. In your summary you claim that the authors of "Bones of Contention" accuse evolutionists of "scientific racism". It is disingenuous of you to now say, "But did you read the book?" Are you now saying the authors are not charging racism on the part of evolutionists?By the way - no I haven't read the book. But I have read reviews of it and your review pretty much fit in with the other reviews.....
If I had raised the topic on my own you might have a point. But you invited discussion of the book by giving a summary of it and opening the topic, so you ought not to now say "Did you read the book?" I am sure if my post had agreed with your opinion on the merit of this book you wouldn't be asking me that question.

Well yes, and this is where many are tripped up. The other concept that seems hard to fathom for the novice is that evolution is not directed yet it is not random either. "Selection" is of course the opposite of random. People tend to get confused because we talk about random mutations but of course random mutations do not imply random evolution.

Do tell. Particularly when it is published not by an academic press but a Christian publishing company. Check out how Baker Books, the publisher of "Bones of Contention" describes their publishing goals: Nary a word about scientific peer review.

Possible but not that likely:http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-doc...