Racial Evolution 101

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by jcrawford, Mar 24, 2004.

  1. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It might also naturally be enquired whether man, like so many other animals, has given rise to varieties and sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much as they must be classed as doubtful species?"

    - Charles Darwin, "THE DESCENT of MAN, and Selection in Relation to Sex." Princeton University Press, 1981, Chapter 1, Page 9
    =====================

    1 List the 7 general classifications which Darwin is specifying in this question.

    2 List the 5 general 'a priori' pre-suppositions which Darwin is predicating his question on.

    3 Do you think it is 'natural' to classify human beings according to racial and sub-racial divisions?

    4 Do you think it is 'natural' to classify human beings into 'species' whether they are doubtful ones or not?

    5 Do you think Darwin was a naturalist, a historian, a scientist or a philosophical racist?
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's look at that whole paragraph, shall we.

    "HE WHO wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals. Again, are the variations the result, as far as our ignorance permits us to judge, of the same general causes, and are they governed by the same general laws, as in the case of other organisms; for instance, by correlation, the inherited effects of use and disuse, &c.? Is man subject to similar malconformations, the result of arrested development, of reduplication of parts, &c., and does he display in any of his anomalies reversion to some former and ancient type of structure? It might also naturally be enquired whether man, like so many other animals, has given rise to varieties and sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much that they must be classed as doubtful species? How are such races distributed over the world; and how, when crossed, do they react on each other in the first and succeeding generations? And so with many other points."

    Now, reading the paragraph you should see what is going on. Darwin is merely asking if there is variety within humans. If you take a walk down the street, you will see that this is true. From reading the whole paragraph, it may also be clear that when Darwin spoke of races, he was speaking about variety within the species.

    Now, was Darwin a racist? In the light of 21st century values he probably was. In the light of the values of his day, he would have been considered a liberal. Someone who spoke out against slavery.

    But my question for you is why should this matter? Let's take the extreme position that Darwin was the worst man to ever live. How does that change modern biology? He could have been a racist to the core but that does not affect the study of evolution in the centuries since his death.

    You seem to think that you can disprove an old earth through slander. It doesn't work. Try going after the actual evidence if you think evolution is so flawed. Going after the man is usually a sign of weakness in the position being advocted or else the facts would be used.

    Still waiting on your citation for paleontologists giving up on using fossil remains to track the evolution of man.
     
  3. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTEOTW:

    "He (Darwin) could have been a racist to the core but that does not affect the study of evolution in the centuries since his death."

    It doesn't matter whether Darwin himself was a racist or not. The general theory of human evolution is a racial theory. It is based on Darwin's written beliefs that several different human races and species in human history evolved from animals in Africa.

    Darwin confused human races and species in order to justify his theory that all human diversity and variety of types evolved from lower life-forms through a series of genetic modifications
    brought about by natural selection.

    If there can be no division of racial types in human history then there can be no division of historical humanity into different species either except in order to prove Darwin's racial theories of human evolution.

    No Darwin = no human evolution.
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe others were already beginning to recognize evolution before Darwin came along. Even if he had never been born, the science still would have been born, just you would be vilifying some other poor soul. It would still be the lynchpin that holds all of biology together.
     
  5. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The racial lynchpin of Darwin's origin of Human species out of Africa can't hold Human biology together very well if the concepts of several separate Human races and species in History are merely Ninteenth Century social constructs.
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    There have not been other species of humans? Now, which of the following were fully human and which were non-human apes? And why?

    Homo neanderthalensis
    Homo heidelbergensis
    Homo erectus
    Homo rudolfensis
    Homo habilis

    And where is my citation justifying your claim that scientist have given up on the fosill record?
     
  7. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're all fully human according to their Genus even despite the wide variety of human appearances in history such as giants and dwarfs.
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Come on. Please play the game. Give me some morphology reasons why you think these things are all fully human, as in Homo sapiens. It makes things much more interesting. Otherwise I'll have to spend a lot of time showing you why each of these are different species. It takes so long, I'll have to post links that you will not read. Then we will get no where.
     
  9. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ute: You must understand that I don't play games based on either morphology or phrenology. My approach to the question of human origins is much more philosophical, psychological and spiritual than yours. You want to shuffle the fossils around, like all evolutionists, so that you end up with all the views you deem fit to print.

    Please don't bother showing any more pictures of your presumed ancestors because I don't believe in human speciation any more than I believe in Darwin's original racial classifications.

    Do you want me to quote David Pilbeam, Mary Leakey, J.S. Jones, S. Rouhani and Robert Martin on human evolution?

    Do you really want to see what they have to say about the human fossil record plastered all over the Internet? Are you prepared to refute the experts?
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please, go ahead. By all means let's see if you can quote them in context.

    I have yet to show you any pictures.

    You go philosophical rather than morphology because you know that morphology is against you.
     
  11. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    So it's the morphologists vs. the philosophical psychologists, is it? All right. Let's go. Don't say I didn't warn you. You'll be sorry.

    David Pilbeam: "There is no clear-cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being."
     
  12. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does Pilbeam believe we evolved from apes or not? If he does, why are you quoting him? If he accepts human evolution, then all you can do is selectively pull out parts of what he has to say that you think might support your position while ignoring the greater part that shows that evolution is, in fact, true.

    As for this quote, I told you the same thing in the last few days. There are a number of ancestors and we are not entirely sure which path is the right one. Some of the species we have fossils of were truely on the path to modern humans. Some were side branches, deadends. We do not always know which is which. There are likely even species that we do not know of which could be branches or could be the trunk. So specifically which path to draw can be debated. But it does not change that we have evolved.
     
  13. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTEOTW:

    "Does Pilbeam believe we evolved from apes or not?
    =================

    What do Pilbeam's personal beliefs on whether Humans evolved from gibbons, chimps, or orangutans have to do with your 'evidence' for Human evolution out of some African non-human ancestor once upon a time?

    "The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story." - David Pilbeam
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pilbeam is a supporter of evolution. To quote him, you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence he presents to pull out snippets that you can present as supporting your case. I fail to find that method very convincing as you must ignore most of what he says on the topic. Furthermore, since you are ignoring so much of what he has to say, it casts doubt on whether the quotes you actually use would be understood the same when presented in the context of his actually writings as they seem to be in the manner you present them.

    As for the quote, again all we have is another quote that says the same thing I told you a few days ago and the previous quote you posted. There is not agreement on exactly which path through the fossils we have is the true path to humans. Some of the ones we have are likely side branches. There may even be direct ancestors for which we have no examples. That does nothing to change the collection of ancestors that we do have showing a progression from like the other apes to humans.

    This kind of quoting also shoots the idea that evolution is a grand conspiracy in the foot. You are showing us that there is healthy debate within the scientific community. Scientists are fully willing to point out problems and shortcomings. You just confuse debate with fatal problems.
     
  15. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mary leakey on the constructing of evolutionary family trees: "In the present state of our knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern."
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another quote making the same statement. So we are going to keep making hay over the fact that the tree of life is bushy and when looking back in time at it we sometimes have trouble deciding which parts are the trunks and which parts are the branches. They still show we evolved even if we cannot tell the exact path.

    You are also still making the mistake of quoting someone who does not hold your opinion. To do so, you are ignoring the bulk of her work and likely quoting her in a way where the true meaning would be different if it were in the context of the rest of her writing.

    Are you quoting Jones and Rouhani next? If so, please read the discussion on puncuated equilibrium first.
     
  17. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe in punk-eek.

    "The human fossil record is no exception to the general rule that the main lesson to be learned from paleontology is that evolution always takes place somewhere else."
    - J.S. Jones and S. Rouhani

    Mark Ridley: "The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies."

    "So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human evolution." - Robert Martin
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's see.

    Jones and Rouhani are referring to PE. Most change takes place in small isolated groups over relatively short periods of time. Therefore it is rare to catch change in the act. But it happens.

    Maybe you should look up and read "A New Skull of Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia." Vekua, Lordkipanidze, Rightmire et al, Science, Vol.287, pg 85-89, July 5, 2002. They discuss a find in Georgia of skulls believed to be intermediate between H. hablis and H. erectus.

    For Ridley, I simply offer you the following quote from him.

    "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media.
    ...
    In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
    ...
    So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.
    ...
    These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.
    "

    This is from Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981. What Ridley is saying is that there is nothing wrong with the fossil record, but that there are at least three avenues that are even more convincing than the fossil record. Context, my brother.

    Without context, and you have provided no references, I have no idea what Martin is talking about but I imagine that it is equally useless to your case in context.

    You have to be quoting these guys out of context. If you look at the entire body of work of these people, the picture is clear. Evolution happened and happens. Why do you ignore all their work if you want to quote them?
     
  19. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTEOTW:

    "If you look at the entire body of work of these people, the picture is clear. Evolution happened and happens. Why do you ignore all their work if you want to quote them?"
    ====================

    They seem to be contradicting themselves. Besides, there's no evidence for several historical species of humans any more than for historical races. Great variety of types, yes.
    From giants to dwarfs.

    Darwin based his human TOE on observed racial differences. No races, no species.

    They're social and cultural mental constructs.

    Sorry. It's still only a TOE.
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. It does not even take a trained scientist to see the differences between the species found. It is not a matter just of size. If I were to give you the skulls of Shaq and Mary Lou Retton, I think you would be able to tell they were of the same species despite the incredible difference in size between the two. Not to mention the differences in race and gender. Go ahead and try it for yourself. Follow this link to the Smithsonian and look through the skulls. Even you without any specialized training should be able to see the differences that mean these were different species and not just variations of one species.

    http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

    Now there is a point to be made in what you said. There have certainly been cases where members of the same species were classified into different species based on size or even gender. So what you said is not completely without merit. But I think most examples of this have been purged and consolidated.

    There is no mental construct required. Go look at the skulls for yourself. Do not even read the accompanying text. Just look.

    They are not contradicting themselves if you look at their complete works. Your Ridley quote is a great example. He is a zoologist and he thinks that the zoological evidence is the best. He thinks that the fossil record is the fourth best for evolution after the evidence from his own field. He is not calling evolution nor the fossil record into question.

    And thanks for the high praise of calling evolution a theory. There is not much higher praise in science.
     

Share This Page

Loading...