Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism

[jcrawford]

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes the nature of religious discrimination and scientific racism, I thought it advisable to start a thread on the matter which might not become too discursive.

I'll open the conversation with the fact that most neo-Darwinist 'scientists' seem to believe, if not assert, that such topics as race, racism, religion and discrimination based on such categories are beyond the purvue of scientific enquiry.

The first question I would pose to supporters of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is whether you agree with the above presumptions and propositions. If so, why, and if not, why not?

[Cathar1950]

Jose wrote in response to:

McCulloch wrote:

I am not qualified to evaluate his [Lubenow's] evidence. Nor is anyone here (please speak up if you are).

So please show me where Lubenow has convinced his peers of his position. I'm probably reasonably well qualified. As near as I can tell, he's all wet, and is misusing English as well.

I don't know if I am qualified.
I am qualified to see poor reasoning and poor science.
Thanks for the input.
I looked at different books on the subject and he was way off. When he wasn't preaching. All the data seems to point to an African origin. Genetics follows the fossil and archaeology data as well as linguistics.
Discovery and the history channel have had some good stuff on it too.
He must sel his book to people that don't have any other books or tv or friends or pets or plants.
Good summery Jose!

Here's what the data tell us.
1. Humans originated in Africa.
2. A group of them migrated along the coast to Asia.
3. A group of these migrated north and then west into Europe and the Middle East.

If we were to try to trace human lineages to the first woman in each region, we'd have a European Eve and a Middle Eastern Eve, both of whom are descended from the Asian Eve, and all of whom are descended from the African Eve.

[McCulloch]

I am not qualified to evaluate his [Lubenow's] evidence. Nor is anyone here (please speak up if you are).

I am qualified to see poor reasoning and poor science.
I have read a few popular books on the subject.
I do not read the peer reviewed journals on the subject.
My degree is not in the relevant subject and it is only a Bachelor's.
I would think that to properly evaluate primary evidence in this field, you would be current on the relevant peer reviewed journals, have at least a Masters degree in the subject and would have been published in the peer reviewed journals.
The rest of us really should read and evaluate what the experts have to say. By the way, I am still waiting to find out about Lubenow's alleged expertise in this field. Where has he been published? Which other experts in his field concur with his findings?

[Cathar1950]

I count on the people with the background in their field. Mine is in History, religion, soc., psy., philosophy research methods, and education.
The psychology might help here.

[jcrawford]

So, here we are, back to the basic problem. We have defined the difference between a human "race" and a human "species," but you've chosen to ignore it. Here: I'll try again.

--species: any group of individuals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That is: all humans now living are (to the best of our knowledge), the same species.

--race: a genetically-related subgroup within a species

According to your 'scientific' definitions of race and species and the African Eve Model of modern human evolution then, a race or species of African people migrated out of Africa 100 - 200 tya and reduced all early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe to the evolutionist status of extinction. Consequentially, as a result of this definitional hypothesis (or hypothetical definitions, as the case may be), no modern Asian, European or Middle Eastern people may rightfully claim their original biological descent from an Asian, European or Middle Eastern woman.

Don't you see the racial implications inherent in all modern neo-Darwinist biological theories of human ancestry? If not, at least millions, if not billions of other people do.

[jcrawford]

There is no scientific reason for denying the existance of an Asian Eve and a European Eve or a Middle-Eastern Eve other than neo-Darwinist racial desparation to link all members of the whole human race to a shared common ancestry with African apes.

Wha?

You're not making any sense. How is all humans sharing the same ancestors racist?

It's not racist if those human ancestors were Adam and Eve but it is a form of scientific racism to theorize that descendents of Asian, European and Middle Eastern Eve were also biological descendents of some African tribe, race or 'species' of African human beings which neo-Darwinist race theorists speculate originated from non-human ancestors of African apes.

Thanks for following the logic here.

[jwu]

I still don't see why. It affects all humans the same, and those beings whose fossils are considered non-human are not put down by science with that classification in any way. That only comes when one thinks of humans as some sort of pinnacle of evolution, but that's not science's take on this.

[McCulloch]

According to your 'scientific' definitions of race and species and the African Eve Model of modern human evolution then, a race or species of African people migrated out of Africa 100 - 200 tya and reduced all early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe to the evolutionist status of extinction. Consequentially, as a result of this definitional hypothesis (or hypothetical definitions, as the case may be), no modern Asian, European or Middle Eastern people may rightfully claim their original biological descent from an Asian, European or Middle Eastern woman.

Don't you see the racial implications inherent in all modern neo-Darwinist biological theories of human ancestry? If not, at least millions, if not billions of other people do.

All of a sudden Lubenow's anti-darwinist rant about scientific racism has billions of supporters? Please, evidence of such a level of support should be supplied.

[Jose]

According to your 'scientific' definitions of race and species and the African Eve Model of modern human evolution then, a race or species of African people migrated out of Africa 100 - 200 tya and reduced all early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe to the evolutionist status of extinction. Consequentially, as a result of this definitional hypothesis (or hypothetical definitions, as the case may be), no modern Asian, European or Middle Eastern people may rightfully claim their original biological descent from an Asian, European or Middle Eastern woman.

*sigh* This is pretty much equivalent to saying that no US citizen can claim ancestry from a European woman. It seems to me that, since my great-great-great-(howevermanygreats)-grandmother was Scottish, I should be able to make this claim. My son can also make this claim, but he can also claim ancestry from a Native American woman on his mother's side, some great-great-howevermanygreats time ago. It doesn't matter whether there are ancestors even farther back. We can still claim this ancestry, correctly. Likewise, all "modern Asian, European or Middle Eastern people may rightfully claim their ... biological descent from an Asian, European or Middle Eastern woman."

As for "original" biological descent, I don't see why we should care about this. Whether we consider biblical Eve or the scientific data, there was still only one starting point for humans, and we are all descended from this original population. It sounds to me like your real quibble is with the location of the Garden of Eden--whether it's Africa or Lucas, Kansas. All of the theories here say the same thing: all humans are descended from one original human group.

And, yes, the data do show that "anatomically modern" humans migrated out of Africa, and wiped out the other types of hominids, like erectus and neandertalensis. Those other hominids did, indeed, become extinct. It's not just the "evolutionist status of extinction," it's real, honest-to-god extinction. They ain't no more.

Don't you see the racial implications inherent in all modern neo-Darwinist biological theories of human ancestry? If not, at least millions, if not billions of other people do.

It kinda looks like any theory of human origins has to come to the same conclusion, given that all existing "races" must have descended from a common ancestral "Eve." Why are you so dead-set against the idea that this "Eve" might have lived in Africa? Are you somehow anti-African? Are you, perhaps, painting this with your own racist brush?

[micatala]

It's not racist if those human ancestors were Adam and Eve but it is a form of scientific racism to theorize that descendents of Asian, European and Middle Eastern Eve were also biological descendents of some African tribe, race or 'species' of African human beings which neo-Darwinist race theorists speculate originated from non-human ancestors of African apes.

Thanks for following the logic here.

Logic? Honestly, there is no logic here at all.

This is like saying that if my ancestors moved from Spain to Italy, and then hundreds of years later moved to the U.S., that I am being racist if I say if I am of Italian descent, but I'm not racist if I say I am of Spanish descent.

[/quote]

[jcrawford]

I still don't see why. It affects all humans the same, and those beings whose fossils are considered non-human are not put down by science with that classification in any way. That only comes when one thinks of humans as some sort of pinnacle of evolution, but that's not science's take on this.

The evolutionists racist "take" on this is that a genetically superior breed, race or tribe of early African Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 100tya and outbreeded and replaced all other early Asian and archaic European Homo sapiens who subsequently became extinct and left no descendents themselves. (African Eve theory)

That ancestral scenario is nothing but a racial dream of world conquest by 'scientists,' and belongs in the category of ancient mythology or science fiction.