Let me first start off with an apology. I was tired and shot from the hip. I should have said: Please read the book and then we might have a fuller conversation. If you ever read the book and feel the same way, dandy. But just as you said "Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I’m wrong." The same can be said of the out of Africa theory.
No need to apologize. Your comments were not taken in hostility.
Now as far as the friend, I refuse to call him up or go see him when his wife is recovering from surgery and he is raising two small children from this family (he has older children in the 24 to 26 year old range) and a granddaughter in between his younger two children. I would doubt that he has papers or books since actually being with his children and giving them experiences is far more important to him than money. He is not in the position of "publish or perish." And if he does have any published works I would doubt it would be on this subject.
I don't believe that I've ever asked you to call him up and disturb him. I simply asked you to name him since he is an academia and all academians are on the public record so that their claims can be researched and refuted. If he is a geneticist as you claim he is, and then he would have published some work regarding evolutionary genetics which many geneticists are involved in or understand. Lack of this leads me to be skeptical.
I have brought up the subject of genetics with him three times. The first was on the movie Jurassic Park. When he stated that it was an enjoyable movie but that could never happen I questioned him. For every objection I raised he would, as patiently as possible, try to explain to the dummy why this could not happen. Finally he said quite firmly "This is a subject I know something about and I'm telling you it could not happen as described in either the book or the movie."
But what exactly did he say? You’re not providing me with evidence that I can research and confirm or dispute in this case. You are simply saying that he raised objections every time you made a comment. I'm asking you what issues did you raise and what objections did he bring to the table? What exactly makes the movie unlikely? I can agree with him in some respects if you were to give me some actual examples. For example, being able to raise and culture lizards from amphibian DNA is complete bullocks. T-Rex most likely was not a scaly lizard, but a big feathery bird, etc. But what were his exact objections to the movie?
The second time was discussing a (for lack of a better word) documentary that traced all humans to southern Africa and he did say "Well, that is one train of thought." That flew by me because I was seeking his opinion on the total documentary that had two living people that he claimed had the same genes as all American Indians, all Malaysians and all aborigines in Australia. When I finally got to the end of my description of this theory he said "And that's another train of thought." I didn't press him because who wants to try to have a discussion with a dummy and that is his area of expertise. I did it to him once I wasn't about to make him do it twice.
So basically he said nothing in this case?
The third time I brought up genetics it was with a disclaimer. I said, "Putting aside everything about genetics that we have discussed (more like I listened and tried to argue stupid points) do you think man has a war gene." Holding his two small daughters on his lap he went off on pretty damning view of man saying, among many other things how man was the most destructive both to each other and the planet and all other species and he couldn't wait for man to die out. When he finished he said, "With that being said, yes, I do think man has a war gene." My interest was this: I have not found a culture yet that does not have some form of war. Could man actually have a war gene? Does he have proof? I kind of doubt it. I wasn't asking for empirical proof, only his opinion.
Well it is well known to evolutionary biologists that man and chimpanzees (our closest relatives) are some of the most violent species on the planet. Which leads us to believe that our common ancestor was just as violent. There have been several cases of chimp males "jumping" (or ganging up on which ever you'd like to use) lone or small groups of other chimp males. Humanity is not immune to this violent nature. However, no one knows (at least to my knowledge) why human and chimp males are so aggressive. Humans are quite destructive and benign, but unlike all other species on this planet mankind has a gift which no other species has, a choice. We can choose to be violent and destroy one another, or we can choose to cooperate and move forward. The solution to this issue is not scientific, but ethical and social in nature.
If your objections are not science, but the nature of mankind, then I certainly can agree with you on some things. I believe that most destruction comes from want and greed. The cure to the disease of greed I do not know, but I know part of the solution is to gain wisdom and knowledge.
Wali, you wrote"Modern science has nothing to do with colonization or dehumanizing individuals (although crooked people with crooked beliefs do use science)."
I responded with "I would have to humbly disagree with that statement. It has everything to do with colonization and dehumanizing individuals especially if they are the original inhabitants of these two continents."
You responded with "Again, please elaborate what you mean by this. If you don't provide evidence or examples then I have nothing to agree or disagree with you on. This may or may not be true in some cases. However, the problem I have with this statement is that is over generalized and it ignores the progress that has been made in terms of human relations because of science."
My problem is I cannot think of any examples of where science has not been used as an agent of colonization or dehumanization. Not to be a smart ass, but can you be more specific?
If you can provide so many examples then please be responsible and provide one example. It should not be difficult to find an example which dehumanizes the individual since it is so common. Find a topic which you’d like to discuss and provide some reasonable links to back your claims, thanks.