The Origins of White People

[gemiwine]

This one is pretty interesting. What are your takes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sYqATPYzNA

[splat]

Simple evolution.

He does sound a lot like you, though. Taking a vague fact and applying nonsensical meaning to it. Yes, all humans on earth can trace their ancestry to black people. But what's your point? All black people can trace their ancestry to Homo Erectus, and this can trace its ancestry back to the protozoa.

[gemiwine]

Simple evolution.

He does sound a lot like you, though. Taking a vague fact and applying nonsensical meaning to it. Yes, all humans on earth can trace their ancestry to black people. But what's your point? All black people can trace their ancestry to Homo Erectus, and this can trace its ancestry back to the protozoa.Vitiligo is evolution? That is pure nonsense. Which is why you can't make me smarter with your fatuous ideas.

[splat]

Actually, yes, it is. Any genetic deviation is evolution. If this deviation creates a change that allows the deviated creature to survive, then it is passed on in what is known as natural selection. Average twelve year olds know this. Which is why you are stupid.

[gemiwine]

Vitiligo is a skin disorder or skin eruption caused by the loss of natural pigment. It has nothing to do with growth & development of your tissue if the condition of it defects your coloring matter. Evolving is not a malady if a condition is based on a disturbance of physical health that decreases not increases.

Your basically saying that evolution is a disease which is an incoherant observation of obscurity to betoken that kind of idea into someones head is a balderdash to your intelligence if you think deviation of your skin color is evolving.

[splat]

But it literally is. Evolution is not good or bad, it simply is. Mutations are not good or bad, they simply are. IF, notice the capitalization, IF this mutation allows the mutant to survive, the traits are passed on. IF they cause it to die, the traits are less likely to be passed on since it is dead and probably did not breed.

Evolution is not a disease, but disease can drive evolution. Evolution is not a thing, it is a description of a series of events.

[gemiwine]

Vitiligo is not contagious or infectious nor can it be passed down through gene & chromosomes. It can happen to anyone at anytime regardless of your health condition. The lost of natural melanin dosent cause you to emit into anything if the condition is considered a disorder. If a disease can drive evolution then that means disorder can drive development which makes no sense.

Evolution obviously is a thing, idea or circumstance attributed by a man to modify a fact or event.

[splat]

It does make sense. You have 50 blue flowers and 50 red flowers which turned red from a disease. The bugs that pollenate these flowers prefer blue flowers. The red flowers are not pollenated and do not bear fruit. We are left with blue flowers. That is evolution. That's all it is. It's a matter of "What changed" and 'what is left". Again, children know this. You are less than a child.

[1313Jr.1313]

It does make sense. You have 50 blue flowers and 50 red flowers which turned red from a disease. The bugs that pollenate these flowers prefer blue flowers. The red flowers are not pollenated and do not bear fruit. We are left with blue flowers. That is evolution. That's all it is. It's a matter of "What changed" and 'what is left". Again, children know this. You are less than a child.

how dare you insult him. it's wrong to pick on somebody who can't even defend themselves. you aught to be ashamed. i know i feel ashamed when i bring a bat to the special ed classes and have them line up for heavy head inspection. you should feel equally ashamed.

[effingbillgates]

For people who believe in creationism or any of its variations, it's difficult to comprehend evolution because they think it must have some kind of "will". Like "I am a giraffe; I wish I had a longer neck to reach those branches up there. I will try to stretch it and hope the 'stretched neck' genes are then passed onto my children and eventually our descendants will be able to reach them." I really think this error is part of what compounds their understanding of evolution - they're forever asking "why does evolution try to do it?" "Why would evolution choose to keep something bad like a skin disorder?"

Evolution doesn't "try" to do anything. It doesn't have its own "will". It doesn't set out to achieve things by stretching giraffes' necks. What actually happens is that there's a random genetic throw-up - a giraffe is born with a slightly longer neck. If it doesn't hinder the giraffe's ability to live, or actually allows the giraffe to reach better leaves, the giraffe will survive and pass on its genetic material. Over a very long period of time, some mutations become especially relevant for a species' survival within its environment, while others aren't relevant and become lost.

Evolution is not one thing going in a straight line - it's lots of mutations, some being lost and some being kept. Some of those "kept" things become defining characteristics of species and diverging species, over many many hundreds of thousands of years. There are people who say "if we evolved from chimps how come chimps are still alive?" They don't get it. We didn't evolve from modern day chimps. We have a common ancestor from which we both evolved. Modern day chimps are as "evolved" as us.

[gemiwine]

There's no proof that vitiligo is evolution. Get over it lol.

[effingbillgates]

It is, and you're a fool who's laughing because he doesn't understand.

I think you're offended because you interpret "evolution" to mean some kind of "progress", when actually it's just a gradual, progressive mutation that means species adapt to their environment.

What exactly was your point and why did you start this thread?

[gemiwine]

You want to turn your failed theory into a fact. A loss of pigmentation is not evolving. It only changes your skin color not your physical body shape.

What is your point & why did you respond to this thread?

[effingbillgates]

*facepalm*

I simply made the error of once again of thinking that it might be possible to educate you a tiny bit. That was my reason for responding. I see you were making no point, and have nothing to say except state a few crucial misunderstandings around a topic you don't understand, and laugh at people who try to correct you.

You're a very unrewarding use of my time, I've come to realise.

[gemiwine]

*facepalm*

I simply made the error of once again of thinking that it might be possible to educate you a tiny bit. That was my reason for responding. I see you were making no point, and have nothing to say except state a few crucial misunderstandings around a topic you don't understand, and laugh at people who try to correct you.

You're a very unrewarding use of my time, I've come to realise.Your saying that color changing is evolution. Lizards can change colors so are the evolving?. What is being misunderstood here? You want to support splat because your are a member of darwins club like he is.

[effingbillgates]

Your saying that color changing is evolution. Lizards can change colors so are the evolving?. What is being misunderstood here? You want to support splat because your are a member of darwins club like he is.

I've already said that evolution is something that takes place gradually over hundreds of thousands of years. Something changing colour in less than a minute in order to blend with a leaf and not be eaten isn't creating a new species in that instant.



Edit: forget it. You're clearly not for real and I can't be bothered to waste any more time with this discussion.

[splat]

Suicide is your only option, Gemwine. You are incapable of learning and are therefore an object, a Golem.

[1313Jr.1313]

creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive anyway. gemi, your are clearly just ignoring common sense to keep your initial point (which was actually somebody else's anyway... way to just follow somebody else) "valid" in your own mind.

[gemiwine]

I did a little research & I can't no longer say that vitiligo is the main disorder that created white people. At the same time other disorders related to losing natural pigmentation have played a factor but still is not the main cause of race. Vitiligo is not evolution yet I hate to agree that evolution of the skin is what caused the race thing to happen. Also I believe it was caused by solomon when he had 700 wives from all over the world with different colored skin pigmentation was the origins of what started race. If anyone has ever read "100 amazing facts about the negro" it even talks about black popes, black europeans & asians that been around for centuries which I believe there is no race at all. Just different color pigmetation with the same facial features regardless of what nationality you are.

Here's a reference video that I found interesting that makes better sense regarding the origins of race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntZqRONONBQ

[splat]

... If people already existed with different skin colors for Solomon to mate with, doesn't that kind of invalidate your theory right there?

[1313Jr.1313]

... If people already existed with different skin colors for Solomon to mate with, doesn't that kind of invalidate your theory right there?
yes

[gemiwine]

... If people already existed with different skin colors for Solomon to mate with, doesn't that kind of invalidate your theory right there?The cause of it is still unknown to this day but the truth is that we all were of the same dark pigmentation & migrated to different regions of the world where their skin colored changed. Some say its because of less sunlight in the upper regions is why their skin got lighter. There is more women in the world then men today so I'm sure back then in the 10 century B.C. when population was small it was more women as well for solomon to mate with & have kids by which took centuries to create the mixture of different color skinned people that we see today all over the world.

[splat]

...But again, the people of different skin colors ALREADY existed. One guy fucking a bunch of them doesn't really change that.

[gemiwine]

Mating with 700 women, having kids by them from different regions of the world by one dark colored man in one continent in the 10th century b.c. with very less population did significantly create a mass mixture of colored people. If one man today in 2012 did the same would not create anything to effect the population since its overpopulated. Keep in mind that there is more women in the world then men.

[SionDS]

A loss of pigmentation is not evolving. It only changes your skin color not your physical body shape.

Dude, I am getting a feeling that you have no idea what evolution is. Loss of pigmentation is most defiantly evolution. How do you explain animals that live deep below the sea where there is no sunlight, or live in caves where there is no sunlight having no pigmentation?

The youtube guy has no idea what evolution is, never learned anything about biology, and is just a racist.

[gemiwine]

Dude, I am getting a feeling that you have no idea what evolution is. Loss of pigmentation is most defiantly evolution. How do you explain animals that live deep below the sea where there is no sunlight, or live in caves where there is no sunlight having no pigmentation?

The youtube guy has no idea what evolution is, never learned anything about biology, and is just a racist.I have looked into it a little more & I don't disagree on it being evolution but not from the cause of vitiligo. I just don't believe in darwins evolution theories.

Yea the youtube guy seems abit bias more toward the black race but as I said before I believe we are all the same just different skin color.

[splat]

I also feel like you don't know Darwin's theories, either.

[Mudofale]

I also feel like you don't know Darwin's theories, either.
Darwin's Theories? I think you mean gemiwine theories. He should write a book, it would be the greatest laugh I ever had.

My idea's and theories are no where near perfect, half of them are illogical. But that is why I keep them to myself and work on solidifiying them. Such as the big theory of "Time." I personally think there is too much focus on it. For one thing, it is only prevalent to earth, and it was created by man to keep track of events. Yet our current day science and physic is purely based of it. Someone proposed an idea for a replaced of time, I forget his name. But it used instances and distance variables instead time it's self. Pretty interesting stuff to read about.

[splat]

I was talking about gemwine, really. He said he doesn't believe his theories, yet he claims to "research" and as he does so describes, clumsily and like a child learning a basic concept, Darwin's theories.

[effingbillgates]

The cause of it is still unknown to this day but the truth is that we all were of the same dark pigmentation & migrated to different regions of the world where their skin colored changed. Some say its because of less sunlight in the upper regions is why their skin got lighter. There is more women in the world then men today so I'm sure back then in the 10 century B.C. when population was small it was more women as well for solomon to mate with & have kids by which took centuries to create the mixture of different color skinned people that we see today all over the world.

Do you actually have a point you're trying to make? This thread is called "the origins of white people", and was a trolling attempt that backfired because everything you ever say is wrong. Now what are you talking about? You can't be bothered to read a few thoughtful books but you'll make up stupid theories based on what some racist guy on youtube said? What is your actual point?

[gemiwine]

Do you actually have a point you're trying to make? This thread is called "the origins of white people", and was a trolling attempt that backfired because everything you ever say is wrong. Now what are you talking about? You can't be bothered to read a few thoughtful books but you'll make up stupid theories based on what some racist guy on youtube said? What is your actual point?Do you have a point to why you are replying to me again or are you trying to rant again?

[1313Jr.1313]

Do you have a point to why you are replying to me again or are you trying to rant again?

he made his point crystal clear...

[SionDS]

I have looked into it a little more & I don't disagree on it being evolution but not from the cause of vitiligo. I just don't believe in darwins evolution theories.

Yea the youtube guy seems abit bias more toward the black race but as I said before I believe we are all the same just different skin color.

No, differences in race involves a lot more than skin color. There are well defined differences in limb proportions, rib cage size, hormone levels, muscle type, metabolism, alcohol tolerance, lactose tolerance, vulnerability to certain diseases, the list goes on. It all fits in very well with that would be advantageous in the environments the different races lived in during prehistoric time.

If you are interested in learning more about evolution, I think it would be best to learn from biologists, rather than...AfriSynergists. Does that sound reasonable?

[gemiwine]

No, differences in race involves a lot more than skin color. There are well defined differences in limb proportions, rib cage size, hormone levels, muscle type, metabolism, alcohol tolerance, lactose tolerance, vulnerability to certain diseases, the list goes on. It all fits in very well with that would be advantageous in the environments the different races lived in during prehistoric time.

If you are interested in learning more about evolution, I think it would be best to learn from biologists, rather than...AfriSynergists. Does that sound reasonable?I wouldn't be so sure of that being true. Athletic ability, body structure, hygiene, immune system & all that you listed varies only in gene & cirumstances. That's like saying all asians are better martial artist then any race, blacks are more athletic than any race, whites are smarter than any race & etc.

I never heard of AfriSynergist until you mentioned it but I don't believe we evolved from apes yet I do agree that our body structures were different in ancient times but to say it varied only in race makes darwin a racist since that was what he indoctrinated hitler, communist & religious leaders across the world to believe which is one of the many reasons why the world is in its negative social disorder. The only evolution I believe in is in its literal meaning that dosent apply to race.

[SionDS]

I wouldn't be so sure of that being true. Athletic ability, body structure, hygiene, immune system & all that you listed varies only in gene & cirumstances. That's like saying all asians are better martial artist then any race, blacks are more athletic than any race, whites are smarter than any race & etc.

I never heard of AfriSynergist until you mentioned it but I don't believe we evolved from apes yet I do agree that our body structures were different in ancient times but to say it varied only in race makes darwin a racist since that was what he indoctrinated <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-0" style="background-color: Yellow; color: black;">hitler</layer>, communist & religious leaders across the world to believe which is one of the many reasons why the world is in its negative social disorder. The only evolution I believe in is in its literal meaning that dosent apply to race.

Varies in genes, but not by race? I got news for you buddy, race is dictated by genes. Evolution most definatly explains why there are different races and there's a ton of evidence to back it up, and you probably wont find that evidence in youtube videos by guys like the AfriSynergist in your first post.

No one believes we evolved from apes. That proves you dont know anything about evolution. You're getting it confused with the idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

I'm not sure how saying evolution can create different races makes you a racist. Can you explain this to me?

Can you also explain how Darwin indoctrinated Hitler if he died before Hitler was ever born?

[gemiwine]

Varies in genes, but not by race? I got news for you buddy, race is dictated by genes. Evolution most definatly explains why there are different races and there's a ton of evidence to back it up, and you probably wont find that evidence in youtube videos by guys like the AfriSynergist in your first post.

No one believes we evolved from apes. That proves you dont know anything about evolution. You're getting it confused with the idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

I'm not sure how saying evolution can create different races makes you a racist. Can you explain this to me?

Can you also explain how Darwin indoctrinated Hitler if he died before Hitler was ever born?Race is nothing more than a social concept that has zero to do with genes.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9581
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm
http://www.omics-ethics.org/observatoire/cadrages/cadr2005/c_no24_05/ca_no24_05_01.html

Parrots can talk like humans so we must share a common ancestor with them too. The origins of martial arts & eugenics derived from animals & domestication so if you really think about it, we share a common ancestor with animals period not just apes just because they visually ressemble more like us than any animal. Evolution only explains in its literal meaning how are physical appearances have changed over the centuries. Other than that what you listed only varies by individual so no race is no better nor worse than another race.

Darwin is the one who came up with the idea of race being less or more evolved than another which would sound racist to anyone. Hitler adopted the same beliefs of him including meaning other occultist which is his excuse for attempting to exterminate the weaker race of jews because his race was more superior.

[1313Jr.1313]

Race is nothing more than a social concept that has zero to do with genes.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9581
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm
http://www.omics-ethics.org/observatoire/cadrages/cadr2005/c_no24_05/ca_no24_05_01.html

Parrots can talk like humans so we must share a common ancestor with them too. The origins of martial arts & eugenics derived from animals & domestication so if you really think about it, we share a common ancestor with animals period not just apes just because they visually ressemble more like us than any animal. Evolution only explains in its literal meaning how are physical appearances have changed over the centuries. Other than that what you listed only varies by individual so no race is no better nor worse than another race.

Darwin is the one who came up with the idea of race being less or more evolved than another which would sound racist to anyone. Hitler adopted the same beliefs of him including meaning other occultist which is his excuse for attempting to exterminate the weaker race of jews because his race was more superior.
mimicry does not imply a common ancestor... you are trying to disprove something you don't understand in the first place... it doesn't work that way.

[effingbillgates]

Darwin is the one who came up with the idea of race being less or more evolved than another which would sound racist to anyone.

No, it would sound racist only to you, because you don't know what evolution is. All extant species are as evolved as each other. Slugs are as evolved as us. You've got it into your head that "evolved" means "improved" or something but it doesn't mean that. It's just to do with fitting into a natural environment.

[splat]

Let's try it this way- Gemwine, you're retarded. If you want an example of a failure of natural selection, find a mirror.

[gemiwine]

@13
Humans & parrots mimic all the time & we have types of diseases & cancers in common with dogs. A gorilla is not the only animal that humans share in common with.

@eff
http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thesocial.htm
http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2009/feb/17/darwins_comments_on_racial_superiority_clearly_pai-ar-331256/

[splat]

What an idiot. We're talking about GENETIC similarities, not behavioral similarities. And what? Other animals are affected by bacteria and viruses, which are designed to affect biological organisms? Oh no, stop the presses! And what's that? They can get cancer, too?! You know, that thing where their DNA (which all life forms have) glitches and causes superfluous cell growth? You mean, animals have DNA too? Evolution must be totally wrong.

That was sarcasm. I say this because you are probably too stupid to grasp it. Idiot.

[gemiwine]

What an idiot. We're talking about GENETIC similarities, not behavioral similarities. And what? Other animals are affected by bacteria and viruses, which are designed to affect biological organisms? Oh no, stop the presses! And what's that? They can get cancer, too?! You know, that thing where their DNA (which all life forms have) glitches and causes superfluous cell growth? You mean, animals have DNA too? Evolution must be totally wrong.

That was sarcasm. I say this because you are probably too stupid to grasp it. Idiot.So what is all the big hype in particular about the comparison with humans & apes concerning genetic similarities?

[splat]

... That humans and apes are both primates. Nobody really makes a big deal about it except for imbeciles who say "My grandpappy weren't no monkey!", based off of an entirely false understanding of evolutionary theory. So, people like you. All it means is that, a long-ass fuckin' time ago, there was a primate species that split off due to mutation or geographic location. One set became humans, one set became apes. Once again, the only people who take that to mean that monkeys turned into humans are retards like yourself.

[1313Jr.1313]

humans are the only beings on this planet to develop cognitive thought. this feature is shared with no animal as it is what differentiates us from animals. yet, we have not always had this capability.

[splat]

Actually, that's debatable. Gorillas can be taught sign language, and often make up their own words based on previously learned words. It shows a higher level of intelligence than we once assumed. Many animals are capable of powerful intelligence and understanding.

[gemiwine]

According to this atheist/evolutionist guy, we share a common ancestor with monkeys & we evolved from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igq_niFmXNs

[gemiwine]

Actually, that's debatable. Gorillas can be taught sign language, and often make up their own words based on previously learned words. It shows a higher level of intelligence than we once assumed. Many animals are capable of powerful intelligence and understanding.That I can agree with. Humans are not the only mammals that can develop understanding & perception.

[1313Jr.1313]

Actually, that's debatable. Gorillas can be taught sign language, and often make up their own words based on previously learned words. It shows a higher level of intelligence than we once assumed. Many animals are capable of powerful intelligence and understanding.
by the age of 27, the furthest another primate has been taught sign language is comparable to a 4 year old child and will almost never initiate a conversation nor can they communicate abstract concepts. your move ::great

[splat]

by the age of 27, the furthest another primate has been taught sign language is comparable to a 4 year old child and will almost never initiate a conversation nor can they communicate abstract concepts. your move ::great

Comparable to a four year old is pretty impressive for something we thought to be a mindless beast half a century ago. Gorillas can express abstract concepts, as can parrots. When shown a series of colored blocks, and asked how many blocks there are of a color not shown, a parrot can respond 'zero". This may not seem like a big deal, but it means that the bird has a conception of a LACK of something. A response for a confused creature acting only on syntax and not understanding would be a guess of a random number. It took humans a while to figure out the abstract concept of zero, and parrots are capable of learning it.

Gorillas can speak of feelings and emotions they have, particularly relating to past events or future wants. Gorillas may also invent words to suit their needs or wants. For example, I reading of a group of gorillas who began spontaneously calling cabbage "Hard Lettuce", as it was harder to chew, and made up names for different kinds of melon based on their qualities. They also referred to a flood as "big water". All of this shows actual, direct understanding of context, and an ability to utilize these not as simple syntax tools but as a means of expression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCdWyLNNXU skip to around 5:10 and watch the bit with the dog. What's important isn't the actual test being done- Watch the dog's body language. The dog seems to know almost immediately which toy is new, but hesitates. The dog seems to be anxious, and does not want to disappoint her owner. She may not be stating it in English, but it's pretty apparent that she understands the abstract qualia of human disappointment, shame, or anxiety.

Check.

[effingbillgates]

@13
@eff
http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thesocial.htm
http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2009/feb/17/darwins_comments_on_racial_superiority_clearly_pai-ar-331256/

I didn't click on those links. What absolute shit do they present?

[effingbillgates]

According to this atheist/evolutionist guy, we share a common ancestor with monkeys & we evolved from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igq_niFmXNs

We've already talked about this. Go back to the first page of this thread. We didn't evolve from modern day chimps. We share a common ancestor with them. Can you grasp that you share a common ancestor (eg. a great grandparent) with your human cousins? That doesn't mean you came from your cousins. Now go back far enough and you're talking about modern day chimps and modern day humans sharing a common ancestor. This doesn't mean we evolved from modern day chimps. Can't you understand?

Again, I haven't clicked on the youtube link because there's no point. Either he's got evolution wrong or you've misinterpreted him - I don't really care which one.

[gemiwine]

We've already talked about this. Go back to the first page of this thread. We didn't evolve from modern day chimps. We share a common ancestor with them. Can you grasp that you share a common ancestor (eg. a great grandparent) with your human cousins? That doesn't mean you came from your cousins. Now go back far enough and you're talking about modern day chimps and modern day humans sharing a common ancestor. This doesn't mean we evolved from modern day chimps. Can't you understand?I don't share a common ancestor with monkeys even though you were indoctrinated to accept this as truth through childhood. If your going to insult me even more or attempt to assassinate me because I disagree with the theory still dosent make it true. After all evolution is just a theory & an excuse to say "we are more than just humans"

First we said we evolved from them now we say we share a common ancestor with them. I wonder what changed the idea or is it just completely irrelevant since evolution can't explain how life really begun. What did monkeys share a common ancestor with before humans? O I forgot we are monkeys.

[effingbillgates]

even though you were indoctrinated to accept this as truth through childhood.

Haha, something tells me you don't know anything about my childhood.



If your going to insult me even more or attempt to assassinate me because I disagree with the theory still dosent make it true. After all evolution is just a theory & an excuse to say "we are more than just humans"

Insult you (I haven't been insulting you) or assassinate you? How melodramatic! Way to have a Christ complex. I forgot that all of these stupid threads were actually attempts to preach at us. And here I was thinking you were here to learn something.

Evolution isn't about saying "we are more than just humans". If anything it's about observing that we are within the animal kingdom, rather than above it. This is why it upsets religious and conservative people so much.



First we said we evolved from them

No we didn't. That's just want people who don't understand evolution think. Darwin never said that we evolved from modern day chimps. Probably a load of idiots in youtube videos confused you, and of course it's easier for you to blame Darwin than yourself for not being able to understand the source material or form thoughts that actually make sense.




now we say we share a common ancestor with them. I wonder what changed the idea or is it just completely irrelevant since evolution can't explain how life really begun. What did monkeys share a common ancestor with before humans? O I forgot we are monkeys.

What do you mean by "what did monkeys share a common ancestor with before humans?" It's like asking "who was cousin James' great grandfather before I was born?" It makes absolutely no sense, like everything that comes out of your head. If your imagination wasn't so astoundingly limited you'd be able to point your criticisms at your own failures in logic rather than everything you don't understand.

[gemiwine]

Haha, something tells me you don't know anything about my childhood.




Insult you (I haven't been insulting you) or assassinate you? How melodramatic! Way to have a Christ complex. I forgot that all of these stupid threads were actually attempts to preach at us. And here I was thinking you were here to learn something.

Evolution isn't about saying "we are more than just humans". If anything it's about observing that we are within the animal kingdom, rather than above it. This is why it upsets religious and conservative people so much.




No we didn't. That's just want people who don't understand evolution think. Darwin never said that we evolved from modern day chimps. Probably a load of idiots in youtube videos confused you, and of course it's easier for you to blame Darwin than yourself for not being able to understand the source material or form thoughts that actually make sense.




What do you mean by "what did monkeys share a common ancestor with before humans?" It's like asking "who was cousin James' great grandfather before I was born?" It makes absolutely no sense, like everything that comes out of your head. If your imagination wasn't so astoundingly limited you'd be able to point your criticisms at your own failures in logic rather than everything you don't understand.Everyone assumes the word preaching has to mean talking about a subject relating to God which is pure ignorances since scientist, thesist, atheist, astronomers & phylosophers do the same is "preach."

Darwin said we evolved from primates, apes, monkeys etc however you want to call it the man said we evolved from them either way & now we say we share a common ancestor with them later on.

We think we are within the kingdom this is why its called a THEORY with assumptions that we want but can't accept as pure truth of our origins. Darwin is not God just a random guy who came up with ideas that he manipulated people to accept as truth. To diagree with Darwin dosent make one an idiot or confused. It just makes someone with an open mind away from popular belief.

I mean if we humans have a common ancestor with monkeys then monkeys have a common ancestor with what species? O yea humans I forgot again.

[1313Jr.1313]

Comparable to a four year old is pretty impressive for something we thought to be a mindless beast half a century ago. Gorillas can express abstract concepts, as can parrots. When shown a series of colored blocks, and asked how many blocks there are of a color not shown, a parrot can respond 'zero". This may not seem like a big deal, but it means that the bird has a conception of a LACK of something. A response for a confused creature acting only on syntax and not understanding would be a guess of a random number. It took humans a while to figure out the abstract concept of zero, and parrots are capable of learning it. the birds being able to express 0 does not show that they can comprehend abstract concepts but rather that they can identify when a given tile is absent. while this is still a good jump, the fact that the birds being taught that this is 0 takes away from the idea that they can comprehend abstract concepts quite a bit.


Gorillas can speak of feelings and emotions they have, particularly relating to past events or future wants. Gorillas may also invent words to suit their needs or wants. For example, I reading of a group of gorillas who began spontaneously calling cabbage "Hard Lettuce", as it was harder to chew, and made up names for different kinds of melon based on their qualities. They also referred to a flood as "big water". All of this shows actual, direct understanding of context, and an ability to utilize these not as simple syntax tools but as a means of expression.i would love to see a source for this. i wound up doing a paper on almost this exact thing but the furthest evolution of signing i found was a mother teaching her child some signs. not exactly spontaneous evolution of signing if you know what i mean. that being said, the ability to apply adjectives to words is nothing new for signing animals or them using the closest known match (for them) to express a novel idea is far from being able to express an abstract concept like love or the moon during the day or tomorrow (abstract concept may be the wrong word for this but you know what i mean). lastly, the only known animal to be able to communicate about something in the future are bees to the best of my knowledge.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCdWyLNNXU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCdWyLNNXU) skip to around 5:10 and watch the bit with the dog. What's important isn't the actual test being done- Watch the dog's body language. The dog seems to know almost immediately which toy is new, but hesitates. The dog seems to be anxious, and does not want to disappoint her owner. She may not be stating it in English, but it's pretty apparent that she understands the abstract qualia of human disappointment, shame, or anxiety.

Check.
i don't know too much about animals and emotional attachments, just language, lol. it would appear that what you thought was check, was really just the two of hearts before the flop of this chinese checkers game.

[effingbillgates]

Everyone assumes the word preaching has to mean talking about a subject relating to God which is pure ignorances since scientist, thesist, atheist, astronomers & phylosophers do the same is "preach."

Darwin said we evolved from primates, apes, monkeys etc however you want to call it the man said we evolved from them either way & now we say we share a common ancestor with them later on.

We think we are within the kingdom this is why its called a THEORY with assumptions that we want but can't accept as pure truth of our origins. Darwin is not God just a random guy who came up with ideas that he manipulated people to accept as truth. To diagree with Darwin dosent make one an idiot or confused. It just makes someone with an open mind away from popular belief.

I mean if we humans have a common ancestor with monkeys then monkeys have a common ancestor with what species? O yea humans I forgot again.

1) You are wrong. Darwin never said that human beings evolved from modern day apes. Stop saying that "suddenly the argument has changed" as if there's some kind of contradiction within the argument itself. All that's changed is your (mis)understanding of the subject.

2) Nobody has claimed Darwin was God. God has no authority anyway, since the bible is just one book amongst billions of other books that are just as worthwhile. All people in history are "random guys" - even those corrupt kings who sculpted the words of the bible that you swallow so blindly.

3) Nobody is saying you need to agree with Darwin. The problem is that you are rejecting something and calling something wrong without having understood it. You're like a kid who thinks he doesn't like a certain foods because he's never tried them.

4) The idea that you have an "open mind away from popular belief" made me laugh. You don't have an open mind, because you don't understand anything. Being obsessed with inaccurate blogs that say things you won't see on mainstream television doesn't mean you are liberated from being a sheep.

[gemiwine]

1) You are wrong. Darwin never said that human beings evolved from modern day apes. Stop saying that "suddenly the argument has changed" as if there's some kind of contradiction within the argument itself. All that's changed is your (mis)understanding of the subject.

2) Nobody has claimed Darwin was God. God has no authority anyway, since the bible is just one book amongst billions of other books that are just as worthwhile. All people in history are "random guys" - even those corrupt kings who sculpted the words of the bible that you swallow so blindly.

3) Nobody is saying you need to agree with Darwin. The problem is that you are rejecting something and calling something wrong without having understood it. You're like a kid who thinks he doesn't like a certain foods because he's never tried them.

4) The idea that you have an "open mind away from popular belief" made me laugh. You don't have an open mind, because you don't understand anything. Being obsessed with inaccurate blogs that say things you won't see on mainstream television doesn't mean you are liberated from being a sheep. It s not hard to understand. Darwin believed based on many years of his research in the fields of biology and comparative anatomy, that anatomically similar species such as humans, apes, and monkeys probably evolved, over a period of many thousands of years, from a common, ape-like ancestor, now extinct.*

This is his own idea that everyone in the world dosent have to hold as truth explaining our origins as if he's God to show us the way. Science has no authority since its books contain many flaws that are ueseless man made ideas that often fail. Comparing the bible to many books is not going to cut it since thats another trend of popular belief from people who cant confirm that of being true.

I can reject Darwins teachings while understanding what he thought how how life begun in humans. Also his arguments have changed many times which is what science always does is says "this how It happened" "actually it happened this way" "This is what really happened."

Anything that goes against your belief system your quick to call inaccurate & wrong based off of your own bias observations. I have an open mind about a lot of things & agreeing with everything you say makes it narrow since your not 100% correct about everything yourself.

[effingbillgates]

It s not hard to understand. Darwin believed based on many years of his research in the fields of biology and comparative anatomy, that anatomically similar species such as humans, apes, and monkeys probably evolved, over a period of many thousands of years, from a common, ape-like ancestor, now extinct.*

Guess what. I can tell that you copy and pasted that from somewhere. It's not your writing style, and you don't understand what it says.




This is his own idea that everyone in the world dosent have to hold as truth explaining our origins as if he's God to show us the way. Science has no authority since its books contain many flaws that are ueseless man made ideas that often fail. Comparing the bible to many books is not going to cut it since thats another trend of popular belief from people who cant confirm that of being true.

You're the one who's bringing God up. God is completely irrelevant to this. Darwin never claimed he was God. You'd be doing yourself a big favour by considering God and the bible a small part of a much bigger picture rather than the most important thing.




I can reject Darwins teachings while understanding what he thought how how life begun in humans. Also his arguments have changed many times which is what science always does is says "this how It happened" "actually it happened this way" "This is what really happened."

What science actually does is use evidence in repeatable experiments to explore possibilities. When new evidence comes up, it is open minded enough to accept that and move on. It doesn't continue to hold beliefs that have been disproved. It also doesn't believe things that haven't been proven. It's all about evidence and proof, and nothing to do with belief.

It's bizarre that you consider evolving theories to be a weakness, given how much you harp on about open mindedness. Even your beloved bible has been updated and changed several times to fit the whims of different eras. The difference is that you claim that it's still God's word even though it's been changed so much in 2000 years by rulers with personal agendas.

Darwin's ideas aren't taken to be some incredible truth that will never go away. They're not arrogant in the same way as the words of the bible. Rather they're something that fits until disproved, and since you started the thread you should at least understand some of the most important theories in the field that people are bringing up, rather than rejecting them out of hand.




Anything that goes against your belief system your quick to call inaccurate & wrong based off of your own bias observations. I have an open mind about a lot of things & agreeing with everything you say makes it narrow since your not 100% correct about everything yourself.

I don't have a belief system. You have completely misunderstood me if you think I'm telling you to agree with the thoughts I've had over the course of my personal life. The only thing that matters is you should actually understand things before you reject them, but you do not do this. You have a very narrow belief system that causes you to seek out very particular videos to use as evidence for very specific theories you've gained from blogs, and you reject everything that does not agree with them. You do not understand the contrary evidence, so will never properly consider it. If things aren't presented to you in a simple way you reject it. So you go to nonsense from so-called evolutionists on youtube rather than Darwin, and you blame Darwin if it's rubbish. You have never read Darwin, and yet you reject him.

[gemiwine]

Guess what. I can tell that you copy and pasted that from somewhere. It's not your writing style, and you don't understand what it says.




You're the one who's bringing God up. God is completely irrelevant to this. Darwin never claimed he was God. You'd be doing yourself a big favour by considering God and the bible a small part of a much bigger picture rather than the most important thing.




What science actually does is use evidence in repeatable experiments to explore possibilities. When new evidence comes up, it is open minded enough to accept that and move on. It doesn't continue to hold beliefs that have been disproved. It also doesn't believe things that haven't been proven. It's all about evidence and proof, and nothing to do with belief.

It's bizarre that you consider evolving theories to be a weakness, given how much you harp on about open mindedness. Even your beloved bible has been updated and changed to fit different eras. The difference is that you claim that it's still God's word even though it's been changed so much.




I don't have a belief system. You have completely misunderstood me if you think I'm telling you to agree with the thoughts I've had over the course of my personal life. The only thing that matters is you should actually understand things before you reject them, but you do not do this. You have a very narrow belief system that causes you to seek out very particular videos to use as evidence for very specific theories you've gained from blogs, and you reject everything that does not agree with them. You do not understand the contrary evidence, so will never accept it. If things aren't presented to you in a simple way you reject it. So you go to nonsense from so-called evolutionists on youtube rather than Darwin, and you blame Darwin if it's rubbish. You have never read Darwin, and yet you reject him.It dosent matter if I copy & paste it either way I read up on darwins evolution & understand that he clams we share a common ancestor with primates which are just simply monkeys.

People looked up to Darwin a if he is God since people really buy into his creation. Darwin is not relevant when it comes to explaining the origins of life since everything he says is not true & never will be anytime soon since evolution is slowly dying out since itsonly a theory period.

I know what science does yet science has not always been the answer to everything single thing. Science does hold the belief of some things that have been disaprove like trying to be a God, genetic manipulation, creating a superhuman, being able to live in outerspace, transgender & many crazy experiments that often fail.

I understand Darwins theory maybe not in the way you do. Nonetheless it really dosent matter since I'm not the only one who reject Darwins teachings & shouldn't be ridiculed to being narrow minded to not accept theories of his. I see that you really are in so much defense for this man like he's your God who told how you were created as if you have to hold on to that as factual. One day I'm sure there will be another theory by another Darwin who will see =his isbhow we were created" then it starts over again.

[effingbillgates]

Why do you reject it out of principle? It upsets you that we are not above other animals?

Again, the point is not that you are rejecting it. It's that you reject things before you fully understand them because you are following a narrow path. Being more open might lead you to other places that scare you because they don't involve God. This is why it's so ironic that you go on so much about others being open minded. Nobody in this discussion is being more narrow than you.

[splat]

the birds being able to express 0 does not show that they can comprehend abstract concepts but rather that they can identify when a given tile is absent. while this is still a good jump, the fact that the birds being taught that this is 0 takes away from the idea that they can comprehend abstract concepts quite a bit.

i would love to see a source for this. i wound up doing a paper on almost this exact thing but the furthest evolution of signing i found was a mother teaching her child some signs. not exactly spontaneous evolution of signing if you know what i mean. that being said, the ability to apply adjectives to words is nothing new for signing animals or them using the closest known match (for them) to express a novel idea is far from being able to express an abstract concept like love or the moon during the day or tomorrow (abstract concept may be the wrong word for this but you know what i mean). lastly, the only known animal to be able to communicate about something in the future are bees to the best of my knowledge.


i don't know too much about animals and emotional attachments, just language, lol. it would appear that what you thought was check, was really just the two of hearts before the flop of this chinese checkers game.

Again, the concept of something being "absent" is a difficult one. Humans did not come up with it until 2000 BC. That they can answer that none of the blocks are the ones being inquired about means that they know which blocks are being referred to, and understand that there are a lack of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yReUUPO-5xg&feature=autoplay&list=UUlbB3T1q32FQ2SoDhO8xi_Q&playnext=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCdWyLNNXU) In this clip, Koko either doesn't know the word for brush, or has forgotten it, and so uses words around it to describe it.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtlaporrfSE&feature=autoplay&list=UUlbB3T1q32FQ2SoDhO8xi_Q&playnext=1 Koko shows a reaction to a film and expresses the content that upsets her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXKsPqQ0Ycc&list=UUlbB3T1q32FQ2SoDhO8xi_Q&index=10&feature=plcp This one is a bit hard to parse, but there is some content there.


Emotional attachments are important. If they can feel them, they must be capable of expressing them. Mind you, not necessarily in English, not necessarily in language, and they may not necessarily express them at all. Expression is just that- Showing what already is.

[gemiwine]

Why do you reject it out of principle? It upsets you that we are not above other animals?

Again, the point is not that you are rejecting it. It's that you reject things before you fully understand them because you are following a narrow path. Being more open might lead you to other places that scare you because they don't involve God. This is why it's so ironic that you go on so much about others being open minded. Nobody in this discussion is being more narrow than you.I'm not upset that we are not above the animal kingdom. Im not going by principle either. I simply just don't believe that we have a common ancestor with monkeys. Believing in God & the bible does not make you narrow minded because I know open & narrow minded people who believe in the two. Being open dosent lead me to places that scare me because they don't involve God. Being open minded about doing my own maintenece work on a bike rather than taking it to a shop to charge me an arm & a leg for it dosent involve God. Martial arts dosent involve God yet my mind has become open to that. I read plenty of other books that don't involve God that my mind has been open to. I been opened to a lot of things. You just assume what my character is & where my status of intellect falls based off of believing in something you dont which I don't have a problem with. We all have chooses & can't force our beliefs to be true on anyone regardless.

[effingbillgates]

Why won't you accept having a common ancestor with apes? What is your actual reason? Is it personal pride?

[gemiwine]

Why won't you accept having a common ancestor with apes? What is your actual reason? Is it personal pride?No pride. I don't accept it because its only a theory not a fact. I can't explain my actual reason through a scientific approach, I just don't believe in Darwin theories.

[hotspot]

Why won't you accept having a common ancestor with apes? What is your actual reason? Is it personal pride?

In that case all biological organisms share a common ancestor, this includes Apes, Humans, parrots, dogs and fish. It's called microorganisms

[splat]

Gemwine, there is ample evidence to suggest it is the case that we share a common ancestor. It is "just a theory", true, but so is gravitation, conceptions about penicillin, aerodynamics, thermodynamics (As in, the technology to make motorcycles). Since this is the most credible theory pertaining to life and the origin of species, why are you so opposed to it? You're not even willing to accept it as a possibility- That's the problem.

[Mudofale]

In that case all biological organisms share a common ancestor, this includes Apes, Humans, parrots, dogs and fish. It's called microorganisms
Please refrain from joining into a dicussion if you have no idea what is being dicussed... I mean honestly.

In that case all biological organisms share a common ancestor
You just compared every complex form of life with one another because they have a cell structure, which you are actually wrong about. Fish do not have the same cellular structure as humans, nor do dogs, or parrots. So please, be quiet if you don't know anything about biology.
They are talking about a completely different ordering then you are incorrectly refering to, ever heard of Kingdom, Phyllum, Order, Class... etc etc? If not, then this dicussion is not for you.


I was thinking of something to add to the dicussion, but I asked myself a pretty good question that I actually do not know the full answer to. I will be doing some research to get an answer, and some deep thinking.

The question was, Why did humans progress so rapidly, as apposed to apes or any other complex organism with human like qualities?

Ill post what I come up with I suppose.

[1313Jr.1313]

Again, the concept of something being "absent" is a difficult one. Humans did not come up with it until 2000 BC. That they can answer that none of the blocks are the ones being inquired about means that they know which blocks are being referred to, and understand that there are a lack of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yReUUPO-5xg&feature=autoplay&list=UUlbB3T1q32FQ2SoDhO8xi_Q&playnext=1 In this clip, Koko either doesn't know the word for brush, or has forgotten it, and so uses words around it to describe it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtlaporrfSE&feature=autoplay&list=UUlbB3T1q32FQ2SoDhO8xi_Q&playnext=1 Koko shows a reaction to a film and expresses the content that upsets her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXKsPqQ0Ycc&list=UUlbB3T1q32FQ2SoDhO8xi_Q&index=10&feature=plcp This one is a bit hard to parse, but there is some content there.


Emotional attachments are important. If they can feel them, they must be capable of expressing them. Mind you, not necessarily in English, not necessarily in language, and they may not necessarily express them at all. Expression is just that- Showing what already is.
yes, koko. love that rascal. anyway, the concept of something being absent may not have been something humans picked up until 2000 bc, BUT it is something that human children are able to learn by around a year (not sure the exact timeframe of object permanence but i'm pretty sure it's definitely within the first two years). there is a huge difference between learning something and just mimicking it. koko is as advanced as it gets (and i believe koko has a child, right? the one that will be as strong of a signer as humans have ever seen in non-humans) and koko is hardly above mimicry. koko almost never initiates a conversation outside of "food" or other necessities. koko 2: spawn of koko is probably the closest thing we'll have to a full on child of 10-12 worth of signing, but what will be seen there is far from being seen now. we can assume whatever we want on that one but only time will tell.

what you say of emotional attachments is something i can agree with, but keep in mind this is far from language. a baby can cry but it sure as shit can't explain why in plain english (usually).

[Mudofale]

what you say of emotional attachments is something i can agree with, but keep in mind this is far from language. a baby can cry but it sure as shit can't explain why in plain english (usually).

I have to partially agree with that last part. If self expression is how you communicate a thought, such as someone blowing a kiss to a loved one, they are performing an action to display a message of "I love you" or some form of that. Crying, while it does come in many different forms, frequencies, and lengths, may not be as easy to understand as a person blowing a kiss, but it does give the message of "Something is wrong." Think of it this way, when does a baby cry when it's happy? I can't really think of any, a baby will generally cry when it has a feeling (it may not know what it is) and needs a way to display that feeling, so they cry to let you know they need something. Just like you can tell a baby is happy, or doing well if they are smiling and laughing.

As an adult, or someone over the age of 3, they can generally tell you what is wrong with them instead of crying. But this is not true in all cases. Does this show complex thinking? Not directly, but it is a step towards new ways of communicating a message. Such as, if I broke my arm, I would most likely hold my hand over the part that hurts the most to draw your attention towards that spot.

[SionDS]

Gemiwine, why would you post a video of someone saying white people are defective and comparing them to something diseased and say it's "interesting," yet you call what Darwin says "racist?"

Why call Darwin a hardcore racist, but you call the man in your video "abit bias more toward the black race."

Is being "abit bias more toward the black race" anything like being a racist, or a black supremacist? Why did you think his video was "interesting" and not offensive and racist?

[Mudofale]

Gemiwine, why would you post a video of someone saying white people are defective and comparing them to something diseased and say it's "interesting," yet you call what Darwin says "racist?"

Why call Darwin a hardcore racist, but you call the man in your video "abit bias more toward the black race."

Is being "abit bias more toward the black race" anything like being a racist, or a black supremacist? Why did you think his video was "interesting" and not offensive and racist?

The last part was a bit irrelevant, the entire world is offensive. Thats why most people are labeled "rude". It's part of our culture.

[gemiwine]

The last part was a bit irrelevant, the entire world is offensive. Thats why most people are labeled "rude". It's part of our culture. I never said Darwin was a HARDCORE racist.

Being racist is to think one race is more superior than the other. He thought that race could be a genetic concept which is why racism is a theory used by all race of people who try to differentiate each other as humans by mixing race with genetics which is what Darwin did.

There was nothing offensive or racist about the video. He simply says vitiligo is the cause of white people which alone is not true however there are many causes to why we have different colored pigmentations in people today that had more to do with deviation. He's bias toward his race only because his view on the european slave trade being more genocidal then the African slave trade is being bias toward history supporting the side of blcks being the victims & whites being guilty rather than the blacks being guilty all together.

[Mudofale]

I never said Darwin was a HARDCORE racist.

Being racist is to think one race is more superior than the other. He thought that race could be a genetic concept which is why racism is a theory used by all race of people who try to differentiate each other as humans by mixing race with genetics which is what Darwin did.

There was nothing offensive or racist about the video. He simply says vitiligo is the cause of white people which alone is not true however there are many causes to why we have different colored pigmentations in people today that had more to do with deviation. He's bias toward his race only because his view on the european slave trade being more genocidal then the African slave trade is being bias toward history supporting the side of blcks being the victims & whites being guilty rather than the blacks being guilty all together.

Why is this directed at me?

[splat]

I never said Darwin was a HARDCORE racist.

Being racist is to think one race is more superior than the other. He thought that race could be a genetic concept which is why racism is a theory used by all race of people who try to differentiate each other as humans by mixing race with genetics which is what Darwin did.

There was nothing offensive or racist about the video. He simply says vitiligo is the cause of white people which alone is not true however there are many causes to why we have different colored pigmentations in people today that had more to do with deviation. He's bias toward his race only because his view on the european slave trade being more genocidal then the African slave trade is being bias toward history supporting the side of blcks being the victims & whites being guilty rather than the blacks being guilty all together.


No. You're stupid. You tell me why.

[Mudofale]

I never said Darwin was a HARDCORE racist.

Being racist is to think one race is more superior than the other. He thought that race could be a genetic concept which is why racism is a theory used by all race of people who try to differentiate each other as humans by mixing race with genetics which is what Darwin did.

There was nothing offensive or racist about the video. He simply says vitiligo is the cause of white people which alone is not true however there are many causes to why we have different colored pigmentations in people today that had more to do with deviation. He's bias toward his race only because his view on the european slave trade being more genocidal then the African slave trade is being bias toward history supporting the side of blcks being the victims & whites being guilty rather than the blacks being guilty all together.

I have one question really, what was the point of this thread if the topic at hand was based off a invalid video?

[1313Jr.1313]

if you're going to resurrect somebody, don't resurrect the village idiot.

[Mudofale]

if you're going to resurrect somebody, don't resurrect the village idiot.

Should have told that to Dr.Frankenstein or Victor Frankenstein, would have saved him a lot of grief. *Little known fact, Victor Frankenstein was the name of the creator, the monsters name was not mentioned in the novel, but people refer to him as "Frankensteins' monster" or "Frankenstein" because of lack of knowledge.

[gemiwine]

I have one question really, what was the point of this thread if the topic at hand was based off a invalid video?To get people to understand that whites & blacks are the same people. This is not the only video or information that you can find that's related to the subject. Some are more accurate then others.

[1313Jr.1313]

To get people to understand that whites & blacks are the same people. This is not the only video or information that you can find that's related to the subject. Some are more accurate then others.

the video does not promote the fact that whites and blacks are equal.

[gemiwine]

the video does not promote the fact that whites and blacks are equal.If whites came from blacks then they are the same people with lighter pigmentations.

[1313Jr.1313]

no, the video does not promote the idea of equality but rather that one race is superior. if you wanted to say that blacks and whites are equal, then just say it instead of linking to a video whose message you apparently did not understand.

[gemiwine]

no, the video does not promote the idea of equality but rather that one race is superior. if you wanted to say that blacks and whites are equal, then just say it instead of linking to a video whose message you apparently did not understand.If I said whites came from blacks that would mean I'm racist or that the black race is more superior?

[effingbillgates]

people refer to him as "Frankensteins' monster" or "Frankenstein" because of lack of knowledge.

It's right to call him "Frankenstein's monster" because he was the monster invented by or belonging to Frankenstein.


But anyway loads of creations are named after their inventors, or we'd have to say things like "The Earl of Sandwich's Tasty Bread and Cheese Snack". So I don't get too upset when people refer to the monster itself as Frankenstein.

[Mudofale]

If I said whites came from blacks that would mean I'm racist or that the black race is more superior?

If I said a baby came from it's mother. Does that mean they are not equals?

[1313Jr.1313]

If I said whites came from blacks that would mean I'm racist or that the black race is more superior?

again, stay on topic. the video you linked to and the words you are typing are not conveying the same message as what you are linking to.

[gemiwine]

again, stay on topic. the video you linked to and the words you are typing are not conveying the same message as what you are linking to.Whites being a form a mutation from africa into the northern areas that are colder which from that result made their pigmentation lighter that didn't require much sun proof in that northern region sounds racist?

[splat]

And now you're explaining Darwinism. You're so fucking stupid, you don't even know what you believe.

[1313Jr.1313]

And now you're explaining Darwinism. You're so fucking stupid, you don't even know what you believe.

someone had to make him say something that made sense :P

[gemiwine]

I'm quoting what afrisynergy said. I'm asking if that sounds racist to you. I never said I agreed with it. Its a simple question.

[excedrinboy]

Why is this topic 9 pages? Yes the general consensus is that we started in Africa. Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Why white skin? The general theory is less sun in the higher latitudes. Until more evidence comes forward anything else turns into racism.

[sourmold11]

Why is this topic 9 pages? Yes the general consensus is that we started in Africa. Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Why white skin? The general theory is less sun in the higher latitudes. Until more evidence comes forward anything else turns into racism.
They must not no anything about the Equator line obviously?

[gemiwine]

They must not no anything about the Equator line obviously?The discusson is the origins of lighter skin people. We all know we came from Africa but the question is what was the cause of lighter skin from the Africans. The equator theory dosen't work because there's dark people in every country.

[splat]

The discusson is the origins of lighter skin people. We all know we came from Africa but the question is what was the cause of lighter skin from the Africans. The equator theory dosen't work because there's dark people in every country.

Right, professor. Because as we all know, since the Great Elmer's Covenant of 1500 BC, all people ever born are glued to their exact position and are allowed no more than fifteen feet of motion throughout their lives. Thus sayeth the great Sky Cactus, thus it hath been.

[excedrinboy]

They must not no anything about the Equator line obviously?
Well, that turns to the rub of the discussion no? Why are they lighter higher up? Vitamin D defeciency due to low sunlight is the consensus. But you can also get vitamin D from your diet as well...diets rich in fat and oil will give you a healthy dose. This explains why Inuits up in the northern reaches are not super super pale. Also, people move, people prefer a certain look over others. Low sunlight, low vitamin D levels, and sexual preference are why we have white skin. There is NO concrete evidence that it was some sort of weird mutation that happened in Africa and they were cast out.

[excedrinboy]

also, this.
"
About 1.5 million years ago, the earth endured a megadrought that drove hominids from lush rainforests into arid, open landscapes. This, coupled with the loss of dense body hair, caused early human skin to endure excess UV-B radiation and xeric stress.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Elias2010-42) Rogers et al. (2004) performed an examination of the variation in MC1R nucleotide sequences for people of different ancestry and compared the sequences of chimpanzees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzees) and humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans) from various regions of the Earth. Rogers concluded that roughly five million years ago, at the time of the evolutionary separation of chimpanzees and humans, the common ancestors of all humans had light skin that was covered by dark hair. Additionally, our closest extant relative, the chimpanzee, has light skin covered by thick body hair.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-rogers2004-43) Over time human hair disappeared to allow better heat dissipation through sweating[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-jablonski2000-2) and the skin tone grew darker to increase the epidermal permeability barrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum_corneum)[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Elias2010-42) and protect from folate depletion due to the increased exposure to sunlight.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-pmid20445093-3) By 1.2 million years ago, around the time of homo ergaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster) and homo erectus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus), the ancestors of all people living today had exactly the same receptor protein as modern Africans.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-rogers2004-43) Evolutionary pressure meant that any gene variations that resulted in lighter skin were unable to survive under the intense African sun, and human skin remained dark for the next 1.1 million years.
About 70,000–100,000 years ago some modern humans began to migrate away from the tropics to the north where they were exposed to less intense sunlight, possibly in part due to the need for greater use of clothing to protect against the colder climate. Under these conditions there was less photodestruction of folate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate) and so the evolutionary pressure stopping lighter-skinned gene variants from surviving was reduced. In addition, lighter skin is able to generate more vitamin D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D) (cholecalciferol) than darker skin so it would have represented a health benefit in reduced sunlight if there were limited sources of vitamin D.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-jablonski2000-2) Hence the leading hypothesis for the evolution of human skin color proposes that:


From ~1.2 million years ago to less than 100,000 years ago, the ancestors of all people alive were dark-skinned Africans.
As populations began to migrate, the evolutionary constraint keeping skin dark decreased proportionally to the distance North a population migrated, resulting in a range of skin tones within northern populations.
At some point, northern populations experienced positive selection for lighter skin due to the increased production of vitamin D from sunlight and the genes for darker skin disappeared from these populations.

The genetic mutations leading to light skin, though different among East Asians and Europeans,[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Norton2006-24) suggest the two groups experienced a similar selective pressure due to settlement in northern latitudes.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-pmid19481954-4)
There is a long-standing hypothesis that the selection for lighter skin due to higher vitamin D absorption occurred soon after the Out of Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans) migration sometime before 40,000 years ago. A number of researchers disagree with this and suggest that the northern latitudes permitted enough synthesis of vitamin D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Production_in_the_skin) combined with food sources from hunting to keep populations healthy, and only when agriculture was adopted was there a need for lighter skin to maximize the synthesis of vitamin D. The theory suggests that the reduction of game meat, fish, and some plants from the diet resulted in skin turning light many thousands of years after settlement in Europe and Asia.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-44)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-backintyme.com-45) This theory is supported by a study into the SLC24A5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5) gene which found that the allelle associated with light skin in Europe may have originated as recently as 6,000–10,000 years ago[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-pmid17446367-22) which is in line with the earliest evidence of farming.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-46)
One of the most recently proposed drivers of the evolution of skin pigmentation in humans is based on research that shows a superior barrier function in darkly pigmented skin.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-47) Most protective functions of the skin, including the permeability barrier and the antimicrobial barrier, reside in the stratum corneum (SC). It seems logical to surmise that the SC has undergone the most genetic change since the loss of human body hair. Natural selection would have favored mutations that protect this essential barrier; one such protective adaptation is the pigmentation of interfollicular epidermis, because it improves barrier function as compared to non-pigmented skin. In lush rainforests, however, where UV-B radiation and xeric stress were not in excess, light pigmentation would not have been nearly as detrimental. This explains the side-by-side residence of lightly pigmented and darkly pigmented peoples."