Human Evolution

[Jose]

jcrawford and I have been having some interesting discussions in other threads, which have led to the notion that we really need a thread on human evolution. So, here it is.

The Rules
We want to work from data. Data that is discussed must be accessible in the scientific literature. Personally, I would prefer the peer-reviewed literature, because, as those of us in science know all too well, the peer reviewers are usually one's competitors. Thus, they are typically extremely critical of what we write.

Any other information that is brought to bear must also be accessible to everyone. Where requested, direct quotes from the sources will be important.

The questions for discussion

1. What is the current best understanding of human origins?

2. What "confounds" are there in the interpretation of data?

3. Given that there is always genetic diversity within populations, how easily can we assign hominid fossils to different groups? Here, the term "form-species" is probably most useful, referring to similar fossils with similar forms, but in the absence of information on the capacity for interbreeding. In many cases, different form-species are different species (fossil trees vs fossil insects), but sometimes they are not (fossil leaves vs fossil roots of the same tree).

4. Does information based on fossil data mesh with information based on genetic data? The true history must be genetically feasible. The fossils must have been left by individuals who were produced by normal genetic methods. To be valid, any explanation of origins must incorporate both fossil and genetic data.

5. What are the parts of human history that are most at odds with (some) Christian views, and what suggestions can we offer for reaching a reconciliation?

I will begin by posting the following genetic data, which is pictorial representation of the differences and similarities in mitochondrial DNA sequence of a whole bunch of people. Relative difference/similarity is proportional to the lengths of the vertical lines. Horizontal lines merely separate the vertical lines so we can see them.

How do we interpret these data?

[If appropriate, I will edit this post to ensure that the OP of this thread lists the important questions.

[Jose]

My, my, my. Take a day or two to do some legitimate work, and look what happens. Well, let's see if we can get this back on track.

I make this point only to indicate that finding fossils of two contemporaneous species does not rule out the idea that one might have been the ancestral species of the other.

Neither does finding human fossils of three contemporaneous "species" rule out the possibility that none of them were ancestral to the others and that they were just three racial variants of the same "species," as discovered in the Pit of Bones in Spain recently where Chris Stringer compares the largest single discovery and collection of hominid fossils in the world to Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.

Naturally, Chris Stringer would make such a comparison. As you would expect for any transitional form, he found characteristics that were erectus-like, characteristics that were sapiens-like, and characteristics that were neanderthal-like. Does that make these fossils three contemporaneous species? Only if the sapiens characteristics were all on one subset of fossils, the erectus characteristics on a different subset, and the neanderthal characteristics on a third subset. It didn't turn out to be that way, though, so they are now referring to the Atapuerca hominids as heidelbergensis.

Does this make them a new species? Naah. It merely is a name, a "form-species" that allows us to talk about hominids with this suite of characteristics.

But back to the point I made above, and that enabled you to distract the discussion by debating whether Kangaroos hop or not. Since you have not refuted the logic and inescapable conclusion that being contemporaneous does not rule out an ancestor/descendent relationship of two species, it looks like we all agree that this is so. The caricature of evolution is ruled out--that evolution requires that the whole population change at once, with new forms automatically and completely replacing the old ones. As it turns out, Lubenow's main assumption, upon which rests his reinterpretation of the fossils, is that descendent species absolutely cannot be contemporaneous with their parent species. We know this assumption to be false. It doesn't matter whether we apply the logic to humans, wombats, cave crickets, or daffodils, because we all use the same basic genetics so the same rules apply.

Accounting for human origins by imagining that the human fossil record shows evidence of multiple human species in the past is a mythological form of historical representation, Jose.

I hereby invoke the Rules. Please present your evidence for this assertion. I say it's your private opinion, born of intransigence in the face of overwhelming data that are contrary to your belief. As we said at the outset, we require data. Mere opinion won't cut it.

Based on the 'data' which the human fossil record presents, the 'data' which refutes genetic theories of human evolution, and the history of neo-Darwinist racial theories, Lubenow and I only arrived at the conclusion that all neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are inherently and inescapably racist.

Whether your conclusion is valid, or whether it is hogwash, is irrelevant at this point in this thread. The purpose of the thread is to examine the data. Until we have, your conclusions--and my conclusions--amount to mere gibberish. You'll have to present the data if you want to convince anyone that your interpretation is valid. I have presented data. The interpretation is clear, and has not been refuted. If you have data you'd liike us to evaluate, bring it forth.

We especially don't want to classify people as different 'races' on the basis of skin color, physical characteristics, mental abilities and attributes, cultural perspectives and acheivements, technological innovation, fossil morphology, genetics or any other neo-Darwinist premises and theories which may result in classifying racially diverse groups in human history as different species. Historically documented biographies and testimonies of national or natural geographic origins are the sole arbiter and determinant in establishing modern ethnic and racial origins.

What are you talking about? "Race" has a clear genetic definition. You ignored it in the Bones of Contention thread, so I'll assume the same would occur here, but what kind of silliness justifies using geographical origin as the criterion? Even if you can justify it, it is still too vague to be workable. How many generations ago is the "origin"? Do we go back to Adam and Eve? If so, there are no races. Do we go back to the first population of anatomically modern humans? If so, there are no races. Do we go back to 1732? 1953? Or do we go back to the common ancestor of chimps and humans? Why stop there? Why not go back to the common ancestor of vertebrates? What date will you arbitrarily set as the time at which different racial groups suddenly exist?

Human fossils, in and of themselves, give no indication of their 'species' or of having evolved from former human 'species.' It is only when they are manipulated and arranged in a progressively evolutionist order of 'species' gradation between human and ape fossils that the mirage (or reconstructed movie) of human evolution emerges from the pictorial representations of the skulls.

Indeed, no fossil gives any indication of its ancestors or descendents. It is necessary to have not only many fossils, but an understanding of the geological context in which they were found. I infer from what you've said that you [no, it must be Lubenow. You'd know better.] have some goofy notion that I've heard only from YECs so far, that "evolutionary sequences" are constructed solely by lining up fossils in a way that looks nice. I've heard this often enough that I think there must be someone out there preaching it.

Of course, if one either has no clue about, or simply denies, the vast body of data on geological dating, one would have no notion how to do it correctly. The sequence is determined by the ages of the fossils. One would have to deny that such a thing is possible if one insists that all fossils were formed in the Noachian Deluge, but that's no excuse for refusing to try to understand what those wonky biologists and geologists are actually saying.

As previously posted by myself, the unfounded assumptions upon which interpretations and conclusions about genetic data, human relationships and human origins are premised are:

1. That mtDNA is passed on only by the mother...
<blah blah blah>
4. That mtDNA can determine species distance and distinguish between species....

The botton line, Jose, is that all theoretical interpretations of genetic data which support Darwin's original racial theory that all human beings originated from more primitive human and non-human species in Africa, are simply modern forms of neo-Darwinist racism in biology.

*sigh* Data really are irrelevant for you, aren't they? The assumptions you've listed are not pertinent to the conclusions I gave you (and which, I will remind you, you said you could not figure out on your own). I explained why those assumptions aren't pertinent. To respond to the interpretation I offered by repeating the same thing strikes me as, well, rather odd. And then to present Lubenow's bottom line of "it's all racism" is to leave science altogether and hide in the closet of unexamined opinion.

As I said before, if you have objections to the interpretation of the genetic data in the OP, present them--but make sure you have actual reasoning behind your alternate suggestions. It's no good to refer to "unfounded assumptions" and claim that they prove the whole thing wrong (pardon me, racist) unless you can at least show that those assumptions went into the interpretation. If you are unable to show that the interpretation is wrong, then I fear we're going to have to accept it.

It also doesn't help much to change the subject.

The only factual data consistent with neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is that all neo-Darwinists agree that modern men and women in Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa all descended from more primitive people in Africa who originated from African monkey and ape ancestors once upon a time. All other "consistent data" from fossils and genetics is premised, interpreted and extrapolated on the basis of Darwin's original assumptions about the origin of human 'species' from anthropomorphous apes.

Again you betray your misconceptions, or willful misrepresentation, of science. You make some weird assumption that biologists feel compelled to "prove" Darwin's hypothesis about human origins. Why would anyone want to do that? What good would it do? I don't think anyone gives a damn whether some scientist from 150 years ago was right about anything--except that if it turns out that they really were right, and no one has ever been able to prove them wrong, then they become part of the historical context of the field. Given the personalities in science, I'd think it far more likely to hear "dang! he was right after all" than to hear "success! I've proven the old guy was right, and thereby earned myself a place in history as a forgotten dimbulb who couldn't think of anything new to do."

Excuse me--I have to finish grading those papers.

[jcrawford]

I make this point only to indicate that finding fossils of two contemporaneous species does not rule out the idea that one might have been the ancestral species of the other.

Neither does finding human fossils of three contemporaneous "species" rule out the possibility that none of them were ancestral to the others and that they were just three racial variants of the same "species," as discovered in the Pit of Bones in Spain recently where Chris Stringer compares the largest single discovery and collection of hominid fossils in the world to Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.

Naturally, Chris Stringer would make such a comparison. As you would expect for any transitional form, he found characteristics that were erectus-like, characteristics that were sapiens-like, and characteristics that were neanderthal-like. Does that make these fossils three contemporaneous species? Only if the sapiens characteristics were all on one subset of fossils, the erectus characteristics on a different subset, and the neanderthal characteristics on a third subset. It didn't turn out to be that way, though, so they are now referring to the Atapuerca hominids as heidelbergensis.

Does this make them a new species? Naah. It merely is a name, a "form-species" that allows us to talk about hominids with this suite of characteristics.

Since the fossil remains in the Pit of Bones are evidence of the whole fossil range of morphological variety within one community which lived together, (possibly during the Ice Age) why is it necessary to make up a new 'species' name for them rather than just calling them all early/archaic Homo sapiens like some of them were before. Labeling them as H. heidlebergenis creates the illusion that they were not quite human and is racist.

Since you have not refuted the logic and inescapable conclusion that being contemporaneous does not rule out an ancestor/descendent relationship of two species, it looks like we all agree that this is so.

Not at all. Fossil contemporaneousness is no more an indication of an ancestor/descendent relationship than it confirms any fossils as belonging to different and separate species. You're just applying unfounded neo-Darwinist assumptions and subsequent logic in your statement above.

The caricature of evolution is ruled out--that evolution requires that the whole population change at once, with new forms automatically and completely replacing the old ones.

That's your caricaturization, not Lubenow's, since Lubenow documents Homo erectus co-existing contemporaneously with all other humans for almost 2 million years, according to the human fossil record as dated by neo-Darwinists themselves.

As it turns out, Lubenow's main assumption, upon which rests his reinterpretation of the fossils, is that descendent species absolutely cannot be contemporaneous with their parent species. We know this assumption to be false.

Your assumption about "Lubenow's main assumption" is known to be false by all who have read Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," which I confidently presume you have still not read and don't know what either you or Lubenow are talking about.

[jcrawford]

Accounting for human origins by imagining that the human fossil record shows evidence of multiple human species in the past is a mythological form of historical representation, Jose.

I hereby invoke the Rules. Please present your evidence for this assertion. I say it's your private opinion, born of intransigence in the face of overwhelming data that are contrary to your belief. As we said at the outset, we require data. Mere opinion won't cut it.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... ltdown.htm

http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... darwin.asp

Based on the 'data' which the human fossil record presents, the 'data' which refutes genetic theories of human evolution, and the history of neo-Darwinist racial theories, Lubenow and I only arrived at the conclusion that all neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are inherently and inescapably racist.

Whether your conclusion is valid, or whether it is hogwash, is irrelevant at this point in this thread. The purpose of the thread is to examine the data.

What data? Yours or mine? All you've presented for us to examine so far is a computer generated chart. You call that data?

Until we have, your conclusions--and my conclusions--amount to mere gibberish.

So your conclusions about your chart amount to mere gibberish. I agree with that data.

You'll have to present the data if you want to convince anyone that your interpretation is valid.

So will you.

I have presented data.

No, you haven't. Your interpretation of the chart was mere gibberish. I have presented data.

The interpretation is clear, and has not been refuted.

Your data isn't even clear so how could anyone's interpretation or refutation of it be clear? Besides, Wolpoff and others discount genetic interpretations of the human fossils.

If you have data you'd liike us to evaluate, bring it forth.

What do you think I've been presenting with every post? Personal opinions?

We especially don't want to classify people as different 'races' on the basis of skin color, physical characteristics, mental abilities and attributes, cultural perspectives and acheivements, technological innovation, fossil morphology, genetics or any other neo-Darwinist premises and theories which may result in classifying racially diverse groups in human history as different species. Historically documented biographies and testimonies of national or natural geographic origins are the sole arbiter and determinant in establishing modern ethnic and racial origins.

What are you talking about? "Race" has a clear genetic definition.

Really? What is it?

You ignored it in the Bones of Contention thread, so I'll assume the same would occur here, but what kind of silliness justifies using geographical origin as the criterion? Even if you can justify it, it is still too vague to be workable.

Not that they or their ancestors were ever separate races, but all racial groups can trace their ancestral origins to some disinct geopraphic part of the globe. Geographical origins is the only criteria that truly distinguishes and dertermines an individual's racial background. You don't know of any Eskimos or Innuit whose ancestors came from the Carribean, do you?

[jcrawford]

Human fossils, in and of themselves, give no indication of their 'species' or of having evolved from former human 'species.' It is only when they are manipulated and arranged in a progressively evolutionist order of 'species' gradation between human and ape fossils that the mirage (or reconstructed movie) of human evolution emerges from the pictorial representations of the skulls.

Indeed, no fossil gives any indication of its ancestors or descendents. It is necessary to have not only many fossils, but an understanding of the geological context in which they were found. I infer from what you've said that you [no, it must be Lubenow. You'd know better.] have some goofy notion that I've heard only from YECs so far, that "evolutionary sequences" are constructed solely by lining up fossils in a way that looks nice. I've heard this often enough that I think there must be someone out there preaching it.

Yes, most neo-Darwinists would preach that one mustn't take the fossils out of the neat evolutionary continuum in which they have been carefully sequentially arranged by date and classification in order to show gradual morphological change from ape-like African features to more human ones with Homo erectus being intermediate in those evolutionary transitions of one 'species' into another. Just try to include the African skulls of KNM-ER 1470 (H. rudolfensis) and "Turkana Boy," KNM-WT 15000 (H. ergaster) in the same racial category and class as European Neanderthals or more advanced Cro-Magnon specimens. Might I predict a little "preaching" on your part regarding my suggested inclusion of all human fossils under the banner of one human species and one human race with plenty of racial variation within, but no speciation?

Of course, if one either has no clue about, or simply denies, the vast body of data on geological dating, one would have no notion how to do it correctly. The sequence is determined by the ages of the fossils.

Ho, ho, ho, you've got it backwards, Jose, since the fossils are dated according to radiometric dating of the geological strata in which they are found which in turn is dated by the sequencing of the fossils in a pre-supposed, assumed and imagined evolutionary time-frame.

One would have to deny that such a thing is possible if one insists that all fossils were formed in the Noachian Deluge, but that's no excuse for refusing to try to understand what those wonky biologists and geologists are actually saying.

Refusing to "try to understand what those wonky biologists and geologists are actually saying," Jose? Creationists have finally got the tricky time techiques of "those wonky biologists and geologists" all figured out and are all looking forward to the great RATE Conference scheduled for next month in which creationists shall debunk all the radioisotopic decay dating methods used by "wonky biologists and geologists" for the past 50 years to fool almost everyone.

[QED]

Accounting for human origins by imagining that the human fossil record shows evidence of multiple human species in the past is a mythological form of historical representation, Jose.

I hereby invoke the Rules. Please present your evidence for this assertion. I say it's your private opinion, born of intransigence in the face of overwhelming data that are contrary to your belief. As we said at the outset, we require data. Mere opinion won't cut it.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed if this the data you've been working with...

http://www.designinference.com/document ... ltdown.htm

A fantasy piece by four "leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement" invited to "have some fun by imagining writing in 2025, explaining how Darwinism bit the dust, unable to rebut the evidence that what we see around us could not have arisen merely by time plus chance."

There are many views expressed in this piece -- any of which I would welcome the opportunity to rebut. If you feel strongly about any particular argument relating to your assertion please quote it so we can discuss.

http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html

A fine collection of all the old creation chestnuts. Misrepresentations of evolution as pure chance, as contradicting the second law of thermodynamics, as spontaneous generation scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur. The absence of transitionals (JC do you have any idea of how many living creatures alive today in your country will make it into the future fossil record?) and the infamous Piltdown man debacle (uncovered by scientists). The fine tuning of the cosmological constants (this isn't the dynamite some people think it is!). And the list goes on. Again, where are the arguments to demonstrate that the fossil record does not show us multiple human species?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... darwin.asp

All I can see here is a piece meant to put off any Christians who are tempted to accept evolution as God's modus operandi. Really, it looks to me as if you've just pulled three random links out of your Favorites.

[jcrawford]

As previously posted by myself, the unfounded assumptions upon which interpretations and conclusions about genetic data, human relationships and human origins are premised are:

1. That mtDNA is passed on only by the mother...

4. That mtDNA can determine species distance and distinguish between species....

The botton line, Jose, is that all theoretical interpretations of genetic data which support Darwin's original racial theory that all human beings originated from more primitive human and non-human species in Africa, are simply modern forms of neo-Darwinist racism in biology.

*sigh* Data really are irrelevant for you, aren't they?

Your so-called 'data' isn't even evident. Someone put your so-called 'data' into a computer and churned out whatever sort of graphic chart they intended the 'data' to show in the first place, and you want to call this resulting diagram 'data?' Puleeeze.

The assumptions you've listed are not pertinent to the conclusions I gave you (and which, I will remind you, you said you could not figure out on your own).

You said that any conclusions made before the 'data' was examined amounted to mere gibberish though, so it seems that your assumptions about the conclusions of well-respected scientists which I presented as evidence and data refuting your genetic theories and conclusions, are more gibberish.

I explained why those assumptions aren't pertinent.

Oh, really. So you just dismiss peer-reviewed critiques of your genetic assumptions as impertinent or irrelevent. Hmmm. Interesting scientific method you're using here, Jose.

To respond to the interpretation I offered by repeating the same thing strikes me as, well, rather odd.

Just call me an odd-fellow at odds with your genetic theories, Jose. I won't consider it an ad hominem comment about a fellow-hominid in the same taxonomic family.

And then to present Lubenow's bottom line of "it's all racism" is to leave science altogether and hide in the closet of unexamined opinion.

You're the one "hiding in the closet of unexamined opinion," regarding Lubenow's examination and assessment of the human fossil record with over 1000 scientific quotes, references and footnotes plus a detailed compendium of 371 human fossil specimens which indicate no signs of having evolved from any other species but are obviously geographically representative of the ancestors of various racial groups living on the planet today.

[jcrawford]

As I said before, if you have objections to the interpretation of the genetic data in the OP, present them--but make sure you have actual reasoning behind your alternate suggestions. It's no good to refer to "unfounded assumptions" and claim that they prove the whole thing wrong (pardon me, racist) unless you can at least show that those assumptions went into the interpretation.

Since we can only assume that your computer graph was generated using data from mtDNA sequencing, we may also assume that the use of mtDNA as a dating system and as a species-distinguishing system is loaded with unproven and unprovable assumptions which render scientific objectivity in such testing non-existent.

Your interpretation of your computer printout is based on all four of the unfounded assumptions that I listed and you just dismissed these peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of your interpretive techniques as impertinent.

If you are unable to show that the interpretation is wrong, then I fear we're going to have to accept it.

Who's "we," Jose, and why do you fear accepting your own interpretation? Do you fear that some of the other posters might not even accept the original 'data' upon which the computer simulation was programmed and generated?

The only factual data consistent with neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is that all neo-Darwinists agree that modern men and women in Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa all descended from more primitive people in Africa who originated from African monkey and ape ancestors once upon a time. All other "consistent data" from fossils and genetics is premised, interpreted and extrapolated on the basis of Darwin's original assumptions about the origin of human 'species' from anthropomorphous apes.

Again you betray your misconceptions, or willful misrepresentation, of science.

It's a long way from Darwin's original assumptions and premises about the origins of different human races and species to "science," Jose. I know good science from junk science when I see it and neo-Darwinist racial theories about human origins aren't good science.

You make some weird assumption that biologists feel compelled to "prove" Darwin's hypothesis about human origins.

Nothing weird about that assumption, Jose, since paleoanthropologists and evolutionary biologists have been trying to prove Darwin's beliefs for over 100 years. Now, geneticists like yourself are still trying to prove the African Eve theory which is based on neo-Darwinist fossil interpretations that the original African people originated from monkey and ape ancestors.

Why would anyone want to do that? What good would it do?

It would perpepuate the neo-Darwinist myth of human origins from African ape ancestors.

I don't think anyone gives a damn whether some scientist from 150 years ago was right about anything--except that if it turns out that they really were right, and no one has ever been able to prove them wrong, then they become part of the historical context of the field. Given the personalities in science, I'd think it far more likely to hear "dang! he was right after all" than to hear "success! I've proven the old guy was right, and thereby earned myself a place in history as a forgotten dimbulb who couldn't think of anything new to do."

That's just an unsubstantiated personal opinion on your part, Jose, and not backed up by any scientific evidence or peer-review by your scientific fellows. However, since we are both as human as any Neanderthal ever was, we are entitiled to express our opinions, even as surrogates for speechless human fossils which neo-Darwinists would consider to be something other than former racial members of the human race.

Excuse me--I have to finish grading those papers.

Ah, yes, duty before discussion. Good work habit.

[jcrawford]

Accounting for human origins by imagining that the human fossil record shows evidence of multiple human species in the past is a mythological form of historical representation, Jose.

I hereby invoke the Rules. Please present your evidence for this assertion. I say it's your private opinion, born of intransigence in the face of overwhelming data that are contrary to your belief. As we said at the outset, we require data. Mere opinion won't cut it.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed if this the data you've been working with...

http://www.designinference.com/document ... ltdown.htm

A fantasy piece by four "leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement" invited to "have some fun by imagining writing in 2025, explaining how Darwinism bit the dust, unable to rebut the evidence that what we see around us could not have arisen merely by time plus chance."

There are many views expressed in this piece -- any of which I would welcome the opportunity to rebut. If you feel strongly about any particular argument relating to your assertion please quote it so we can discuss.

http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html

A fine collection of all the old creation chestnuts. Misrepresentations of evolution as pure chance, as contradicting the second law of thermodynamics, as spontaneous generation scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur. The absence of transitionals (JC do you have any idea of how many living creatures alive today in your country will make it into the future fossil record?) and the infamous Piltdown man debacle (uncovered by scientists). The fine tuning of the cosmological constants (this isn't the dynamite some people think it is!). And the list goes on. Again, where are the arguments to demonstrate that the fossil record does not show us multiple human species?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... darwin.asp

All I can see here is a piece meant to put off any Christians who are tempted to accept evolution as God's modus operandi. Really, it looks to me as if you've just pulled three random links out of your Favorites.

Gee, QED, I was just providing Jose with some evidence that my "assertion" was not based on my "private opinion" alone, but is shared by many other reliable sources.

Accounting for human origins by imagining that the human fossil record shows evidence of multiple human species in the past is a mythological form of historical representation, Jose.

I hereby invoke the Rules. Please present your evidence for this assertion. I say it's your private opinion, born of intransigence in the face of overwhelming data that are contrary to your belief. As we said at the outset, we require data. Mere opinion won't cut it.

[QED]

I must say I'm a bit disappointed if this the data you've been working with...

Gee, QED, I was just providing Jose with some evidence that my "assertion" was not based on my "private opinion" alone, but is shared by many other reliable sources.

Gee -- By this I think you have demonstrated a deep lack of sincerity. I took the trouble to read all the nonsense in your links. Not once did I find mention of "racist" nor did I find anything that has not already been soundly refuted by evolutionists. Now you confess that your links were not targeted to this debate but merely threw them up to prove what? That you're not the only one involved in a desperate attempt to cling on to an outmoded world-view based on the scribblings of iron-age man?

If you want to earn respect for your arguments I suggest you reconsider your tactics. Smoke screens are only a sign of desperation.

[jcrawford]

I must say I'm a bit disappointed if this the data you've been working with...

Gee, QED, I was just providing Jose with some evidence that my "assertion" was not based on my "private opinion" alone, but is shared by many other reliable sources.

Gee -- By this I think you have demonstrated a deep lack of sincerity. I took the trouble to read all the nonsense in your links. Not once did I find mention of "racist" nor did I find anything that has not already been soundly refuted by evolutionists. Now you confess that your links were not targeted to this debate but merely threw them up to prove what? That you're not the only one involved in a desperate attempt to cling on to an outmoded world-view based on the scribblings of iron-age man?

If you want to earn respect for your arguments I suggest you reconsider your tactics. Smoke screens are only a sign of desperation.

Dear QED: If you refer back to the particular assertion which Jose asked me to present some evidence for, I think that the 3 links I posted in response to his request do indeed refer to neo-Darwinism as a mythoglical form of historical representation at some point. I just wanted to provide some evidence that my assertion in that statement was more than just my own private opinion, etc. because the links demonstrate that many scholars other than myself hold similar opinions about the mythological nature of neo-Darwinist theory.

I'm sorry if you were misled in some way into thinking that those links had anything to do with providing evidence of neo-Darwinist theories of racial origins since they were only provided to give some additional information about the mythological nature of neo-Darwinism. There are other websites which focus more on the historical consequences of neo-Darwinist race theories.