Bones of Contentions.

"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."May the posters on this forum assume that you are familiar with Lubenow's several theses as documented in detail in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," published by BakerBooks, having read each chapter for yourself? If so, what page does Section 3 on Evolution and Racism start on?"Misrepresenting someone's position is lying, I am sorry, there is no nicer way to put it."What page does Section 3 on Evolution and Racism start on?"The "pattern" was set by the creationists - they constantly misquote, quote out of context, and set up evolutionary strawmen."What page does Section 3 on Evolution and Racism start on?

Evolutionary trends are dominated be selection pressure. Modern humanity seems to be at a balance point when the birthing difficulties caused by large heads in babies are counterbalanced by the advantages of a large brain. The fact that brain size is not on a downward trend can be seen as a trace of the past trend.Intelligence is partly a function of brain structure and organisation but size relative to body size plays a large part. So far as I know there is no reason to believe that there were any major reorganisations of the brain in human ancestry - a chimp brain has a similar organisation to a human brain, although some parts of a human brain are proportionally larger.My understanding of the mitochondrial Eve studies was that the whole point was to identify when and where this particular common ancestor lived. That they would find such an ancestor was a given.The original paper can be found here:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/(unfortunately without footnotes or references)It is clear that they were looking for human ancestry and origins (which would entail finding a single ancestral mtDNA lineage).The surprie expressed in the wikipedia article refers to the relatvely recent date - from the next paragraph:

quote:

---

If Eve had lived among a million or a billion other females, it is very unlikely that the matrilineal ancestries of all humans alive today would converge on Eve (or any one contemporary of Eve's).

---

In other words the article does not deny that convergence will happen, it simply states that if there had been a large human population the covergence would almost certainly not be at that point in time.As for competition with other hominids, given the date of 150,000 years ago quoted in the Wikipedia article, which hominid species were still extant ? To the best of my knowledge, only Neanderthals and perhaps the "hobbits" were around (and the Neandertals may be a subspecies of Sapiens).If you are at a loss to consider how varying traits can be found without geographic islation, I simply have to point out that local variations are ubiquitous in widespread species. There is no need for geographic isolation for some variations to become dominant in a region. It is speciation that is felt to usually require geographic isolation, not local variations. So no, I don't beleive that the usual there human "races" have diverged to the point where any can be considered incipient species. You yourself appeal to "other factors" in the case of lung capacity.As to your final comments you have misunderstood badly. Darwinism does not say or imply that the regional differences within a species must be any that we would consider important or that any of these could be considered "higher" or "lower". And the huamn "races" are not even an accurate assessment of local variations. So there is no basis in evolutionary theory to claim that there should be differences between the races of humanity.Likewise "Special Creation" does not imply that all groups of humanity are equal. Ideas that propose multiple creations for the human races (e.g. Agassiz's polygenism), for instance do not imply that they were all created equal.

"If the point is to say that scientists are "racist" in the ordinary sense of the word then we should use that sense."The point is that neo-Darwinst theories are an extraordinary form of scientific racism, and current cultural and social concepts of race and racism may be inadequate for a scientific discussion of the differences between race, species, science and racism."Why should we construct a new definition ? Especially one which uses a VERY wde definition of "race" when no reason is given."We don't need to construct a new definition of race since Oxford has already done a very professional job and lexicographers ought to know what words mean as much as neo-Darwinists ought to know what evolution of species means."The more so when you don't seem willing to discuss applications of the definition."I'm game for discussion of applications since I use Oxford definitions all the time in my understanding and application of what words like race, racism, human and ape really mean. You don't really expect me to go by neo-Darwinist definitions of words, do you. Is there such a thing as a Darwinist Dictionary of Definitions?

So your reason for trying to construct a new definition of "racism" is that the existing definition seems unlikely to apply and you cannot reasonably argue that it could be extended to encompass evolutionary science.In that case why insist on using the word "racism" when it will almsot certainly be misunderstood. Is the whole point of the exercise just to find an excuse to label science as "racist" ?

Since you claim to be willing to discuss your definition of racism I will repeat the questions you have so far ignored.First:

quote:

---

Is it racist to treat chimpanzees as a seperate and mentally inferior species from modern humans ?

​

If that is racist, then how about the other apes ?

​

If that is still racist, how about the other mammals ?

---

and

quote:

---

Should adverts for yoghurt drinks containing "good" bacteria be considered racist since they elevate one strain of microorganisms over others ?

---

I will note that you specifically stated that this definition was one you considered relevant:
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.I would also like you to explain which "neo-Darwinist" definitions you are refusing to use and why. I've not raised any - I've been talking about common usage for "racism" and "race".

quote:

---

So your reason for trying to construct a new definition of "racism" is that the existing definition seems unlikely to apply and you cannot reasonably argue that it could be extended to encompass evolutionary science.

---

That about sums it up. Jcrawford has pulled the same ignorant nonsense at libertyforums.com. Imagine my surprise to discover troll-boy taking his show on the road.

quote:

---

In that case why insist on using the word "racism" when it will almsot certainly be misunderstood. Is the whole point of the exercise just to find an excuse to label science as "racist" ?

---

Yeppers, and keep him pinned down on that. When I logically boxed him into a corner at the other forum, he started to suggest he may believe in science after all in a desperate attempt to wiggle free. It would probably be best if you can just have that ignorant troll banned because I promise all you will ever get from him is never-ending troll maneuvers.

quote:

---

PaulK wrote:
Since you claim to be willing to discuss your definition of racism I will repeat the questions you have so far ignored.

---

If he refuses (or is unable) to answer your questions honestly, I would strongly suggest you try to have him banned. I would like this challenge of yours to serve as a litmus test. I seriously doubt Jcrawford will ever satisfactorily answer your simple, to-the-point questions.

"So your reason for trying to construct a new definition of "racism" is that the existing definition seems unlikely to apply and you cannot reasonably argue that it could be extended to encompass evolutionary science."You seem to be beating around the evolutionist bush here by refusing to acknowledge Oxford's definitions of race and pretending that some other "existing" definition would be more socially or "scientifically" acceptable in our culture. Pardon me if I guffaw."In that case why insist on using the word "racism" when it will almsot certainly be misunderstood."For the same reason that neo-Darwinists use the words "evolution" and "species," since they are almost certain to be misunderstood."Is the whole point of the exercise just to find an excuse to label science as "racist"?"No, no. I am just extrapolating on Lubenow's thesis that neo-Darwinist theories about African people's origins and biological descent from some species on non-human primates 2 million years ago, are a scientific form of abject racism. Lubenow and I both love science but are also concerned about scientific abuses of humanity in the name of racist neo-Darwinist hypotheses or theories.

"Is it racist to treat chimpanzees as a seperate and mentally inferior species from modern humans?"Yes, but chimps can't charge racism in our courts of law."If that is racist, then how about the other apes?"Equally so."If that is still racist, how about the other mammals?"Since when do all mammals have equal representation in the eyes of the law?"Should adverts for yoghurt drinks containing "good" bacteria be considered racist since they elevate one strain of microorganisms over others ?Definitely!"I will note that you specifically stated that this definition was one you considered relevant:
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms."Well noted."I would also like you to explain which "neo-Darwinist" definitions you are refusing to use and why. I've not raised any - I've been talking about common usage for "racism" and "race"."I have no more idea which neo-Darwinst definitions you are talking about than I do what common usage for "racism" and "race" you are referring to. Please elucidate.

"Jcrawford has pulled the same ignorant nonsense at libertyforums.com. Imagine my surprise to discover troll-boy taking his show on the road."Name-calling seems to be a specialty of neo-Darwinist racial taxonomists."When I logically boxed him into a corner at the other forum, he started to suggest he may believe in science after all in a desperate attempt to wiggle free."Both Lubenow and I love and benefit from science. We just happen to share the same disgust and disdain for neo-Darwinist racism posing as science. Really. 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?"It would probably be best if you can just have that ignorant troll banned because I promise all you will ever get from him is never-ending troll maneuvers."Sure. Call people names. Typical neo-Darwinist taxonomist racial maneuver. Why don't you just read Lubenow's book and wise up to the latest scientific charges against the neo-Darwinist racist taxonomy being taught in U.S. public schools today?

"If he refuses (or is unable) to answer your questions honestly, I would strongly suggest you try to have him banned. I would like this challenge of yours to serve as a litmus test. I seriously doubt Jcrawford will ever satisfactorily answer your simple, to-the-point questions."Careful now, brainpan, or you might end up getting labelled an old evolutionist troll yourself. When was the last time you read or reviewed Darwin's Descent of Man? You know, the original 1871 edition.

jcrawford has muttered this rubbish before: 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?

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.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.TTFN,WK

Is it racist to distinguish between homo Sapiens and frogs?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Have you encountered Syamsu on any forums? He has a similar line of argument in that he objects to any comparisons on the grounds that they can form a basis for racism by one of the populations/ strains being 'fitter' than the other.Perhaps you might like to look back at some of the threads that Syamsu participated in on the topic of evolution and racism.TTFN,WK