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.

[Cathar1950]

chimp wrote:

This whole tract is a red-herring. It provides a pat answer for someone
who cannot actually understand the data themselves and argue from a
position of knowledge.

Yes, Pretty much.
It does seem rather suspicious.
Being it is crap and all.

[Chimp]

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.

Provide the supporting data and it can be debated. 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.

The picture of the skulls that you so handily dismissed as artist
reconstructions, are based on the actual fossils, which were pictured above
the reconstructions. You will notice the blue sections ( the missing bits
that have been reconstructed ), otherwise the skulls are as they were
when dug up.

[jcrawford]

quote="Chimp"

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.

The picture of the skulls that you so handily dismissed as artist
reconstructions, are based on the actual fossils, which were pictured above the reconstructions.

Those fossils "pictured above the reconstructions" are plaster casts of the original fossils.

You will notice the blue sections ( the missing bits that have been reconstructed ), otherwise the skulls are as they were when dug up.

Most of those skulls were "dug up" in bits and pieces. Did you know that the Rhodesian Man skull is not even fossilized?

[jcrawford]

quote="micatala"

I take it you have picked out your own favorite set of people to be your ancestors?

As far as is reasonably possible, yes, since most of them are recorded in documented history, especially my parents and theirs as well as their Neandertal and Noahic ancestors.

Are you saying we all have the right to pick our own 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.

Let's see. I'll take Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Junior, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Joe Dimaggio. Anyone who says I can't have them is a racist.

In that case, I would never deny you your personal choice of human ancestors even if neo-Darwinist theories deny my peculiar ancestral heritage and the peculiar ancestral heritage of most other people on the planet.

[perfessor]

I take it you have picked out your own favorite set of people to be your ancestors?

As far as is reasonably possible, yes, since most of them are recorded in documented history, especially my parents and theirs as well as their Neandertal and Noahic ancestors.

Wow - I mean really... I just don't know what to say. At first this thread was frustrating, then funny. But now it's just sad.

[jcrawford]

quote="Cathar1950"

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.

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.

I just ordered the book thru my library system.

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

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

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

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.

Playing dumb is sometimes the wisest thing to do.

It is like talking to children only children are brighter and funny.

Thanks for making children 'superior' to adults in a neo-Darwinst fashion.

[jcrawford]

quote="Chimp"

I'll be the fly in the ointment....

I'm the fly in the ointment. You're just a highly evolved primate.

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

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

This whole tract is a red-herring. It provides a pat answer for someone who cannot actually understand the data themselves and argue from a position of knowledge.

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?

[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.

[jcrawford]

Wow - I mean really... I just don't know what to say. At first this thread was frustrating, then funny. But now it's just sad.

What's "sad" about it, perfessor? Does it make you want to cry?

You're not going to introduce Greek pathos into neo-Darwinist theories and scenarios of black American's African descent from apes (or their ancestral look-alikes) now, are you? You'll be calling it pathetic next and moving on to higher psychological interpretations of the human fossil record, in the Freudian unconcious mode.

[jcrawford]

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.

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.