A break down on the theory of Evolution

Rebel Lion 06 · (#1 (**permalink**))

Just thought i'd start a thread about the theory of evolution and the fact that its a farce... A prop up of White supremecy to state that as time goes on black/chinese people turn white and end up with pointy noses deeming them superior as they are the last in the genelogical link to that of the beginning.

I can't be on for long so I can't begin an essay on the topic but I'll start off with a few questions;

Why haven't Eskimos evolved into europeans if they live in cold habitats? Why haven't they grown long pointy noses to breath in cold air?

How did monkeys survive in the wild with no trees to climb up?

(part of the theory is that monkeys started to walk upright as there was a time when there were no trees for them to climb)

Why haven't black people ''evolved'' with time just as other races are supposed to have done?

Why are the chinese/far eastern peoples more advanced in mind and culturally than europeans if they are second in line genographically?

I hope others on here know about the theory as it is taught to children in schools and is actually offencive to us as a nation.

Hopefully others have questions and answers that can be broken down on here.
(if theres a better forum for this plz move it)

Peace

Rebel-lion as The Sphinx

Prince_of_Punt1 · (#2 (**permalink**))

Glad to see that ppl are not completely brainwashed by this clearly false idealogy.

Ill post some info when I have more time!

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#3 (**permalink**))

I don't recall anywhere in evolutionary theory stating that humans (whether African, Asiatic, or otherwise) evolve into a typical Caucasoid European. It just says that organisms change over time.

huzzah1 · (#4 (**permalink**))

Crocodiles haven't changed overtime neither have sharks, squid, ants etc... A change in environment causes species to evolve or dissappear of the face of the earth. Either you adapt or die, simple as that.

liberiangirl · (#5 (**permalink**))

Simply because caucasions were the last race to come into existence doesnt mean that theyare more evolved than the rest of the human race.One of the most common misunderstandingsof the evolution theoryis that newer generations are necessarily more complex, or intelligent than older genrations,which does not necessarily prove to be true.

En Sabah Nur · (#6 (**permalink**))

The Sphinx wrote:

Quote:

Just thought i'd start a thread about the theory of evolution and the fact that its a farce... A prop up of White supremecy to state that as time goes on black/chinese people turn white and end up with pointy noses deeming them superior as they are the last in the genelogical link to that of the beginning.

I can't be on for long so I can't begin an essay on the topic but I'll start off with a few questions;

Why haven't Eskimos evolved into europeans if they live in cold habitats? Why haven't they grown long pointy noses to breath in cold air?

Quote:

The are descended from asians and lived in the cold climate not as long as Europeans.

How did monkeys survive in the wild with no trees to climb up?

(part of the theory is that monkeys started to walk upright as there was a time when there were no trees for them to climb)

Quote:

The line that led to modern hominids split off from what you call monkey millions of years ago. Those ancient primates don't resemble what you would call a monkey today. Evolution does not say we came from what people identify today as modern monkeys. They followed their seperate line of evolution. Those ancient primates either adapted or they died once "leaving the trees". That process took millions of years. They didn't suddenly get up and leave and stand up. Millions of years.

Quote:

Why haven't black people ''evolved'' with time just as other races are supposed to have done?

Quote:

Evolution does not state one race is more or less evolved than another. Humans are one species. Race does not imply avancement in itself, only differentiation. Black people are already adapted to live in their climates, they have no need to develop any strategys or phenotypes to live where there are suited to.

Why are the chinese/far eastern peoples more advanced in mind and culturally than europeans if they are second in line genographically?

Quote:

To accept that is to accept that race theory yourself. Clearly YOU believe one race is more advanced than another. Do you believe the asians to be superior to yourself then? perhaps yourself superior to other races as well? Yet you complain about supremacist idealogy?

I hope others on here know about the theory as it is taught to children in schools and is actually offencive to us as a nation.

Quote:

Not as offensiVe as bad spelling.

Incognito · (#7 (**permalink**))

If God made man in his own image what image was this, the man we know today or prehistoric man.

Is it possible that the evolution of a particular kind of man happened alongside Gods creation of man. This might explain how Adam and Eve met other people after being evicted from the garden of Eden.

They say if aliens are only 100 years more advanced than us they will know what to do to prevent us discovering them - we could be living side by side with them without even knowing it - maybe that is the final phase of the evolution process.

Notice how their history of evolution changes everytime a scientist finds a new bone.

Rebel Lion 06 · (#8 (**permalink**))

The are descended from asians and lived in the cold climate not as long as Europeans

Is there any proof of this?

Their FULL histroy can be said to be dated back 20,000 years ago to the days of the Mammoth 100,000 years ago. They haven't intergrated with other races and so their linage (features, language etc) is still that of their ancestors.

The Europeans have pointed noses and hair that is a range of colours unlike other races. Prehaps said to be from living in high/low altitudes or sheltering from the sun in their climate adaptaion.

Migration and Genaology is a tough subject as some say that Homosapiens are so and so years old and others claim that diffrent types of human are even older but the Homosapien was the perfect survivor and outlived the others.

The line that led to modern hominids split off from what you call monkey millions of years ago.

How and why did these so called primate cousins begin to walk and not use all fours as their other cousins did? What made them walk on two legs and not four?

The theory that I came across was that for millions of years there were no trees for them to climb, thus forcing them to stand upright prehaps to see over high grassland... to me it makes no sence as these primates would have been preyed on by all sorts and would have been defenceless against just about anything. Primates are known to be pathetic at self defence (unless large) they have no sharp teeth and no claws to fight off an attack and rely on group coordination to run and hide... if there was no where to climb where would they have run/hidden?

The act of walking on two legs is said to have led to the development of the brain/skull shapes. The spinal cord was relocated to a diffrent part of the brain and so increased ability and intellegence (apparently).

Unless man was born as man no primate could survive without trees to run upor rocks to climb.Unless they were born with the mental tools to build weapons of self defence they would have been nyam....

Evolution does not state one race is more or less evolved than another. Humans are one species. Race does not imply avancement in itself, only differentiation. Black people are already adapted to live in their climates, they have no need to develop any strategys or phenotypes to live where there are suited to.

But it is implied. It is used as a tool to denote the lack of development of other races. Stating in an undertone that Africans are closer to primates than others. Being science it denies any God theory of creation to replace it instantly with natural selection and evolution over time.

To accept that is to accept that race theory yourself. Clearly YOU believe one race is more advanced than another. Do you believe the asians to be superior to yourself then? perhaps yourself superior to other races as well? Yet you complain about supremacist idealogy?

I belive that the Chinese are more advanced culturally than the Europeans. They have more grounding than the Europeans being older and their advances in technology and culture/civilization itself shows this. Their focus on personal development as seen in Buddahism and martial arts to me shows the true meaning of development. Even to speak of technological advancement is to look to the east not the west.

Ipersonally look down on the engraving of success that was built solely on the exploitation of other nations and cultures and would rather take note that Western society is built on the backs of other nations through sheer military might and vampiric conquest... Thats me personally.

Before you attempt to point out an apparent mistake of mine as though to boost your self esteem yes I know that Buddhism is first spelt without an -a- and secondly it was started in India...You seem to attempt to carry something of a complex yourself pointing out minor mistakes andconfusing thought provoking comments for real ones... I am probing to provoke questions and answers and have put most of my thoughts on the topic aside.

Youcan't hold a debate if your mind is set already. Everything is subject to change.

Please carry on with your comments on the topic but understand that it is not an argument but a debate.

And if my sKelling is someNow offenCive the superiorty complex is on your side not mine.

liberiangirl · (#9 (**permalink**))

A one major idea you have to understand about evolution is that above everything else is all about survival. Forget about advancement ,development and all that mess, evolution is mainly about a species being able to adapt to their environment. A newer generation of a species does not necesarily make it more advanced or complex, or even more intellignet. In fact, sometimes evolution will favor less advanced or complex species so long as they are adapted to their environment. Your confusing you the real theory of evolution with what we call Social Darwinism.

East_African · (#10 (**permalink**))

liberiangirl wrote:

Quote:

Your confusing you the real theory of evolution with what we call Social Darwinism.

Quote:

Yes that could be true to a certain point, but what have you to understand is that some of these things where said from the very mouth of Charles Darwin. Here are a few examples below.

Quote:

"He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals."

Quote:

"It might also naturally be enquired whether man, like so many other animals, has given rise to varieties and sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much that they must be classed as doubtful species?"]

Quote:

"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"]

"We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."]

[size="At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."][size=]

En Sabah Nur · (#11 (**permalink**))

The Sphinx wrote:

Quote:

The are descended from asians and lived in the cold climate not as long as Europeans

Is there any proof of this?

Their FULL histroy can be said to be dated back 20,000 years ago to the days of the Mammoth 100,000 years ago. They haven't intergrated with other races and so their linage (features, language etc) is still that of their ancestors.

The Europeans have pointed noses and hair that is a range of colours unlike other races. Prehaps said to be from living in high/low altitudes or sheltering from the sun in their climate adaptaion.

Quote:

No it can't. The Innuits (to give the proper name) are descended from native americans who themselves came from those asians who crossed the Bering straights by way of mongolia to alaska 40,000 years ago. They are not of the same stock as Europeans who adapted through the ice age from much earlier. The pointed noses you seem fascinated by hold air and warm it before letting it enter the lungs. The noses of the innuits are the same as those of other northern native americans and more to the point... mongols.

Migration and Genaology is a tough subject as some say that Homosapiens are so and so years old and others claim that diffrent types of human are even older but the Homosapien was the perfect survivor and outlived the others.

Quote:

Yes some other hominids (not humans) were there before us, the most well known being neanderthals. Humans killed them off and in some places interbred with them but generally we replaced them. There were others less well known.

Quote:

The line that led to modern hominids split off from what you call monkey millions of years ago.

How and why did these so called primate cousins begin to walk and not use all fours as their other cousins did? What made them walk on two legs and not four?

The theory that I came across was that for millions of years there were no trees for them to climb, thus forcing them to stand upright prehaps to see over high grassland... to me it makes no sence as these primates would have been preyed on by all sorts and would have been defenceless against just about anything. Primates are known to be pathetic at self defence (unless large) they have no sharp teeth and no claws to fight off an attack and rely on group coordination to run and hide... if there was no where to climb where would they have run/hidden?

The act of walking on two legs is said to have led to the development of the brain/skull shapes. The spinal cord was relocated to a diffrent part of the brain and so increased ability and intellegence (apparently).

Unless man was born as man no primate could survive without trees to run upor rocks to climb.Unless they were born with the mental tools to build weapons of self defence they would have been nyam....

Quote:

Have you ever seen a primate of ANY kind?

Quote:

No sharp teeth and claws? I dare you to approach a troop of baboons. Please do. Send us the snaps when you get out of hospital, if you make it that far. How many monkeys and apes have you ever seen? All the ones I have are equipped with sharp teeth. They move in big numbers and will generally mess you up. As for getting nyam you're being silly. What defenses do anteaters have? Big slow ugly things that move at 0 miles an hour yet they seem to do fine.

Quote:

Evolution does not state one race is more or less evolved than another. Humans are one species. Race does not imply avancement in itself, only differentiation. Black people are already adapted to live in their climates, they have no need to develop any strategys or phenotypes to live where there are suited to.

But it is implied. It is used as a tool to denote the lack of development of other races. Stating in an undertone that Africans are closer to primates than others. Being science it denies any God theory of creation to replace it instantly with natural selection and evolution over time.

No it is not used as that tool. Racists will use anything as a tool. Including GODS books. For how long were black people enslaved and justified with "the curse of Ham". Pure bullshit. Does that make the bible itself a tool of evolution?

Blacks are perfectly adapted for the regions we are native to. There is no need for us to adapt to something else.

Check this common example. We evolved modern sheep from their ancient ancestors. We did that. Yet you go put a modern sheep on a hillside and watch it die within a month. It is no longer as agile, no longer as hardy to eat the same scarce food, no longer good at living at altitude or the cold... and so on. Yet by YOUR logic it is MORE advanced. Adaptation to selective pressures does not mean more advanced. If this is what you believe then you have a whole heap more learning to do. You are criticising evolution on terms you are not familiar with.

To accept that is to accept that race theory yourself. Clearly YOU believe one race is more advanced than another. Do you believe the asians to be superior to yourself then? perhaps yourself superior to other races as well? Yet you complain about supremacist idealogy?

I belive that the Chinese are more advanced culturally than the Europeans. They have more grounding than the Europeans being older and their advances in technology and culture/civilization itself shows this. Their focus on personal development as seen in Buddahism and martial arts to me shows the true meaning of development. Even to speak of technological advancement is to look to the east not the west.

Ipersonally look down on the engraving of success that was built solely on the exploitation o