...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).
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-27-2005 12:52 PM
- 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.
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.
quote:"Should adverts for yoghurt drinks containing "good" bacteria be considered racist since they elevate one strain of microorganisms over others ?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.