Contrary to some people's belief, the fact that race and species of humans are interchangeable terms is not central to this discussion or to the fact that evolution theory is not valid.
Bull. It is central to your thesis. You are trying to show non-relatedness among the races by saying they have discontinuous genetics. To do this you are using the term species in a novel way that is not in agreement with its normal use in common speech or in its more specific meaning among biologists. People of different races can mate and have children, and thus are of the same species no matter how hard you wish this not to be the case. Thus far, all that you have been able to show by this foolish insistence of incorrect usage of both the word species and the concept of species in the biological sense is that your scholarship is poor and that you fail to understand some of the basic tenants of both biology and genetics.
The science produced by the Human Genome Project is documented and recorded and is accepted by mainstream science as being valid. The scientific evidence that Stanford physicist Neil Risch and his team produced and published the results of have been critically reviewed.
Well good for you. You got some of the main points right here. Congratulations. I would like to point out, however, that while Dr. Risch is a Stanford professor he is not a physicist. He is, in fact, a geneticist, and he studies genetic epidemiology and statistical genetics.
For anyone to state now that the loci clusters for race do not exist would be simply foolish.
So, on the basis of single paper, you decide this is the correct position and that geneticist that hold differing viewpoints are fools? Im inclined (as you seem to be, although it can be hard to tell) that Dr. Rischs position is likely correct. You do, however, realize that there is a body of literature that has been published that takes differing views do you not? Just out of curiosity, how much of the other literature have you read before you made your informed opinion?
However, if Neil Risch states in his article that he still believes in evolution and a common ancestor out of Africa, when the science he works on shows the opposite, then that is personal opinion and has no scientific validity and is deserving of no respect as it pertains to the scientific evidence. Therefore, to discuss Neil Risch's personal opinion would not be beneficial to this discussion. If anyone wishes to do that, they would be better off going to Neil Risch's web site and discussing it with him.
Here is where your argument falls completely to pieces. Dr. Risch is not just expressing an opinion without basis, he is saying that the evidence shows common ancestry, and that genetic differences that we see in different races show us when these races diverged. Using a number of previously published papers as references he cites evidence of genetic differentiation using a number of
different genetic markers that support this point. Get this straight now, what Risch has shown is that different races can be treated as distinct populations and have differing frequencies of alleles. Now the basis of this would be that all races of modern humans share a common ancestry and that through micro evolution have differentiated somewhat from each other and that these slight differences in genetics have implications in medical treatment.
The pertinent data that we are interested in here is that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal do not share a complete DNA sequence. It is acknowledged by modern science that Neanderthal women did not give birth to Cro-Magnon babies. That leaves the question to be asked, Which hominid women did give birth to Cro-Magnon babies? If that question cannot be answered, then there is no connection to the past.
Wow, you actually conceded a point and quit making that ridiculous straw man argument about Neandertals giving birth to modern humans. There is hope after all.
The Neanderthal, the Skhul V and the Homo Erectus all lived during the same geologic time period and they all share common physical traits. It is virtually certain that they could not have given birth to Cro-Magnon babies. This is the central point of the natural selection continuity that must prove or disprove evolution theory as it relates to us. In essence, which species of hominid was the first to give birth to a Cro-Magnon baby? And when? If the evolutionists cannot answer that question, then they have no theory. Of course, no proponents of evolution will ever attempt to answer those question because there is no answer. Evolutionists don't even allow themselves to think about such direct inquiry. They prefer the foggy notion of "It all happened a long time ago over many generation and many change and if you don't believe that then you don't believe in science."
When dealing with reality, that is, with the scientific evidence and the observation of phenomena that is described objectively, it is a simple matter to dismiss the evolution theory. Science has shown us that Cro-Magnon humans have existed on this planet for approximately 30,000 year and it has also shown us that no evidence exists which links us to the previous species of hominid that existed here before us. This leads us to make several observation which must be regarded as scientifically valid.
First, Cro-Magnon humans have no scientific connection that can be proved that places us on this planet before the known fossil evidence from 30,000 year ago.
Second, no theory of our existence here has any scientific validity if it ages us as younger or older than the fossil evidence. This point makes invalid the evolution theory and the young earth theory.
Third, there is only one theory which predicted a demarcation timeframe for the current ecological structure of life on this planet, and that theory is in the bible. Therefore the bible must be considered as the only valid scientific evidence for the origin of Cro-Magnon, or, more scientifically, the only theory which has been proved by the observation of the evidence. As our most famous scientist said;
-- "A theory can be tested by experience, but there is no way from experience to the construction of a theory."--Albert Einstein
Oops
.spoke to soon there.
First of all, just because a question
has not been answered does not mean it
cannot be answered. Furthermore, you need to research a little bettermodern humans date back 100,000 years in Africa and the middle east. The 30,000 year time frame you are suggesting dates to the immigration of our species (single) into Europe and Asia.
The fact that the bible describes a demarcation for the appearance[sic] of our kind of hominid on this planet indicates that science must now include "ideas" as valid scientific evidence where it is warranted[sic]. Ideas are the product of thought and, ultimately, is what all science is derived from. Since the bible explains our appearance[sic] on this earth and has done so for several thousand year, we must be willing to accept the bible as scientific evidence. That is not to say I believe it is a literal translation of everything that happened. The bible has had many translations by many different people and I, not being a scholar in bibliography, cannot believe everything in the bible from my scientific perspective. But the truth remains that for several thousand year the bible has been telling us what science is now confirming.
Strangely enough, I have no problem with this philosophy. However, thus far you have been inundating us with poor scientific scholarship, novel use of scientific wording, straw man arguments, and a rock like stubbornness in your willful choice not to actually answer any questions asked of you or your argument. Get a good genetics textbook, do some reading, and then try again when you have a better grasp of the subject at hand.
Ive posted this before, but I think it is more relevant then ever now.
Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
