From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: Lionel's unsupported Bullshit (was: White skin)
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:24:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

I see the Tun-ster has found an opportunity to spread his content
free attack on evolutionary biology to inappropriate newsgroups
(see newsgroup line). 

>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species. 

Bullshit, Lionel -- how about providing a reference to even a
single evolutionary biologist who has made this claim. You 
never did back up your assertion from a long time ago that
biologists where misleading the public deliberately. How 
about backing _this_ statement up?

(A good book about race and evolutionary biology is "The Mis-
measure of Man", by Steven J. Gould. Gould is a paleontologist
at Harvard.)

>So the situation in apartheid
>countries has an evolutionary basis. 

Bullshit Lionel -- you simply cannot find any scientific problems
with the theory of evolution or provide a supportable theory of
creationism; so you claim evolution causes or justifies any number
of social ills. Of course, you cannot back up these claims either
as you have proven time and time again that you do not even
understand the theory you criticize. If evolution supports
apartheid, how about providing us with a reference to a scientist
making this claim (or a logical reason why this should be so)? 
I'm a grad student in evolutionary biology and I see no scientific
support for a bias against any racial group. (I don't _any_ 
reason really, but lets stick to science.)

>How are whites and blacks
>considered different species? Well evolutionists like to show
>speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
>two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
>habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
>two distinct species. This can be extended to human society if
>social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.

Reality time, Lionel -- all combinations of races in _Homo sapiens_ 
can and do produce fertile offspring. We are all the same species.

>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.

I'm sure you do, but do you have any evidence to support this
statement? I think all human beings have descended from a now
extinct anthropoid ape that also gave rise to the chimp/pygmy
chimp clade. I further think many of the fossils unearthed by
paleontologists (for ex _Australopithecines_, _Homo habilus_,
_Homo erectus_ etc.) are either direct ancestors or extinct
sister groups to modern _Homo sapiens sapiens_. 

I've set follow-ups to talk.origins.

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

ASIDE TO NON-TALK.ORIGINS READERS

PS If anyone out there is interested in a file explaining the
basics of evolutionary biology -- email me at the below address
and request the t.o. FAQ. It doesn't deal much with human
evolution specifically, but it (hopefully) clarifies a lot of
common misunderstandings about evolution and gives a broad
introduction to the field. 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"