Racism in our Ancestral Trees

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

[I want Lub's logic and the supporting scientific citations.]

You really ought to buy his book then.

[I, too, am human. I am Homo sapien. This does npt preclude me from also being a member of higher taxonomic groups.]

Higher 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.]

What makes you think you're a 'species?' You said you were human.

[I am human and as human I am also an ape and a primate.]

How did you get to be an ape if you are human? did some neo-Darwinist race theorist put you on the same tree with a family of great apes?

[You claimed that there were no post-cranial differences.]

I said that their wasn't much difference.

[You now claim that if there are differences, that they are just racial variations. 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.]

Racial variety in the present human race is obviously different from the racial variety in the past human race.

[On what basis do you claim it as racial variation when such differences are not observed between the races?]

Since racial variety is all that is evident in the human race today, with no speciation occuring for thousands of years, it is safe to assume that this same human race only witnessed racial variety in the past with no speciation occurring.

[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.]

Human fossils may be classified as racial varients of the past human race but since human fossils themselves offer no evidence for or against interfertility, none can be classified as separate 'species.' Not scientifically, at least.

[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.]

That's why grading human fossils of the past human race in an evolutionist continuum from "truely modern human" back to African apehood, is truly a scientific form of ancestor racism. As Jared Diamond says; "Neandertals were human, but not fully human." Lubenow points out that Jared Diamond wouldn't say that about the human ancestors of Tasmanians, since he would classify them as modern Homo sapiens.

[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.]

I agree, yet you would call yourself an ape that goes along with neo-Darwinst theorists who consider our Neandertal ancestors less than human.

[Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.]

How can Pierolapithecus catalaunicus be a sub-race or 'species' of the past human race if its genus tells us it's an ape? Do you know that some old Homo sapiens fossils have been discovered in Spain recently? They were buried in a cave along with other Homo erectus and Neanderthal specimens about 400,000 y.a.

[I suppose that we will never get you to debate with facts and references.]

I debate with facts and references all the time. You just refuse to acknowledge them.

[Of course, it is hard to find YEers that will do so. Usually if they try, their "facts" will desert them.]

Now, now. don't let neo-Darwinist race theories color your attitude towards other people of faith.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Did NEANDERTALS indeed make a flute? Apparantly all the evidence they did so is based on a single bone. Here, the idea that the bone was really a flute is disputed. (Scroll down the page to find the story about the flute bone).

http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/1998summer/stories/horizons.html

Here's an article actually written by Lubenow:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html

So it isn't necessary to buy his book. His own words can be evaluated!

On the differences between Neandertal and Homo Sapien DNA: See the following article: http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html

In this article, written in 1997 by Mark Rose, the analysis of Neandertal DNA is discussed. He states that the genetic clock idea suggests that the last common ancestor of Neandertals and Homo Sapiens was 550,000 to 600000 years ago. He further suggests that if Neandertals were capable of interbreeding with Homo Sapiens, then the presence of the most recent Neandertal population in Europe would force the humans of the european ancestral stock to have DNA that varies in a direction to make it closer to the Neandertal DNA than the rest of the Homo-Sapien population. Actually, however, the Neandertal DNA is found to be equi-distant in "time" or "variation of the genome" from all the ethinic backgrounds of mankind. The conclusion is that Neandertals did NOT breed with modern humans.
But check out the article for yourself.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Here's an article actually written by Lubenow:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html

So it isn't necessary to buy his book. His own words can be evaluated!

The 2004 edition of his book lists and scientifically references 371 human fossils which Lubenow presents as evidence for the falsification of neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's evolution out of Africa. It also contains his new thesis that such theories have been inherently racist in the past and are instrinsically racist today.

On the differences between Neandertal and Homo Sapien DNA: See the following article: http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html

In this article, written in 1997 by Mark Rose, the analysis of Neandertal DNA is discussed. He states that the genetic clock idea suggests that the last common ancestor of Neandertals and Homo Sapiens was 550,000 to 600000 years ago.

In the 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," Lubenow points out how molecular or mitochondrial "clock ideas" are based on pre-conceived premises of human descent from modern chimpanzees as originally expounded upon by Vincent Sarich in the 1970's.

He further suggests that if Neandertals were capable of interbreeding with Homo Sapiens, then the presence of the most recent Neandertal population in Europe would force the humans of the european ancestral stock to have DNA that varies in a direction to make it closer to the Neandertal DNA than the rest of the Homo-Sapien population. Actually, however, the Neandertal DNA is found to be equi-distant in "time" or "variation of the genome" from all the ethinic backgrounds of mankind. The conclusion is that Neandertals did NOT breed with modern humans.

Lubenow documents and demonstrates how such DNA findings and "conclusions" are nothing but rigged and flawed "test-tube computer evidence" in support of neo-Darwinist racial theories which seek to 'prove' that all members of the human race are descended from common ancestors of African apes.

It seems that neo-Darwinist race theorists will even stoop to such racial tactics as branding the local human ancestors of Asian and European people as 'extinct species' who left neither progeny nor any other contribution to the ongoing history of the human race, which presently consists of Homo sapiens only! European Neanderthals and Asian or African erectus types need not apply! Disgusting.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
It seems that neo-Darwinist race theorists will even stoop to such racial tactics as branding the local human ancestors of Asian and European people as 'extinct species' who left neither progeny nor any other contribution to the ongoing history of the human race, which presently consists of Homo sapiens only!

So the ancestors of present-day Asians and Europeans didn't leave any progeny. And yet, they're still the ancestors of Asian and European people!

Anyone here have ancestors who don't have any surviving descendents?

What a classic example of jcrawford trying to have his cake and eat it too. He tries to tie the extinct species to ethnic groups living today (such as Asians and Europeans) so he can make his claims about racism, but he also acknowledges that these species dead-ended without leaving ancestors.

At least this thread is entertaining.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Mercury:
So the ancestors of present-day Asians and Europeans didn't leave any progeny. And yet, they're still the ancestors of Asian and European people!

According to neo-Darwinist race theorists, early Homo sapiens people and tribes in Asia and archaic Homo sapiens people and tribes in Europe became extinct after being replaced by more modern Homo sapiens people and tribes who emigrated from Africa.

Anyone here have ancestors who don't have any surviving descendents?

According to neo-Darwinist race theorists, yes, since they say that early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe were not the ancestors of modern Asians and Europeans.

What a classic example of jcrawford trying to have his cake and eat it too. He tries to tie the extinct species to ethnic groups living today (such as Asians and Europeans) so he can make his claims about racism, but he also acknowledges that these species dead-ended without leaving ancestors.

I acknowledge that neo-Darwinist race theorists deny modern Asian and European biological descent from early and archaic Homo sapiens members of the human race in both Asia and Europe.

At least this thread is entertaining.

At least you find it so.