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.

[jcrawford]

The reason for referring to this species as erectus, rather than by the same name we give our species, sapiens, is that there are anatomical differences.

Differences in anatomical, physiological, cultural and assumed geographical origins are usually the basis of social and scientific systems of racism. Labeling and classifying any of the human ancestors of our universal human family and race as a 'different' and 'separate' species is a form of scientific racism based on a human myth about the origins of the whole human race from African ape ancestors. (Darwinism)

But, if you like, you may refer to those ancestors as "archaic" humans, and you may, if you like, pretend to be one.

Thank you, Jose. I suspected you were that kind of generous person all the while. The Early or Archaic humans I was referring to are those fossil human remains of the original progenitors of the modern Homo sapiens sapiens race of human beings. You don't think that H. erectus, ergaster or rudolfensis evolved overnight into Modern Hss, do you? There had to be intermediate and 'transitional species' in between those 'species' and modern ones somewhere along the long line of human evolution from non-human ape-like beings in Africa. Don't tell me that you are not familiar with all those fossilized human specimens which have been labeled by neo-Dars as archaic Homo sapiens in Europe and early sapiens in Africa and Asia?

What would you classify Rhodesian Man as? H. sapiens sapiens, plain old H. sapiens, archaic H. sapiens, early African H. sapiens, Homo ergaster, erectus or rudolfensis? Certainly this African Man's cranial capacity and good looks disqualify him from being associated and classified with 3 foot australopithecine members in the Homo habilis taxon.

[jcrawford]

I had thought it would be evident from content who "we" might be. The "we" is our species.

"Our species," Jose? Which 'species' is "ours," Jose? What special "species" are you referring to here, Jose? Modern Homo sapiens sapiens, plain old 'vanilla or chocolate' Homo sapiens, archaic European sapiens or early African/Asian Homo sapiens? You don't consider yourself to be a living descendant of some Neanderthal or Homo erectus family or 'species', do you?

[jcrawford]

Unless you are remarkably different from me, I suspect that "we" are both pretty lousy at flying unaided, or breathing underwater unaided, or carrying out photosynthesis. By those criteria, The Human Race, which some would call "the pinnacle of evolution" are terribly badly designed. Indeed, for the third of these characteristics, duckweed or algae--a mere pond scum--is superior to humans.

"Scum is superior to humans," Jose? My, my. How neo-Darwinist race theories of human evolution from some primordial 'scum' seem to have either affected your God-given intelligence or have infected your brain with a naturally selected neo-Darwinist genetic mutation.

[jcrawford]

Can you prove natural selection does or attempts to ascribe superiority, or even inferiority on a population?

No, but I can prove that the theory of natural selection ascribes human superiority and supremacy to those human 'species' who managed to survive ancestral extinction.

You're contradicting yourself here...the theory of natural selection applies to all organisms. If you can't prove it ascribes superiority/inferiority to a
population, then you can't prove it.

Misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the basic mechanisms of the theory
of evolution is the basis for your claim.

Forgive me, Chimp. I didn't word my repsonse to your intelligent question properly. I should have said: Yes, and I can also prove that the theory of natural selection specifically ascribes human superiority and supremacy to those human 'species' who managed to survive ancestral extinction.

Sorry to have given you the impression that I was misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the basic mechanisms of the theory of evolution as the basis for my claim. Forgive?

[QED]

OK, you don't want to answer my question claiming that it lies outside the scope of your argument. Obviously we can ignore any specific application of the theory and talk about it purely as a thought experiment. Then I can ask you the same question again: do you accept that the theory you call the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it? Now you can tell me that you don't understand the theory or you can say that you understand it but don't think it could work or you can answer the question with a straight yes or no, but you can't say you won't answer because it's not capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated, because I'm only asking you about a thought-experiment.

I'm sorry, QED, but for the sake of argument, I don't think neo-Darwinist theories or so-called 'mechanisms' of tooth sharpening or tooth blunting apply to members of the present or past human race.

I invited you to treat the theory of evolution by natural selection as a thought experiment. In this framework it is clearly irrelevant to talk about its applicability to one type of living creature or another -- indeed in the case of Genetic Programming the "experiment" is conducted within a computer in such a way as to "evolve" programs that solve complex problems so we can even consider the application of natural selection to non-living things.

Therefore, once again, I would like to have your opinion: do you accept that the theory you call the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it? Now you can tell me that you don't understand the theory or you can say that you understand it but don't think it could work or you can answer the question with a straight yes or no, but you can't say you won't answer because it's not applicable to members of the present or past human race or that it's not capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated, because I'm only asking you about a thought-experiment.

[jcrawford]

I invited you to treat the theory of evolution by natural selection as a thought experiment. In this framework it is clearly irrelevant to talk about its applicability to one type of living creature or another -- indeed in the case of Genetic Programming the "experiment" is conducted within a computer in such a way as to "evolve" programs that solve complex problems so we can even consider the application of natural selection to non-living things.

Therefore, once again, I would like to have your opinion: do you accept that the theory you call the 'neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanism' is just as capable of 'blunting a tooth' as sharpening it? Now you can tell me that you don't understand the theory or you can say that you understand it but don't think it could work or you can answer the question with a straight yes or no, but you can't say you won't answer because it's not applicable to members of the present or past human race or that it's not capable of being observed nor 'scientifically' tested or demonstrated, because I'm only asking you about a thought-experiment.

Sorry, QED, but I just don't see the relevence of your post to the topic of the current thread. Besides, I don't call neo-Darwinist theories about the origins of the human race in Africa and its subsequent migration out of Africa "neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanisms." I call them neo-Darwinist race theories. Might I suggest that you start a new thread on "thought experiments" or genetic programming for those who are interested.

[QED]

I am prepared to defend his [Marvin Lubenow] 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

So a whole bunch of guys including me attempt to demonstrate how the theory of evolution does not predict an inexorable climb up a ladder of supremacy (which is the essence for your premise) yet you are now declaring such discussions as 'off topic'...

Sorry, QED, but I just don't see the relevence of your post to the topic of the current thread. Besides, I don't call neo-Darwinist theories about the origins of the human race in Africa and its subsequent migration out of Africa "neo-darwinist evolutionary mechanisms." I call them neo-Darwinist race theories. Might I suggest that you start a new thread on "thought experiments" or genetic programming for those who are interested.

If you refuse to discuss this essential detail of evolutionary theory I fail to see any constructive purpose in continuing this debate. Would you like it to be closed?

[jcrawford]

I am prepared to defend his [Marvin Lubenow] 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

So a whole bunch of guys including me attempt to demonstrate how the theory of evolution does not predict an inexorable climb up a ladder of supremacy (which is the essence for your premise) yet you are now declaring such discussions as 'off topic'...

I never declared any discussions such as those you refer to as "off-topic." I said that "I just don't see the relevence of your post to the topic of the current thread," which is: my defense of Marvin Lubenow's claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist.

If you refuse to discuss this essential detail of evolutionary theory I fail to see any constructive purpose in continuing this debate.

Does this "essential detail of evolutionary theory" apply to neo-Darwinist theories and evidence of human origins and human evolution? If not, how are they relevent to the topic? If so, could you give an example of human tooth sharpening or blunting in the fossil record.

Would you like it to be closed?

I wouldn't like it to be closed unless you and the other posters would.

[QED]

Please correct me if I have this wrong, but You tell us that

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.

which implies a whole raft of negative connotations forming the basis of a particular complaint which you have volunteered to upold:

I am prepared to defend his [Marvin Lubenow] 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

So a whole bunch of guys including me attempt to demonstrate how the theory of evolution does not predict an inexorable climb up a ladder of supremacy -- which is the essence for your premise. In order for us do do this it is necessary to dispel any misconception that evolution can only result in absolute supremacy.

Does this "essential detail of evolutionary theory" apply to neo-Darwinist theories and evidence of human origins and human evolution? If not, how are they relevent to the topic? If so, could you give an example of human tooth sharpening or blunting in the fossil record.

Would you like it to be closed?

I wouldn't like it to be closed unless you and the other posters would.[/quote]

[Chimp]

Lubenow on Racism: (From Bones of Contention, BakerBooks, 2004)

Racism centers around three elements. First, racism always involves differences in population groups. Often the differences involving racism are ethnic, tribal, cultural, or even religious. Racism is not about the differences that are found among individuals. The popular word for those differences is the term diversity.

I have no problem with this qualification of racism, although, one must ask why Lubenow does this. We all know what racism is.

Second, the crucial factor in racism is “inherent superiority.” Throughout most of history, this “inherent” superiority was based on some vague belief that one’s own group was for some reason superior to others.

Again he is stating the obvious.

Since the 1800s and the rise of evolution with its “scientific racism,” the emphasis has been on genetic superiority.

This is an unsupported claim. Lubenow has made no connection from racism to science.
Evolution concerns itself with mutation over time, not whether a certain trait or organism is superior than another. Claims
to the contrary are mistaken, and deliberately deceptive. Lubenow does, rather lamely, attempt to correlate a racist's
notion of superiority to his "genetic superiority. Why? Why would Lubenow twist things so?

Evolution deals with mutational changes in the genes, which are the very stuff of life. Hence it is obvious that evolution is not only the cause of that alleged “inherent superiority,” but according to Darwin, evolution also preserves that “inherent superiority.” When applied to humans, this “inherent superiority” of some race or group over others is properly called “racism.”

Lubenow makes a leap from "Evolution deals with mutational changes in the genes" to it causes the alleged "superiority"...
he has not made an argument, he is merely displaying his ignorance.

Lubenow has taken Darwin's idea that genetic mutations are passed on to future generations, and inserted his (Lubenow's)
assertion to leave the impression that Darwin has made the statement as a whole.

Third, racism always involves prejudice and rejection - active or passive, latent or expressed. Whereas the qualities of love, acceptance and respect always unite, racism, with its prejudice, hatred and rejection, always divides. That is why racism is evil. A “loving racist” is a contradiction in terms. And because evolution is racist, evolution is an evil philosophy. Almost everyone focuses on the alleged “scientific” aspects of evolution. Few ever consider the moral implications and ethical consequences of evolution.

It's interesting that after several inflammatory assertions, a novel yet false contention, and a lame attempt to connect Darwin
to his ideas, he then considers "the moral implications and ethical consequences of evolution"
.

The concept that some entities are inherently superior or “more fit” is basic to evolution.

Lubenow is incorrectly redefining evolution to make his charges of racism stick more readily.

Evolutionists believe that two similar entities existing in the same environment cannot coexist indefinitely. Over time, one of them will acquire some slight mutational advantage, usually in feeding, defense or reproductive mechanisms, so that it will simply out-compete the other. It will survive, being more favored or “more fit.” The other entity, being less favored or less fit, will eventually die out. In other words, evolutionists claim that nature works by what Darwin called “natural selection” to cut out the weak and thus allow the strong to proliferate.

Essentially correct, except that the use of weak and strong was not part of the theory of natural selection, but an illustrative
example to demonstrate how prey might outrun (being stronger/faster runners) predators.

If you have more to quote from Lubenow, please do, but please do not assert that he has said it. That is neither debate, nor
argument, without proof. His arguments rely on deliberate misrepresentation of the theories of natural selection and evolution.
I feel I need to remind you that this is in response to the first part of your post, which asserts that the theory of evolution is
racist. If I prove this assertion false...there is no need to consider the second half pertaining to human evolution.

eg. A. the earth is flat... AND B. We fall off the edge of the earth when we reach it... if A is false so is B.