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.

[teegstar]

First off:

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

Dont get Lubenow confused with a Scientists. He is a CREATIONIST not a SCIENTISTS. All evidence he is using is being manipulated and reported from a creationist point of view, not a scientific point of view. A Scientist purpose is to collect evidence and report facts and conclusions based on that evidence.

A so called 'Creation Scientist' isnt a scientist because they are seeking evidence in favour of their beliefs and reject all evidence that conflicts with it. To be a scientist you need to be skeptical about everything - he is clearly not.

I.E. His is not willing to discuss any evidence that supports a view other than his own, unless he has other evidence that rebuts the alternative view (there's a heap of evidence that suggests all human mDNA between 170,000+/-50,000 y.a. was from the same ancestor and that all changes are changes within the species due to the enviroment endured by the specified region where the tribe settled (Human Evolution, Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron 3rd Edition)

Secondly

Lubenow documents and demonstrates how the DNA evidence supporting the African Eve theory is highly flawed and debatable.

There's a heap of evidence that shows Lubenow's documents to be highly flawed and debatable too. Keep in mind its a 2004 edition, which means the 'evidence' has been collected, collate and published over a few years. Its now 2005, a lot can happen between 2000 and 2005.

Thirdly

No scientist will ever say that a lineage tree is 'fact'. Its only ever a best fit and based on material evidence. There are several models for whats best related to a lion (Jaguar and Cheetah I think are the two most common - I cant remember but I'll find it if you make me). Both are 'acceptable' because both have sufficent evidence and at this stage, I dont beleive one is more correct than the other - which could well be the case in the theory of human evolution.

[USIncognito]

I just looked on my bookshelf and apparently my mid-90s edition of Bones of Contention is either on permanent loan (i.e. I forget who I loaned it to) or it went into the recycle bin. I seem to recall that between the obvious errors I noticed, and errors further investigation unearthed, I must have missed Lubenow's trite, tired and at this point, pathetic attempt to play the race card.

...not that his doing so would have surprised me.

You've got it backwards since evolutionists intentionally divide the whole human race into different and separate species just to prove that the whole human race 'evolved' from a non-human species of African apes.

This quote must have been posted from Bizzaroworld. Evolutionary theory states that all humans are Homo sapiens. The whole human race did indeed evolve from non-sapiens Homo species which are still human.

The whole concept of race and ethnicity as we know it is based more on archaeology and since we can all interbreed, has no basis in science. I'd suggest you get a copy of Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, to understand that while, in 1850, a English woman and a Tasmanian man, while seperated by millenia of evolution could still have been set loose with a typwriter, gun, herd of sheep and sewing maching and not only produced children, but thrived.

Science can answer that - how does your straw man respond?

You do admit that the human race is a race, don't you...

No. Race is a construct of ego, archaeology and superficial differences. The proper term is "species," of which all humans belong to one. Race is a way of hypersubdifferentiation (OED - if I just coined that word, I want credit!) of a species. We use methods other than that used by Biology to differentiate between "races." Finns, Slovaks and Irishmen are all "white" but are differentiated by language and culture into the equally useless - in biological terms - groupings of "ethnicity." Similarly, Italians, Iranians and Koreans have dark hair and light skin, but we devide them ethnically based on language, culture and superficial physical traits.

...and that theoretical evolutionist attempts to divide the whole human race into different and separate species, some of whom directly evolved from African apes is racist, don't you?

I love when Creationists are ironic and don't even realize it. Your "theoretical evolutionist" is just that - a straw man you've created in your own mind.

And to address the tangental point you were attempting to make - saying that humans evolved (all humans, not just the black ones) from African apes is sound scientific theory, not racism. The fossil evidence points to modern Homo sapiens evolving not from dispersed Homo Erectus' in Java (no slight against Indonesians) or in China (no slight against NORINCO), but from an African population of Homos who were evolved from Australipithicines who evolved from earlier more ape like species in Africa - all humans. How is that racist?

The rest of your post is just based on neo-Darwinst racial theories of human evolution and hostility towards Christian scholars who document and demonstrate the intrinsic racism inherent if all theories of the human race's evolutionary descent from non-human African primates.

I'm sorry. I should reply with a more thoughtful post to this last bit, but since I've destroyed the whole incorrect and misconceived premise of it, I'll just say that typical Creationist idiocy grows so tiresome sometimes. If only you guys would do a bit of fact checking and put some thought into your comments it wouldn't be so.

[jcrawford]

quote="McCulloch"

"Actually, most scientists do not use the term "human race". Humanity is not a race, according to evolutionary science. "

This would seem to put evolutionists at a disadvantage when debating with creationists who considered themselves to be members of the human race and not some "species" of apes. If most "scientists" can't define race or don't even use the term because they don't regard humanity as a race, creationists can easily charge that such theories are racist, by definition.

"The term you are looking for is "species", specifically the species "Homo Sapiens".

Not at all, since creationists like Lubenow and myself might prefer to think of "Homo sapiens" as a poor choice of words for any members the human race since the term implies that some humans are smarter or wiser than those people classified as Neandertals and Homo erectus.

"Homo Sapiens, Chimpanzees and Bonobos are thought to have evolved from another primate species.

That's what creationists might call a racist theory.

"The common ancestor of this species and the great apes goes even further back in time."

Only according to racist theories of human evolution.

"As Jose rightly put it, evolutionary theories of human origins do not involve races."

How would Jose know, since as you pointed out, "most scientists do not use the term "human race" and, in accordance with evolutionary science, Jose is just echoing the racist theory that Humanity is not a race.

"I would think that linking the various racial origins to the myth about Noah, his children and his grandchildren is more intrinsical racist than the evolutionary point of view."

That may be why creationism isn't taught in public schools and why creationists object to racist theories of human evolution being taught in public schools.

[jcrawford]

quote="teegstar"

"I.E. His is not willing to discuss any evidence that supports a view other than his own, unless he has other evidence that rebuts the alternative view ... "

If you read Lubenow's book you will see that the only evidence which he uses to demonstrate his thesis is the human fossil record itself and the record of paleoanthropological comments on it. One need not be a scientist to qualify as a scholar.

"(there's a heap of evidence that suggests all human mDNA between 170,000+/-50,000 y.a. was from the same ancestor and that all changes are changes within the species due to the enviroment endured by the specified region where the tribe settled (Human Evolution, Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron 3rd Edition)"

Lubenow doesn't dispute the fact that all human mtDNA is from the same human ancestor. His thesis is that for geneticists to trace it to an African tribe which neo-Darwinists theorize descended from an African species of apes is racist.

"There's a heap of evidence that shows Lubenow's documents to be highly flawed and debatable too. "

I guess that's why we're debating the so-called "evidence" here.

"No scientist will ever say that a lineage tree is 'fact'. "

I'm glad to hear you say that since it is a fact that creationist members of the human race did not evolve or descend from a non-human species of African apes.

[USIncognito]

Are you John Crawford from Christian Forums? If so, I'd like to know so I don't waste my time further. Assuming you're not, could you please learn to use the quote function and UBB code properly? If you have questions on it, just post them here.

Not at all, since creationists like Lubenow and myself might prefer to think of "Homo sapiens" as a poor choice of words for any members the human race since the term implies that some humans are smarter or wiser than those people classified as Neandertals and Homo erectus.

Unfortunately for you words actually have meaning and are only elastic with time and change (or evolution if you will). Racism in English in 2005 means discrimination or hatred based on superficial differences like skin color, hair or epicanthal eye folds. It's not based on the discernable phylogenetic or claudistic differences that make, say, a merganser different from a cormorant.

And this might be my latching on to a red herring on your part, but as a Creationist, I thought you didn't believe in Homo neanderthalus or Homo erectus. According to your belief, they shouldn't exist at all, much less be present in the fossil record - so why are you using them in your futile attempt to portray evolutionary theory as racist? I hope (against hope) that you've noticed most evolution advocates don't use centaurs and shedu in their arguments against creationism.

That's what creationists might call a racist theory.

Why? Saying that species Homo comes from a consestor of species Pan or species Gorilla is racist? Pithy, yet worthless comments do not a cogent response make.

"The common ancestor of this species and the great apes goes even further back in time."

Only according to racist theories of human evolution.

If only I didn't think you were John Crawford from CF, I'd think your parody of Creationists were a riot...

I'll tell you what. Let's see which is more overtly racist.

- Evolutinary theory demonstrates that humans and our fellow apes shared a common ancestor 7-20 million years ago, and that we share a lot of the same basic characteristics with Orangatans, Gorillas and Chimps and Bonobos - as well as our early Homo ancestors.

or...

- The Bible says that black people are cursed because of Ham's incestuous conduct with a drunken Noah and therefore should be enslaved (see the Baptist split in the 1800s) or kept impoverished and seperated from white Christian folk (see Jim Crow).

I hate to turn any discussion of a serious issue (despite how tenuous the hold on "seriousness" is has) into a he said/she said, but given how Southern, Evangelical, institutional racism was such a part of the South in America even 40 years ago - much less it's residual effects to this day - I am constantly amazed when Creationists who come out of that religious tradition try and label evolutionary theory as racist.

[Jose]

I see I have some catching up to do. This response is to an earlier post than the recent ones. I'll get to work on the newer discussion tonight.

- - - -

"Well, let's see here...there can be no inherent racism in evolutionary theories of human origins, since these do not involve races.

You've got it backwards since evolutionists intentionally divide the whole human race into different and separate species just to prove that the whole human race 'evolved' from a non-human species of African apes. You do admit that the human race is a race, don't you, and that theoretical evolutionist attempts to divide the whole human race into different and separate species, some of whom directly evolved from African apes is racist, don't you?

Thanks for the reply, jcrawford! I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here, on the basis of different definitions of the words, "race" and "species." They are not used as precisely in conversational English as in science. Being a science geek, I use the biological definitions.

In conversational English, we refer to The Human Race. Technically, based on genetics, that's incorrect. We are The Human Species. A "race" is a subdivision of a species, somewhere between "variety" and "subspecies." Since there are no clear criteria for boundaries between these different subdivisions, so it's kinda hard to talk about them and really be on the same wavelength.

As an example, I'll consider rice. There are two races of rice--long-grain rice and short-grain rice. These can be subdivided into thousands of varieties of each. Among the short-grains are arborio and sushi rice (where "sushi" is a lumping of many varieties, for which I apologize). Among the long-grains are Wepahani Red, Black, Basmati, Jasmine, and many, many others. The distinction among "races" vs "varieties" is genetic. It's basically determined by how long it has been since the two populations interbred.

With humans, dark-skinned peoples living in equatorial regions and light-skinned peoples living in more northern locations (think Scandinavia, for example) were on separate continents for a long time before ocean-going, wind-powered sailing ships were invented. It is therefore logical to consider dark-skinned and light-skinned peoples to be of different races--subdivisions of the overall human species.

Logical, but not necessarily correct. It would be like saying that black Labrador retrievers and yellow Labrador retrievers are different races. Color is a minor genetic variation, whether in skin or hair or eyes. Even so, we're talking races not species, where races are merely subdivisions of the species, and can all breed with one another.

If you think that evolutionists attempt "to divide the whole human race into different and separate species," then you're in error. Evolutionists agree that humans are one species. Period.

The mitochondrial DNA studies that you so disparage trace the maternal lineage of the humans who were in the study (as you said--they don't trace paternal lineage). They show degrees of genetic divergence. Obviously, brothers and sisters of the same family will have more DNA sequence similarity than two "unrelated" people whose ancestors are from different continents. That's part of why they look different. The surprise is that there is more DNA sequence diversity in African humans than in humans from every other part of the world combined.

Now, the data--the DNA sequences from these people--are Fact. It's not some evolutionist-racist agenda. You could collect DNA and sequence it and get the same results. The question is this: how do we interpret this Fact? Creationists prefer to say the "study is flawed," and pretend the evolutionary conclusions can't be true. What about offering some kind of creationist interpretation that explains the data? Creationists have no problem with microevolution occurring, or with speciation occurring since the 8000 species got off the ark, and diversified into the current million+. So, they should be able to offer a reasonable explanation. What's yours?

Among the things that the data tell me is that our notion of "race" in humans is incorrect. According to the DNA sequence data, it looks like most humans in the world are the same race, regardless of skin color or facial features. There may be different races in Africa, but I'm not really willing to conclude that this is true, based on the data. That is: the data are inherently anti-racist. They indicate that we should lump everyone we've thought of as "different races" into one, single race. That kinda makes "racism" difficult, wouldn't you say?

That's why I said before that what people typically call "racial tension" is actually "ethnic" tension. It is culture-based distrust of people who are different. The difference can be skin color, warpaint, religion, funny hats, whatever you like. We develop these cultural differences to determine who is "part of our group" and who is not--and we aren't so sure we like those guys in the other groups. This seems to be a human instinct, which you would say god gave us (uhhh...in order to hate other religions?), and which I would say is a result of evolutionary selection due to fighting over scarce resources. But it's independent of "race," and operates between groups of the same "race" that have cultural differences.

The rest of your post is just based on neo-Darwinst racial theories of human evolution and hostility towards Christian scholars who document and demonstrate the intrinsic racism inherent if all theories of the human race's evolutionary descent from non-human African primates.

No, there are no neo-Darwinist racial theories that I know of. Perhaps you should explain what you mean, because you've mentioned something about which I know nothing.

Nor do I express hostility toward Christian scholars. I express exhaustion and exasperation that people insist on misrepresenting the data, and weaving into it some kind of wacky notion that it's anti-social. Again, I would ask that you explain just what you mean here. How can evolutionary theory have anything to do with racism? You've made a logical leap here that, to me, makes no sense.

The evolution of humans from non-human primates is no different than the evolution of any other group of plants or animals. There is some ancestral population. It gets split into sub-populations--in our case, probably by different groups wandering off in different directions. Mutations happen--after all, they cannot be prevented. The groups eventually become different. When they re-encounter each other thousands of years later, they either co-exist peacefully, or they fight over resources. With us, it looks like we fought over resources, so the ones whose genes we inherited are the ones who didn't like different groups.

There were a variety of changes along the way that were significant enough to warrant calling different groups of ancestors different species. But so what? The ancestor of corn is teosinte, but no one seems overly concerned about that. H. erectus was a different species from H. sapiens, even if H. sapiens came into existence from one of the scattered populations of H. erectus acquiring a few genetic changes that made them better hunters and better fighters. The most important may have been larger openings in the upper vertebrae, to allow more nerves to control the lungs, and thus enable speech for the first time. But again, there's no racism here. It's just divergence among different groups--just like dogs or horses or chickens have diverged into different breeds from the ancestral variety.

I suppose you could say that H. sapiens was, at some stage, a "race" of H. erectus, and that sincce this race was a better fighter, they out-competed their predecessors. It took a long time for them to do so throughout Africa and Asia, but they managed eventually.

Is this what you mean when you call evolutionary theory "inherently racist"? If so, I suspect that you're confusing "racism" with "competition." "Racism" is the belief by one group that it is better than another. "Competition" (in this sense) is one group having more offspring than another, and eventually gaining control of all of the available resources (food, water, shelter, etc). "Racism" is a thought pattern, which one can abandon simply by choosing to. "Competition" is what happens in any ecological setting, among many groups of plants and animals.

[Jose]

"No scientist will ever say that a lineage tree is 'fact'. "

I'm glad to hear you say that since it is a fact that creationist members of the human race did not evolve or descend from a non-human species of African apes.

Teegstar is right, of course. But, I'm puzzled by your statement. Do you imply that most people are descended from African pre-human primates, but creationists are not? So...let me see if I've got this right. There are ordinary humans, H. sapiens, and there are creationists, H. creationismus. Is that it? It's an interesting idea. Thanks!

Lubenow doesn't dispute the fact that all human mtDNA is from the same human ancestor. His thesis is that for geneticists to trace it to an African tribe which neo-Darwinists theorize descended from an African species of apes is racist.

You may call it racist, if you like, but you'd be using an incorrect definition of the term. That's up to you, of course. But tell me...how would you interpret the data? Let's forget about Lubenow, since he's not here discussing this. Let's hear your take on it--you know, using logic and stuff.

How would Jose know, since as you pointed out, "most scientists do not use the term "human race" and, in accordance with evolutionary science, Jose is just echoing the racist theory that Humanity is not a race.

I love it. Thanks! If you'll read my prior post, you'll see that I'm using the definitions of the terms. But, as you've said, "race" is a slippery term, for which there are no boundaries. I'd prefer to consider all humans a single race, in which case "The Human Race" would be accurate. But I think the genetic divergences could be deep enough that there could be races, but not the ones you think. Scandinavians and Eritreans would be the same race. Think about that for a bit.

This would seem to put evolutionists at a disadvantage when debating with creationists who considered themselves to be members of the human race and not some "species" of apes. If most "scientists" can't define race or don't even use the term because they don't regard humanity as a race, creationists can easily charge that such theories are racist, by definition.

This is good, too. Remember the definition of species: "a group of plants or animals that can interbreed and have fertile offspring." Humans are a species. Gorillas are a species. Chimps are a species. If you like, you may subdivide these species into races--but you should use valid criteria--genetics--and not some flaky variable like skin color. That bit of racism comes from the Bible, as USIncognito has rightly pointed out.

[ST88]

If most "scientists" can't define race or don't even use the term because they don't regard humanity as a race, creationists can easily charge that such theories are racist, by definition.

It doesn't make any sense to say that not using the word "race" nor subscribing to the idea of race is racist. Please state your reasoning.

[Cathar1950]

Jose wrote:

You may call it racist, if you like, but you'd be using an incorrect definition of the term. That's up to you, of course. But tell me...how would you interpret the data? Let's forget about Lubenow, since he's not here discussing this. Let's hear your take on it--you know, using logic and stuff.

IA
I don't know why that hit me so funny I almost fell off my chair.
I sometimes still laugh at the sound of Homo erectus but Homo creationismus is funny.
Marvin Harris wrote that the idea of race was not even a fit subject for discusion in anthropology. I tend to agree, It is poetic and literary that is to include all of mankind(women to of course). I was just watching something on the Discovery Channel about dna. I had read about it in some journals earlier. But they traced us all back to this tribe in Africa.
It was so interesting because in this little tribe you could see all the variations among people in the faces and bodies. What are called races
are just variation due to isolation, inbreeding enviroment and family.
I don't know what any one could mean by

for geneticists to trace it to an African tribe which neo-Darwinists theorize descended from an African species of apes is racist.

It makes no sense to me. Unless he means that because they(anyone?)
came from Africa, and Africans are black and talking about blacks is racist.
It might work if your on drugs or an ignorate hick looking for a bumpersticker. But I think your right he is playing some kind of race card game.
Now I think many could interpret the Bible as racist. It seems to be true in a lot of the statements. But it was culture and religion(worship of YHWH) was the bases, not skin color. Before the return from captivity under Babylon you couldn't tell an Canaanite from a Hebrew. When they got back Ezra made any one who was married to a non Judian dump his family.
David's ancestor was a Moabite Jacob's descendents were to have nothing to do with them.
Of course one of his ancestors was a prostitute and another had to pretend to be one to get pregnant.

[jcrawford]

quote="teegstar"

"There's a heap of evidence that suggests all human mDNA between 170,000+/-50,000 y.a. was from the same ancestor and that all changes are changes within the species due to the enviroment endured by the specified region where the tribe settled (Human Evolution, Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron 3rd Edition)

There's a heap of evidence that suggests that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evoltution and common descent are a form of scientific racism, especially when backed up and supported by so-called "scientific evidence."

"There's a heap of evidence that shows Lubenow's documents to be highly flawed and debatable too. Keep in mind its a 2004 edition, which means the 'evidence' has been collected, collate and published over a few years. Its now 2005, a lot can happen between 2000 and 2005."

Please tell us what has "happened" since 2000 to refute Lubenow's 2004 thesis that all neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and common descent are racist?

"No scientist will ever say that a lineage tree is 'fact'. "

Glad to hear you say that since no creationist worth his or her salt will ever agree to sit on the same phylogenetic branch that neo-Darwinists have created for other members of the Hominidae family.