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.

[Jose]

Neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution by 'natural selection' are racist because they not only "ascribe" superiority and supremacy to the theories and theorists themselves, but racially classify themselves and others as a superior 'species' to any other past 'species' of the human race.

If neo-Darwinist 'species' are not 'naturally selected' to adapt and survive because of their superior genetic abilities to find an ecological niche in which to thrive and survive, what biological advantages can genetic mutations be said to offer a new species in order to ensure it's survival?

I wonder if there might be a couple of misconceptions behind all of this. First, species are not "naturally selected to adapt and survive." The way you've phrased it makes it sound as if there's some kind of Force ensuring that species survive, and that they get better. It doesn't work that way. If an individual is born with a mutation that gives them a slight advantage over their fellows, then that individual is likely to have more offspring. If these offspring have the same slight advantage, then they'll have more offspring--and this new genetic variant will take over the population. If no individual happens to be born with an advantageous mutation, then there will be no such "selection."

Most of the time, mutations do not confer advantages. Sometimes, they do. If useful genetic variants happen to be around when there are environmental changes, then those genetic variants may be able to survive the environmental change. If there happen not to be any such useful variations, then the population may be wiped out.

Rather than thinking of evolution as some kind of Force that drives species to superiority, think of it as a process that creates genetic variation, and the species that exist now are the ones that didn't get wiped out. They happened to be adequate at what they did, so they survived.

That is, during the centuries that H. sapiens and H. erectus co-existed, they could have wiped us out, or we could have wiped them out. They didn't have the capacity for speech, but we did--and that may have made us able to withstand their attacks on us, and may have made us better able to plan attacks on them. We were adequate fighters, they weren't, so we're here and they aren't.

You may also be assuming that evolutionary theory implies that "humans are the pinnacle of evolution," that we are "at the top of the evolutionary ladder." There is no such ladder. There is no pinnacle of evolution. There is only the array of living things that happen to be here at this time. 80 million years ago, there was a different array of living things. 80 million years from now, there will be yet another array--unless we make the planet so radioactive that nothing can survive.

All living things are equally highly evolved. Evolutionary theory states that we are all the same number of years from our common ancestor, so there is no superiority possible. Rather, there is variation in the ability to do things--like fly, breathe underwater, or photosynthesize, activities at which we are really lousy. By these three criteria, we are not at all superior. We are better at thinking and arguing, but in some environments, that's not a very useful trait.

So: evolutionary theory does not state that living things get better, or "advance" by evolution. It merely states that they change if they happen to acquire mutations that enable them to change. Evolutionary theory does not state that humans are superior to anything else, or that there is any kind of progression toward a goal, or any kind of "evolutionary ladder." These are popular misconceptions, and not true. However, if you think they are true, you might be able to pretend that evolutionary theory does imagine that current things are somehow superior to past things. Maybe this is what Lubenow did--which might explain how he got it so wrong.

[QED]

Also, if you have been reading his whole thread, you will see that the arguments he now offers had already been refuted ...

In other words, we had already addressed the issue of "superiority", which is not present in evolutionary theory as claimed by jcrawford, because evolutionary theory doesn't consider one species superior to another, particularly not in terms of how they should be treated, but only describes the genetic, and other differences that can be observed.

If neo-Darwinist 'species' are not 'naturally selected' to adapt and survive because of their superior genetic abilities to find an ecological niche in which to thrive and survive, what biological advantages can genetic mutations be said to offer a new species in order to ensure it's survival?

It might not look like it, but I'm paying attention to this thread (in a moderating sort of way). I notice that your opposition has largely deserted you through frustration and I can hardly blame them. Still, it's a pity because in the quote above you ask a question which, if not rhetorical, has an answer that ought to clear up your misunderstanding...

Ecological niches sometimes require an organism to 'back pedal' in order to survive which results in inferior genetic abilities (in as close a wording to your own as I can manage). Choice of the term inferior/superior is clearly arbitrary in this case. A classic example of this being the Pygmies that occupied one of Indonesia's many remote islands who as a former homo-sapiens underwent a reduction in stature to be more compatible with the finite and scarce resources of their isolated island home.

So here I have provided an example of a biological advantage which would not be so obviously linked to the sort of superiority you accuse neo-darwinism of. Now before anyone accuses me of racism against Pygmies, I hasten to add that it would be impossible to answer a "when did you stop beating your wife" question like this without referring to some sort of property which might be regarded as 'lesser'. In this case it is merely stature and I'm quite challenged in that department already so I bear no guilt.

[jcrawford]

If an individual is born with a mutation that gives them a slight advantage over their fellows, then that individual is likely to have more offspring. If these offspring have the same slight advantage, then they'll have more offspring--and this new genetic variant will take over the population. If no individual happens to be born with an advantageous mutation, then there will be no such "selection."

Hi Jose: Nice to hear from you. Good post. It seems to explain 'natural selection' as the result of racial mutations, advantages and differences but not the cause. How does the new "genetic variant" take over the population? By abundant sexual reproduction alone or also by out-producing the rest of the group economically and militarily?

[jcrawford]

If neo-Darwinist 'species' are not 'naturally selected' to adapt and survive because of their superior genetic abilities to find an ecological niche in which to thrive and survive, what biological advantages can genetic mutations be said to offer a new species in order to ensure it's survival?

It might not look like it, but I'm paying attention to this thread (in a moderating sort of way). I notice that your opposition has largely deserted you through frustration and I can hardly blame them. Still, it's a pity because in the quote above you ask a question which, if not rhetorical, has an answer that ought to clear up your misunderstanding...

Glad to hear from you, QED, and that you are keeping an eye on the thread in a 'moderate' way.

Ecological niches sometimes require an organism to 'back pedal' in order to survive which results in inferior genetic abilities (in as close a wording to your own as I can manage). Choice of the term inferior/superior is clearly arbitrary in this case. A classic example of this being the Pygmies that occupied one of Indonesia's many remote islands who as a former homo-sapiens underwent a reduction in stature to be more compatible with the finite and scarce resources of their isolated island home.

Lubenow and Jared Diamond also refer to the Tasmanians as undergoing a similar abandonment of previous cultural ways and means, but neither would say that either the Pygmies or Tasmanians underwent a "reduction in stature" or status as full and equal members of our current Homo sapiens race or 'species.' Lubenow points out that cultural 'inferiority' is often used by neo-Darwinists in classifying some human ancestors as different and separate 'species.' I'm not sure what you mean be "reduction in stature" here. I'm thinking of the newly discovered Homo florisensies 'species' recently discovered in Indonesia. Any association?

[jcrawford]

So here I have provided an example of a biological advantage which would not be so obviously linked to the sort of superiority you accuse neo-darwinism of. Now before anyone accuses me of racism against Pygmies, I hasten to add that it would be impossible to answer a "when did you stop beating your wife" question like this without referring to some sort of property which might be regarded as 'lesser'. In this case it is merely stature and I'm quite challenged in that department already so I bear no guilt.

Sorry to do a split post here but there seems to be some time limitation on how long one may take to respond to a post and I've lost several hours of compositional time due to having to re-log in and losing an entire typed response. Can anything be done about that?

Anyway, the problem with attributing genetic advantages and disadvantages to evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic mutations and 'natural selection' is that when theoretically applied to human beings and the fossil remains of their human ancestors, the resulting taxonomic phylogenies become a scientific form of racial classification regarding the human ancestors and origins of the whole human race. For instance: classifying the first African people on earth (Homo habilis) in the same taxon in which the fossil remains of Australopithicine apes are included is a scientific form of neo-Darwinist racism.

[jcrawford]

Rather than thinking of evolution as some kind of Force that drives species to superiority, think of it as a process that creates genetic variation, and the species that exist now are the ones that didn't get wiped out. They happened to be adequate at what they did, so they survived.

All right. Evolution is a creative process that "creates" genetic variation. Would it be unscientific to ask what causes this creative process to be able to 'create' anything in the first place? Otherwise it may sound like we are talking about our own version of creationism.

That is, during the centuries that H. sapiens and H. erectus co-existed, they could have wiped us out, or we could have wiped them out.
They didn't have the capacity for speech, but we did--and that may have made us able to withstand their attacks on us, and may have made us better able to plan attacks on them. We were adequate fighters, they weren't, so we're here and they aren't.

Now I'm really confused. Who are 'we' who could speak, and who are 'they' who didn't have speech? You're not claiming that H. sapiens and erectus were just a bunch of dumb animals, are you? I know that Jared Diamond claims that the Neanderthals had no language or speech capacity, so I guess you must be referring to Archaic European sapiens and Early African/Asian sapiens when you say that some of our human ancestors couldn't talk or communicate linguistically.

[jcrawford]

You may also be assuming that evolutionary theory implies that "humans are the pinnacle of evolution," that we are "at the top of the evolutionary ladder." There is no such ladder. There is no pinnacle of evolution.

If there are no 'stages, steps or grades' in Homo sapiens sapiens account of human origins and evolution out of African apes to actually observe then, why did you say that some of our human ancestors couldn't even speak? And if your human 'species' is not the "pinnacle" of evolutionist theory, then on what basis could you possibly object to our being labeled and classified as Archaic or Early Homo sapiens who could speak?

All living things are equally highly evolved.

What are "all living things equally highly evolved from, Jose?

Evolutionary theory states that we are all the same number of years from our common ancestor, so there is no superiority possible.

Who are what is our common ancestor, Jose?

Rather, there is variation in the ability to do things--like fly, breathe underwater, or photosynthesize, activities at which we are really lousy. By these three criteria, we are not at all superior. We are better at thinking and arguing, but in some environments, that's not a very useful trait.

Who are "we," Jose, according to your three criteria?

[MagusYanam]

Rather than thinking of evolution as some kind of Force that drives species to superiority, think of it as a process that creates genetic variation, and the species that exist now are the ones that didn't get wiped out. They happened to be adequate at what they did, so they survived.

All right. Evolution is a creative process that "creates" genetic variation. Would it be unscientific to ask what causes this creative process to be able to 'create' anything in the first place? Otherwise it may sound like we are talking about our own version of creationism.

Sorry to have to partially contradict you, Jose, but it appears some confusion might arise over your wording. The evolutionary process doesn't really 'create' anything from nothing - it uses the genetic material already in the parents and varies through meiosis the traits passed on from the parents to the offspring.

That variation occurs among offspring is beyond doubt. No two people have exactly the same fingerprint, to use the cliche. The next observation posited by standard evolutionary theory is that more offspring will be produced than actually survive to adulthood. Among most species, this is true. (Among humans, this is debatable. Socioeconomics are such now that evolution no longer really applies to humans - humanity has long since broken the Malthusian trap.)

The last observation traditional evolution makes is that those offspring that do survive to adulthood are those that are best able to adapt to their environment. Again, this does not apply to humanity - humans by and large cause their environment to conform to them.

[jcrawford]

So: evolutionary theory does not state that living things get better, or "advance" by evolution.

In that case, Jose, I am resigning my membership in your Homo sapiens sapiens special 'species' club, and reverting to my early human ancestor's former status of Archaic Human Being. (Archaic or Early Homo sapiens, in your neo-Darwinist lingo and jargon)

Evolutionary theory does not state that humans are superior to anything else, or that there is any kind of progression toward a goal, or any kind of "evolutionary ladder." These are popular misconceptions, and not true. However, if you think they are true, you might be able to pretend that evolutionary theory does imagine that current things are somehow superior to past things. Maybe this is what Lubenow did--which might explain how he got it so wrong.

Thanks for the latest evolutionist spin on neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution from some monkey's or ape's ancestor, Jose. One last question though, brother Jose from Los Angeles. Since the scientific theory of human origins and genetic descent from some ancestral species of African monkeys and apes isn't scientifically superior to Lubenow's scientific theory that all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution from non-human ape-like creatures in Africa, are racist, why should your neo-Darwinist theories be taught in public schools while neo-Lubenowist scientific theories about neo-Darwinist racism are not?

[jcrawford]

Sorry to have to partially contradict you, Jose, but it appears some confusion might arise over your wording. The evolutionary process doesn't really 'create' anything from nothing - it uses the genetic material already in the parents and varies through meiosis the traits passed on from the parents to the offspring.

Wow! An 18 year old scholar from Kalamazoo, MI knows more about evo theory than either Jose or yours truly. Got to hand it to you, young 'un. You must be one of those new-fangled Homo sapiens sapiens wise-guy types. Some of us old geezers prefer to be called Archaic Homo sapiens, in honor of some of our human ancestors, if you get my genetic drift here.

The next observation posited by standard evolutionary theory is that more offspring will be produced than actually survive to adulthood. Among most species, this is true. (Among humans, this is debatable. Socioeconomics are such now that evolution no longer really applies to humans - humanity has long since broken the Malthusian trap.)

Let's hear it for the revolutionary human race. (sound of at least two hands clapping) Next thing you know, humanity will break out of the neo-Darwinist racial trap.

The last observation traditional evolution makes is that those offspring that do survive to adulthood are those that are best able to adapt to their environment. Again, this does not apply to humanity - humans by and large cause their environment to conform to them.

Oh, that's beautiful, since it means that Darwin's theories about the origin of species can't be applied to any full and equal members of the human race! Oh, joy! Would that there were a hundred thousand student clones of MagusYanam in our public school systems.

On second thought, that might be giving neo-Darwinist geneticists too much leeway.