Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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.
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 240 (229546)
08-04-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by wj
08-03-2005 6:34 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"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."
Sounds like another neo-Darwinist racist theory to me since you left out common H. neandertalis descendents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by wj, posted 08-03-2005 6:34 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by wj, posted 08-04-2005 6:26 AM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 240 (229548)
08-04-2005 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by PaulK
08-03-2005 6:40 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"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")."
Obviously, you haven't read Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" and are simply projecting and attributing latent neo-Darwinist racial theories onto Lubenow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 6:40 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 240 (230562)
08-06-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by PaulK
08-03-2005 6:40 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"In other words the multi-regional model favoured by Lubenow is more congenial to racism than the out-of-Africa model he calls racist."
Lubenow doesn't "favor" the MRCM. That's a misreprestation of Lubenow's work since he considers all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution to be racist and only uses the MRCM to point out how neo-Darwinist theorists disagree with each other.
" - any hypothesis which minimises the African contribution to the modern gene pool is likely to be favoured by racists who discriminate against "blacks."
Since Lubenow considers all people to equally share in the common gene pool of all of our human ancestors who didn't descend from African apes, (Aboriginal Africans included) I will only point out that any "hypothesis which minimises" the Neandertal contribution "to the modern gene pool" is "likely to be favoured by" neo-Darwinist evolutionists who may naturally be inclined to harbor prejudicial feelings against the ancestors and descendents of Neandertal members of the human race, since they tend to regard them as an extinct species of 'cave-men,' unworthy of even being considered full and equal members of some highly intelligent and more advanced Homo sapiens species!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 6:40 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2005 7:08 PM jcrawford has replied
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2005 11:46 PM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 240 (230567)
08-06-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wounded King
08-03-2005 6:59 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"Indeed, perhaps the Aryan supremacists should focus on their neanderthal traits and persecute those with H. erectus or A. robustus like attributes."
There is no more need to theoretically associate any people with Neandertals in such a way than there is to originally associate or classify aboriginal African people with non-human primates the way neo-Darwinist theorists do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2005 6:59 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 240 (230570)
08-06-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
08-04-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Logical fallacies and denial do not an argument make
"Now your racism is showing ()... just to make sure that this is still on topic for this thread... "
Don't forget the fact that all neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution are racist, especially regarding the relative merits of some human skulls possessing different cranial capacities, according to Crawford and Lubenow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2005 12:27 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2005 7:31 PM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 240 (230590)
08-06-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Wounded King
08-04-2005 5:23 AM


Re: How human were H. neanderthalensis and H. habilis?
"As evidence goes this is weak, why not quote some of the evidence, or provide the references Lubenow uses to support his claims? Unless you are just trying to drum up sales for Lubenow simply suggesting everyone read his book is a poor way to debate. You wanted to discuss his ideas, why aren't you prepared to provide the evidence neccessary to do so?"
I wish I could, and if his book was in CD form, would, since it is so much easier to copy text than to manually enter it into a computer verbatim. If I start now, then there would be no end to it and my time and efforts would far excede the time and effort spent procuring the original publication for oneself. It would be so much easier if you had the book since then we could refer to chapter, page and the many hundreds of scientific notations. Besides, quoting outside sources and other professionals are just appeals to authority so I don't see why posters need to refer to them unless to back up their own understanding or interpretation of human evolution and creation.
"No one else thinks that different 'species' of African ape were involved for different modern populations, we are all thought to have evolved from the same species of African apes."
Neo-Darwinsts only associate and connect the whole human race to some species of African apes by first theorizing and showing "evidence" that the first African people originated from apes there. Since the original African people didn't originate or evolve from apes at all, creationists are hard pressed to believe in and follow neo-Darwinist racial theories of sub-human evolution in Africa.
"How human is "very human", are you claiming that H. neaderthalensis and H. habilis are indistinguishable from H. sapiens?"
Of course not, but "distinguishing" and classifying the fossilized remains of our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' in an evolutionist order of primates in the same family as apes, based only on differences in skull morphology, is no different than "distinguishing" and classifying people today on the basis of racial diversification and variety. Just because neo-Darwinists classify H. erectus, sapiens and neandertalis fossils as different and separate 'species,' doesn't mean they they are. How can they be all be different species and full and equal members of the human race at the same time. I thought neo-Darwinsts presumed that racial varieties were a sub-set of a species like H. sapiens and not the other way around. The way neo-Darwinsts go about classifying our human ancestors is to divide the human race up into sub-species.
"Why not exactly go into the details of which "African apes" you think modern evolutionary theories are ignoring the descent from for modern populations of humans.'
You're asking the question backwards since neo-Darwinists aren't exactly sure which species of apes the first African people evolved from. Most of them prefer to tell us that we are all ancestrally descended from an African woman of our own species (no origin by evolution of species there) who is our common human ancestor. (That mimics the Adam and Eve theory of course) What neo-Darwinists don't like to talk about too much is that their racial theories also assume that African Eve's tribe of Homo sapiens were the exclusive chosen people (natural selection at work here) to pass on their chimpanzee genes to succeeding generations of African superwomen who eventually spawned, generated and re-populated the whole human race by genetic "replacement." As neo-Darwinsts would have it, all other pedigrees were extinguished, rather than becoming distinguished.
"Your very last point totally fails to answer the question I asked, in fact it seems to admit that the only 'racism' present is to populations which you claim are human but which are generally thought of as extinct related species. So in fact there is no current target for the supposed racism, this isn't a basis for racism against Africans, Chinese, Ameircan indians or any other modern day population."
Depends on who different people think their human ancestors were, other than neo-Darwinist apes.
"In fact, as has been suggested, your own theory provides a much greater gap between the many modern populations in terms of ancestry, given the clear differences between the disputed populations, and therefore seems more conducive to racist interpretations."
Now you're blaming the messenger for the message, just because I'm not the same 'scientific' type that you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 5:23 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2005 11:51 PM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 240 (230601)
08-06-2005 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Modulous
08-04-2005 6:18 AM


Re: A real definition of racism is more than a short sentence
"In this regard, bacteria and insects prove to be far superior to humans of any 'race' or species. Homo Sapiens are considered superior to other Homos purely in the quantifiable and self-evident sense that Homo sapiens survived, and the other ones didn't. We are not more superior than pigs evolutionarily speaking, until one of us becomes extinct or endangered."
Thank you for introducing and adding neo-Darwinist concepts and notions of "superiority" in our discussion of human origins and evolution.
It may be the case that one race has genes more adapted to surviving whatever climate change is upcoming than any other. However, we do not know which race that is, until such time as one race is extinct or near extinct."
Why don't we substitute 'race' for neo-Darwinist concepts, notions and classifications of different and separate human 'species' within the previous human race whose existence is only evidenced by the remains of their fossilized skeletons, since such theoretical categories may only be established according to 'definition' and biologically determined by physical tests for interfertility.
"Whilst one can, at a push, describe this as racism (the belief that one race is superior to another), but it is unnecesarily emotive use of language, and is not conducive to clear communication. So in that, the language usage fails."
I appreciate your linguistic insight into the matter here, and agree that human semantics and epistomolgy are the root of the problem in determining the truth about human origins.
"In this case, evolutionary racism, is quantifiable and not arbitrary, it also does not cause humans to treat others poorly or violently, and does not involve prejudice or discrimination in our social affairs."
It has in the past and may do so again in the future. Lubenow claims that both past, present and future generations of human beings are being discriminated against as a direct result of prejudiced neo-Darwinst theories about human evolution out of African apes.
"And that is where the word racism really applies, to our social interactions, not to the interactions of an impersonal phenomenon we have identified."
Yes, but we still have to have standard definitions of such terms as race and species, otherwise we shall never be able to distinguish between them. For instance; how do you tell the difference between the current human race and an extinct human species? Would you say that there was no racial variety in humanity before H. sapiens arrived on the scene or that racism didn't exist before sapiens replaced all other descendents of apes?
"A dictionary definition might let you wangle the point, but if you pick up a book on racism, you'll find that racism means a lot more than the one or two sentence definitions the lexicographers are often limited to."
I totally agree with you here and would add that there may be even more theories about the human race than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
"If the African race was dying out, due to climate change, would an evolutionist treat an African differently than a white man?"
That's a good question, since neo-Darwinist evolutionists are not exactly well-known or famous for their humanitarian campaigns to raise money for starving African men, women and children.
"If so, the evolutionist is racist, not the theory which he accepts as the best theory to describe the diversity of life."
Sorry. Neo-Darwinist theories are scientifically racist, not the everyday folk who unwittingly or inadvertently subscribe to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Modulous, posted 08-04-2005 6:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Modulous, posted 08-08-2005 7:24 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 240 (230607)
08-06-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by wj
08-04-2005 6:26 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"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."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by wj, posted 08-04-2005 6:26 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by wj, posted 08-07-2005 1:04 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 240 (230608)
08-06-2005 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
08-04-2005 10:35 AM


Re: What are you talking about?
"Since Homo neandertalensis et al. are not being denied jobs or other rights enjoyed by H. sapiens, it seems the point is rather moot."
Moot only to the point that modern 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 10:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 10:16 PM jcrawford has not replied
 Message 176 by wj, posted 08-07-2005 1:12 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 240 (230609)
08-06-2005 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by MangyTiger
08-04-2005 8:00 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
"And I thought you Yanks didn't get irony...
Oops! Wrong Planet"
What continent are you posting from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by MangyTiger, posted 08-04-2005 8:00 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 240 (230610)
08-06-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by randman
08-05-2005 2:15 AM


Re: can someone answer?
"Can someone answer John's question on brain size and evolution?"
Brain size has nothing to do with evolution any more than skin color does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by randman, posted 08-05-2005 2:15 AM randman has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 240 (230613)
08-06-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Chiroptera
08-06-2005 7:08 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
"Few, if any, "evolutionists" consider neanderthals to be "unworthy" in any meaningful sense of the word. So the points you are trying to make are invalid."
Since neo-Darwinists classify our Neandertal ancestors as a different and separate 'species,' they cannot possibly be classified by neo-Darwinists as full and equal members of the human race until neo-Darwinists publically admit that all human species are full and equal members of the human race and are in no way descended from an 'extinct' species or race of African human beings or apes.
Till such a time, you're neo-Darwinist point is invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2005 7:08 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 240 (230615)
08-06-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
08-04-2005 10:56 PM


Re: What are you talking about?
"John. Enjoy your stay here."
I second the emotion since John is an exemplary model of Homo sapiens intelligence, far superior to any Neandertal who only had to deal with the Ice Age and hunt wooly mammoths for a living.
Wooly Mammoth - Ice Age Animals - Pleistocene Epoch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 10:56 PM jar has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 240 (230617)
08-06-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Chiroptera
08-06-2005 7:31 PM


Re: Ah, here's your problem!
"Since neither Crawford nor Lubenow have a credible argument, there isn't much merit to the rest of the post."
Why waste your time on the merits of such incredible arguments and posts then, if not for the lack of credibility in neo-Darwinist theories about African people's evolution out of African apes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2005 7:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 240 (230696)
08-07-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by RAZD
08-06-2005 11:46 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
"It is logically impossible for descendants of one branch to be related to species on another branch."
That's just what creationists would say!
"All humans share in the common gene pool back to their respective common ancestors, whether immediate or distant."
Agreed, as long as their common ancestors were human.
"Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor that was neither human nor one of the african ape species."
Since there is no evidence of that, such beliefs must stem from neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origin and evolution of African people from non-humans.
"Your post is gibberish at best."
At least I don't associate African people with the common ancestor of gibbons.
"Enjoy."
I am, thank-you. Hope you are too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2005 11:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by AdminNosy, posted 08-07-2005 1:26 PM jcrawford has not replied
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 08-08-2005 6:56 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