All Black People Descended From Africa #2

Nferyn,

No problem. Apology accepted. Smile.

Have a good day.

You're really something else  We may disagree on many things, but it is hard not to be taken in by your cool attitude. May the light of reason brighten your day and lighten your mind. I wish you the best

Nferyn,

how are you doing, would reply your post till saturday.

To Nferyn,







Nferyn one thing you don't seem to understand is that the swapping of the magnetic and Geographical pole is very important in mutation, it determines the kind of mutation that is going to happen, is like every thing starts a fresh at that point, remember my theory of clock wise and anti clockwise mutation [ don't worry about this term is part of my theory, I coined it  out ], though in  the real sense is an endless circle, that comes over and over again, every ice age is a half of the circle, this is how I worked it out and come to the conclusion that aborigine has completed the full circle, and their phenotypical expression proves it.













I was only pulling your legs, but the natural selection issue is a pure bull crap, first of all natural selection can be described as  a natural process that results in the survival of individuals or groups best adjusted to the conditions under which they live and that is equally important for the perpetuation of desirable genetic qualities and for the elimination of undesirable ones as these are produced by recombination or mutation of genes, look at it this way, people never get adapted to any whether [After many thousands of years a European that lives in the arctic all his life needs the same amount of heat to keep warm, as an African that lives all his life in hottest part of the tropics] while at the same time every body adapts to every whether, or how else can we explain the fact that an African can survive in Europe effortlessly and Equally European can survive in Africa.

remember, that though  modern scientists does not favor this any more but the  expression survival of the fittest was used to describe this process in the nineteenth century, which is very convenient to say that the Anglo Americans annihilation of the red Indians was also a process of evolution, now keep proving to me that evolution is not just a principle created to legitimize the dog eat dog nature of capitalism


Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because he had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, and this equally could be likened to the fact that the European men prefer blond but this has not tilted the European population towards being more blond because statistics shows that in 20 years time there wont be original blond but only those who paint their hair with £2 worth of blondex,  an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin .

The current understanding of fitness is dispositional. That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. It is not deterministic. If two twins are identical genetically, and therefore are equally fit, there is no guarantee that they will both survive to have equal numbers of offspring. Fitness is a statistical property













Are you saying that the conspiracies in the theory of evolution is more of incompetence than a well thought out plan to deceive.

















Mutation can not create a new specie , it can only vary the trait that are there already, and definitely does not support the ape into ma theory,

nferyn I would deal with your other queries  in the week, kind of busy, I learn a lesson not to point accusing finger at others cause the rest could be pointing back, thanks.

NINETOFIVE

I believe you are confusing natural selection with sexual selection.

Have you read Darwin's 'descent of Man'? That deals with sexual selection. Preface to that book was enlightening.

'origin of species' (Havent read this) deals with natural selection.

Natural selection is not pure bullcrap. It is questionable, but has held up well in academic circles. Dismissing a recognised scientific theory as pure bullcrap is unwise. Unless, of course, you are a religious fanatic, in which case you are welcome to call it whatever you like- pure utter bullshit etc, as long as you don't go killing people because of it.

Dru

I enjoy your posts, but I was not looking at this from the racial angle at all.

Only a freaking idiot or mischievious person would use Evolution to jusify racial prejudice.

Please understand that it is the application of the theory, not the theory itself that you should attack.

Natural selection processes take place over extyended periods of time. 200 years is not long enough for NS to affect the population of various races. Read descent of man, and you'll be surprised to discover that Evolution did more *for* the black man than against him. Darwin was an abolitionist and he was accused of using his theories to thwart religious beliefs that denigrated the black man as subhuman.

People with no grasp of the concepts will misrepresent the theory.  No sane evolutionist will claim that NS will cause one race or another to die out. The existence of multiple races is evidence of variation. The processes that led to the evolution of the different races took thousands of years and can not be duplicated in one mere century. Only minute changes can be observed in such a short space of time.

I repeat: Attack those who use NS~evo to justify racial prejudice. don't attack NS~Evo.

Now if you want to tell me "EVO is bullshit because we are all fearfullyandwonderfullymade creations of GOD in his eternal image" my answer to you is YES! EVOLUTION IS BULLSHIT! LIES! MONKEYS! JUST IMAGINE! I'M A CHILD OF BOUNDLESS LIGHT AND A DESCENDANT OF LUMINOUS ANGELS WITH AN IMMORTAL SOUL! DAMN ALL MONKEYS TO HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, "

In fact it is more likely that human woman can have ape babies,  than it is that simians could have human babies. Humans have babies with tails all the time. Aint that sorta telling us that we could have ape babies?

I ain't seen no ape babies with human babies yet. Humans with tail babies, yeah, I seen that.

Dakmanzero,

And yes. I am a Creationist. Their story is a lot more interesting than evolutionists.

Dakmanzero,

I think I know where Darwins books are posted online. I might check more into the matching the bible thing. That interests me.

So what Creationists isn't science. It's far better. It has dragons. Smile.

dakmanzero,
If you're saying that natural selection is questionable, I hope you mean that it can be questioned and not that it lacks merit. Maybe I'm being an ultra Darwinian here, but all the evidence points in the direction that natural selection is the only mechanism that causes adaptation. There are other processes that play a role as well in evolution, but they do not lead to adaptations. Sexual selection can reinforce already existing adaptations, but i can never cause adaptation by itself.

Mutation is an unguided, undirected process. Environmental conditions (such as an increased exposure to cosmic rays because of magnetic pole switches) do have an effect on the number of mutations, but not on the direction they take. When there is an increased mutation rate, the speed of evolution can increase, also because the events that cause a higher rate of mutation can also cause a higher level of selective pressure because of a changing environment.
Now, in the case of human evolution, the effect of magnetic pole switches is minimal, as it happened long before homo sapiens entered the stage and thus cannot have had any effect at all (see: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/reversals_e.php )
Skin, hair and eye colour are controlled by only a few genes and thus a few simple mutations can have a significant impact, especially because the environment subjects human populations to an intense selective pressure. Populations can gain or lose colouration very quickly

1. It's not because members of populations can survive in specific climates that they are ideally suited to do so. Since we humans have gained culture and the mental traits to change their environment (either through clothing or through housing) to allow them to live in environments they naturally couldn't live in. For example the spread of agriculture in the northern parts of Europe only started with the spread of iron working from Africa as heavy strong ploughs and cattle power were necessary to tilt the clay soil of the region that was created by the retracting glaciers from the ice ages.
2. Adaptations in human populations till play out over geological time scales, no individual is going to change into another species

This just doesn't apply. It's a misappropriation of scientific terminology to fit socio-political goals. It's a bit similar to the abuse of quantum theory nowadays.

Blonde hair is just recessive and will only express itself if all alleles responsible for blonde hair are turned on. There is also only selective pressure for blonde hair where it is beneficial and that is in the high north of Europe. With current human mobility, blonde hair is very likely going to disappear almost entirely. By the way, there is currently very little evolution going on among humans because the breeding population is too large and most beneficial mutations will be ironed out through sexual recombination. At the very least, evolution is slowing down considerably

There's also the fact that in smaller populations genetic drift occurs more through chance events, as 'bad luck' can change the frequency of alleles in the population quite considerably. If you have a population of 5 breeding birds, 3 brown and 2 green. Through a chance event, the 2 green ones get killed, the result is that the entire breeding population now is composed entirely out of brown birs and natural selection didn't play a role at all.
-
No, I was only making a general remark. There is no conspiracy and if there would be a semblance of conspiracy, that is most likely caused by incompetence of the ones perpetrating it. Take for example the conspiracy theory concerning 9-11 that the Bush administration deliberately let it happen. You see what I'm getting at.

You have just stated your point of view here and haven't answered my question. Is there any of these 6 points you disagree with and if not, why do you think that mutations cannot result in speciation?

Cool

Spot on, I just couldn't stop laughing,
The more I thought about it, the more I laughed. The red haired folks are also going extinct
I keep saying it, its the sun that creates the races not the genes. (and half believing it)

Who is the fittest? blacks, whites, or the yellows.
The highest breeder becomes the highest bidder.

Fact: Nobody is going extinct. In another 1000yrs I believe we will end up being mixed.
"well if USA don't do the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing again"

We are just a big family, the earlier we see this the better.

My brother nferyn, Are we still evolving? Fossils of crocodiles show that they've not done so in the past  70 million years

But those are clearly not the fallouts of evolution; in fact, several of those precede the theory of evolution and have absolutely nothing to do with biological implications.


That's fair enough, although it's only fair that due to having no interest in understanding or studying science, you stopped making unture assertions about it.


Interesting.

Kag,

I'm sorry. My above is misleading. It pretends to have an interest in your answer if you do find one for the question. I'm really not interested. I've been down this path many times and nobody yet has gotten me to believe otherwise.

But your right. I should study science more. I'm learning from 925. Smile.

I do hope somebody is going to finally get around to this:

Evolutionist: We came from a few cells.
Bible: We came from a few cells of dirt. LOL SMILE

Evolutionist: The earth was one big land mass that broke apart.
Bible: The earth broke apart.

Evolutionists: Animals came first then humans.
Bible: Animals came first then humans.

Evolutionists: One cell split into two and became two different sex's.
Bible: One sex male out of which came female.

Evolutionists: The Universe looks old because it is so spread out.
Bible: God spread out the heavens and the earth.

I could go on and on. Except for that humans and jellyfish have the same anscestor part. Evolution science ain't all the wrong.

To Nferyn

Quote

Mutation is an unguided, undirected process. Environmental conditions (such as an increased exposure to cosmic rays because of magnetic pole switches) do have an effect on the number of mutations, but not on the direction they take.

What are you talking about, are you just interested in saying things that are not applicable just because some popular evolutionist said it?, this a shackle you would need to loose, of course the swapping [ I use the word swapping because I know the case of reversal of the magnetic poles is as questionable as the evolution theory] of the magnetic poles directs mutation, if the magnetic pole swaps and your geographical location falls on the temperate region the kind of mutation required in those kind of region would start taking place, if it falls in the warmer part, that becomes the tropics, and eventually the kind mutation required in those kind of places would start taking place, and if your geographical location falls in the polar region, then your part of the world faces ice age, lets forget those childish principles of evolution, desuetude  our selves of folk tales and look at the logic's that works.

Quote

When there is an increased mutation rate, the speed of evolution can increase, also because the events that cause a higher rate of mutation can also cause a higher level of selective pressure because of a changing environment.

Nferyn this is very daft, for example in the UK today, the average White British men and the women don't marry each other today, the most they could do is stay as partners, If you see a British white guy that is married, if you investigate him, you will see that he is married to Either Eastern European woman, A Filipino or a Black  woman, now can you attribute this kind of selective pressure to environment?, no , this is pretty much social,  they are going for those women because they are more subservient than the average western women, and if you watch the British media today you would see that this condition is making White British women more racist towards the foreign women,

Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species[1] in which natural selection was described by analogy to artificial selection, a process by which individuals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. if Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common, then how do you go about proving that mutation has no aim according to evolusionist, you must agree that this are people dealing with a subject they don't have a full grasp of.

Quote

Now, in the case of human evolution, the effect of magnetic pole switches is minimal, as it happened long before homo sapiens entered the stage and thus cannot have had any effect at all (see: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/reversals_e.php )

You can not quantify the effect, because it is the process that starts it, and I would prefer not to use the word evolution, cause if you subtract macro evolution from evolution, there is no evolution,  then we would be searching for a new word.

Quote

Skin, hair and eye colour are controlled by only a few genes and thus a few simple mutations can have a significant impact, especially because the environment subjects human populations to an intense selective pressure. Populations can gain or lose colouration very quickly

I want you to answer this honestly,


1, Do you know that climate change would alter the skin colour of the Europeans in the nearest  future?

2, would it be right to attribute this changes to selective pressure?,


Forget about UFO stories and be honest here.

Quote

I was only pulling your legs, but the natural selection issue is a pure bull crap, first of all natural selection can be described as  a natural process that results in the survival of individuals or groups best adjusted to the conditions under which they live and that is equally important for the perpetuation of desirable genetic qualities and for the elimination of undesirable ones as these are produced by recombination or mutation of genes, look at it this way, people never get adapted to any whether [After many thousands of years a European that lives in the arctic all his life needs the same amount of heart to keep warm, as an African that lives all his life in hottest part of the tropics] while at the same time every body adapts to every whether, or how else can we explain the fact that an African can survive in Europe effortlessly and Equally European can survive in Africa.

Quote

[1. It's not because members of populations can survive in specific climates that they are ideally suited to do so. Since we humans have gained culture and the mental traits to change their environment (either through clothing or through housing) to allow them to live in environments they naturally couldn't live in. For example the spread of agriculture in the northern parts of Europe only started with the spread of iron working from Africa as heavy strong ploughs and cattle power were necessary to tilt the clay soil of the region that was created by the retracting glaciers from the ice ages.

The fact that people can create clothes to keep warm is still are way of surviving, and it still proves that nobody can adapt to any whether, or else Europeans would have been walking about in the winter without wearing winter jacket, is it not ironic that an Africa equally needs the same winter coat in European winter, what that is actually responsible for the narrow nose and tiny lips is excessive wind, which equally shrinks the bones.

Quote

2. Adaptations in human populations till play out over geological time scales, no individual is going to change into another species

believe me human can not change into another specie in 800 Zillion years.

Quote

Quote from: NINETOFIVE on June 09, 2007, 11:31 PM
remember, that though  modern scientists does not favor this any more but the  expression survival of the fittest was used to describe this process in the nineteenth century, which is very convenient to say that the Anglo Americans annihilation of the red Indians was also a process of evolution, now keep proving to me that evolution is not just a principle created to legitimize the dog eat dog nature of capitalism

Quote

This just doesn't apply. It's a misappropriation of scientific terminology to fit socio-political goals. It's a bit similar to the abuse of quantum theory nowadays.

Nferyn my friend, I don't expect you not to have anything to say , blah blah blah.

Quote

Quote from: NINETOFIVE on June 09, 2007, 11:31 PM
Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because he had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, and this equally could be likened to the fact that the European men prefer blond but this has not tilted the European population towards being more blond because statistics shows that in 20 years time there wont be original blond but only those who paint their hair with £2 worth of blondex,  an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin .

Quote

Blonde hair is just recessive and will only express itself if all alleles responsible for blonde hair are turned on. There is also only selective pressure for blonde hair where it is beneficial and that is in the high north of Europe.

Nferyn stop sounding funny, what are the benefits of blond hair in the northern Europe, use your number six, blond hair was prevalent in the northern Europe because of the arctic weather that created it, now this whether is receding and so is the blond hair

Quote

With current human mobility, blonde hair is very likely going to disappear almost entirely. By the way, there is currently very little evolution going on among humans because the breeding population is too large and most beneficial mutations will be ironed out through sexual recombination. At the very least, evolution is slowing down considerably

by the way evolution never took place and never will.

Quote

Quote
1. mutations happen
2. mutations are chance events without a premeditated outcome (mutations are not intentional)
3. mutations that provide a benefit within a specific ecology will result in higher reproductive success of the carriers of that mutation
4. consequently those alleles will be more prevalent in the population as time passes
5. this is a change in allele frequency in a population over time
6. a change in allele frequency in a population over time IS evolution
How exactly does that process not apply to man?
What process or mechanism prevents these incremental changes to lead to speciation over time where there is reproductive isolation of the different populations within one specie?

Quote

Mutation can not create a new specie , it can only vary the trait that are there already, and definitely does not support the ape into ma theory,

Quote

You have just stated your point of view here and haven't answered my question. Is there any of these 6 points you disagree with and if not, why do you think that mutations cannot result in speciation?

I don't agree with number 6, mutation can not result in speciation because mutation depends on the whether, and the whether depends on the ice age, and this things are not infinite, they are only but a circle.

Fair enough.


No, most things aren't.


I see; however, the methodology of both still differ significantly. A literal reading (and I must stress that this probably applies to just a literal interpretation) of the creation of humans and animals is significantly different from what the theory of evolution proposes and what we have observed.
 

What do you mean by "evolutionists hit that one head on"?
"


That's an interesting point and one with which I can agree.
 

There's a big difference in how biologist view the emergence of the sexes and how it was portrayed in Genesis. The Biblical narrative involves the woman getting fashioned from the man's rib; in reality we acknowledge that biological gender must have occured long before humans and under different circumstances.


If that's how you want to interprete it, then I guess it's not a problem. I can see what you mean, but I just thought it was worth pointing out that estimating the age of the Universe is more than pointing at the expansion of space.


But the verse doesn't say she's still expanding the Universe.



For me the findings of science trump myths, allegories and ancient books.


How so?