Unfortunately though, when applied to human beings and our human ancestors, evolutionist theories of multiple human 'specie's become unwittingly, inherently and inexorably racist by denying human origins and descent from any other geographic location or people than in Africa. The African Eve Model is especially racist because it presumes (without acceptable evidence) that modern Asians, Europeans and others could not possibly have evolved from early or archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe because more 'highly advanced and evolved' Homo sapiens (read genetic superiority here) like African Eve's tribe migrated out of Africa causing all other 'sub-species' of human beings all over the world to become extinct. If that isn't a scientific scenario for racial conquest of the world by neo-Dawinist ape-lovers, I can't think of a more racist script. </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, you do not have to like the diagnosis. You may think that there are racial implications. You may find it disconcerting. But the simple truth is that evolution is the only diagnosis that fits all the symptoms we see in life. From similarities between the species to their nested heirarchies to their biogeography to their genetics to their fossil history. No other idea or theory can explain what we observe. So it does not matter if you dislike the diagnosis. It does not matter if you find it racist. It is the only answer that fits the evidence. Sorry.
-
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.
Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism.
- Thread starter jcrawford
- Start date
It may not matter to you what I think or what I like but the fact remains that the African Eve Model of Homo sapiens migration out of Africa into Asia and Europe is a racist theory because there is no evidence of Asian and European Homo sapiens racial groups evolving out of some racial group in Africa except for the racial tests which the Berkely chemists did on 136 women of various racial backgrounds.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
As I said, you do not have to like the diagnosis. You may think that there are racial implications. You may find it disconcerting. But the simple truth is that evolution is the only diagnosis that fits all the symptoms we see in life. From similarities between the species to their nested heirarchies to their biogeography to their genetics to their fossil history. No other idea or theory can explain what we observe. So it does not matter if you dislike the diagnosis. It does not matter if you find it racist. It is the only answer that fits the evidence. Sorry.
I am not saying that it does not matter to me what you think.
Let's try this again.
After a few hundred posts from you repeating the same thing over and over, we all understand that you and your little friend Lub think that evolution is a racist theory. We get it. Move on. But the point is that there are no other theories out there that fully account for the vast set of observations on which evolution is based. So as long as you don't have a better theory with which to replace evolution, it is inconsequential that you are of the opinion that it is racist.
Let's try this again.
After a few hundred posts from you repeating the same thing over and over, we all understand that you and your little friend Lub think that evolution is a racist theory. We get it. Move on. But the point is that there are no other theories out there that fully account for the vast set of observations on which evolution is based. So as long as you don't have a better theory with which to replace evolution, it is inconsequential that you are of the opinion that it is racist.
It's not inconsequential at all that a racist theory of human evolution is being taught in U.S. public schools. Discrimination on the basis of national and ethnic origins is illegal.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I am not saying that it does not matter to me what you think.
Let's try this again.
After a few hundred posts from you repeating the same thing over and over, we all understand that you and your little friend Lub think that evolution is a racist theory. We get it. Move on. But the point is that there are no other theories out there that fully account for the vast set of observations on which evolution is based. So as long as you don't have a better theory with which to replace evolution, it is inconsequential that you are of the opinion that it is racist.
Any student of Asian, European or Middle-Eastern descent can sue their board of education for teaching neo-Darwinist racist theories about their 'African' origins and descent in biology class.
You know, I'm probably going to be sorry about this, but I have to ask how in the world is the idea that mankind originated in Africa racist?
You might as well say that young earth creationism is racist because man originated in the Middle East. You might as well say that it's racist to say that my ancestors came from Germany and Slovakia when that is the truth!
You might as well say that young earth creationism is racist because man originated in the Middle East. You might as well say that it's racist to say that my ancestors came from Germany and Slovakia when that is the truth!
Near as I can figure, jcrawford, while denying that there is such a thing as race, nevertheless associates one particular race with an entire continent. So, if you say his ancestors came from that continent you are saying that he is, at least partly, that race.Originally posted by Petrel:
You know, I'm probably going to be sorry about this, but I have to ask how in the world is the idea that mankind originated in Africa racist?
You might as well say that young earth creationism is racist because man originated in the Middle East. You might as well say that it's racist to say that my ancestors came from Germany and Slovakia when that is the truth!
That would make you the racist.
A better theory of human evolution would be that each group of indigenous people around the world originated and evolved from early Homo sapiens and erectus in their own native geographic area. That way, there would be no claim of genetic superiority on the part of the early ancestors of African people, and no ethnic group from Asia and Europe would be discriminated against by having their ancestors arbitrarily declared extinct by neo-Darwinist racists.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Who is being discriminated against? No one!
As long is there is no theory that better explains the data that we see, evolution is the only game in down. You can cry racist all you want. It is not presenting a better theory, it is only trying to distract from the truth.
Since the original creation of the Garden of Eden was washed away in the Flood, creationists don't say that humankind originated in the Middle East but that the current human race is descended from three families who disembarked from the Ark.Originally posted by Petrel:
You know, I'm probably going to be sorry about this, but I have to ask how in the world is the idea that mankind originated in Africa racist?
You might as well say that young earth creationism is racist because man originated in the Middle East. You might as well say that it's racist to say that my ancestors came from Germany and Slovakia when that is the truth!
It's no more racist to say that your ancestors came from Europe than it is for Asians and Africans to say that their ancestors came from their part of the world. What is racist though, are the neo-Darwinist theories of natural selection that modern Asians and Europeans descended from an African family whose tribe or ethnic group evolved from the ancestors of African apes.
Since there is no scientific or mutual agreement about the 'evidence' supporting such neo-Darwinist theories about the ethnic origins of different people around the world, the theories remain a scientific form of racism until proven otherwise.
Since I do recognize racial variation within both the present and past human race, I don't deny there is such a thing as race. Rather do I deny the right of neo-Darwinists to label any of our ethnic ancestors as different 'species,' without being considered practitioners of neo-Darwinist racism.Originally posted by Daisy:
Near as I can figure, jcrawford, while denying that there is such a thing as race, nevertheless associates one particular race with an entire continent. So, if you say his ancestors came from that continent you are saying that he is, at least partly, that race.
That would make you the racist. [/QB]
Also, rather than calling any posters on this forum racists, I only claim that Darwin and leading neo-Darwinist theorists of the last century were 'scientific' racists.
I don't think most followers of neo-Darwinism recognize the religiosity and racism inherent in Darwin's theory of human origins, evolution and descent from African ape ancestors. They need to read Lubenow's book in order to have their eyes opened to the truth.Originally posted by El_Guero:
I understand some of it.
I do not agree that all people that believe in the evolutionary monkey god believe that they are being racial in their theology.
However, some of the comments made about genetic material in Humans is scary.
Since the original creation of the Garden of Eden was washed away in the Flood, creationists don't say that humankind originated in the Middle East but that the current human race is descended from three families who disembarked from the Ark.Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Petrel:
You know, I'm probably going to be sorry about this, but I have to ask how in the world is the idea that mankind originated in Africa racist?
You might as well say that young earth creationism is racist because man originated in the Middle East. You might as well say that it's racist to say that my ancestors came from Germany and Slovakia when that is the truth!
It's no more racist to say that your ancestors came from Europe than it is for Asians and Africans to say that their ancestors came from their part of the world. What is racist though, are the neo-Darwinist theories of natural selection that modern Asians and Europeans descended from an African family whose tribe or ethnic group evolved from the ancestors of African apes.
Since there is no scientific or mutual agreement about the 'evidence' supporting such neo-Darwinist theories about the ethnic origins of different people around the world, the theories remain a scientific form of racism until proven otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]At this point, since you have a mantra that you can repeat regardless of its lack of a connection ot reality or relevance in the discussion, letting you know what science really says would do no good would it?
The genetic evidence shows that there has been ongoing gene flow both into and out of Africa since the days of H. erectus. Is that not what you were indicating above that you wish that they would say? Well they do. Just you and Lub have not been paying attention. Genetic markers make very good indicators to trace migrations and there has been repeated exchanges between Africa, Europe and Asia for quite a long time.
You might even be ineterested to know that in Volume 431 of Nature, last year, Rohde et al. show where it appears that the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today actually lived in Asia.
But somehow I doubt that any of that will cause you to abandon your mantra.
As far as I can tell, 'science' doesn't "say" anything. It's the 'scientists' who do all the talking about the results of the 'scientific' methodology which they are supposed to employ.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
At this point, since you have a mantra that you can repeat regardless of its lack of a connection ot reality or relevance in the discussion, letting you know what science really says would do no good would it?
"The Last Days of H. Erectus" sounds like a good title for a historical novel based on neo-Darwinst mythologies and genetic mantras, since genetic theories based on evolutionary racism are just as racist as neo-Darwinist interpretations of the fossil remains of our human ancestors are.The genetic evidence shows that there has been ongoing gene flow both into and out of Africa since the days of H. erectus.
Originally posted by jcrawford:
Since I do recognize racial variation within both the present and past human race, I don't deny there is such a thing as race.
You say there is only one human race and there are several races which are human....how is that not a contradiction of terms?
If all races are the same race, the human race, then there can only be one race, not many races. If one race is many races, then singular is plural - no, this "theory" of yours contradicts itself.
That's just it - the Neanderthals, whom you claim to be some "ethnic" race, are not our ancestors, any more than your cousin is your ancestor.Rather do I deny the right of neo-Darwinists to label any of our ethnic ancestors as different 'species,' without being considered practitioners of neo-Darwinist racism.
However, just as you and your cousin have common ancestors, so do Neanderthals and homo sapiens - and those ancestors have been traced to Africa. Therefore, even if you could've claimed Neanderthal descent, Africa would still figure into your heritage, but perhaps more distantly.
You are not claiming that evolutionary biologists of this century and those who accept their theories are 'scientific racists'?Also, rather than calling any posters on this forum racists, I only claim that Darwin and leading neo-Darwinist theorists of the last century were 'scientific' racists.
Actually, evolutionist theory doesn't preclude descent from other geographic locations, just that the further back in time you go, the closer to Africa. Evolutionists trace the Neanderthals' ancestors back to Africa as well so claiming descent from them is still descent from Africa.Originally posted by jcrawford:
Unfortunately though, when applied to human beings and our human ancestors, evolutionist theories of multiple human 'specie's become unwittingly, inherently and inexorably racist by denying human origins and descent from any other geographic location or people than in Africa.
Actually you are misunderstanding here - evolutionary biologists are not saying that moderm man could not possibly have evolved from others, they are simply saying the genetic evidence is that they did not. They do not all claim that the later African immigrants were superior or that they "caused" the others to go extinct - the cause is unknown (could've been inferior warfare, could've been luck, could've been the hand of God, dunno).The African Eve Model is especially racist because it presumes (without acceptable evidence) that modern Asians, Europeans and others could not possibly have evolved from early or archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe because more 'highly advanced and evolved' Homo sapiens (read genetic superiority here) like African Eve's tribe migrated out of Africa causing all other 'sub-species' of human beings all over the world to become extinct. If that isn't a scientific scenario for racial conquest of the world by neo-Dawinist ape-lovers, I can't think of a more racist script.
That is simply untrue. In one post alone (my 2nd to last on page one), I gave you six links to various studies. If you follow the footnotes on them, then the footnotes on those, you'll get a ton of studies which concur on that point and the point that Neanderthal DNA is not a paternal match (there are markers on the Y-chromosone) and the matches they find (and don't find) among modern men all over the world lead back to Africa.Originally posted by jcrawford:
It may not matter to you what I think or what I like but the fact remains that the African Eve Model of Homo sapiens migration out of Africa into Asia and Europe is a racist theory because there is no evidence of Asian and European Homo sapiens racial groups evolving out of some racial group in Africa except for the racial tests which the Berkely chemists did on 136 women of various racial backgrounds.
No, I don't. I say there is only one human race with racial variation within it just like there is only one human species with morphological variation within it. Therefore, any division of the one race and species of humanity into different races and species in accordance with evolutionist theory is inherently, implicitly, intrinsically and ultimately racist.Originally posted by Daisy:
You say there is only one human race and there are several races which are human....?
I don't claim that Neanderthals are some "ethnic" race. Lubenow and I claim that Neanderthals were just a morphological variety of our one human race and species, not a separate race or 'species.'- the Neanderthals, whom you claim to be some "ethnic" race, are not our ancestors, any more than your cousin is your ancestor.
That's only according to neo-Darwinist race theories since there is no paleoanthropological or genetic evidence of early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe sharing common ancestry with either African people or apes.However, just as you and your cousin have common ancestors, so do Neanderthals and homo sapiens - and those ancestors have been traced to Africa. Therefore, even if you could've claimed Neanderthal descent, Africa would still figure into your heritage, but perhaps more distantly.
There is no need to since Lubenow and I are content to call neo-Darwinists of the last century and all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa racist.You are not claiming that evolutionary biologists of this century and those who accept their theories are 'scientific racists'?
Since evolutionists have yet to demonstrate Neanderthal descent from African ancestors it is only a neo-Darwinist racial theory that claims European descent from African people or apes.Actually, evolutionist theory doesn't preclude descent from other geographic locations, just that the further back in time you go, the closer to Africa. Evolutionists trace the Neanderthals' ancestors back to Africa as well so claiming descent from them is still descent from Africa.
The genetic "evidence" for African ancestry hundreds of thousands of years ago, though, is premised on neo-Darwinist racial tests, theories and presumptions.Actually you are misunderstanding here - evolutionary biologists are not saying that moderm man could not possibly have evolved from others, they are simply saying the genetic evidence is that they did not.
Of course they don't overtly proclaim the superiority of early African Homo sapiens over early Asian and European people. The theory of 'natural selection,' though, is inherently discriminatory in deciding which population survives and which dies off based on whose genes are superior or inferior mutations. Reproductive survival of the fittest, remember? And elimination of those populations which fail to adapt or interbreed.They do not all claim that the later African immigrants were superior or that they "caused" the others to go extinct - the cause is unknown (could've been inferior warfare, could've been luck, could've been the hand of God, dunno).
When such evolutionary concepts are applied to human beings in history, the result is a scientific form of racial discrimination.
Yes, but those "studies" and "footnotes" are all based on 20th Century neo-Darwinism which Lubenow has demonstrated to be a racist form of theoretical science.In one post alone (my 2nd to last on page one), I gave you six links to various studies. If you follow the footnotes on them, then the footnotes on those, you'll get a ton of studies which concur on that point and the point that Neanderthal DNA is not a paternal match (there are markers on the Y-chromosone) and the matches they find (and don't find) among modern men all over the world lead back to Africa.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Hmmm . . . scientists noting that some species flourished while other went extinct is discrimination. Why not just consider it an objective recording of what happened?
Because arbitrarily labeling any of our human ancestors an extinct 'species' without testable and demonstrable fossil evidence of interfetility or not, is not an objective form of science. Rather is it a subjective form of scientific racism which neo-Darwinist theorists employ in order to conform the data to, and satisify, Darwin's original 'theory' of the origin of 'species.'Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Hmmm . . . scientists noting that some species flourished while other went extinct is discrimination. Why not just consider it an objective recording of what happened?
Since the 'evolution' of any species in the fossil record from another fossilized 'species' can never be scientifically repeated, tested or demonstrated, Darwin's 'theory' of human evolution in and out of Africa remains at best a racist theory if even a 'scientific' theory at all.
Why put the words "studies" and "footnotes" in quotes as though they do not exist? If you'd only click on the links, you could read the studies for your own self. There are sufficient citations in the footnotes to find the hardcopies if you have a problem with crediting information published on the internet.Originally posted by jcrawford:
Yes, but those "studies" and "footnotes" are all based on 20th Century neo-Darwinism which Lubenow has demonstrated to be a racist form of theoretical science.
The studies are based on evolutionary theory which shows that DNA is inherited and when there are mutations (new variations) in the DNA, these mutations may be passed to subsequent generations but are never passed to prior generations.
As you seem reluctant to click, here is the C&P first paragraph:
Summary
DNA was extracted from the Neandertal-type specimen found in 1856 in western Germany. By sequencing clones from short overlapping PCR products, a hitherto unknown mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequence was determined. Multiple controls indicate that this sequence is endogenous to the fossil. Sequence comparisons with human mtDNA sequences, as well as phylogenetic analyses, show that the Neandertal sequence falls outside the variation of modern humans. Furthermore, the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs is estimated to be four times greater than that of the common ancestor of human mtDNAs. This suggests that Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans.
Regardless of this 'suggestion' that "Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans," there is no mtDNA evidence that early/archaic Homo sapiens whose fossil remains go back .4 million years in Asia, Europe, and the Near and Middle East are not the real ancestors of modern Asians, Europeans and people of Near and Middle Eastern descent.Originally posted by Daisy:
This suggests that Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans.
Since these early/archaic Homo sapiens in Europe and the Near East are now classified as Neanderthals by the likes of Stringer and Klein, a few biased "studies" and "tests" on a few classic Neanderthal fossils only prove that all modern descendents of Homo sapiens ancestors in Asia, Africa and Europe are not accorded equal treatment by neo-Darwinist race theorists.