Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 48.8%
  • No

    Votes: 14 32.6%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Total voters
    43
What makes you say that? Why does accepting evolution lead to that conclusion?


Darwinian theory, today known as Evolutionary theory/biology, teaches its adherents to accept disparities between human races as the result of natural selection. Africans fall at the bottom and the White people are at the top. Read on Eugenics.

Read Darwin's books. They are available online in PDF files.

Here is google quote from Darwin in His book "The Descent of Man"

The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.

This is the man behind natural selection theory as expressed in the statement above. He actually believed in his ignorance back then, a cow would give birth to something else other than a cow given time.
 
Last edited:
.




Paleontology places Africa and the Africans to be the source origin of humans. So who split from whom according to evolutionary biology? It is now popular to claim Africans are our parents/ancestors.

Spend time reading material before you participate. Get the updates. It will make you look good.
Let's not get caught up in who split from whom. You didn't refute anything I said so I don't get your point.
 
How about refuting the science priests who claim expertise, like the Nobel Prize winning James Watson?

You need to research the people who were championing this theory yaakhey. Read their work on the differences between the races. Their assertions still torment us to this day, and on a global scale at that.

You have been presented a paradigm with only a single natural conclusion: one of racial hierarchy subject to 'evolutionary' forces.

The monkey who left developed and hardened due to change in their environment, whereas the monkey who stayed behind is apathetic and stagnant [insert diagram of poor fellow from the Congo picture framed next to a chimp].

It is what it is.
That's called social Darwinism, I'm not with that stuff. There isn't much difference in human beings, the reason being we've been here for a short time when looking at the evolutionary timescale.
 
Let's not get caught up in who split from whom. You didn't refute anything I said so I don't get your point.


Where you aware of the changes in the theory of human origins? You seemed to suggest Africans split from a group. The latest is that Africans to be the ancestors of most humans who live today and human migration started out of Africa spreading to the rest of the world. Race became irrelevant in real science unlike Darwinian evolutionary theory and his natural selection.
 
Social Darwinism is connected to the Darwinian Evolutionary theory. The two are not separate. Read James Hunt's "On the Negro's Place in Nature" where he used Darwin's theory to justify Slavery of the Africans.



You can find the book on many University websites for free.
 
Last edited:
:obama: Pay attention where the gentleman describes the African brain. Looks about every other ethnic group does better than Alchemist and Sir Eisenstein here. Congrats.


upload_2019-4-16_12-4-59.png
 
Where you aware of the changes in the theory of human origins? You seemed to suggest Africans split from a group. The latest is that Africans to be the ancestors of most humans who live today and human migration started out of Africa spreading to the rest of the world. Race became irrelevant in real science unlike Darwinian evolutionary theory and his natural selection.
I know that the modern Europeans and Asians split from East Africans, the migrants took with them only a fraction of its genetic diversity.

There are other fringe theories other than Darwinian evolution, that may be more factual.

Science improves when new information gets found, I'm not here saying evolution is a fact, what I'm saying is, that it is probable. I don't put my life behind it, and tomorrow may give us some proof that may lead us in another direction.

Science gives you workable models about reality, which are falsified. It does not give you the truth, but it keeps changing, it keeps evolving as we get new data. The same data can thus point to multiple conclusions.

Brain size is actually not an effective indicator of intelligence. Whales have a larger brain than humans, but they are not intelligent. You have to understand that serious scientist never claims what your assumptions may be about their views.

I know that social Darwinism was used to justify a lot of bad shit, but no one claims to be social Darwinist. And just because you don't like the Idea of something, does not mean it's less of a truth.
 
I know that the modern Europeans and Asians split from East Africans, the migrants took with them only a fraction of its genetic diversity.

There are other fringe theories other than Darwinian evolution, that may be more factual.

Science improves when new information gets found, I'm not here saying evolution is a fact, what I'm saying is, that it is probable. I don't put my life behind it, and tomorrow may give us some proof that may lead us in another direction.

Science gives you workable models about reality, which are falsified. It does not give you the truth, but it keeps changing, it keeps evolving as we get new data. The same data can thus point to multiple conclusions.

Brain size is actually not an effective indicator of intelligence. Whales have a larger brain than humans, but they are not intelligent. You have to understand that serious scientist never claims what your assumptions may be about their views.

I know that social Darwinism was used to justify a lot of bad shit, but no one claims to be social Darwinist. And just because you don't like the Idea of something, does not mean it's less of a truth.


Do you partially accept the theory then? What is the modern take on evolution setting aside Darwin and his gibberish.

What do you know about natural selection in today's modern context? Is it different from what Darwin proposed? your understanding of it saxib.
 
Last edited:
So his profession as a doctor disqualifies him but not his racist Darwinian views? I get it.
You found random speech therapist from the 1800s and wanted me to comment on his racist views for some odd reason. You can find a lot of racist pseudo-scientific writings on the internet. You're derailing the thread now to be honest, and I'm starting to think I'm not helping because I keep replying to your seemingly disordered rantings, which are getting boring now.
 
You found random speech therapist from the 1800s and wanted me to comment on his racist views for some odd reason. You can find a lot of racist pseudo-scientific writings on the internet. You're derailing the thread now to be honest, and I'm starting to think I'm not helping because I keep replying to your seemingly disordered rantings, which are getting boring now.


You were Not following the thread apparently. That was to demonstrate how social Darwinism and its proponents utilized natural selection theory and human evolution to justify racism and slavery for themselves.

I can see you have an ego. At least back it up with some rational talk or let The Alchemist who seems more mature teach us something.

All you have been doing is nervously laugh and display how perturbed you were by what I posted. Facts do hurt mate. It is not my issue that you bought hook line and sinker into the notion that you are an ape still considering your African roots.

Teach us about Natural Selection and why we should buy into it based on evidence you have. Or simply sit out of the adult conversations.

Easy on the antics.
 
Do you partially accept the theory then? What is the modern take on evolution setting aside Darwin and his gibberish.

What do you know about natural selection in today's modern context? your understanding of it saxib.
Random mutation occurs of an individual organism, and the offspring will inherit that mutation. Variation of the trait in their genomes will develop because of the interaction with the environment.

Then population evolves because individuals with certain variants of trait tend to survive and reproduce more than individuals with less successful variants.

It makes sense if you think about it. Very easy and logical.

019ce20bdf71e86872992b04e9771e92.jpg
 
You found random speech therapist from the 1800s and wanted me to comment on his racist views for some odd reason. You can find a lot of racist pseudo-scientific writings on the internet. You're derailing the thread now to be honest, and I'm starting to think I'm not helping because I keep replying to your seemingly disordered rantings, which are getting boring now.

Also, being modest in character helps. You didn't expect to look silly with such a name. Your ego blinded you saxib.

Live and learn brother man. Less insults and more useful talk. You said nothing towards the subject. People may be getting tired of your antics.
 
Random mutation curious of an individual organism, and the offspring will inherit that mutation. Variation of the trait in their genomes will develop because of the interaction with the environment.

Then population evolves because individuals with certain variants of trait tend to survive and reproduce more than individuals with less successful variants.

It makes sense if you think about it. Very easy and logical.

019ce20bdf71e86872992b04e9771e92.jpg


It sounds simple but goes south when examined closely. In today's world, Gene mutations lead to failures.. The question becomes how random mutation had led in the past to produce something stable when lab experiments show the opposite. Why isn't the process consistent and why did it stop doing what it did before assuming this is how all variations in animals came to be?

Another obvious fact contrary to the principles of natural selection is the fossils on record identified to have similar living animals/insects that show no change. The gap of millions of years between these fossils and their living relatives didn't result in changes. Why?

Think about drought resistant plants humans engineer in the labs for agriculture. There is alteration in the gene sequence of the plant involved and it happens under the watchful eye of the humans in the lab. If this is any indication, it is the proof that genes do not change randomly to result in something better without an intellectual involvement.

There is a paper published on johns Hopkins University which discusses how random gene mutations cause cancer as well saxib.

Just saying.
 
Here is the Article

https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/03/23/cancer-mutations-caused-by-random-dna-mistakes/


95% of the random mutations are due to copying errors
65% of lung cancers due to mutations forced by the environment


It is a good read. My point here is to highlight how random gene mutations, forced or otherwise leads to failures and problems.

So one must explain an entire process said to produce the rich varieties of animals and species of the world through random mutations. If our experiences today and knowledge teach us the opposite, how do people reconcile the differences between the two? Blind faith perhaps?
 

Aaegal

I have no proof, only whispers
Fig1-raceConception-2.png


Research indicates that the concept of “five races” does, to an extent, describe the way human populations are distributed among the continents—but the lines between races are much more blurred than ancestry testing companies would have us believe (Figure 1B).

"What the genetics shows is that mixture and displacement have happened again and again and that our pictures of past ‘racial structures’ are almost always wrong, says David Reich, a Harvard University paleogeneticist whose new book on the subject is called Who We Are and How We Got Here. There are no fixed traits associated with specific geographic locations, Reich says, because as often as isolation has created differences among populations, migration and mixing have blurred or erased them.

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies.

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races."

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other.

There are no fixed traits associated with specific geographic locations because as often as isolation has created differences among populations, migration and mixing have blurred or erased them.

I've noticed that people who spread this race thing always fail to specify how many races they believe exist and what those might be. This social construct, in my opinion, ignores the blurred biological divisions between different types of groups spread across the world. It's very hard to enumerate the biological divisions, just like the colors on a spectrum, or at which point does it get cold or warm in the temperature.

There is no scientific evidence that links different races to intelligence. It might exist, but we do not have the evidence for it at the moment, and would rather not waste my time talking about it.

This touches on 'racial' differences towards the end.
 
It sounds simple but goes south when examined closely. In today's world, Gene mutations lead to failures.. The question becomes how random mutation had led in the past to produce something stable when lab experiments show the opposite. Why isn't the process consistent and why did it stop doing what it did before assuming this is how all variations in animals came to be?
Gene mutations happen randomly.

You have hereditary mutations which are passed on to the children and are present in every cell in the body.

You also have acquired (or somatic) mutations that occur at some time during a person’s life and are present only in certain cells, not in every cell in the body. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun or can occur if an error is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed to the next generation.

Genetic alterations that occur in more than 1 percent of the population are called polymorphisms. They are common enough to be considered a normal variation in the DNA. Polymorphisms are responsible for many of the normal differences between people such as eye color, hair color, and blood type. Although many polymorphisms have no negative effects on a person’s health, some of these variations may influence the risk of developing certain disorders.

There are mutations that end up bad in the human's body, and there are mutations which help people. People of sub-Saharan background can get Sickle Cell Anemia, which is a disease that causes a lot of health complication but especially can cause heart attacks or strokes. And this happens because of the red blood cells shape themselves in the form of a sickle, and this causes it to carry less oxygen through the bloodstreams which cause a lot of problems. In fact, before all this medical knowledge and technology, people were expected to die before the age of 14. One interesting thing with people with that disease is that they often carry a mutation that makes them immune to Malaria.

For the most part, I would say that mutations are not harmful or helpful in making the species adapt, but sometimes we are lucky to pass on good traits, and other times we get sick and die.

Another obvious fact contrary to the principles of natural selection is the fossils on record identified to have similar living animals/insects that show no change. The gap of millions of years between these fossils and their living relatives didn't result in changes. Why?
I don't have any knowledge about this. Are you sure this does not fall into something cooked up by conspiracy theorists? It's hilarious to believe that a species is identical several million years later with the environment changing drastically.

Think about drought resistant plants humans engineer in the labs for agriculture. There is alteration in the gene sequence of the plant involved and it happens under the watchful eye of the humans in the lab. If this is any indication, it is the proof that genes do not change randomly to result in something better without an intellectual involvement.
No this just means that people can alternate genes, doesn't really touch the topic at hand dude.

On the topic of genetically modified plants, check this out,

DARPA

I've read the 2/3 cancers happens due to random mutuations some time ago, but this has nothing to do with this stuff man.
 
.
Gene mutations happen randomly.

You have hereditary mutations which are passed on to the children and are present in every cell in the body.

You also have acquired (or somatic) mutations that occur at some time during a person’s life and are present only in certain cells, not in every cell in the body. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun or can occur if an error is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed to the next generation.

Genetic alterations that occur in more than 1 percent of the population are called polymorphisms. They are common enough to be considered a normal variation in the DNA. Polymorphisms are responsible for many of the normal differences between people such as eye color, hair color, and blood type. Although many polymorphisms have no negative effects on a person’s health, some of these variations may influence the risk of developing certain disorders.

There are mutations that end up bad in the human's body, and there are mutations which help people. People of sub-Saharan background can get Sickle Cell Anemia, which is a disease that causes a lot of health complication but especially can cause heart attacks or strokes. And this happens because of the red blood cells shape themselves in the form of a sickle, and this causes it to carry less oxygen through the bloodstreams which cause a lot of problems. In fact, before all this medical knowledge and technology, people were expected to die before the age of 14. One interesting thing with people with that disease is that they often carry a mutation that makes them immune to Malaria.

For the most part, I would say that mutations are not harmful or helpful in making the species adapt, but sometimes we are lucky to pass on good traits, and other times we get sick and die.


I don't have any knowledge about this. Are you sure this does not fall into something cooked up by conspiracy theorists? It's hilarious to believe that a species is identical several million years later with the environment changing drastically.


No this just means that people can alternate genes, doesn't really touch the topic at hand dude.

On the topic of genetically modified plants, check this out,

DARPA

I've read the 2/3 cancers happens due to random mutuations some time ago, but this has nothing to do with this stuff man.


Harvard museum of zoology and other institutions have insects and lizards Frozen in Amber dated millions of years old. You would still recognize these insects for what they are despite that age.

You explained what makes people sick and the role genes play in heridity, but you didn't explain how natural selection gives rise to divergent species. I am looking for clarity in how the same random process that can neither lead to benefit nor loss result in new species.
 
Top