Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism.

Hmmm - is it your contention that merely by stating the neandertals were not physically interbreeding with homo sapiens that this is an act of racial discrimination?

What if their race never fell and they were removed so as to be able to procede uncontaminated in another abode, while the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve lurched on towards their own dark destiny?

 

Undoubtedly the angels - beings such as Gabriel and Michael - are not homo sapiens, not genetically related to Adam and Eve. Is it racist to point this out, and if not, why is saying the same thing about Neandertals racist?

 

Race, in humans, is just a cultural construct. Which is not to say they aren't real; they just vary depending on which culture you are in.

They have no physical or genetic basis.

 

The evolutionary scientists and paleoanthropoligists don't claim that the Neanderthals are a separate race; you don't claim they are a separate race. So how can a theory that makes no claims of race be racist?

 

You & Lub are the only ones claiming that the fossils represent a separate racial group even though you claim there are no separate racial groups.

 

Lessee now. You state racial groups are "patently obvious and evident" and still claim "we just don't call any racial groups different and seperate races".

To me this just looks like muddled thinking.

 

I see, you want to be politically identified as a Neanderthal...kind of like the cavemen of the Geico commercial.

Politically, you should be able to accomplish that, at least in the colloquial sense of "Neanderthal". Scientifically, you'd have to have a DNA match. If you got that, you'd win your argument.

 

"Theorizing that the first people on earth (Africans) originated from non-human ancestors of African monkeys and apes is based on what evidence? The human fossil record shows no evidence in support of such racist beliefs."

Since you contend that the bones are a matter of contention, then let's stick with other evidence. I pick genetics.

Now we have a whole thread here

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html

where I present the genetic evidence that we share a common ancestry with the other apes.

Now I know that you have see nthe thread because you popped in several times with such stinging zingers as "Genetic BALONEY!"

Now what you never actually did was give us a competing theory.

That thread presents data from dozens and dozens of different genes and other types of genetic material. When you look at the distribution of the material and the mutations within that material, you consistently get essentially the same set of phylogenic trees.

One reference talks about retroviral DNA inserts. The author makes the statement that because the insertion of such segments is completely random, that if two species share the same insert and the same location they MUST be related through common ancestry.

Humans share many such insertions with the other apes. In addition, the pattern of mutations in the inserts matches all of the other phylogenic trees.

Now you can spout off all of the nonsense phrases that you want. You can call names. You can refer us back to Lub and his excellent book which seems to have no actual claims or references that you can share with us. (I have this mental image of Lub repeating the word "racist" for 400 pages.)

But what you nor any other YEer or IDer can do is to give us some other reason than common descent why we should observe what we do in the genetics of humans and the other apes.

All of the various kinds of shared genetic material with its pattern of accumulated mutations leads to only one conclusion, IMHO. Do you have another explantion? Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? Can you give one that is not ad hoc? Can you give one that is not arbitrary? Can you give one that is not specious? Can you give one that is not capricious?

I'll answer for you.

No, No, No, No, No, No and No.

There is no other logical answer than common descent. NONE. If there were, someone would have suggested it by now.

You have been playing your games, repeating the same catch phrases, making the same assertions and never backing up anything for months now. Do you have an answer to real data or will you just keep parroting the same junk here (and how many other places you do this I hate to venture a guess - http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html ).

A real answer? A real debate? Real data? Or just the same old stuff?

I'll make a prediction. There is no YE answer to the genetic record so you'll be forced to keep parrotting the same old tired lines and assertions without ever giving us facts and references to support them.

 

Interestingly enough, it ends up this book is at my university library. I'm going to go check it out in the next few days.

 

What did I tell you?

You have no answer. You just go back to your know it all book.

The genetics are there. Deal with it. Or at least tell us how good ol' Lub deals with it and provide his references so we can check them out.

 

I'm sure yo know this already, but I would be thorough in checking out his references to see what they actually say and in looking up some of the criticisms of Lub's book that can be found.

These things can sound awfully convincing if you do not already have the background to spot the mistakes. But once you spot them, it goes downhill in a hurry.

 

Well, I checked it out (the 1992 version, they don't have the 2004 version and I don't know if I could handle the genetics discussion in it right now anyways ). I've skimmed through the first few chapters and am not especially impressed. Right now he's trying to say that the Neanderthals were actually human, despite the fact that they used only the most rudimentary of tools throughout their existence and don't have the type of culture that is seen in even the most primitive human societies. He seems to be proposing that their unusual skull structure is a function of using their jaws as a tool to hold objects while manipulating them, saying that tooth damage seen in Neanderthals is similar to that seen in Eskimos who use their teeth similarly. Unfortunately, you don't manage to reshape your entire face and skull by using your teeth as a clamp--you just get bad teeth.

He has used several quotes that I'm planning on checking up on if I have time.

So far nothing on racism.