Bones of Contention.

[jcrawford]

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 defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to debate and substantiate their claim to the contrary.

[perfessor]

Let's discuss the human fossil record then. Which particular fossils show evidence of human evolution in your eyes. How do you know that any of them are a separate species of human beings rather than racially diverse morphological variations of the fossilized human race?

Dodging again. Have you forgotten that Jose gave a rather detailed description of this a few pages back - homonids that were herbivorous; homonids lacking speech mechanisms - this is more than simple morphological variations.

Who's dodging? You and your neo-Darwinist supporters are the only ones dodging the issue of which African 'species' of the human race originally sprang into existence as a result of neo-Darwinist theories about African people originally originating from African apes or their look-alike ancestors.

For the umpteenth time - there may be races of a species, but there are not "species of the human race." BTW, which of your 8 definitions of "race" are you using now?

Race: noun.
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 a tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ethnic stock.
3 the fact or concept of division into races (discrimination based on race).
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.
5 a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent.
6 any great division of living creatures (the feathered race, the four-footed race).
7 descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).
8 a class of persons etc., with some common feature (the race of poets).

If you are using #6, then there may be many species in a "race". #5 is too vague in your context;#2, 4, 7 and 8 apply only within a single species;. #3 is circular in your context; If #1, you now need to define "humankind" with some specificity. How slippery it is to have multiple definitions!
And BTW again - no one ever "sprang into existence as a result of theories." (your words) If you are unclear about how people spring into existence, you are overdue for a talk with your parents.

Admit it, perfessor. Neo-Darwinst theories about African people evolving from the ancestors of African apes are racist theories, especially when there is no more scientific evidence of human migration out of Africa than there is for Chinese immigration into Africa over a million years ago.

Well, I know it doesn't mean anything to you, but the only ones who agree with you are those with a vested interest in clinging, desperately, to the legends and myths of a tribe of bronze-age goatherders.

What't that I hear you say? That the scientific establishment has a vested interest of its own, which is to deny god and promote racist theories? How convenient to have such an easy excuse, always at the ready.

[micatala]

Quote:
You at the outset said you were prepared to debate and defend Lubenow's position. Pick a singular definition of the term "racist" and defend the charge you have made.


I'm using the American Edition of Oxford's definitions of race and racist.

I see you don't understand the difference between 1 and 8. Let me help. One is the number of heads you have. Eight is the number of fingers most people have if you don't count the thumbs. See how easy that is.

Social Darwinism seems to have evolved into neo-Darwinism in America after the end of WW2 since it is obvious to everyone that American schoolchildren are presently being force-fed Darwinist racial theories of the first African people's origins from apes or their ape-like ancestors.

You have it backwards. If you had read the whole short article at the site I posted from, you would have seen that Social Darwinism was basically a misapplication of Darwinism to social institutions, and has now been discredited. Neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism, although I know you will probably claim that it does since it will provide false evidence for your false conclusions.

Admit it, perfessor. Neo-Darwinst theories about African people evolving from the ancestors of African apes are racist theories, especially when there is no more scientific evidence of human migration out of Africa than there is for Chinese immigration into Africa over a million years ago.

Already been shown false, sorry. Nothing new here.

That's very true. Congratulations. Neither do charges of racism, slander it, especially when scientific evidence supports the inherent racism in it.

But the scientific evidence doesn't support it. There is no racism, we've shown there is no racism. You have simply covered your eyes and ears and are screaming over and over "Lubenow says there is racism so there is."

As your debating technique is basically non-existent except to repeat the same refuted and false charges over and over and repeat 'Lubenow says so' over and over, I would have to agree with Chimp. Responding to a your posts, especially since they are as imaginative and insightful as fence posts, is pointless.

[Cathar1950]

Quote:
For the sake of argument... If neo-darwinism is, in fact, racist...it doesn't invalidate the theory.

Who wrote that? I looked all over and couldn't find the original and i do remember reading it.
Is some one deleting stuff?
Am I paranoid?
In response to this very humorous point which included

If neo-darwinism
is ...racist...it doesn't invalidate the theory

jcrawford wrote:

That's very true. Congratulations. Neither do charges of racism, slander it, especially

when scientific evidence supports the inherent racism in it.

What?

Neither do charges of racism

it doesn't invalidate the theory

Your assuming you have scientific evidence which you don't have.
You have opinion at best. They were not agreeing with you, On the charge of racism, you agreed with them on evolution.
Did you read the book? because you don't seem to be reading this forum.
I am referring to reading and understanding of course not memory or motion.
Do you know what a red-herring is? It is not a racial slur.

Admit it, perfessor. Neo-Darwinst theories about African people evolving from the ancestors of African apes are racist theories, especially when there is no more scientific evidence of human migration out of Africa than there is for Chinese immigration into Africa over a million years ago

i think J(is it alright to call you J?) that we have lot of evidence of migration supported by DNA. No bones about it. Pluss carbon dating which has advanced in the last few decades. This leads me to something else.
I wrote:

I will bet some of Lubenow's data is outdated. Anyone want to wager?

J responded with:

Sure. 50 cents, since it was published in 2004.

I meant his data not his copyright J. I was also referring to bibliography dates.
I doubt that Lubenow has one.
$.50 is still on.
I wrote:

Quote:
Thank you for the info of social-darwinism. I suppose I should have done that. It seemed that jcrawford was talking about that rather then neo-darwinism. Then he might have a point.

J missed my point which is

If it he is talking about social-darwinism

!
This is not an endorsement of your 's or Lugnut's opinion.

Social Darwinism seems to have evolved into neo-Darwinism in America after the end of WW2 since it is obvious to everyone that American schoolchildren are presently being force-fed Darwinist racial theories of the first African people's origins from apes or their ape-like ancestors.

Only to the extent that we are related to them and can decide for ourselves whether we are Homosexuals or Homo sapiens, in addition to being just Human beings.

IA
What are you talking about?
Did you take your meds today? Not that there is anything wong with taking meds. There might be something wrong with not taking them.
What is this decide for ourselves crap? Where did that come from?For one thing J It is still not racist, so how in the world can they teach racist theory?
Chimp wrote:

I'm done with this thread 'til something new gets added...

Repeating the original post over and over again doesn't make it true,
providing some evidence would help your case.

Just because Lubenow asserts that something is true, also doesn't make it so.

This whole tract is a red-herring.

Way to back out Chimp just because it is like talking to a drunk.
You just give them their keys point them to their car and walk away.
But your right.
I wrote:

I just ordered the book thru my library system.

J wrote back:

Congratulations! you are in for a scientific treat. Or should I say, treatise.

I'll bet.
When I finish reading it we can come back Chimp with a new forum and call it.
Contentious Boneheads
I wrote:

I don't buy this race stuff. It stinks and seems foolish. I don't buy into the part that they are trying to denigrate evolution. I think the are just stupid and ignorant in a cleaver sort of way.

J wrote:

Playing dumb is sometimes the wisest thing to do.

Your doing a fine job. I think your bait.
J wrote:

If we "are all Africans," in accordance with the neo-Darwinist African Eve Model, then why can't some African-Americans complain about the inherent racism in all neo-Darwinst racial theories of African people's evolution from non-human ancestors of Great Apes?

IA
I answered with:

Because it isnt true and they got other real things to complain about.

And should have added African-Americans have better things to do and are not complaing about it you J and Lubenow are calling it racist.
J wrote:

They? You said that we are all Africans. What other "real" things do we or "they" have to complain about? Isn't the teaching of human evolution out of Africa in public schools "real," and worth complaining about if it is a degrading form of scientific racism and a derogatory and defamatory racial theory?

If is the operative word J. IF!. It isn't your saying it does make you sound like a contentious racist.
J wrote;

Who are "several of us" to give the world a new scientific definition of race and racism when Oxford has been in the business of defining words for over 700 years or more and 'several of you' may be reasonably considered to be nothing more than a bunch of local upstarts

.
Just us upstarts that read dictionaries J.
Some times I even read modern ones.

micatala wrote:

Actually only half Italian. Mom's side is Czech. I can get along with anyone, even the Scottish

Scott, Native American, Eglish, Jewish and German.
My ancestors would breed with anyone.
So would I if I could. In a wholesome way of course.

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

I see you don't understand the difference between 1 and 8. Let me help. One is the number of heads you have. Eight is the number of fingers most people have if you don't count the thumbs. See how easy that is.

If you only want one of the eight Dictionary entries for definitions of race in The American Edition of The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus published in New York and Oxford by the Oxford University Press in 1996, let's start with the first one:

Race: noun.
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

(1 includes and refers to stock, tribe, nation, people, folk, clan and family.)

There is no racism, we've shown there is no racism. You have simply covered your eyes and ears and are screaming over and over "Lubenow says there is racism so there is."

Lubenow documents and demonstrates the inherent racism in all neo-Darwinist speculations and theories of human evolution out of Africa in almost 400 pages including over 1000 scientific quotes and footnotes. Simply repeating that "we've shown there is no racism," over and over again doesn't prove anything other than being in denial of the charge that neo-Darwinist theories of human descent from non-human African primates are racist.

[micatala]

If you only want one of the eight Dictionary entries for definitions of race in The American Edition of The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus published in New York and Oxford by the Oxford University Press in 1996, let's start with the first one:

Race: noun.
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

(1 includes and refers to stock, tribe, nation, people, folk, clan and family.)

Sorry, J, the ship has sailed on this one.

We've asked for 10 pages or so for a specific definitions of race and racism. I'm not going to harangue you for another 10 pages to further define your terms. Counting stock, tribe, nation, people, folk, clan, and family each as ways to classify by race still leaves us with 7 different definitions. None of these necessarily have anything to do with physical characteristics. Can you differentiate between Belgians and French people by there physical characteristics? Between the 'stock' of Jones and the 'stock' of Smith? Between the clan of O'Neal and the clan of Harrington?

In addition, I don't see that evolutionary biologists use any of these example classifications as they might commonly be understood. Evolutionary biologists talk about species. Species actually often have different physical characteristics. You've been shown how the extinct fossil hominid species have different physical characteristics which allow us to reasonably conclude they are different species. We've explained how, even if biologists are wrong about their species classifications, there is no racism . . . .

because . . . . .

. . . . . defining race is not good enough. You have to have a definition of racism and racist. As has been explained, for racism to have occurred, there must be abuse, denial of rights, ill treatment, or some other form of oppression. Racism carries a connotation of belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another based on superficial physical characteristics. None of this is present in evolutionary biology.

We even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you to provide evidence that evolutionary biology is oppressing people. Your response is basically that evolutionary biology presents an explanation of the history of hominid life that does not correspond to your preference for how you want your 'family tree' to be. As has been explained in detail, this does not constitute racism by any reasonable definition of the word. A black person may not like being black, but it is not racist to make the observation that he is. It is not racist even if one mistakes the person for being black when he or she really is not. It doesn't meet the definition of racism.

Simply repeating that "we've shown there is no racism," over and over again doesn't prove anything other than being in denial of the charge that neo-Darwinist theories of human descent from non-human African primates are racist.

Sorry, J, this is a false charge. Go back and read through the whole thread and you will see that your arguements have been refuted point by point, based on specific definitions that were provided since you refused to specify your own, specific evidence related to the fossil record and biological terminology, and logical arguements. You are the only one making repetitive and unsubstantiated assertions here.

You've had 17 pages to make your case J, and I honestly don't think I am being too harsh in saying that you have failed miserably. If you have nothing else to contribute other than to point to Lubenow, than I am happy to wait until Chimp or myself has a chance to review the text itself.

[jcrawford]

Quote:
For the sake of argument... If neo-darwinism is, in fact, racist...it doesn't invalidate the theory.

Who wrote that? I looked all over and couldn't find the original and i do remember reading it.
Is some one deleting stuff?
Am I paranoid?
In response to this very humorous point which included

If neo-darwinism
is ...racist...it doesn't invalidate the theory

jcrawford wrote:

That's very true. Congratulations. Neither do charges of racism, slander it, especially

when scientific evidence supports the inherent racism in it.

What?

Neither do charges of racism

it doesn't invalidate the theory

Your assuming you have scientific evidence which you don't have.

I was referring to the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution out of Africa.

BTW: The original quote was from 'Chimp,' post 149, line 3.

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

We've asked for 10 pages or so for a specific definitions of race and racism. I'm not going to harangue you for another 10 pages to further define your terms.

Why did you "harangue" me for 10 previous pages then, when I gave you the Oxford dictionary definitions for my reference to a definition of terms? Do you think that your personal, social, cultural or 'scientific definition' of race is superior to Oxford's?

Counting stock, tribe, nation, people, folk, clan, and family each as ways to classify by race still leaves us with 7 different definitions.

That's right. Do you prefer any particular one over the other 7?

None of these necessarily have anything to do with physical characteristics. Can you differentiate between Belgians and French people by there physical characteristics?

I can't, but Belgian women and Frenchmen can identify each other by their 'physical' speech patterns just as Irish and Englishmen can. Have you detected any language differences between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal folk lately?

Between the 'stock' of Jones and the 'stock' of Smith? Between the clan of O'Neal and the clan of Harrington?

Not personally, unless some descendents of the original Jones', Smiths, O'Neals and Harringtons point out their ancestral differences to me.

In addition, I don't see that evolutionary biologists use any of these example classifications as they might commonly be understood.

Neo-Darwinists trace all tribes, nations, people, folk, clan, and human families back to the Hominidae family of Great African apes.

Evolutionary biologists talk about species. Species actually often have different physical characteristics.

Evolutionary biologists artificially and superficially classify all ancestral members of the human race as different and separate 'species' for the sole purpose of superimposing the neo-Darwinist racial theory of the human race's biological descent from some 'species' of African apes or their non-human ancestors.

You've been shown how the extinct fossil hominid species have different physical characteristics which allow us to reasonably conclude they are different species.

I must have missed your 'scientific demonstration' of different and separate human 'species,' since Lubenow's thesis is that no one has been "shown" how "the extinct fossil hominid species have different physical characteristics which allow us to reasonably conclude they are different species." As a matter of fact, Lubenow's detailed study, analysis, assessment and scientific presentation of the human fossil record (complete with lists of fossil descriptions, charts and diagrams showing racial diversity within the past human race, and no evolution) entirely contradicts and refutes your evolutionist dogma that any of our human ancestors were different and separate 'species,' unworthy of inclusion in your modern Homo sapiens race of human beings.

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

. . . . . defining race is not good enough. You have to have a definition of racism and racist.

Why should your socio-cultural (scientific or not) neo-Darwinist definitions of racism and racist come before Oxford's definitions of race? How might one talk about social concepts or constructs of racism, without a solid biological definition of race to begin with? You seem to be admitting that neo-Darwinists or any other biological theorists for that matter, can't, won't or choose not to 'scientifically define the meaning of race, yet have the scientifically supremacist audacity to inform the public about what constitutes racism?

As has been explained, for racism to have occurred, there must be abuse, denial of rights, ill treatment, or some other form of oppression.

Instances of abuse, denial of rights, ill treatment, or some other form of oppression are obviously evident in all historic and contemporary neo-Darwinist teachings of human evolution out of Africa.

Racism carries a connotation of belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another based on superficial physical characteristics.

Nice definition of racism, according to Oxford.

None of this is present in evolutionary biology.

Are you kidding? Why do neo-Darwinist scientific supremacists of the Homo sapiens 'species' deny full and equal membership in the one and only historic human race to Neanderthal and Homo erectus 'species,' then, if their theories about human ancestry are not inherently racial and racist?

We even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you to provide evidence that evolutionary biology is oppressing people. Your response is basically that evolutionary biology presents an explanation of the history of hominid life that does not correspond to your preference for how you want your 'family tree' to be.

My response was more in keeping with Lubenow's thesis that neo-Darwinist fascist constructs of human family trees are inherently racist,

As has been explained in detail, this does not constitute racism by any reasonable definition of the word. A black person may not like being black, but it is not racist to make the observation that he is. It is not racist even if one mistakes the person for being black when he or she really is not. It doesn't meet the definition of racism.

Obviously, you seem to think of racism in terms of black and white extremities with no consideration of the many grey shades in between.

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

Simply repeating that "we've shown there is no racism," over and over again doesn't prove anything other than being in denial of the charge that neo-Darwinist theories of human descent from non-human African primates are racist.

Sorry, J, this is a false charge. Go back and read through the whole thread and you will see that your arguements have been refuted point by point, based on specific definitions that were provided since you refused to specify your own, specific evidence related to the fossil record and biological terminology, and logical arguements. You are the only one making repetitive and unsubstantiated assertions here.

Your charge is false since it is evidentially apparent to all that I did "specify" Oxford definitions of race and racism while you apparently made up your own biased view based on neo-Darwinist interpretations of the biological differences between human races and species.

You've had 17 pages to make your case J, and I honestly don't think I am being too harsh in saying that you have failed miserably.

Neo-Darwinists have had 117 years of human history to make their case and have failed miserably.

If you have nothing else to contribute other than to point to Lubenow, than I am happy to wait until Chimp or myself has a chance to review the text itself.

Personal aquaintance and familiarity with Lubenow's original 2004 thesis is highly recommended since without it, one may only be seen as arguing from a dogmatic and racist neo-Darwinist POV.

[Cathar1950]

Evolution has show validity for the last 117 years.
You keep repeating an unfounded belief in racism.
You have not supported your view. You have only repeated the same mantra.
I think your idea is based on an inherent racism in your own theory.
Thank you and good night.
i will be back with the other folks to pick you silly little ruse apart with other sources that are more credible also.
I think the guy needs to retire.