Scientific Racism and Supremacy.

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"Supernova 1978A was clearly over 100,000 light years away simply because of the spreading light echo from the supernova - you know its going to be a light year wide in a year from the time of the explosion, you see how big it looks, you can get the distance by trigonometry."

Those are just calculations based on conceptual and theoretical mathematical models of time and have nothing to do with the actual and recorded history of the human race. Human time is more than a mere mathematical calculation. It is also a highly subjective and ephemeral experience.
</font>[/QUOTE]You are aware, of course, people actually saw the thing go off? Do you have any reasonable reasons for denying the distance calculations and the speed of light calculations? Are you able to do the math?

You are aware of all these things, yet you disbelieve the evidence. The human mind is a strange thing.

Radioactive decay dating is like mtDNA dating. One has to pre-suppose the existential quality and nature of 'time' prior to one's calculations and recordings of it.

Uh huh. And the folks who devined the nature of atomic decay and its timing used the same information and the same suppositions about the existential quality of time to figure out that under certain circumstances a chain reaction could take place and, in mere theory of course, result in a substantial conversion of matter to energy but. . . . after listening to you, they must be all ivory head professors who know nothing of the real world, and we can just forget about worrying about the atomic bomb, right?

OK folks, there you have it. You want to deny the findings of science, you've got to play with time and space and distort them in strange and marvelous ways just to get away from the otherwise logical conclusions that the earth and universe have accumulated several billion years worth of events since they were created by God.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"All you've got against the known age of the earth and the universe is denial, denial, denial. Well, some of us don't believe we can afford to give in to that kind of psychological defense mecahnism."

Unfortunately, in that case, one may be unwittingly forced into supporting racial theories of human evolution out of Africa which according to Professor Lubenow, are totally racist. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm very sorry you don't like the way God made the species different, one from another. Such a shame all the animals aren't as smart as we are. Such a shame that some of them are closer to being smarter than we are compared to the others. How unfair of God to make things the way He did. Because, you know, your complaint is not against those who make it their life's work to find out what the evidence says God did, but God who did it that way.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"You are aware, of course, people actually saw the thing go off?"

According to their own "theories," the "thing" only went "off" so many "calculated" light years ago and didn't occur within known human history. Light years are different than earth years, you know, and one can't confuse earth time with space time and still maintain a human perspective on one's Christian sanity.

"Do you have any reasonable reasons for denying the distance calculations and the speed of light calculations? Are you able to do the math?"

The "math" is obviously more easy to follow for some people than God's Commandments.

"You are aware of all these things, yet you disbelieve the evidence. The human mind is a strange thing."

Wonderfully strange and completely rebellious.

"And the folks who devined the nature of atomic decay and its timing used the same information and the same suppositions about the existential quality of time to figure out that under certain circumstances a chain reaction could take place and, in mere theory of course, result in a substantial conversion of matter to energy but. . . . after listening to you, they must be all ivory head professors who know nothing of the real world, and we can just forget about worrying about the atomic bomb, right?"

Not at all. Don't fall into the common trap of associating and identifying theories of nuclear fusion with Einsteinian concepts of time and space. Greater scientific mortals than thou have trodden that path to Hell and have died to regret it.

"OK folks, there you have it. You want to deny the findings of science, you've got to play with time and space and distort them in strange and marvelous ways just to get away from the otherwise logical conclusions that the earth and universe have accumulated several billion years worth of events since they were created by God."

Who says that the earth and universe have accumulated several billion years worth of events since they were created by God? You? Are you going to present such "logical conclusions " to God (or Saint Peter) upon your application for entrance past the pearly gates of Heaven?

"I'm very sorry you don't like the way God made the species different, one from another. Such a shame all the animals aren't as smart as we are. Such a shame that some of them are closer to being smarter than we are compared to the others. How unfair of God to make things the way He did. Because, you know, your complaint is not against those who make it their life's work to find out what the evidence says God did, but God who did it that way."

Your complaint is not against me then, but against God, Himself.

C'est la vie et muerte.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
According to their own "theories," the "thing" only went "off" so many "calculated" light years ago and didn't occur within known human history. Light years are different than earth years, you know, and one can't confuse earth time with space time and still maintain a human perspective on one's Christian sanity.

Hmmmph. These "theories" which you so cavalarily dismiss are elementary survey techniques. Spectrums of atoms are the same over there as they are around here. Atomic reactions are the same as they are around here. Gravitational orbits are the same over there as they are around here. Just what evidence do you cite to say things are different over there?

"Do you have any reasonable reasons for denying the distance calculations and the speed of light calculations? Are you able to do the math?"
The "math" is obviously more easy to follow for some people than God's Commandments.

Is this a confession? I will remember you in my prayers.



"You are aware of all these things, yet you disbelieve the evidence. The human mind is a strange thing."

Not at all. Don't fall into the common trap of associating and identifying theories of nuclear fusion with Einsteinian concepts of time and space. Greater scientific mortals than thou have trodden that path to Hell and have died to regret it.

Einstein derived the famous equation of e=mc^2 directly from his special theory of relativity, considering how the energy of motion was transformed into increased mass as a moving mass approaches the speed of light - and the theory translates directly to the atomic world where particles loose mass and convert the lost mass into energy precisely according to the same theory. Yes, they all work together. And what finding these things out has to do with going to hell I cannot fathom. It would appear to me you are reaching for emotional arguments instead of rational arguments, due to lack of the rational kind.

Who says that the earth and universe have accumulated several billion years worth of events since they were created by God? You? Are you going to present such "logical conclusions " to God (or Saint Peter) upon your application for entrance past the pearly gates of Heaven?

Alas, I was not the one to discover these things, they have been common knowledge since before I was born, and my application to the pearly gates is going to be made not on the basis of any earthly knowledge or any goodness or wisdom or anything but a call for mercy and forgiveness according to the promise He gave me in His word that I can have those things through Christ.

Your complaint is not against me then, but against God, Himself.

I have no quarrel with God, I thank Him daily for my life and the wonders of His creation that I have been able to dimly apprehend.

 

[jcrawford]

Getting back on track, isn't it even a little racist when evolutionists theorize that the first truly human women on earth (Homo sapiens, African Eve) were originally formed in Africa by genetically mutating African apes over one hundred thousand years ago?

Why can't or don't geneticists trace the ancestry of any female members of the human race back to Asian Eve, European Eve, Middle Eastern Eve, European Eve or American Eve?

Is it because evolutionist theory of the "origin of species" needs to geographically locate and racially associate the first fully formed women, with more ape-like "species" in Africa in order to further demonstrate their fossil and genetic descent from four-footed non-human primates?

If that's not a racial or racist theory, I don't know of a more scientific one.

 

[UTEOTW]

If you would investigate more closely I think you would find that the same kinds of techniques HAVE been used to trace the ancestry of different peoples. It just so happens that all of the groups can be further traced back to mitochondrial Eve. Its not racist, its just genetics and math.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
It just so happens that all of the groups can be further traced back to mitochondrial Eve. Its not racist, its just genetics and math. [/QB]

It's both racist and sexist genetics and math which account for geneticists telling all members of the human race that the first fully formed human beings on earth appeared in Africa in the form of a woman whom theoretical evolutionists claim was a genetic descendant of mutant African apes.

African Eve theorists use biblical Eve in their devious attempts to model human origins on because all descendants of Adam and Eve are entirely human. The problem with African Eve is that African Adam (or Adams) can neither be scientifically identified nor classified as equal members of the current human race or even as a "species," since according to evolutionst theory, there is always some possibility of different human "species" successfully interbreeding.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

LOL! Now, just because women happen to pass down a mitochrondia gene that never gets exchanged in the sexual mixing like most genes do and that makes tracking the genes more reliable, you accuse scientists of being sexists to study that gene! OK folks, I expect some more of you that might have been taking him seriously to drop out from his bandwagon now.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
LOL! Now, just because women happen to pass down a mitochrondia gene that never gets exchanged in the sexual mixing like most genes do and that makes tracking the genes more reliable, you accuse scientists of being sexists to study that gene!

Scientists aren't sexist because they study Y chromosomes and X chromosomes, but evolutionary geneticists are being both sexist and racist when they leave out African Adam in their desperate attempt to associate all modern women with African Eve's sub-human and ape-like African ancestors instead of the real Adam and Eve.

Since evo geneticists can't even determine whether all of African Eve's daughters were procreated by the same "Homo sapiens" father, there is no scientific evidence or reason to believe that one of these Adamic fathers of the present human race wasn't Homo ergaster.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

(groan) scientists leave out "african adam" precisely because they were studying the mitochondrial inheritance patterns, and for no other reason. There are seperate studies involving the male y gene and its unique male to male inheritance patterns as well, and in these studies, strangely, the females are ignored. Go figure.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
(groan) scientists leave out "african adam" precisely because they were studying the mitochondrial inheritance patterns, and for no other reason. There are seperate studies involving the male y gene and its unique male to male inheritance patterns as well, and in these studies, strangely, the females are ignored. Go figure.

The crux of the matter is that evolutionary geneticists model African Eve after Adam and Eve just to claim that all living people are descended from one woman of the original human race in order to avoid charges of racism in the Mulitiregional Continuity model. They need to show an evolutionary disconnect between Neandertals and today's Europeans, and to connect everyone's ancestry with an African woman whose tribe evolved from a former species in order to prove the ancestry of the human race from a non-human species of African primates.

The theory is still racist and sexist even if the theorists believe they have "genetic" evidence to prove or support it.

 

[The Galatian]

The crux of the matter is that evolutionary geneticists model African Eve after Adam and Eve

Someone's had a little sport with your gullibility. They all emphasize that "mitochondrial eve" is not the first woman. She would merely be our last common female ancestor. You're a sucker only as long as you trust those guys.

just to claim that all living people are descended from one woman of the original human race in order to avoid charges of racism in the Mulitiregional Continuity model.

Maybe you should tell us what they told you that was about, just to make sure they didn't lie to you about that, too.

They need to show an evolutionary disconnect between Neandertals and today's Europeans,

Don't see why. Many scientists thought that Neandertals were just a variety of H. sapiens, until DNA tests showed that they were too different to be the same species.

and to connect everyone's ancestry with an African woman whose tribe evolved from a former species in order to prove the ancestry of the human race from a non-human species of African primates.

Ahh... that's what this is about. It does not mean that our common ancestor looked like anatomically modern Africans. They are no closer to her than we are. Relax.

The theory is still racist and sexist even if the theorists believe they have "genetic" evidence to prove or support it.

I don't see any way it could be. And yes, evidence is what determines truth in science. And evidence is not obligated to meet anyone's expectations.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"They all emphasize that "mitochondrial eve" is not the first woman."

They also conveniently de-emphasize the neo-Darwinist theory that the first women to evolve from a species of African apes were Africans!

"She would merely be our last common female ancestor."

How else could neo-Darwinist theorists associate and connect non-Africans with African women who descended from apes?

"Maybe you should tell us what they told you that was about, just to make sure they didn't lie to you about that, too."

A paraphrase of my understanding of Lubenow’s main thesis may be summarized as follows:

Even with scientific evidence to support it, any neo-Darwinist theory of human origins, evolution and common descent is racist because it associates, discriminates, and is prejudiced against members of the human race and their human ancestors (fossils or not) by grading, categorizing and classifying them as different and separate species of African Apes in the Hominidae family. It also theoretically associates and identifies (as a species) the original African people as the only humans to have directly evolved from a species of non-human African apes.

"Many scientists thought that Neandertals were just a variety of H. sapiens, until DNA tests showed that they were too different to be the same species."

Such DNA tests only prove that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, human evolution and common descent from apes, are racist, since evolutionists can't scientifically differentiate or distinguish between ancestral members of the human race and other primate species. Neo-Darwinists only classify the fossil remains of our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' in order to justify their attempt to prove their Darwinist theories of the origin of species. Since all human beings (dead or alive) constitute the one and only human race, dividing the fossil remains of our ancestors up into different and separate "species" is a form of scientific racism.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian explains to Karl:
"They all emphasize that "mitochondrial eve" is not the first woman."

They also conveniently de-emphasize the neo-Darwinist theory that the first women to evolve from a species of African apes were Africans!

You still don't get it. Mitochondrial Eve wouldn't be the first woman, or even close to the first woman. And you need to relax about Africans. The Africans at that time were no closer to modern Africans than they are to us.

Barbarian points out:
She would merely be our last common female ancestor.

How else could neo-Darwinist theorists associate and connect non-Africans with African women who descended from apes?

I think we're dealing with something more difficult than a misunderstanding here...

Barbarian, regarding MRC:
Maybe you should tell us what they told you that was about, just to make sure they didn't lie to you about that, too."

A paraphrase of my understanding of Lubenow’s main thesis may be summarized as follows:

Even with scientific evidence to support it, any neo-Darwinist theory of human origins, evolution and common descent is racist because it associates, discriminates, and is prejudiced against members of the human race and their human ancestors (fossils or not) by grading, categorizing and classifying them as different and separate species of African Apes in the Hominidae family.

In one sense, all humans are apes. In another, all members of Homo are humans. Hence, you've got the wrong idea if you think scientists see any member of Homo as an ape.

It also theoretically associates and identifies (as a species) the original African people as the only humans to have directly evolved from a species of non-human African apes.

You've got it backwards. That's the "Out of Africa" theory. The Mulitiregional Continuity theory says that primitive hominins (not apes) migrated out of Africa and evolved into modern humans in several different places, with a constant, if small gene flow between each population.

Barbarian notes that Karl is wrong about scientists and Neandertals, too:
Many scientists thought that Neandertals were just a variety of H. sapiens, until DNA tests showed that they were too different to be the same species.

Such DNA tests only prove that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, human evolution and common descent from apes, are racist, since evolutionists can't scientifically differentiate or distinguish between ancestral members of the human race and other primate species.

You've been had about that, too. There are many ways to do that. But the point is, scientists had exactly the opposite opinion of the one you attributed to them, until new evidence made them change their minds.

Neo-Darwinists only classify the fossil remains of our human ancestors as different and separate 'species' in order to justify their attempt to prove their Darwinist theories of the origin of species.

And a few years ago, they considered Neandertals to be of our same species, they did so because...?

Since all human beings (dead or alive) constitute the one and only human race, dividing the fossil remains of our ancestors up into different and separate "species" is a form of scientific racism.

As you might know, humans comprised several species at one time, and we now know that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals, although perhaps the most closely related two species among humans, are quite different genetically, much more than any two humans alive today. Here's a site to learn about it:
http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html

"While Neandertals inhabited the same geographic region as contemporary Europeans, the observed differences between the Neandertal sequence and modern Europeans do not indicate a closer relationship to modern Europeans than to other contemporary human populations," says Stoneking.

This is very good evidence that the two populations did not interbreed, the key to classifying sexually-reproducing organisms as different species.

"The researchers used phylogenetic tree reconstruction -- a method that uses mitochondrial DNA to place individual groups in relative relationship -- to check the results of their pair-wise DNA comparisons. The trees show that the Neandertal sequence branches before the divergence of the various human mitochondrial DNA lineages, but after the split from chimpanzees."

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Mitochondrial Eve wouldn't be the first woman, or even close to the first woman."

Who was the first woman then, if not Adam's Eve? Don't tell me you subscribe to the neo-Darwinist racist theory that the first African woman was a highly evolved descendent of apes!

"The Africans at that time were no closer to modern Africans than they are to us."

That's only according to racist theories of human evolution which claim that African people "at that time" were evolving from the more ape-like Homo erectus species in Africa.

"In one sense, all humans are apes."

Only in a racist sense.

"In another, all members of Homo are humans."

If all members of Homo are humans, (full and equal members of the whole interfertile human race) why do racist neo-Darwinists classify Neandertals and Homo erectus as a different and separate 'species' of humans, if not only to apply Darwin's theory of the origin of species by evolution to human beings?

"Hence, you've got the wrong idea if you think scientists see any member of Homo as an ape."

Why do neo-Darwinist racists include people in the primate family of Hominidae then?

"Many scientists thought that Neandertals were just a variety of H. sapiens, until DNA tests showed that they were too different to be the same species."

Racist DNA tests would also show that Homo ergaster and erectus were not the same species as Neandertals or Homo sapiens, yet racist neo-Darwinists have no problem with African Eve evolving from another species.

"As you might know, humans comprised several species at one time, and we now know that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals, although perhaps the most closely related two species among humans, are quite different genetically, much more than any two humans alive today."

That's only according to neo-Darwinst racist theories of human evolution, since the only true test of human interfertility must be conducted in present time.

"This is very good evidence that the two populations did not interbreed, the key to classifying sexually-reproducing organisms as different species."

That's not evidence. That's hearsay.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Mitochondrial Eve wouldn't be the first woman, or even close to the first woman.

Who was the first woman then, if not Adam's Eve?

Please read this carefully. "Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve. She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor. Eve came a long time before that.

Don't tell me you subscribe to the neo-Darwinist racist theory that the first African woman was a highly evolved descendent of apes!

Humans certainly evolved from other species of primates, but what you call an apes are too evolved in other directions to have been our ancestors.

Barbarian points out:
The Africans at that time were no closer to modern Africans than they are to us.

That's only according to racist theories of human evolution which claim that African people "at that time" were evolving from the more ape-like Homo erectus species in Africa.

What do you mean by "more ape-like"? Never hear H. erectus referred to that way.

Barbarian observes:
In one sense, all humans are apes.

Only in a racist sense.

Don't see what racism has to do with it. You seem to be on one hand, obsessed by racism,and on the other hand, furious at scientists for suggesting you had an ancestor who was African.

This is kind of an emotional subject for you, isn't it?

Barbarian observes:
In another, all members of Homo are humans."

If all members of Homo are humans,

That's what the word means.

(full and equal members of the whole interfertile human race)

Different species of humans probably were not interfertile. At least DNA evidence indicates that Neandertals and humans were not interfertile even though they lived in the same areas for many thousands of years.

why do racist neo-Darwinists classify Neandertals and Homo erectus as a different and separate 'species' of humans, if not only to apply Darwin's theory of the origin of species by evolution to human beings?

I don't know any racist neo-Darwinians, although Carlton Coon (who asserted that H. sapiens had biological subspecies) was sometimes labeled as such.

Barbarian observes:
Hence, you've got the wrong idea if you think scientists see any member of Homo as an ape.

Why do neo-Darwinist racists include people in the primate family of Hominidae then?

For the same reason the creationist Carl Linneaus (the guy who invented the present binomial naming system for organisms) said that he probably should have classified apes and humans in the same genus; he couldn't find a character by which to distinguish them.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so." Carol Linneaus, the founder of modern taxonomy.

Barbarian observes:
Many scientists thought that Neandertals were just a variety of H. sapiens, until DNA tests showed that they were too different to be the same species.

Racist DNA tests

How are racist DNA tests different than liberal DNA tests?

would also show that Homo ergaster and erectus were not the same species as Neandertals or Homo sapiens,

Well, we don't have DNA for them, but I'd be very surprised if they were closer to us than Neandertals.

yet racist neo-Darwinists have no problem with African Eve evolving from another species.

Karl, she likely was a different species.

Barbarian observes:
As you might know, humans comprised several species at one time, and we now know that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals, although perhaps the most closely related two species among humans, are quite different genetically, much more than any two humans alive today."

That's only according to neo-Darwinst racist theories

Nope. DNA analysis.

of human evolution, since the only true test of human interfertility must be conducted in present time.

Humans enthusiastically share genes in every population we know about. And yet humans and Neandertals lived close by for millenia and seem to have not interbred at all.

Barbarian observes:
This is very good evidence that the two populations did not interbreed, the key to classifying sexually-reproducing organisms as different species.

That's not evidence.

It's very good evidence. We even use it to determine human relatedness today. And when checked, it works.

That's hearsay.

Nope. Just DNA.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOT = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Please read this carefully. "Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve."

How do you know, since mtDNA Eve and Adam's Eve are both claimed to be the same woman whom all human beings living today are descended from and the only difference is that one was created in the image and likeness of God and the other is claimed by neo Darwinst race theorists to have evolved from sub-human species whose image was more ape-like than human.

"She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor. Eve came a long time before that."

Which Eve who came first or last are you talking about?

"What do you mean by "more ape-like"? Never hear H. erectus referred to that way."

If H. erectus species directly evolved from Australopithicine apes, as a different species which didn't interbreed with H. sapiens, but later evolved into sapiens, how could erectus look more human than ape-like? Evo artists always draw erectus as half-human, half ape in order to 'show' their evolution from apes.

"This is kind of an emotional subject for you, isn't it?"

No more than a scientific and racist subject.

"Different species of humans probably were not interfertile."

Probably? It's only because neo-Darwinist racial theorists artificially label various populations of the human race as different and separate "species" in the first place, that any question of their racial interfertility comes up!

"At least DNA evidence indicates that Neandertals and humans were not interfertile even though they lived in the same areas for many thousands of years."

Whether that's true or not doesn't change the fact that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa are still racist.

"I don't know any racist neo-Darwinians, although Carlton Coon (who asserted that H. sapiens had biological subspecies) was sometimes labeled as such."

I don't know any racist neo-Darwinists either, nor do I think Carlton Coon was a racist just because he tried to apply Darwin's racist theory of human origins and evolution from species of African apes to so-called human "species."

[QUOTE Crawford]Why do neo-Darwinist racists include people in the primate family of Hominidae then?[/QUOTE]

"For the same reason the creationist Carl Linneaus (the guy who invented the present binomial naming system for organisms) said that he probably should have classified apes and humans in the same genus; he couldn't find a character by which to distinguish them."

If Carl Linneaus "couldn't find a character by which to distinguish" human beings and apes, it's no wonder that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution from African apes are so racist.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape."
Carol Linneaus, the founder of modern taxonomy.

All Carl or any other intelligent human taxonomist would have to do in order to distinguish between Man and Ape is explain the generic differences between the two genera so as not to racially identify any members of the human race as apes in accordance with a racist taxonomic system. It shouldn't be too difficult and any non-racist taxonomist worth his or her biological salt ought to be able to come up with something, or creationists will forever be able to accuse botanists like Carl Linneaus of developing racist systems of biological phylogenies.

Racist DNA tests

"How are racist DNA tests different than liberal DNA tests?"

Racist DNA tests try to prove that some of our ancestral fathers were a different "species" and not simply various and diverse racial members of the whole human race.

would also show that Homo ergaster and erectus were not the same species as Neandertals or Homo sapiens,

"Well, we don't have DNA for them, but I'd be very surprised if they were closer to us than Neandertals."

Would they be more in the image and likeness of Australopithicine apes then?

yet racist neo-Darwinists have no problem with African Eve evolving from another species.

"Karl, she likely was a different species."

A different species of what?

That's only according to neo-Darwinst racist theories

"Nope. DNA analysis."

Only DNA analysis in support of neo-darwinist racial theories of human evolution from a species of non-human African apes.

"Humans enthusiastically share genes in every population we know about. And yet humans and Neandertals lived close by for millenia and seem to have not interbred at all."

Only according to racial DNA tests supporting the racist African Eve model of human evolution.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Please read this carefully. "Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve.

How do you know,

Because there were humans before her.

Barbarian:
She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor. Eve came a long time before that.

Which Eve

The Biblical one.

Barbarian observes:
What do you mean by "more ape-like"? Never heard H. erectus referred to that way."

If H. erectus species directly evolved from Australopithicine apes,

I would be interested in your evidence that it did. Bad assumption, I think.

Evo artists always draw erectus as half-human, half ape in order to 'show' their evolution from apes.

Got an example? That seems pretty foolish, since they were almost identical to us in post-cranial skeleton, and far more like us than like apes in the skull.

Barbarian on Karl's emotional reaction to the idea that he's related to Africans:
This is kind of an emotional subject for you, isn't it?

No more than a scientific and racist subject.

I was thinking racism had something to do with it. Why are you so offended by the idea that your ancestors might be Africans?

Barbarian observes:
Different species of humans probably were not interfertile.

Probably?

Yep. So far as the evidence goes.

Barbarian observes:
At least DNA evidence indicates that Neandertals and humans were not interfertile even though they lived in the same areas for many thousands of years.

Whether that's true or not doesn't change the fact that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa are still racist.

So far, you've come off as more of a racist than science ever was.

Barbarian observes:
I don't know any racist neo-Darwinians, although Carlton Coon (who asserted that H. sapiens had biological subspecies) was sometimes labeled as such."

I don't know any racist neo-Darwinists either, nor do I think Carlton Coon was a racist just because he tried to apply Darwin's...

Sorry. Wrong theory.

(Karl asks why apes and humans are grouped together)

Barbarian observes:
For the same reason the creationist Carl Linneaus (the guy who invented the present binomial naming system for organisms) said that he probably should have classified apes and humans in the same genus; he couldn't find a character by which to distinguish them.

If Carl Linneaus "couldn't find a character by which to distinguish" human beings and apes, it's no wonder that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution from African apes are so racist.

Don't you mean creationism is racist? Linneaus was a creationist. As you know, many racists today are creationists. Would you like some examples?

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape."
Carol Linneaus, the founder of modern taxonomy.

All Carl or any other intelligent human taxonomist would have to do in order to distinguish between Man and Ape is explain the generic differences between the two genera so as not to racially identify any members of the human race as apes in accordance with a racist taxonomic system.

Really? Show me.

It shouldn't be too difficult and any non-racist taxonomist worth his or her biological salt ought to be able to come up with something, or creationists will forever be able to accuse botanists like Carl Linneaus of developing racist systems of biological phylogenies.

I guess that's why we see racism among creationists today.

(Karl says DNA tests are racist)

Barbarian chuckles:
How are racist DNA tests different than liberal DNA tests?"

Racist DNA tests try to prove that some of our ancestral fathers were a different "species" and not simply various and diverse racial members of the whole human race.

Never saw a DNA test try anything. They are inanimate things, Karl.

Barbarian on other species of humans:
Well, we don't have DNA for them, but I'd be very surprised if they were closer to us than Neandertals."

Would they be more in the image and likeness of Australopithicine apes then?

Not much more than we are.

On "mitochondrial Eve":
Karl, she likely was a different species.

A different species of what?

Human.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve.... Because there were humans before her. She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor. Eve came a long time before that."

Since mtDNA tests don't trace human ancestry further back than Eve, how can you be genetically certain there were any women before her without resorting to racist theories of older fossils showing African Eve's evolution from a species of non-human primates?

[Barbarian on Karl's emotional reaction to the idea that he's related to Africans:]
"This is kind of an emotional subject for you, isn't it? I was thinking racism had something to do with it. Why are you so offended by the idea that your ancestors might be Africans?"

I'm only offended by a neo-Darwinist racist theory which associates and relates a population of African people (African Eve's tribe) with a sub-human species of African apes.

"Linneaus was a creationist. As you know, many racists today are creationists."

That's why racist taxonomies and biological nomenclature concerning the specific origins of any members of the human race shouldn't be taught in public schools.

[On "mitochondrial Eve"]

"Karl, she likely was a different species... of human."

Dividing African members of the human race into "different species" is a form of scientific racism.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve.... Because there were humans before her. She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor. Eve came a long time before that.

Since mtDNA tests don't trace human ancestry further back than Eve,...

What makes you think that?

[Barbarian on Karl's emotional reaction to the idea that he's related to Africans:]
"This is kind of an emotional subject for you, isn't it? I was thinking racism had something to do with it. Why are you so offended by the idea that your ancestors might be Africans?"

I'm only offended by a neo-Darwinist racist theory which associates and relates a population of African people (African Eve's tribe) with a sub-human species of African apes.

I don't know why you're so upset about being related to Africans. I'm beginning to wonder if all this talk about racism is defensive.

Barbarian obsrves:
Linneaus was a creationist. As you know, many racists today are creationists.

That's why racist taxonomies and biological nomenclature concerning the specific origins of any members of the human race shouldn't be taught in public schools.

It's not. The Bill of Rights prohibits creationism from being taught in schools. But not all of it is racist. Only some YE creationists.

(On "mitochondrial Eve")(Karl here "adjusts" what I said a bit)

Karl, she likely was a different species... of human.

Karl, even if you think it's innocent to take to phrases of mine and join them together, it's considered dishonest. Don't do it.

Dividing African members of the human race into "different species" is a form of scientific racism.

Well, other religious zealots say Zionism is a form of racism. They even got the UN to declare it so.

So you're among your brothers on that one.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by The Galatian:

"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve.... Because there were humans before her. She was not the first woman, merely the last common female ancestor."

Who was African Eve's mother then, since if she was not the first woman in Africa, she must have been a daughter of Adam and Eve.

"The Bill of Rights prohibits creationism from being taught in schools."

Creationism has nothing to do with the neo-Darwinist racism being taught in public schools today in the name of science.