-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Racism in our Ancestral Trees
- Thread starter jcrawford
- Start date
"Are you saying that honorary doctorates are totally meaningless and that all references to honorary doctorates should be forbidden or considered to be false doctorates?"
Honorary doctorates are totally meaningless when it comes to lending credibility to someone's arguments. If someone does not hold a real doctorate in the field being discussed then it becomes a fallacious appeal to authority to refer to them as "doctor" if it is honorary and you do not also point that out or if it is in another field. In the later category, I suppose it would be OK to refer to them as "doctor" provided you were to point out that it is in a different field. OTOH, if their doctorate is not in the field being discussed, then it is hard to justify using them as a reference at all. Which is, I think, the situation in which we find ourselves with Lub.
"It really doesn't matter whether he's a Doctor or not. It's his scholarship and scientific footnotes that count."
OK. All you have done thus far is point out these crazy ideas of racism. We asked you to provide some support for your assertions, such as that Neanderthals were the same as modern humans, and you refused. An ever better thing for you to do would be to go back to Lub's book and give us the citations from technical journals from those footnotes. Then we can try and look up some of the references ourselves and see if they support your assertions.
Honorary doctorates are totally meaningless when it comes to lending credibility to someone's arguments. If someone does not hold a real doctorate in the field being discussed then it becomes a fallacious appeal to authority to refer to them as "doctor" if it is honorary and you do not also point that out or if it is in another field. In the later category, I suppose it would be OK to refer to them as "doctor" provided you were to point out that it is in a different field. OTOH, if their doctorate is not in the field being discussed, then it is hard to justify using them as a reference at all. Which is, I think, the situation in which we find ourselves with Lub.
"It really doesn't matter whether he's a Doctor or not. It's his scholarship and scientific footnotes that count."
OK. All you have done thus far is point out these crazy ideas of racism. We asked you to provide some support for your assertions, such as that Neanderthals were the same as modern humans, and you refused. An ever better thing for you to do would be to go back to Lub's book and give us the citations from technical journals from those footnotes. Then we can try and look up some of the references ourselves and see if they support your assertions.
If God only is True, and every man is a liar, does it make any difference if a "doctorate" is dubbed or earned?
Jesus had no degrees given by men. He chose mostly "unlearned" men to be His Apostles.
If we may use the scripture as a standard, Jesus chided a "Master of Israel" for not knowing about being "born again". See John Ch. 3:1-15.
One does not find spiritual discernment in a test tube.
Selah,
Bro. James
Jesus had no degrees given by men. He chose mostly "unlearned" men to be His Apostles.
If we may use the scripture as a standard, Jesus chided a "Master of Israel" for not knowing about being "born again". See John Ch. 3:1-15.
One does not find spiritual discernment in a test tube.
Selah,
Bro. James
I didn't refuse. I referred you to Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," in providing support of my assertions.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
We asked you to provide some support for your assertions, such as that Neanderthals were the same as modern humans, and you refused.
Why should I type up all those 1000 scientific quotes, notes and technical references or even one, when you can get them all plus a comprehensive listing of hundreds of human fossils for around 22 bucks.An ever better thing for you to do would be to go back to Lub's book and give us the citations from technical journals from those footnotes. Then we can try and look up some of the references ourselves and see if they support your assertions.
One should have one's own scientific resources on hand when discussing or debating racial theories of human evolution out of Africa.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
JC: You are not the only person we debate with. Many post and many suggest books. I am not in a position to go out and buy every book someone suggests I should read. In the face of scientific analysis of the genetic differences between neantertals and homo sapiens, and in the face of the morphological differences, what justification does Lubenow give for saying we could indeed interbreed with them, resulting in fertile offspring?
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Apparantly Lubenow makes the assertion that Neanderthals are just modern homo sapiens with rickets. This link will show you a photo of some homosapien children with rickets. They do not appear to be candidates for confusion with Neandertals.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/rickets.html
people with rickets have thinner skulls, thinner bones. Neanderthals have thicker skulls, thicker bones.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/rickets.html
people with rickets have thinner skulls, thinner bones. Neanderthals have thicker skulls, thicker bones.
Lubenow demonstrates how the scientific analysis of the genetic differences between Neantertals and Homo sapiens is based on unfounded assumptions and he quotes geneticists who say that the analysis is flawed. As far as the morphological differences go, Lubenow demonstrates how they are just racial variations indicating the great diversity of members of the past human race.Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
JC: You are not the only person we debate with. Many post and many suggest books. I am not in a position to go out and buy every book someone suggests I should read. In the face of scientific analysis of the genetic differences between neantertals and homo sapiens, and in the face of the morphological differences, what justification does Lubenow give for saying we could indeed interbreed with them, resulting in fertile offspring?
The problem with neo-Darwinists calling the fossilized remains of our human predecessors, 'different and separate species' is that it removes some of our human ancestors from full and equal membership in the human race. Since labeling our human ancestors different 'species' is only done for neo-Darwinist purposes of including all members of the human race in theoretical speculations about the 'origins of species' by natural selection and common ancestral descent from other 'species,' such exlusive classifications may be regarded as racially excluding some human 'species' from full and equal inclusion in the whole historic human race.
Lubenow documents how H. erectus and neanderthalensis are considered geographic variations of one species by many evolutionists themselves and how others think that sapiens and erectus ought to be merged into one classification of species. Lubenow claims that all three morphological 'types' are due to being geographically separated and morphologically influenced by the effects of the Ice Age, and that after it was over, all three 'racial' varieties were able to migrate, interbreed and procreate the present human race.
Lubenow only quotes past scientists who speculated that rickets or syphilis accounted for Neandertal deformities. His thesis contains over 1000 scientific quotes, references, notations and footnotes.Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Apparantly Lubenow makes the assertion that Neanderthals are just modern homo sapiens with rickets.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Does Lubenow quote them with the idea that their findings are discredited or with the idea that their findings support his assertions? Because if he quotes them in support of his assertions, he is tacitely or directly agreeing with them that rickets is a cause of the unusual morphology of Neandertal man.
Lubenow thinks that Neandertal morphology was the physical result of extreme climatic conditions during the Ice Age and only points out that many 'scientists' in both the past and present are in complete disagreement with any neo-Darwinist speculations or model of the human race's origins out of Africa, China, India or any other specific geographic location in the world.Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Does Lubenow quote them with the idea that their findings are discredited or with the idea that their findings support his assertions? Because if he quotes them in support of his assertions, he is tacitely or directly agreeing with them that rickets is a cause of the unusual morphology of Neandertal man.
So I have a question.
You claim that the only definitive way to tell species is by tests for interfertility. So just how would you propose we go about separating extinct species, only known through fossils? To take an absurd example, can we know for sure that a saber-tooth cat and a mastadon were of different species? How? At what point do physical differences become sufficient to distinguish?
Once you explain that one to us, please then apply it to our human ancestors. By your reckoning, since we cannot do fertility tests on the extinct specimens, we cannot divide them. You also claim that the physical traits used by essentially all scientists to differentiate are really just variations and adaptations with Homo sapien.
So please take the following list and tell me where you would draw the line between human and non-human and, most importantly, why. To be consistent, you should really claim that they are all human but we know you cannot do that because the earliest are so completely different that even you know the difference.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
You claim that the only definitive way to tell species is by tests for interfertility. So just how would you propose we go about separating extinct species, only known through fossils? To take an absurd example, can we know for sure that a saber-tooth cat and a mastadon were of different species? How? At what point do physical differences become sufficient to distinguish?
Once you explain that one to us, please then apply it to our human ancestors. By your reckoning, since we cannot do fertility tests on the extinct specimens, we cannot divide them. You also claim that the physical traits used by essentially all scientists to differentiate are really just variations and adaptations with Homo sapien.
So please take the following list and tell me where you would draw the line between human and non-human and, most importantly, why. To be consistent, you should really claim that they are all human but we know you cannot do that because the earliest are so completely different that even you know the difference.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Lubenow thinks that Neandertal morphology was the physical result of extreme climatic conditions during the Ice Age and only points out that many 'scientists' in both the past and present are in complete disagreement with any neo-Darwinist speculations or model of the human race's origins out of Africa, China, India or any other specific geographic location in the world. </font>[/QUOTE]In other words, Lubenow quotes older speculations that rickets are the cause of the morphology of Neandertals without endorsing that rickets are the cause of the morphology of neandertals but with approval just because they also claim, based on this false idea, that they were fully human, and cites their opinions, based on this false idea, as supporting his idea that neandertals are fully human.Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Does Lubenow quote them with the idea that their findings are discredited or with the idea that their findings support his assertions? Because if he quotes them in support of his assertions, he is tacitely or directly agreeing with them that rickets is a cause of the unusual morphology of Neandertal man.
In other words, he is a supreme rationalizer. Thank you for your informative post.
I'm only concerned about paleoanthropologists dividing the fossil remains of our human ancestors up into different and separate 'species' with no scientific warrant or physical justification for doing so other than to arrange them in an evolutionary continuum that tricks observers into thinking that the first 'species' of humans resembled some species of apes in order to satisfy Darwin's fantastic speculations on the 'origin of species.'Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So I have a question.
You claim that the only definitive way to tell species is by tests for interfertility. So just how would you propose we go about separating extinct species, only known through fossils? To take an absurd example, can we know for sure that a saber-tooth cat and a mastadon were of different species? How? At what point do physical differences become sufficient to distinguish?
Once you explain that one to us, please then apply it to our human ancestors. By your reckoning, since we cannot do fertility tests on the extinct specimens, we cannot divide them.
Any neo-Darwinist so-called human 'species' including H. sapiens, is just a racial variant of former members of the whole human race, since there's no great morphological difference between any two which cannot be accounted for by the effects of the past Ice Age on humankind.You also claim that the physical traits used by essentially all scientists to differentiate are really just variations and adaptations with Homo sapien.
According to their classification, the above are all non-human African primates.So please take the following list and tell me where you would draw the line between human and non-human and, most importantly, why. To be consistent, you should really claim that they are all human but we know you cannot do that because the earliest are so completely different that even you know the difference.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis is a false and misleading taxon invented by Leakey, Tobias and Napeir in 1964 in which a mixture of juvenile and adult human and australopithicine bones are jumbled together in utter confusion. (Lubenow)
Homo georgicus, erectus, ergaster, antecessor, heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, sapiens and any other 'species' neo-Darwinsts want to dream up are all racial variations of the one and only Human race as scientifically documented and demonstrated by Professor Marvin L. Lubenow in his revolutionary treatise on the human fossil record in the 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."
"Homo habilis is a false and misleading taxon invented by Leakey, Tobias and Napeir in 1964 in which a mixture of juvenile and adult human and australopithicine bones are jumbled together in utter confusion. (Lubenow)"
I think you missed the entire point in the above discussion of Lub's qualifications or lack thereof. He is not a recognized expert in this field. So you cannot just reference his book. You pointed out yourself all of his footnotes. Since Lub is not an expert, if you want to refer to something in his book, you MUST give us whatever citation he gave in his book to support the claim. Otherwaise the claim is without merit and is a fallacious appeal to authority.
As far as the specific claim goes, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that Leakey mixed up fossils from different species and concocted H. habilis from thin air. This is a serious charge of misconduct and if you wish to not withdraw the claim, you should quickly provide for factual support.
There are some scientists that have claimed that H. habilis is two different species. But what they meant was that there is enough diversity in the various H. habilis fossils that have been found to support making them two different species. If this is his source, he has either proved that he lacks the basic knowledge to correctly interpret the scientific literature on the subject or that he does not care to accurately present what the literature has to say. In either case, it gives further reason to discount Lubenow.
"According to their classification, the above are all non-human African primates."
You missed the most important part of the challenge. WHY? There are scientists who contend that the earliest members of Homo should really be classified as Australopithecus. Now if there is so little variation between some members of Homo and some members of Australopithecus that debate rages as to which genera some fossils should belong, then how did you make the clean cut that only those which have been classified as part of Homo should be called human? If the differences at the border are so slight, then you need to let us know on what basis you have made your cut. It seems to have been done arbitrarily and without reason.
"Any neo-Darwinist so-called human 'species' including H. sapiens, is just a racial variant of former members of the whole human race, since there's no great morphological difference between any two which cannot be accounted for by the effects of the past Ice Age on humankind."
Between any two consectutive species, the differences are slight. Often debate rages over whether a new find should be part of an existing species or something new. What this tells us is that we have a pretty good record of human fossils where we can trace many of the changes that happened through time. But if you look at the endpoints, you see much more difference than can be accounted for by the ideas which you present. Perhaps you could further develop those ideas for us.
With references.
I think you missed the entire point in the above discussion of Lub's qualifications or lack thereof. He is not a recognized expert in this field. So you cannot just reference his book. You pointed out yourself all of his footnotes. Since Lub is not an expert, if you want to refer to something in his book, you MUST give us whatever citation he gave in his book to support the claim. Otherwaise the claim is without merit and is a fallacious appeal to authority.
As far as the specific claim goes, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that Leakey mixed up fossils from different species and concocted H. habilis from thin air. This is a serious charge of misconduct and if you wish to not withdraw the claim, you should quickly provide for factual support.
There are some scientists that have claimed that H. habilis is two different species. But what they meant was that there is enough diversity in the various H. habilis fossils that have been found to support making them two different species. If this is his source, he has either proved that he lacks the basic knowledge to correctly interpret the scientific literature on the subject or that he does not care to accurately present what the literature has to say. In either case, it gives further reason to discount Lubenow.
"According to their classification, the above are all non-human African primates."
You missed the most important part of the challenge. WHY? There are scientists who contend that the earliest members of Homo should really be classified as Australopithecus. Now if there is so little variation between some members of Homo and some members of Australopithecus that debate rages as to which genera some fossils should belong, then how did you make the clean cut that only those which have been classified as part of Homo should be called human? If the differences at the border are so slight, then you need to let us know on what basis you have made your cut. It seems to have been done arbitrarily and without reason.
"Any neo-Darwinist so-called human 'species' including H. sapiens, is just a racial variant of former members of the whole human race, since there's no great morphological difference between any two which cannot be accounted for by the effects of the past Ice Age on humankind."
Between any two consectutive species, the differences are slight. Often debate rages over whether a new find should be part of an existing species or something new. What this tells us is that we have a pretty good record of human fossils where we can trace many of the changes that happened through time. But if you look at the endpoints, you see much more difference than can be accounted for by the ideas which you present. Perhaps you could further develop those ideas for us.
With references.
He's as expert as any other expert on the human fossil record is, if not more so, since his book includes more specific listings of the human fossils and more scientific references and notations than any other recently published popular book on the subject, and should be on every expert's private bookshelf, if not in every public and school library.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I think you missed the entire point in the above discussion of Lub's qualifications or lack thereof. He is not a recognized expert in this field. So you cannot just reference his book. You pointed out yourself all of his footnotes. Since Lub is not an expert, if you want to refer to something in his book, you MUST give us whatever citation he gave in his book to support the claim. Otherwaise the claim is without merit and is a fallacious appeal to authority.
No one is saying that Leakey "mixed up fossils of different species" intentionally.As far as the specific claim goes, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that Leakey mixed up fossils from different species and concocted H. habilis from thin air. This is a serious charge of misconduct and if you wish to not withdraw the claim, you should quickly provide for factual support.
So besides calling people apes for decades, they now want to call some apes people. Very funny!There are scientists who contend that the earliest members of Homo should really be classified as Australopithecus.
Even if there is "little variation" between some human fossil skulls and those of some species of extinct African apes, there's always going to be a dividing line between human and ape skulls or else paleoanthropologists won't be able to discern the difference between human and ape skulls, and will end up classifying some humans as apes and vice versa, as already evidenced in the phony taxon of 3 foot Homo habilis people.Now if there is so little variation between some members of Homo and some members of Australopithecus that debate rages as to which genera some fossils should belong, then how did you make the clean cut that only those which have been classified as part of Homo should be called human?
I was just going by the generic status established by neo-Dawinist evolutionists themselves. If they want to include some ape fossils in one of their primitive 'species' of human beings, or include some human fossils in an ape taxon, then that's their business. In the meantime, there is still no evidence of any non-human apes ever becoming human in Africa.If the differences at the border are so slight, then you need to let us know on what basis you have made your cut. It seems to have been done arbitrarily and without reason.
I'd be happy to oblige using Lubenow's well-documented and scientifically substantiated thesis as my reference text and 'peer review.'Often debate rages over whether a new find should be part of an existing species or something new. What this tells us is that we have a pretty good record of human fossils where we can trace many of the changes that happened through time. But if you look at the endpoints, you see much more difference than can be accounted for by the ideas which you present.
Perhaps you could further develop those ideas for us. With references.
"He's as expert as any other expert on the human fossil record is, if not more so, since his book includes more specific listings of the human fossils and more scientific references and notations than any other recently published popular book on the subject, and should be on every expert's private bookshelf, if not in every public and school library."
His book may very well be well documented. We cannot know for sure because you refuse to share with us any of the specifics of the arguments nor to cite any of the references that he uses. What we can know is that he has none of the traits of an expert in the field that one would expect. He does not hold a PhD in the subject nor have his claims been put through the peer review process. Therefore, he is not a recognized expert.
Furthermore, in some of the snippets of information which you have oblidged us with, he seems to be either incapable of understanding the vast literature on the subject or uncapable of acurately stating what the literature has to say on the matter.
For these reasons, you must refer back to his original references if you wish to cite something you may have "learned" from reading his book. In addition, these reasons are sufficient for us to rightly reject whatever claims you may make of how we should read his book. Until we can see the level of his scholarship revealed as worthy of the monetary and time investment, you calls will fall upon deaf ears. Given your inability to present even simple support for your arguments nor to provide useful citations for your assertions, you do not seem to have learned anything of value from the book. Nothing more than a few phrases to parrot it seems.
"No one is saying that Leakey "mixed up fossils of different species" intentionally."
Then what exactly are you charging? You said "Homo habilis is a false and misleading taxon invented by Leakey, Tobias and Napeir in 1964 in which a mixture of juvenile and adult human and australopithicine bones are jumbled together in utter confusion. (Lubenow)" Please explain AND document this claim.
"So besides calling people apes for decades, they now want to call some apes people. Very funny!"
It is funny that you have carried this through this far without even knowing the basics of taxonomy. Not only are we humans, but we are also apes, primates, placental mammals, jawed vertebrates, chordates, animals and eukaryotes.
"Even if there is "little variation" between some human fossil skulls and those of some species of extinct African apes, there's always going to be a dividing line between human and ape skulls or else paleoanthropologists won't be able to discern the difference between human and ape skulls, and will end up classifying some humans as apes and vice versa..."
It is more than the skulls, it is the entire anatomy. And the very fine lines between the groups undermines your attempt to draw a neat and definate line. YOu answer seems to be that you will call whatever a scientist classifies as Homo a human and everything else a mere ape. YOu cannot even give factual reasons for why you draw the line there. Is it Lubenow or you who is failing us in the factual arena at this time? Either you are parroting his conclusions and he did a very poor job, if any, of saying why this should be done. Or else he said and you cannot remember.
"...and will end up classifying some humans as apes and vice versa, as already evidenced in the phony taxon of 3 foot Homo habilis people."
This is too good! If H. habilis is not areal taxon, as you claimed above, then how can H. floresiensis be H. habilis? YOu should really get your story straight.
"In the meantime, there is still no evidence of any non-human apes ever becoming human in Africa."
Nothing other than a rich fossil, molecular and genetic record.
"I'd be happy to oblige using Lubenow's well-documented and scientifically substantiated thesis as my reference text and 'peer review.'"
And which respected experts peer reviewed his book?
[insert noise of crickets here]
When do you plan to share some of his well reasoned arguments to support your assertions?
[more crickets]
More importantly, when do you plan on sharing with us some of the references which he uses to substantiate his "well-documented and scientifically substantiated thesis?"
[even more crickets]
His book may very well be well documented. We cannot know for sure because you refuse to share with us any of the specifics of the arguments nor to cite any of the references that he uses. What we can know is that he has none of the traits of an expert in the field that one would expect. He does not hold a PhD in the subject nor have his claims been put through the peer review process. Therefore, he is not a recognized expert.
Furthermore, in some of the snippets of information which you have oblidged us with, he seems to be either incapable of understanding the vast literature on the subject or uncapable of acurately stating what the literature has to say on the matter.
For these reasons, you must refer back to his original references if you wish to cite something you may have "learned" from reading his book. In addition, these reasons are sufficient for us to rightly reject whatever claims you may make of how we should read his book. Until we can see the level of his scholarship revealed as worthy of the monetary and time investment, you calls will fall upon deaf ears. Given your inability to present even simple support for your arguments nor to provide useful citations for your assertions, you do not seem to have learned anything of value from the book. Nothing more than a few phrases to parrot it seems.
"No one is saying that Leakey "mixed up fossils of different species" intentionally."
Then what exactly are you charging? You said "Homo habilis is a false and misleading taxon invented by Leakey, Tobias and Napeir in 1964 in which a mixture of juvenile and adult human and australopithicine bones are jumbled together in utter confusion. (Lubenow)" Please explain AND document this claim.
"So besides calling people apes for decades, they now want to call some apes people. Very funny!"
It is funny that you have carried this through this far without even knowing the basics of taxonomy. Not only are we humans, but we are also apes, primates, placental mammals, jawed vertebrates, chordates, animals and eukaryotes.
"Even if there is "little variation" between some human fossil skulls and those of some species of extinct African apes, there's always going to be a dividing line between human and ape skulls or else paleoanthropologists won't be able to discern the difference between human and ape skulls, and will end up classifying some humans as apes and vice versa..."
It is more than the skulls, it is the entire anatomy. And the very fine lines between the groups undermines your attempt to draw a neat and definate line. YOu answer seems to be that you will call whatever a scientist classifies as Homo a human and everything else a mere ape. YOu cannot even give factual reasons for why you draw the line there. Is it Lubenow or you who is failing us in the factual arena at this time? Either you are parroting his conclusions and he did a very poor job, if any, of saying why this should be done. Or else he said and you cannot remember.
"...and will end up classifying some humans as apes and vice versa, as already evidenced in the phony taxon of 3 foot Homo habilis people."
This is too good! If H. habilis is not areal taxon, as you claimed above, then how can H. floresiensis be H. habilis? YOu should really get your story straight.
"In the meantime, there is still no evidence of any non-human apes ever becoming human in Africa."
Nothing other than a rich fossil, molecular and genetic record.
"I'd be happy to oblige using Lubenow's well-documented and scientifically substantiated thesis as my reference text and 'peer review.'"
And which respected experts peer reviewed his book?
[insert noise of crickets here]
When do you plan to share some of his well reasoned arguments to support your assertions?
[more crickets]
More importantly, when do you plan on sharing with us some of the references which he uses to substantiate his "well-documented and scientifically substantiated thesis?"
[even more crickets]
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Therefore, he is not a recognized expert."
-------------------------------------
The "experts" will easily recognize Lubenow's quotes of their "expert" opinions about the human fossil record.
"Furthermore, in some of the snippets of information which you have oblidged us with, he seems to be either incapable of understanding the vast literature on the subject or uncapable of acurately stating what the literature has to say on the matter."
------------------------
Just goes to show that one should never rely on mere "snippets" of information.
"For these reasons, you must refer back to his original references if you wish to cite something you may have "learned" from reading his book."
------------
I could easily give you chapter and page number, but if you don't have the book, what good would that do?
"In addition, these reasons are sufficient for us to rightly reject whatever claims you may make of how we should read his book."
------------------------------------
No problem. Remain ignorant if you so choose.
"Until we can see the level of his scholarship revealed as worthy of the monetary and time investment, you calls will fall upon deaf ears."
--------------------------
Thud.
"Given your inability to present even simple support for your arguments nor to provide useful citations for your assertions, you do not seem to have learned anything of value from the book.
Nothing more than a few phrases to parrot it seems."
------------
How would you know that I'm "parroting" anything Lubenow says if you haven't read the book?
"You said "Homo habilis is a false and misleading taxon invented by Leakey, Tobias and Napeir in 1964 in which a mixture of juvenile and adult human and australopithicine bones are jumbled together in utter confusion. (Lubenow)"
Please explain AND document this claim."
-------------------------------------
It's in the book.
"It is funny that you have carried this through this far without even knowing the basics of taxonomy. Not only are we humans, but we are also apes, primates, placental mammals, jawed vertebrates, chordates, animals and eukaryotes."
----------------------------------------------
Why do you believe you're an ape? Just because some neo-Darwinist race theorist has classified you as one? You shouldn't believe everything some scientists tell you, or take their words literally, all the time.
"It is more than the skulls, it is the entire anatomy."
---------
There's no big difference between H. sapiens and erectus post-cranial anatomy. That's why Thorne and Wolpoff lump the two 'species' together and most evos call all fossil remains found in Europe Neanderthals now.
"YOu answer seems to be that you will call whatever a scientist classifies as Homo a human and everything else a mere ape."
------------------------------
You haven't been paying attention. Lubenow and I both draw the line at Homo habilis until someone is able to sort out the jumble of human and ape bones dumped there.
"YOu cannot even give factual reasons for why you draw the line there."
-----------------------
I just did.
"Is it Lubenow or you who is failing us in the factual arena at this time?"
-----------------------------
Neither. You seem to be failing to get your paleoanthropological facts straight though.
"Either you are parroting his conclusions and he did a very poor job, if any, of saying why this should be done. Or else he said and you cannot remember."
-------------
A very logical conclusion on your part based on your scientific observations here.
"If H. habilis is not areal taxon, as you claimed above, then how can H. floresiensis be H. habilis? YOu should really get your story straight."
--------
H. floresiensis is a yard tall Indonesian and H. habilis consists mainly of 3 foot dead Australopithicine African apes interspersed with the fossil remains of 3.5 foot African pygmies of some sort. (Lubenow)
"Nothing other than a rich fossil, molecular and genetic record."
-------------
That's rich!
"And which respected experts peer reviewed his book?"
--------
Four or five creationist experts.
[insert noise of crickets here] Chirp, chirp.
"When do you plan to share some of his well reasoned arguments to support your assertions?"
-------------------------------------------
What do you think I've been doing for the past two weeks?
[more crickets] More chirps.
"More importantly, when do you plan on sharing with us some of the references which he uses to substantiate his "well-documented and scientifically substantiated thesis?"
-----------------------------------
Want to borrow 20 bucks?
[even more crickets] The chirping is deafening.
"The 'experts' will easily recognize Lubenow's quotes of their 'expert' opinions about the human fossil record."
He can quote experts all he wants. None of it gives HIM the expertice to be a reference. You continue to commit the fallacy of the appeal to authority.
Now what you have been asked to do is to supply the quotes from the actual experts along with where there quotes can be found in context so that we can see some support for your assertions.
"Just goes to show that one should never rely on mere 'snippets' of information."
Snippets are all we get from you. Maybe at some point you will start providing more but it appears unlikely.
"I could easily give you chapter and page number, but if you don't have the book, what good would that do?"
It would do little good at all. Lub is not an expert so you cannot cite him.
But just as easily as you could give us the chapter and page number from his book, you good copy the full citation for whatever point he is making on that page. Lubenow is not an expert on this subject, so all I would be interested in doing is to go find the original reference and see if it truely represents the current scientific thinking and if it supports his assertions. His book does me no good. I want all those references you keep telling us about but cannot seem to share.
"No problem. Remain ignorant if you so choose."
YOu have given no indication that this is a problem I could cure with Lubenow's book. It seems, based on what little you reveal, that if I am ignorant of the subject that this fact would not change if I read the book.
"How would you know that I'm "parroting" anything Lubenow says if you haven't read the book?"
Well, everything you say you throw his name in there. Maybe you have another source that you have not told us about.
"Why do you believe you're an ape? Just because some neo-Darwinist race theorist has classified you as one? You shouldn't believe everything some scientists tell you, or take their words literally, all the time."
I am an ape because I have the physical attributes that are defined as making an organism an ape. Just like I fullfill the requirements of being a primate, a placental mammal and a eukaryote.
"There's no big difference between H. sapiens and erectus post-cranial anatomy."
How about I give you one. The post cranial bones of H. erectus are much more robust than those of modern humans.
How about another. In the cervical and thoracic vertebrae, the hole for the spinal cord is much smaller.
How about another. The neck of the head of the femor is long while in modern humans it is short. The head is intermediate between that of australopithecines and modern humans, however.
Want some more? That should suffice to refute your claim. I see why you have avoided specifics on the threads in which you participate.
"That's why Thorne and Wolpoff lump the two 'species' together..."
Either you or Lubenow, whoever came up with that logic, is showing that they either do not understand the literature or that they cannot honesty report what it says. Perhaps some quotes from Wolpoff on the subject are in order.
Wolpoff goes on to say that H. erectus "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens."
So now we see why you are loath to give us the actual citations. They do not agree with what you are trying to tell us they say. Wolpoff is not saying that erectus should not be classified as a different species because it and modern humans are the same post cranially. He is saying that as you go through the fossils that we have, there is no clearly defined point where erectus stops and sapiens begins. The fossil record is too complete. Since we have an example of one slowing chaninging into another and since there is no branching across the transistion, he says that according to procedure, they should not be given different species names. He does, however, acknowledge clear differences between the two.
Your assertion is false.
"...and most evos call all fossil remains found in Europe Neanderthals now."
Cromagnon is found in Europe and is considered modern human.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus was found in Spain and is not Neanderthal.
Your assertion is false.
"You haven't been paying attention. Lubenow and I both draw the line at Homo habilis until someone is able to sort out the jumble of human and ape bones dumped there."
You assert there is a jumble but you have yet to support that assertion. I showed in my last post how the assertion is likely based on either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what science has had to say on the matter.
"H. floresiensis is a yard tall Indonesian and H. habilis consists mainly of 3 foot dead Australopithicine African apes interspersed with the fossil remains of 3.5 foot African pygmies of some sort. (Lubenow)"
Both show clear differences both in the skulls and in general morphology from modern humans including pygmies.
"Nothing other than a rich fossil, molecular and genetic record."
"That's rich!"
Well, you seem anable to derail the physical stuff on this thread.
And on this thread
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000000
all you could do was follow your general MO of making silly statements that failed to even begin to address the data being presented when the subject was genetics.
"And which respected experts peer reviewed his book?"
"Four or five creationist experts."
OK.
Now what are the publications of these experts that make them qualified to judge his work? Show us that they are recognized experts in the field.
"When do you plan to share some of his well reasoned arguments to support your assertions?"
"What do you think I've been doing for the past two weeks?"
Avoiding questions it seems.
"Want to borrow 20 bucks?"
Nope, I want you to start supplying logic and references.
But I think we have seen in this post why you do not share such information. When you do, it turns out that the opinion of the references is being misrepresented.
He can quote experts all he wants. None of it gives HIM the expertice to be a reference. You continue to commit the fallacy of the appeal to authority.
Now what you have been asked to do is to supply the quotes from the actual experts along with where there quotes can be found in context so that we can see some support for your assertions.
"Just goes to show that one should never rely on mere 'snippets' of information."
Snippets are all we get from you. Maybe at some point you will start providing more but it appears unlikely.
"I could easily give you chapter and page number, but if you don't have the book, what good would that do?"
It would do little good at all. Lub is not an expert so you cannot cite him.
But just as easily as you could give us the chapter and page number from his book, you good copy the full citation for whatever point he is making on that page. Lubenow is not an expert on this subject, so all I would be interested in doing is to go find the original reference and see if it truely represents the current scientific thinking and if it supports his assertions. His book does me no good. I want all those references you keep telling us about but cannot seem to share.
"No problem. Remain ignorant if you so choose."
YOu have given no indication that this is a problem I could cure with Lubenow's book. It seems, based on what little you reveal, that if I am ignorant of the subject that this fact would not change if I read the book.
"How would you know that I'm "parroting" anything Lubenow says if you haven't read the book?"
Well, everything you say you throw his name in there. Maybe you have another source that you have not told us about.
"Why do you believe you're an ape? Just because some neo-Darwinist race theorist has classified you as one? You shouldn't believe everything some scientists tell you, or take their words literally, all the time."
I am an ape because I have the physical attributes that are defined as making an organism an ape. Just like I fullfill the requirements of being a primate, a placental mammal and a eukaryote.
"There's no big difference between H. sapiens and erectus post-cranial anatomy."
How about I give you one. The post cranial bones of H. erectus are much more robust than those of modern humans.
How about another. In the cervical and thoracic vertebrae, the hole for the spinal cord is much smaller.
How about another. The neck of the head of the femor is long while in modern humans it is short. The head is intermediate between that of australopithecines and modern humans, however.
Want some more? That should suffice to refute your claim. I see why you have avoided specifics on the threads in which you participate.
"That's why Thorne and Wolpoff lump the two 'species' together..."
Either you or Lubenow, whoever came up with that logic, is showing that they either do not understand the literature or that they cannot honesty report what it says. Perhaps some quotes from Wolpoff on the subject are in order.
Wolpoff M.H., Wu X.Z., and Thorne A.G. (1984): Modern Homo sapiens origins: a general theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil evidence from east Asia. In F.H. Smith & F. Spencer (Eds.), The origins of modern humans. (pp. 465-7). New York: Alan R. Liss.We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. ... From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics.
Wolpoff goes on to say that H. erectus "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens."
So now we see why you are loath to give us the actual citations. They do not agree with what you are trying to tell us they say. Wolpoff is not saying that erectus should not be classified as a different species because it and modern humans are the same post cranially. He is saying that as you go through the fossils that we have, there is no clearly defined point where erectus stops and sapiens begins. The fossil record is too complete. Since we have an example of one slowing chaninging into another and since there is no branching across the transistion, he says that according to procedure, they should not be given different species names. He does, however, acknowledge clear differences between the two.
Your assertion is false.
"...and most evos call all fossil remains found in Europe Neanderthals now."
Cromagnon is found in Europe and is considered modern human.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus was found in Spain and is not Neanderthal.
Your assertion is false.
"You haven't been paying attention. Lubenow and I both draw the line at Homo habilis until someone is able to sort out the jumble of human and ape bones dumped there."
You assert there is a jumble but you have yet to support that assertion. I showed in my last post how the assertion is likely based on either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what science has had to say on the matter.
"H. floresiensis is a yard tall Indonesian and H. habilis consists mainly of 3 foot dead Australopithicine African apes interspersed with the fossil remains of 3.5 foot African pygmies of some sort. (Lubenow)"
Both show clear differences both in the skulls and in general morphology from modern humans including pygmies.
"Nothing other than a rich fossil, molecular and genetic record."
"That's rich!"
Well, you seem anable to derail the physical stuff on this thread.
And on this thread
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000000
all you could do was follow your general MO of making silly statements that failed to even begin to address the data being presented when the subject was genetics.
"And which respected experts peer reviewed his book?"
"Four or five creationist experts."
OK.
Now what are the publications of these experts that make them qualified to judge his work? Show us that they are recognized experts in the field.
"When do you plan to share some of his well reasoned arguments to support your assertions?"
"What do you think I've been doing for the past two weeks?"
Avoiding questions it seems.
"Want to borrow 20 bucks?"
Nope, I want you to start supplying logic and references.
But I think we have seen in this post why you do not share such information. When you do, it turns out that the opinion of the references is being misrepresented.
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[You continue to commit the fallacy of the appeal to authority.]
You continue to support racial theories of human evolution in Africa.
[Lub is not an expert so you cannot cite him.]
Why do you ask me to cite him then?
[I am an ape because I have the physical attributes that are defined as making an organism an ape.]
I have the physical attributes that are defined as making one a member of the human race. I don't see why you don't qualify even though you do think you're an ape.
[The post cranial bones of H. erectus are much more robust than those of modern humans.]
That's only a racial distinction.
[In the cervical and thoracic vertebrae, the hole for the spinal cord is much smaller.]
Another racial distinction.
[The neck of the head of the femor is long while in modern humans it is short. The head is intermediate between that of australopithecines and modern humans, however.]
Your'e still trying to racially classify humans as apes.
[Wolpoff goes on to say that H. erectus "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens."]
Morphological variety within the human race is no reason to racially classify individual fossil members of the former human race as 'different and separate species.'
[Wolpoff is not saying that erectus should not be classified as a different species because it and modern humans are the same post cranially. He is saying that as you go through the fossils that we have, there is no clearly defined point where erectus stops and sapiens begins.]
Since there is "no clearly defined point where erectus stops and sapiens begins,' why divide their fossil remains up into either different and separate races or 'species' then, if not only to satisfy neo-Darwinist racial theories of African people originating from non-human ape-like ancestors?
[Since we have an example of one slowing chaninging into another and since there is no branching across the transistion, he says that according to procedure, they should not be given different species names. He does, however, acknowledge clear differences between the two.]
There are clear differences between you and I. Does that justify or entitle neo-Darwinst race theorists classifying us as members of different races or 'species?'
[Pierolapithecus catalaunicus was found in Spain and is not Neanderthal.]
What sub-race or 'species' of the past human race do you consider Pierolapithecus catalaunicus to be?
"You continue to support racial theories of human evolution in Africa."
Oh joy! You let a vague reference or two slip out in your last post at which time they were exposed as not supporting your assertions as you claim. YOu have thus wisely returned to your silly, unsupportable assertions. Not exactly convincing, but it does appear that your best strategy is to avoid facts and and references that can be looked up. You are too easily exposed if you commit to anything.
"Why do you ask me to cite him then?"
You need to pay closer attention. What I have been asking you to do is to take the well reasoned and scientifically substantiated logic of Lub and to share with us some of the logic that supports your assertions including the references from the scientific literature that go along with it. I want Lub's logic and the supporting scientific citations. You cannot cite Lub, he is not an expert.
"I have the physical attributes that are defined as making one a member of the human race. I don't see why you don't qualify even though you do think you're an ape."
Perhaps you should read up on some basic tenets of how things are classified. I, too, am human. I am Homo sapien. This does npt preclude me from also being a member of higher taxonomic groups. Four instance, my species is warm blooded, has hair, has a four chambered heart, gives birth to live young and feeds its young through lactal nipples. This makes me placental mammal. These classifications are not mutually exclusive. I am human and as human I am also an ape and a primate.
"That's only a racial distinction."
You claimed that there were no post-cranial differences. I gave you some differences. You now claim that if there are differences, that they are just racial variations. Please get your story straight. If you are going to stick with the racial bit, then tell us why the differences which I cited are not seen in the racial variation of today. On what basis do you claim it as racial variation when such differences are not observed between the races?
"Morphological variety within the human race is no reason to racially classify individual fossil members of the former human race as 'different and separate species.'"
It would be interesting to see when you think differences in physical traits are enough to classify two fossils as different species. You have shwon on this thread that you are willing to make that distinction, even between two sets of fossils that are so similar that there is debate as to where each should be classified.
"Since there is "no clearly defined point where erectus stops and sapiens begins,' why divide their fossil remains up into either different and separate races or 'species' then, if not only to satisfy neo-Darwinist racial theories of African people originating from non-human ape-like ancestors?"
My, my. We get a record of evolution so complete that we can't tell where to draw the line between how we catagorize the endpoints and you still find something with which to complain. But between the two endpoints there is enough difference in both morphology and behavior to know that only one end is a truely modern human.
"There are clear differences between you and I. Does that justify or entitle neo-Darwinst race theorists classifying us as members of different races or 'species?'"
Would you like to take a wild guess at potential differences between you and I that some might justify as classifying us as different species? I bet there are no such differences.
"What sub-race or 'species' of the past human race do you consider Pierolapithecus catalaunicus to be?"
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.
I suppose that we will never get you to debate with facts and references. Of course, it is hard to find YEers that will do so. Usually if they try, their "facts" will desert them.
Oh joy! You let a vague reference or two slip out in your last post at which time they were exposed as not supporting your assertions as you claim. YOu have thus wisely returned to your silly, unsupportable assertions. Not exactly convincing, but it does appear that your best strategy is to avoid facts and and references that can be looked up. You are too easily exposed if you commit to anything.
"Why do you ask me to cite him then?"
You need to pay closer attention. What I have been asking you to do is to take the well reasoned and scientifically substantiated logic of Lub and to share with us some of the logic that supports your assertions including the references from the scientific literature that go along with it. I want Lub's logic and the supporting scientific citations. You cannot cite Lub, he is not an expert.
"I have the physical attributes that are defined as making one a member of the human race. I don't see why you don't qualify even though you do think you're an ape."
Perhaps you should read up on some basic tenets of how things are classified. I, too, am human. I am Homo sapien. This does npt preclude me from also being a member of higher taxonomic groups. Four instance, my species is warm blooded, has hair, has a four chambered heart, gives birth to live young and feeds its young through lactal nipples. This makes me placental mammal. These classifications are not mutually exclusive. I am human and as human I am also an ape and a primate.
"That's only a racial distinction."
You claimed that there were no post-cranial differences. I gave you some differences. You now claim that if there are differences, that they are just racial variations. Please get your story straight. If you are going to stick with the racial bit, then tell us why the differences which I cited are not seen in the racial variation of today. On what basis do you claim it as racial variation when such differences are not observed between the races?
"Morphological variety within the human race is no reason to racially classify individual fossil members of the former human race as 'different and separate species.'"
It would be interesting to see when you think differences in physical traits are enough to classify two fossils as different species. You have shwon on this thread that you are willing to make that distinction, even between two sets of fossils that are so similar that there is debate as to where each should be classified.
"Since there is "no clearly defined point where erectus stops and sapiens begins,' why divide their fossil remains up into either different and separate races or 'species' then, if not only to satisfy neo-Darwinist racial theories of African people originating from non-human ape-like ancestors?"
My, my. We get a record of evolution so complete that we can't tell where to draw the line between how we catagorize the endpoints and you still find something with which to complain. But between the two endpoints there is enough difference in both morphology and behavior to know that only one end is a truely modern human.
"There are clear differences between you and I. Does that justify or entitle neo-Darwinst race theorists classifying us as members of different races or 'species?'"
Would you like to take a wild guess at potential differences between you and I that some might justify as classifying us as different species? I bet there are no such differences.
"What sub-race or 'species' of the past human race do you consider Pierolapithecus catalaunicus to be?"
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.
I suppose that we will never get you to debate with facts and references. Of course, it is hard to find YEers that will do so. Usually if they try, their "facts" will desert them.