Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
691 online now:
dwise1, Hyroglyphx, JonF, Lammy, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 684 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,864 Year: 21,900/19,786 Month: 463/1,834 Week: 463/315 Day: 59/82 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 240 (225615)
07-22-2005 11:59 PM


Creationist professor Marvin Lubenow contends in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that all neo-Darwinist theories about the origins and evolution of the human race are a scientific form of racism. Being somewhat familiar with the several claims, arguments and ramifications of his thesis, I am prepared to discuss, debate and defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to discuss, debate and defend evolutionist theories to the contrary.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-23-2005 7:52 AM jcrawford has responded
 Message 12 by AdminNosy, posted 07-24-2005 12:54 PM jcrawford has responded
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2005 9:31 PM jcrawford has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 240 (225639)
07-23-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jcrawford
07-22-2005 11:59 PM


That's pretty sketchy. Could you write a paragraph or two outlining how Lubenow reaches that conclusion? Also be aware that EvC Forum has in the past been very circumspect in hosting threads about racism, and that therefore it is possible your thread, even though satisfying the Forum Guidelines, might not be released.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jcrawford, posted 07-22-2005 11:59 PM jcrawford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jcrawford, posted 07-24-2005 1:01 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 240 (225872)
07-24-2005 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
07-23-2005 7:52 AM


Hello Percy:

Thanks for the advice. I know that both evolutionism and racism are highy debatable and 'hot' topics so I feel it is in our common interest to know that Lubenow adequately documents, demonstrates and clarifies his distinctions between charges of scientific racism against a "theory," the theorists, and all followers of, believers in, and supporters of, the "theory."

Neither Lubenow nor I would dare to accuse any posters on this forum of harboring racist views or of being racists themseleves. Since Lubenow speaks so eloquently for himself in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," I would only use his basic theses as the basis of support for my own interpretation, understanding and presentation of the inherent racial implications in neo-Darwinst theories of the human race's evolution out of non-human African primates.

Since we both know that the topic can be 'touchy,' I will keep my posts in context with the following interpretation of Lubenow's theses:

Neo-Darwinst theories about the origin and evolution of species are a form of scientific racism when applied to any or all members of the human race because dividing and separating our human ancestors into different species reduces and degrades them to an inferior and unequal biological status regarding their natural human capacity of inter-fertility, sexual reproduction and breeding with all other members of the current human race.

It is a form of scientific racism to theorize that Middle Eastern and European Neanderthal people and Homo erectus people in Asia and Africa were not fully human but were rather an evolutionary subspecies of humanity which became extinct. (Sub-humanism) To be fully human as a race or species means being capable of inter-fertility with all other people.

It is racial and scientific prejudice against people of Middle Eastern, European and Asian descent when theories of evolution deny their Neanderthal or Homo erectus ancestry and insist on substituting an African line of descent for them today. Since evolutionists maintain that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens both evolved from H. Erectus, either in Europe or Africa, there is no scientific reason or justification to assert that Homo erectus people in Asia were not the ancestors of today’s Asian people. All changes in human skull shapes, sizes and structural facial contours may be attributable to the passing of the Ice Age and the advent of current climatic conditions around the world.

It is a racist scenario to theorize that both European and Middle Eastern Neanderthals and Asian Homo erectus types of people were eliminated and replaced by more “highly evolved” Homo sapiens who originally migrated from Africa and didn’t or wouldn’t interbreed with other humans simply because evolutionists label them as a separate species of humans who couldn’t sexually reproduce with other humans even if they wanted to.

It is a form of scientific racism against people of Muslim, Jewish and Christian ancestry and descent who believe that some human ancestors were descendants of Abraham and that all of their human ancestors were descended from Noah's family, to theorize that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ shared common genealogical ancestry with a mythological Homo sapiens woman named Eve in Africa who is theoretically associated, identified, categorized and classified with a species of hon-human primates who are then also claimed to have evolved from some other non-human "species" in Africa.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-23-2005 7:52 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 07-24-2005 2:12 AM jcrawford has responded
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2005 3:58 AM jcrawford has not yet responded
 Message 7 by CK, posted 07-24-2005 5:14 AM jcrawford has not yet responded
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2005 7:13 AM jcrawford has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 240 (225875)
07-24-2005 2:05 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 5 of 240 (225878)
07-24-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jcrawford
07-24-2005 1:01 AM


A definition of racism
It may be hard for others to follow this logic unless you supply a clear statement of what "racicism" means as it is being used here.

Also in each paragraph the statments are made that such and such is a form of racism. This are simple assertions. There is not logic presented to show why one should be convinced that the assertions made are reasonable.

It is probably sensible to make them as assertions to get the thread going. Now it is time to take each one and be clear on just why one would think of things like describing the evolution of H. sapians and it's ancestors and cousins as racism when others might see it as a simple statment of what we, at this time, understand the facts to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jcrawford, posted 07-24-2005 1:01 AM jcrawford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jcrawford, posted 07-24-2005 3:20 PM NosyNed has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 240 (225899)
07-24-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jcrawford
07-24-2005 1:01 AM


Neo-Darwinst theories about the origin and evolution of species are a form of scientific racism when applied to any or all members of the human race

a classical example of the perils of applying darwinian thought to humanity is social darwinism. they took the name, but not the thought itself, from darwin -- they were just trying to justify their extreme views. part of the problem was that people don't obey the laws of nature in the wild, per se. and money is not an indication of success, genetically speaking. these were logicall fallacies in the idealogy.

dividing and separating our human ancestors into different species reduces and degrades them to an inferior and unequal biological status

this is also not true, the first major fallacy here. the number one idea of darwinism is common ancestry: the interconnection of all life. since we are ALL current end results, all are equally successful evolutionarily speaking. there is NOTHING in darwinism that says one species is "better" in some human terms than another unless one of the two is dead. racism is being read into it, or it is being used to justify racism -- but it in and of itself is not racism.

It is a form of scientific racism to theorize that Middle Eastern and European Neanderthal people and Homo erectus people in Asia and Africa were not fully human but were rather an evolutionary subspecies of humanity which became extinct

so we're arguing against racism -- wait, no -- SPECIESISM against species that no longer exist? h. neandertals and h. erectus are not even h. sapiens (cromagnon) let alone h. sapiens sapiens (us). this is not the same as saying "people from africa came from inferior stock." this "inferior stock" is as unrelated the these specific modern populations as anyone else is. some species that came from them advanced beyond them, and overtook their population. everywhere. everyone alive today is of and from the same species.

only a small amount of neandertal dna (as they DID interbreed) arguably exists in the gene pool. and the people who arguably have these "inferior" genes aren't commonly targets of racism at all.

It is a racist scenario to theorize that both European and Middle Eastern Neanderthals and Asian Homo erectus types of people were eliminated and replaced by more “highly evolved” Homo sapiens who originally migrated from Africa

but this is exactly what the evidence very strongly indicates happened. although noticeably minus the "higher evolved" bit -- h. sapiens was actually LESS adapted to its environment than the species it replaces. for instance, neandertals were BUILT for cold weather: short and stocky, very round. probably light skinned. h. sapiens was build for warm weather: long and tall, and skinny. probably dark skinned. (note: these are the opposite skin colors that used to be depicted in "racist" textbooks)

what h. sapiens had that made it more effective was sort of an evolutionary short-cut. cheating so to speak. it had a larger brain. that meant that it did not have to out evolve the more highly-adapted neandertals. it just had to do things a little smarter.

and didn’t or wouldn’t interbreed with other humans simply because evolutionists label them as a separate species of humans who couldn’t sexually reproduce with other humans even if they wanted to.

this is also evidently not true. we have fossilized remains of children who seemed to have shared both neandertal and h. sapiens parentage in a smooth combination of features. they could, in fact, interbreed. like i said, some argue that there is still neandertal dna in our gene pool. my guess is that we both probably have a little if this is true.

however, there is very, very little evidence that this happened often. so it's thought that they didn't interbreed by choice. perhaps they just didn't find short hairy women attractive? we seem to sexually select for women with little to no body hair today. this could be why.

It is a form of scientific racism against people of Muslim, Jewish and Christian ancestry and descent who believe that some human ancestors were descendants of Abraham and that all of their human ancestors were descended from Noah's family, to theorize that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ shared common genealogical ancestry with a mythological Homo sapiens woman named Eve in Africa who is theoretically associated, identified, categorized and classified with a species of hon-human primates who are then also claimed to have evolved from some other non-human "species" in Africa.

that's just bs now. first of all, "eve" was a biblical reference -- not actually the eve of the bible. they gave her that name because she appeared to be the mother of all mankind. and if she's h. sapiens, that makes her human.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jcrawford, posted 07-24-2005 1:01 AM jcrawford has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 07-24-2005 11:46 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 24 by John Ponce, posted 07-25-2005 12:48 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2464 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 7 of 240 (225908)
07-24-2005 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jcrawford
07-24-2005 1:01 AM


Why?
First - a quick question. Why should I take the guy seriously?

I did a quick google and there is nothing in his background that suggests any evidence of academic rigor or expertise around the TOE. why should I take the time to listen to him and not just stick him in the crackfile with the rest of the creationist "professors".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jcrawford, posted 07-24-2005 1:01 AM jcrawford has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by wj, posted 07-24-2005 6:13 AM CK has responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 240 (225915)
07-24-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by CK
07-24-2005 5:14 AM


Re: Why?
Lubenow has a Master of Science with a major in anthorpology. At least one should do the courtesy of refuting his assertions with appropriate evidence. However I'm not sure if Jcrawford is conveying Lubenow's arguments accurately There doesn't appear to be any chain of logic in the argument so far and much of it seems to be based on an inaccurate understanding of the currently available evidence. For example, the current genetic evidence is that there was no exchange of genetic information between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens. And sapiens / erectus seems even more improbable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 07-24-2005 5:14 AM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 07-24-2005 6:34 AM wj has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2464 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 9 of 240 (225916)
07-24-2005 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by wj
07-24-2005 6:13 AM


Re: Why?
But that's my point - A masters is nothing (in terms of the sciences). Surely the relative merits of qualifications cannot be that different between here and there?

You have to have a filtering process otherwise, you would be overwhelm with refuting every piece of rubbish that came along. That guy doesn't have the minimum level for me to even read his stuff.

A discussion of this will take us off the path - let's leave it at that?

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Jul-2005 06:40 AM

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Jul-2005 06:40 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by wj, posted 07-24-2005 6:13 AM wj has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15629
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 10 of 240 (225917)
07-24-2005 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jcrawford
07-24-2005 1:01 AM


Lets start with a single question:

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 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jcrawford, posted 07-24-2005 1:01 AM jcrawford has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 07-24-2005 4:01 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6832
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 11 of 240 (225937)
07-24-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
07-24-2005 3:58 AM


quote:
we have fossilized remains of children who seemed to have shared both neandertal and h. sapiens parentage in a smooth combination of features.

The last I heard, that was still a controversial conclusion. Has the scientific consensus changed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2005 3:58 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2005 1:01 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 12 of 240 (225943)
07-24-2005 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jcrawford
07-22-2005 11:59 PM


Defending Claims
This is a friendly reminder for when you do get back and have a bit of time. As you noted you are prepared to defend the claims made. In fact, it is a requirement for continued participation here.

Failure to do so in the science threads will produce short term suspensions of privilege.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jcrawford, posted 07-22-2005 11:59 PM jcrawford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jcrawford, posted 07-24-2005 3:26 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 240 (225944)
07-24-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
07-24-2005 11:46 AM


The last I heard, that was still a controversial conclusion. Has the scientific consensus changed?

i dunno. i suppose i could be wrong.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 07-24-2005 11:46 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 07-24-2005 2:46 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6832
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 14 of 240 (225974)
07-24-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
07-24-2005 1:01 PM


Hi, arach.

Here is a link on TalkOrigins. It contains a link to a 1999 paper published by the NAS on a possible neanderthal/modern human hybrid that was found in Portugal; it also has a link to a rebuttal, also published in PNAS.

I couldn't find much that talked about this subject in more depth, but I confess that I didn't do an exhaustive search.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2005 1:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2005 3:15 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 240 (225979)
07-24-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
07-24-2005 2:46 PM


me neither -- just something i saw on tv once. the skeleton they showed appeared to be real fossils and somewhere between the two species. i'll give it a look when i get home (at work now)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 07-24-2005 2:46 PM Chiroptera 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