Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
jar, PaulK, Stile, vimesey, xongsmith (5 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,010 Year: 22,046/19,786 Month: 609/1,834 Week: 109/500 Day: 6/61 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 51 of 240 (226773)
07-27-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jcrawford
07-27-2005 12:50 AM


No evidence
...evolutionists merely assume and postulate that Neandertal and Homo erectus types were a different 'species' and not equal biological members of the one and only human race.

That isn't strictly true, advances in the recovery of ancient DNA have allowed the identification of some neanderthal genetic sequences which do provide some evidence to allow us to estimate the extent of interbreeding between H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neanderthalensis populations
(Currat and Excoffier, 2004).

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-27-2005 12:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jcrawford, posted 07-27-2005 12:50 AM jcrawford has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 61 of 240 (227241)
07-29-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by John Ponce
07-29-2005 1:41 AM


Re: The Theory and the Details
- we all came from one woman who lived relatively recently with regard to supposed evolutionary time scales, etc.

In terms of the biblical Eve perhaps, but in terms of mitochondrial Eve that isn't in fact the case. We are all descendants of one woman, but that is quite diffrent to all having come from one woman. Mitochondrial Eve was only one woman within a population not the only woman, it is simply that due to the way mitochondria are inherited the descendants of her mitochondria are the only ones still extant in the population of modern humans.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John Ponce, posted 07-29-2005 1:41 AM John Ponce has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 2:15 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 69 of 240 (228297)
08-01-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by John Ponce
08-01-2005 1:23 AM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
In other words, with genetic trait selection, a poodle can be bred from a general dog population – no mutations necessary.

Any scrap of evidence for that claim? How exactly would you go about preventing any mutations in all the generations of breeding?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John Ponce, posted 08-01-2005 1:23 AM John Ponce has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 88 of 240 (228394)
08-01-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by wj
08-01-2005 9:40 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by wj, posted 08-01-2005 9:40 AM wj has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by jcrawford, posted 08-03-2005 12:30 AM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 110 by jcrawford, posted 08-03-2005 12:50 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 90 of 240 (228435)
08-01-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jcrawford
08-01-2005 5:27 AM


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

Definitely!

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 5:27 AM jcrawford has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 116 of 240 (229065)
08-03-2005 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by jcrawford
08-03-2005 12:50 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
They first asociate aboriginal African people with apes and then claim that the whole human race is biologically descended from African men, women and children who were no different than you and I.

Do you have any evidence that the 'aboriginal African people', by which I presume you mean H. erectus, are not thought to be ancestral to all humans. Perhaps you mean one of the Australopithecines, in which case you still need to show some support for these being peculiarly ancestral to Africans rather than all modern humans.

Exactly which currently extant group of people are you claiming is being classified as sub-human by evolutionary biology?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jcrawford, posted 08-03-2005 12:50 AM jcrawford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jcrawford, posted 08-04-2005 2:11 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 119 of 240 (229078)
08-03-2005 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by PaulK
08-03-2005 6:40 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.

TTFN,

WK


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jcrawford, posted 08-06-2005 7:09 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 133 of 240 (229574)
08-04-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by jcrawford
08-04-2005 2:11 AM


How human were H. neanderthalensis and H. habilis?
Yeah. Lubenow's documentation in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."

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?

It's one thing to think that all men are created equal and quite another to theorize that they racially evolved from different 'species' of African apes.

But you and Lubenow are the only ones doing that. 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-Darwinist racial theorists sub-humanize the whole human race by associating, classifying and identifying our very human ancestors with and as, a non-human form or 'species' of African apes.

How human is "very human", are you claiming that H. neaderthalensis and H. habilis are indistinguishable from H. sapiens? That is going to require some pretty solid evidence to substantiate it. 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.

*ABE* 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. 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.

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-04-2005 05:29 AM

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-04-2005 05:30 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jcrawford, posted 08-04-2005 2:11 AM jcrawford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jcrawford, posted 08-06-2005 8:53 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 147 of 240 (230321)
08-05-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by RAZD
08-05-2005 6:39 PM


Re: can someone answer?
I don't believe this is neccessarily the case. Surface area is not the be alland end all. Brains with a smaller surface area may still have more cortical neurons and therefore greater interconnectedness (Roth and Dicke, 2005).

Abstract :-
Intelligence has evolved many times independently among vertebrates. Primates, elephants and cetaceans are assumed to be more intelligent than 'lower' mammals, the great apes and humans more than monkeys, and humans more than the great apes. Brain properties assumed to be relevant for intelligence are the (absolute or relative) size of the brain, cortex, prefrontal cortex and degree of encephalization. However, factors that correlate better with intelligence are the number of cortical neurons and conduction velocity, as the basis for information-processing capacity. Humans have more cortical neurons than other mammals, although only marginally more than whales and elephants. The outstanding intelligence of humans appears to result from a combination and enhancement of properties found in non-human primates, such as theory of mind, imitation and language, rather than from 'unique' properties.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2005 6:39 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2005 5:49 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019