|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
To Nferyn 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. [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.
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 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 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 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 . 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
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
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? 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,
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Kag,
The findings can always change to the newest findings, making what science finds today "debateable". Yes, science is generally "flexible" and attempts to avoid dogmatism as much as possible; however, that is not to say that the findings of today, especially at the most basic levels (e.g. change is allele frequencies of a population is observed to occur and can cause wholesale changes), are wrong. Furthermore, usually, the findings of science today are usually more "right" than the previous views - including dogmatic religious views. God is our anscestor because He came before us and we came out of Him.
While it can arguably depend on which of the creation narratives you follow and how literal a reader you choose to be, I'D say that's not quite true. The Genesis narratives make clear that humans - well just the man in the second version - were created not from God, but by God. You can argue that the second narrative has God breathing life into the man, but that is also a debatable point. Basically, my point is that ancestry works differently from what you've stated above. |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
To Nferyn 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?, So are you claiming that mutations are directional? 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, How does it direct mutation? In what direction and by which mechanisms? Please substantiate your claims. 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. So what you're saying is that mutations that have phenotypical effects are only caused by magnetic pole reversals? Genetical evidence tells a different story 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?, Did I say such a thing? 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, And it's still a minority that looks outside of their 'race' regardless of how you look at it. Anyway, it has nothing to do with mutation rates or selective pressure. 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. It's rather that you don't fully grasp evolutionary processes, mutation provides the variability from which natural selection selects. Traits are a result of mutation, the traits that are providing a reproductive benefit are selected precisely because of the differential reproductive success of the organisms. 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. I don't understand what you are saying. Macro evolution is just micro evolution on a longer/larger scale there is no fundamental difference. Besides, there is no effect to quantify because it doesn't apply to humans 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. 1. The change of skin colour would rather be because of recombination than through evolution, as it takes too long for evolution to have a significant effect. There's not going to be a significant effect of selection in the next decades, but immigration of darker people from Asia and Africa will have an effect. 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. [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. The narrow nose is probably caused by the need to warm up the air before it reaches the lungs. This way you have less of a thermic shock in cold weather. Broad or thin lips are most likely a result of sexual selection. 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. I don't believe you. As we have evolved from other species we will evolve in another specie as well (if we don't get extinct before that happens) 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 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. Is that your reply? 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 . 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 No, it is going extinct because it is a recessive trait and intermarriage with people of darker hair causes it to disappear, the change in weather is too recent to have had any significant effect. 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. Your repetition doesn't add anything to your lack of argument in this matter. 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? 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, 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. 1. mutation doesn't depend on the weather at all. The only weather phenomenon that could be considered is excessive exposure to sunlight for people without sufficient melanin. This does cause mutation and mostly only to non-germ cells, resulting in cancer, it doesn't get transmitted to the next generation 2.weather depends on the ice age? 3. why can weather dependent mutation not cause speciation? 4. Again, what mechanism prevents micro-evolution to lead to speciation and thus macro-evolution? You still haven't answered the question. |
|
|
|
|
|
Uche2nna (m)
|
1. mutation doesn't depend on the weather at all. The only weather phenomenon that could be considered is excessive exposure to sunlight for people without sufficient melanin. This does cause mutation and mostly only to non-germ cells, resulting in cancer, it doesn't get transmitted to the next generation
2.weather depends on the ice age?
3. why can weather dependent mutation not cause speciation?
4. Again, what mechanism prevents micro-evolution to lead to speciation and thus macro-evolution? You still haven't answered the question.
I have been trying to go through this discussion for some time now and I must admit that the gist from nferyn , 925 , Druissila and co have been revealing. Kudos to You guys. @ quote The environment of which the weather is a component of has a lot to do with mutations. However, as organisms get more complex they get more differentiated and this differentiation puts somehow puts some 'failsafe' mechanisms that prevents or compensates for most environmental mutations. So most of the times, mutations might occur in an oraganism without any phenotypical changes. Take a simple organism like E.coli, If you grow some under their normal conditions and then grow some under increasing light intensities u will find that those grown under very high or very low light intensities will come up with lots of mutations in their genome. Some of these mutations will be very silent and so will not cause any phenotypic change, others will be lethal and that cell will just be lost in the milieu of other cells while some should have caused some phenotypical changes but the organism compensated for that by mutating another gene somewhere in its genome. So lack of phenotypical changes in any organism, including man, should not be necessarily equated to a stable state. |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
I have been trying to go through this discussion for some time now and I must admit that the gist from nferyn , 925 , Druissila and co have been revealing. Kudos to You guys. Thanks for the compliment, but I'm afraid that I don't really get your point here. 1. mutation doesn't depend on the weather at all. The only weather phenomthanks for the compliment, but I'm affrais enon that could be considered is excessive exposure to sunlight for people without sufficient melanin. This does cause mutation and mostly only to non-germ cells, resulting in cancer, it doesn't get transmitted to the next generation
2.weather depends on the ice age?
3. why can weather dependent mutation not cause speciation?
4. Again, what mechanism prevents micro-evolution to lead to speciation and thus macro-evolution? You still haven't answered the question. @ quote The environment of which the weather is a component of has a lot to do with mutations. However, as organisms get more complex they get more differentiated and this differentiation puts somehow puts some 'failsafe' mechanisms that prevents or compensates for most environmental mutations. I was specifically referring to humans and the claim that weather is the cause of these mutations. The impact of weather is quite insignificant compared to other causes. Different organism are subject to different environmental factors and mutation causing mechanisms. The genome of bacteria is directly affected by environmental conditions. Germ cells in tetrapods are protected against these influences So most of the times, mutations might occur in an oraganism without any phenotypical changes. Exactly, most mutations are neutral and don't get expressed. Take a simple organism like E.coli, If you grow some under their normal conditions and then grow some under increasing light intensities u will find that those grown under very high or very low light intensities will come up with lots of mutations in their genome. Some of these mutations will be very silent and so will not cause any phenotypic change, others will be lethal and that cell will just be lost in the milieu of other cells while some should have caused some phenotypical changes but the organism compensated for that by mutating another gene somewhere in its genome.
So lack of phenotypical changes in any organism, including man, should not be necessarily equated to a stable state.
I agree that it would be incorrect to call it a stable state. What happens though is that, only selective pressure can lead to adaptations. In large enough populations, the effects of e.g. genetic drift are far less significant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Uche2nna (m)
|
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm afraid that I don't really get your point here.
@ quote
I agree that it would be incorrect to call it a stable state. What happens though is that, only selective pressure can lead to adaptations. In large enough populations, the effects of e.g. genetic drift are far less significant.
Here comes the word I have been trying very much to understand. What does "selective pressure" mean and how is it really different from "survival of the fittest". Many people tell me that "survival of the fittest" is now seen as racially inflammatory phrase but those same people use selective pressure? @ DarwinsI read somewhere in this lenghty thread the argument about Darwin and his theory. Well, Darwin knew that there were very fundamental flaws in his theory. The summary of his theory was that all species will eventually tend to homogeneity and being the genius he was he realized that it was not possible. He never quite figured out why two very tall plants have a short plant as one of their offsprings. That was not the prediction of his model. That and many other issues of his theory bugged him until he died. There was this funny incident that happened between him (Darwin) and Gregor Mendel . Mendel at that time had provided an answer with his discovery of genes and how to quantify its effects on species but Darwin supposedly did not read Mendel's findings even tho Mr Mendel sent it to him. His reasons: Mendel was not a scientist (   ). So Darwin died without ever solving the problems his theory threw up and without ever knowing that they had been solved. So that is why a supposedly "weak" race will not be phased out, that is why a supposedly trait will show up in generations to come. |
|
|
|
|
|
Horus (m)
|
BLACK SKIN IS THE GENETIC PARENT!
Whites cannot reproduce anything but themselves! Through powerful propaganda and indoctrination we have been completely oblivious to what having white skin really means. We have been skillfully mislead to believe that white skin is mankind’s anthropological model and should be coveted. However, recent research paints a picture of white skin that is just the antithesis of what we have been brainwashed to believe. The polar bear analysis that was done by the Discovery Channel helps prove my point. If you shave the hair off a polar bear, the skin beneath is black. In nature the skin of the polar bear is black to absorb as much heat and light as possible to keep the arctic animal warm in its environment. It is also true for the Eskimo (Inuit). Human adaptation remains an insufficiently studied part of climate and climate change. Scientists have tried for years to prove that the environment was responsible for altering heredity.
Eskimos have brown skin. Eskimos have broad, flat noses. Africans have brown skin. Africans have broad, flat noses. Scientific studies have reported that people are dark because they live near the equator—not because they are Negroid or have a Negroid admixture. There are repeated arguments made by anthropologists when referring to Arabs being brown in color because of the equalitarian closeness. So what about the brownness of skin that occurs in mankind who live the furthest from the equator—the Artic? Also, the Eskimos’ nose shape does not work to explain temperature-dependencies. Broad, flat noses are more beneficial in hot environments—Oh really!
Scientifically speaking, Black objects absorb heat very well and also emit heat very well. If heat wasn’t emitted at the same rate as was is absorbed, the black object would just get hotter and hotter until it melted. A black beaker cools down much faster than a shiny beaker that does not absorb or emit heat well at all. That is why snow does not melt in cold weather even when the sun is falling directly on it. All of the incident light energy is reflected away and none (or very little) is absorbed.
If black absorbs heat and light and white reflects it, how can we say that white people are adapted more to cold environments than warm? That insinuation that white skin is a result of environmental adaptation is the same orthodox dogma that we have been spoon fed for generations, however when subjected to scientific scrutiny it doesn’t hold water. Reports FALSELY SUGGESTED that Senegalese troops during World War I and Ethiopian troops during the Korean War showed higher rates of frostbite and frozen feet in the African soldiers than their European counterparts. The laboratory work of the researchers also suggested that black skin tissue was more prone to cold injury; however white skin also exhibited some damage. After further research the following was indicated: It was SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that samples of black skin tissue were less vulnerable to cold damage than the lighter European tissue. This does not sound indicative of white skin being more suitable to cold climates.
Caucasians have a higher concentration of enzyme inhibitors that suppress melanin production, according to Halprin & Ohkawara, 1966. White people also have calcified pineal glands.
You may ask how does this imply that white skin is a genetic defect, The pineal gland secretes melatonin, which activates the pituitary to release M.S.H. (Melanocyte Stimulating Hormone). It is in the melanocytes that melanin (Greek “melas”=black) is produced. Melanin is somewhat analogous to chlorophyll in plants. What a lot of people don’t realize is that melatonin is also related to fertility. Those with pigmented skin have the highest counts of melanocytes in the genitalia and nipples. The pigmentation in these areas can be influenced by sex hormones like estrogens and androgens. During pregnancy, the nipples, face, and abdominal wall become darkened. These areas of increased pigmentation during pregnancy are due to the increase in the production of estrogens.
Anthropologists try to account for the fact that the genitalia are darker by suggesting that protection is needed against ultraviolet radiation damage, and has been thus evolved through natural selection. This means that protection of the genitalia against forces that may prevent reproduction was needed. Similarly, in this view, the pigmentation of the nipples during pregnancy would be a defense against ultraviolet radiation damage to the nipples. Supposedly, this type of protection would be needed while breast-feeding during the early evolution of humans in Africa. According to Robins, 1991, darker pigmentation found in the genitals, may have evolved for the “protection of reproductive capacity”, in that the pigmentation protects gametes within the genitalia from ultraviolet radiation damage. This is a direct result of why white people have the lowest birthrates of all people on the planet and are going extinct. Their melanin deficiency is why their reproduction system does not work as efficiently as it should.
Whites attribute their failure of reproduction to behavioral or societal reasons. However, the reason is more a biological one. Melanin is present at the inception of life: A Melanin sheath covers both the sperm and the egg! In the human embryo, the melanocytes (skin pigment cells), brain and nerve cells all originate from the same place; the neural crest. Melanocytes resemble nerve cells and are essential for conveying energy. When Melanin is missing or insufficient in the ectoderm of the early embryo (blastula), this causes the mother to lose her baby; in the case of whites, a defective baby is produced, and over time, through inbreeding, wears down the already pathetically low levels of melanin. Reproduction stops altogether and virtual infertility is the end result.
As far as vitamin D metabolization, white people have the lowest bone density of all people on the planet. The skin is supposed to convert sunlight to Vitamin D because of 7-Dehydrocholesterol. However, white people reflect the sunlight so that the body compensates by depleting calcium from their bones. It makes whites more susceptible to kidney stones than any other race of people. The depletion of bone mass is responsible for their low bone density. It is widely regarded that black people have the strongest bones of all people from infancy to old age.
Melanin has been proven to not only being beneficial to the human reproductive system and nervous system, but melanin also plays an important part in sight and hearing. Blue eyes are simply eyes that lack melanin. Blue eyes are more sensitive to sunlight and do not process light or produce sight as efficiently as brown eyes. Isn’t it funny how many people place divine qualities with blue eyes that are nothing but genetically defective?
Melanin is also said to be linked with hearing. Melanocytes are present in the inner ear, the eye, and in the membrane that covers the brain and spinal cord. It has been demonstrated that melanin deposits in these areas are proportional to the amount of melanin found in the skin. These areas of the body, similar to the skin, are exposed to high-energy free radicals that can damage the surrounding cells, and thus causes a lower threshold for hearing. Evidence shows that black people, on average, hear better than whites, and that within both races, women surpass men. A partial explanation of the differences may lie in the abundance in the inner ear of melanin pigments. Also, numerous studies have found that people with light eye colors, such as blue, green, and hazel are more vulnerable to hearing damage than are people with black or brown eyes.
The late renowned Anthropologist, Dr. Margaret Meade, in an experiment with indigenous Australians, Black Melanesian Islander children and white Anglo-Saxon children in the US, revealed that the “memory bank” of black children was greater and their “instant recall ability” from memory, outstanding. She, like most renowned researchers, concluded that black children have a deeper memory bank and hence higher IQ than their counterpart European and American Biochemists have attributed this great phenomenon to ‘neuro-melanin’ - a chemical responsible for black.
In his book, “The Chemical Key to Black Greatness” American Biochemist, Carol Barnes, described melanin as, “a civilizing chemical that acts as a sedative to help keep the black human calm, relaxed, caring, creative, energetic and civilized”. Research also revealed that melanin enables black skin to actively interact with the sun, to produce Vitamin D from a biochemical substance, 7- dehydrocholesterol. The study also detected that, melanin has spiritual dynamics as well as physical, since it acts as a sensory ‘receptor’ and ‘transmitter’; communicating with cosmic energy fields in the vast universe converting light energy to sound energy and back. Dr. Richard King, MD, stated that, “melanin, by its ability to capture light and hold it in a memory mode, reveals that blackness converts light into knowledge”.
With all of this information, we can plainly see that melanin is ESSENTIAL for the efficient performance of all of the body’s natural functions. It seems a little ironic, that white people deem themselves genetically superior with the oxymoron of white supremacy. There is nothing supreme about a genetic defect. White people are merely mutated inbred albinos. This alone adds credence to them being an inferior stock. To feel better about themselves they develop totally senseless propaganda to flatter them and to make they feel better about their genetic condition at the expense of people of color. The doll test, where it has been reported that both white kids and black kids prefer WHITE dolls is solely out of ignorance, that I have termed “centuries of BRAINWASHARY.” It has clearly been shown that white skin is actually indicative of albinism. Albinism is a genetic defect. Who in their right mind would prefer a genetically defective condition to one that is Nature’s normal and has been proven more efficient?
This is why we need to continue our crusade to decolonize the minds of the original genetic template (black people) to see through the nonsense propagated by white people to flatter themselves. Total ignorance can be fought with knowledge. A more recent tactic white people use to appease themselves is the “Implicit Association Test.” They have devised a means to make it seem as though white people are supposed to be the most desirable people on the planet and that everyone wants to be like them and be around them. If you can see through the nonsense, then you will know what I mean. Would you want to be around a bunch of paranoid genetic defects with psychological problems and with intermittently inferior genes? In a nutshell, black people, being the original genetic template are the only fully NORMAL people on the planet. White people are albinos (recessive genetic defects) and other ethnicities are merely admixtures in between.
Always remember these points, and you should never have to hold your head down to any recessive genetic defects. All phenotypes exist within the black family. Asian people are only the semi-recessive descendants of their ancestors who were a black African tribe with slanted eyes. White people are the albinos of a specific group of Africans and have inherited those people’s phenotypes. They try to imply that their phenotypes were originally theirs and that if you see people of African descent with these features, they inherited them from white people. Nothing is further from the truth. Blacks are the genetic parents. Remember, whites cannot reproduce anything else but themselves. They cannot reproduce genetic material they don’t have, melanin. Therefore, they cannot reproduce us, but we can reproduce them and all others in humanity.
This should also convince you that all of the great civilizations from antiquity had to be started by us. White people with their recessive genes and poor reproductive systems, could not have lasted that long, seemingly that they are disappearing faster than anything now. Breeding with us, or breeding without us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm afraid that I don't really get your point here.
@ quote
I agree that it would be incorrect to call it a stable state. What happens though is that, only selective pressure can lead to adaptations. In large enough populations, the effects of e.g. genetic drift are far less significant. Here comes the word I have been trying very much to understand. What does "selective pressure" mean and how is it really different from "survival of the fittest". Many people tell me that "survival of the fittest" is now seen as racially inflammatory phrase but those same people use selective pressure? Survival of the fittest is the outcome of the evolutionary process of natural selection, the fittest specimens within a population (or rather the traits that lead them to be fit) survive in the subsequent generations because they are selected for. Fitness is simply a function of reproductive success. Some factors influence exactly what is selected for. An organism lives in a specific ecology. To survive and successfully reproduce in that ecology, the organism needs to be able to outcompete both members of the same species as species that want to take advantage of him (such as predators and parasites). Also the environment itself is a hurdle the organism must take to increase his reproductive success. Selective pressure is simply the pressure that comes from the competitors and environment that leads to the selection of specific genes that allow the organism to be 'fitter', i.e. to be more reproductively successful. @ Darwins
I read somewhere in this lenghty thread the argument about Darwin and his theory. Well, Darwin knew that there were very fundamental flaws in his theory. There were certain gaps in his theory at the time of formulation (i.e. a very rudimentary fossil record) but no flaws that I know of. Darwin was a particularly meticulous scientist and he was very rigorous in both his theorising as in his field research The summary of his theory was that all species will eventually tend to homogeneity and being the genius he was he realized that it was not possible. That wasn't exactly the summary of his theory, but still the fact that sexual recombination will over time lead to homogeneity was indeed a problem he wrestled with. The observed fact proved that that assumption was incorrect though. His problem was that he couldn't explain the non-homogeneity of most species. He never quite figured out why two very tall plants have a short plant as one of their offsprings. That was not the prediction of his model. That and many other issues of his theory bugged him until he died. There was this funny incident that happened between him (Darwin) and Gregor Mendel . Mendel at that time had provided an answer with his discovery of genes and how to quantify its effects on species but Darwin supposedly did not read Mendel's findings even tho Mr Mendel sent it to him. His reasons: Mendel was not a scientist ( ). So Darwin died without ever solving the problems his theory threw up and without ever knowing that they had been solved. As I said before, it wasn't really a problem with his theory, but rather a lack of insight into the mechanisms of heredity. The fusing of Mendel and Darwin, and later the findings of genetics, lead to the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. What is very interesting is that we're very close to another expansion of the TOE with the findings of molecular biology and more specifically with developmental biology. We're starting to unravel exactly how organism are made. So that is why a supposedly "weak" race will not be phased out, that is why a supposedly trait will show up in generations to come.
Anyone talking about weak races in the context of human evolution clearly doesn't know what he or she is talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
Uche2nna (m)
|
Here comes the word I have been trying very much to understand. What does "selective pressure" mean and how is it really different from "survival of the fittest". Many people tell me that "survival of the fittest" is now seen as racially inflammatory phrase but those same people use selective pressure?
Survival of the fittest is the outcome of the evolutionary process of natural selection, the fittest specimens within a population (or rather the traits that lead them to be fit) survive in the subsequent generations because they are selected for. Fitness is simply a function of reproductive success.
Some factors influence exactly what is selected for. An organism lives in a specific ecology. To survive and successfully reproduce in that ecology, the organism needs to be able to outcompete both members of the same species as species that want to take advantage of him (such as predators and parasites). Also the environment itself is a hurdle the organism must take to increase his reproductive success. Selective pressure is simply the pressure that comes from the competitors and environment that leads to the selection of specific genes that allow the organism to be 'fitter', i.e. to be more reproductively successful.
There were certain gaps in his theory at the time of formulation (i.e. a very rudimentary fossil record) but no flaws that I know of. Darwin was a particularly meticulous scientist and he was very rigorous in both his theorising as in his field research
That wasn't exactly the summary of his theory, but still the fact that sexual recombination will over time lead to homogeneity was indeed a problem he wrestled with. The observed fact proved that that assumption was incorrect though. His problem was that he couldn't explain the non-homogeneity of most species.
As I said before, it wasn't really a problem with his theory, but rather a lack of insight into the mechanisms of heredity. The fusing of Mendel and Darwin, and later the findings of genetics, lead to the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.
What is very interesting is that we're very close to another expansion of the TOE with the findings of molecular biology and more specifically with developmental biology. We're starting to unravel exactly how organism are made.
Anyone talking about weak races in the context of human evolution clearly doesn't know what he or she is talking about.
The point of building a hypothesis is to arrive at a prediction. I agree with you that Darwin was very meticulous (he has to be to make those kind of observations) but one of the major predictions from his theory did not agree with what was going on in nature. If that was not a flaw then I don't know what else is Maybe I am interpreting this in a wrong way but the way I see it selective pressure and natural selection all do the same thing if u agree with the theory of evolution and that is they weed out "weak and unfavorable genes". Meaning that , in terms of selective pressure, if You can not jump past the hurdles of the environment your "kind" will ultimately be "phased out" in the scheme of things. This still brings up the issue of some being "fitter" than others. So why do people think that it is more politcally correct to say " selective pressure" than to say "survival of the fittest". It does not make sense to me  |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
The point of building a hypothesis is to arrive at a prediction. I agree with you that Darwin was very meticulous (he has to be to make those kind of observations) but one of the major predictions from his theory did not agree with what was going on in nature. If that was not a flaw then I don't know what else is It was incomplete and wasn't capable of explaining all observations. I wouldn't immediately call that flawed. I don't consider Newtonion mechanics to be flawed, but rather incomplete as well. In the end it's mainly semantics and I just have a tendency to avoid using terms like flawed, because it will be abused by creationists before you even notice. Maybe I am interpreting this in a wrong way but the way I see it selective pressure and natural selection all do the same thing if u agree with the theory of evolution and that is they weed out "weak and unfavorable genes". Meaning that , in terms of selective pressure, if You can not jump past the hurdles of the environment your "kind" will ultimately be "phased out" in the scheme of things. This still brings up the issue of some being "fitter" than others. So why do people think that it is more politcally correct to say " selective pressure" than to say "survival of the fittest". It does not make sense to me Survival of the fittest is the outcome.Selective pressure is what causes the outcome. Anyway, I always try to avoid 'loaded' terms because some people (creationists) have a tendency to abuse or quote-mine and distort about everything 'the opposition' (aka the hell bound) say |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
nnferyn,
Science shouldn't even be commenting on faith or religious issues. Yet instead we find science moderating how they talk to speak to those with faith or religious issues.
One would think evolutionists target audience is the very people, who will never care what evolutionists say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Yes, science is generally "flexible" and attempts to avoid dogmatism as much as possible; however, that is not to say that the findings of today, especially at the most basic levels (e.g. change is allele frequencies of a population is observed to occur and can cause wholesale changes), are wrong. Furthermore, usually, the findings of science today are usually more "right" than the previous views - including dogmatic religious views. Again, Science has nothing to do with Religious or Faith views. Whether dogmatic or liberal. It has limited itself to that which is measurable. Faith and religion on the other hand does pertain to science and can comment on it, because it does not limit itself to only measurable findings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Uche2nna (m)
|
@ Dru So you are saying that a scientist can not be a christian |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
@ Dru So you are saying that a scientist can not be a christian Absolutely not. All scientists should be Christians just like Sir Isaac Newton. Nferyn said that he moderates his words so that Creationists don't abuse them. In effect Creationists are absolutely correct with their biggest underlying argument against Evolution. i.e. It portends to be "neutral" when in fact it is nothing more than a program to get at creationists. |
|
|
|
|
|
Uche2nna (m)
|
It portends to be "neutral" when in fact it is nothing more than a program to get at creationists.
Well, that is where I beg to differ. I completely believe in Intelligent design but I do not buy the idea that the evolutionist thoery was chiefly proposed to ridicule religion. I think it was just a case of man using his limited and mortal ability to try and define the unknown which unfortunately is (the unknown) is not mortal nor limited. As a result of this there has been so many misconceptions and misinterpretations in the quest to answer some questions posited by nature. The evolutionist theory : Man came as result of millions of years of evolution from single cells living in water. My View : Water was among the first thing mentioned in Genesis. Those millions of years of evolution might in fact be a couple of days in the eyes of HIM. In the eyes of God a million years is just like a minute while a minute is like a million years. So to him Time is not a limiting factor but for man time is such a limiting factor that everything has to be defined by it. The evolutionist theory : There is a remarkable similarity , difference and gradation from the simplest organism to the most complex organism. Thus, all species came from one common source. They called that a cell. My view : I agree. We must have all come from one common source only that I do not call it a cell. I call that source God. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Well, that is where I beg to differ. I completely believe in Intelligent design but I do not buy the idea that the evolutionist thoery was chiefly proposed to ridicule religion. I think it was just a case of man using his limited and mortal ability to try and define the unknown which unfortunately is (the unknown) is not mortal nor limited. As a result of this there has been so many misconceptions and misinterpretations in the quest to answer some questions posited by nature.
The evolutionist theory : Man came as result of millions of years of evolution from single cells living in water.
My View : Water was among the first thing mentioned in Genesis. Those millions of years of evolution might in fact be a couple of days in the eyes of HIM. In the eyes of God a million years is just like a minute while a minute is like a million years. So to him Time is not a limiting factor but for man time is such a limiting factor that everything has to be defined by it.
The evolutionist theory : There is a remarkable similarity , difference and gradation from the simplest organism to the most complex organism. Thus, all species came from one common source. They called that a cell.
My view : I agree. We must have all come from one common source only that I do not call it a cell. I call that source God.
Uche2nna, Beautiful. I was just making a similar point to KAG. Evolution can 'both' match some parts of the bible 'and' not match others at the same time. Nobody need think that this interfere's with their faith in a literal reading of the bible. And the many other ways that the bible forces us to read it (Spiritual, Natural, specific and general, mythical, allegorical, etc, etc.) I think destroyng Christanity was the last thing on Darwins mind, I think that in general there was a great need to answer the question: "Are whites evil for what they have done to Black people?" Darwins book was well recieved because it said no, it is just a matter of survival of the fittest. The lion does not eat the gazelle beause it is evil but simply because it is what is programmed to do. This is why Darwin was so embraced. He answered the evil question. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sista (f)
|
Hello Uche2nna  @TopicThis may or may not be on topic but going back to what Uche said in the quote below. The evolutionist theory : Man came as result of millions of years of evolution from single cells living in water.
My View : Water was among the first thing mentioned in Genesis. From what we humans know, all living beings must go through a female to be born, to have life. Inside the womb where we are before the nine months of completion, all we are doing is sitting in a bunch of water as we feed off of our mothers nutrients. My opinion is this, religion is science and science is religion but originally science was not thought of from a western perspective, science just was and it really didn't have a name. The Egyptians believed that heaven was inside of the woman's womb because from the woman's womb beget all human life. The symbol of the Ankh, which looks like the cross is symbolic to the woman's womb. The Egyptians also equated the woman's womb with the blackness of the macro womb which to them was the dark sky in other words (Heaven). The woman's womb is also dark plus watery and she menstruates once a month. Even when she gives birth blood is present and the baby is drenched in blood and water after birth. The Egyptians also believed that they were seated here on earth and arrived on earth from coming out of the sky macro womb, which again to them is heaven. It gets a little graphic here but this is why they mummified the privates because they believed that the privates must be erect in order for the seeds to ejaculate hence the male who is mummified would be able to in the after life plant the seed of life into the woman's womb. If the privates is mummified after death, they believed somehow that they could reincarnate their self somehow in the next life. There is a prime myth about the reincarnation of Osiris. Isis turned into a bird and somehow ejaculated sperm from her deceased husband Osiris's privates and she planted the seed inside of her. The child she gave birth to was the reincarnation of her husband Horus. Sounds like a bit of artificial insemination going on here huh? Any way, my point is, look at the parallels from the Isis and Osiris myth which is mixed up with science. I see many parallels like being washed in the blood of the lamb, the reincarnation of Jesus, Heaven up in the sky, baptism by water and the list gos on so forth. Science, religion, same thing. Accept one makes you hoop and holler, jump for joy give thanks and praise and sing a song of joy or pain. And the other just makes you think as it continues to become even more confusing. However, we as humans need to understand them both. Here is a picture of the Ankh, not to different from the cross. The middle of the Ankh is symbolic to the womb. The sides of the Hank is symbolic to the ovaries. The bottom of the Ankh is symbolic to the birth canal passage. |
|
|
|
|
|
thecavsman
|
Y'all are some deep people,
I just look at the culture, language, dance, mentality, etc of black America and I see the parallels with Africa. The answer isn't in genetics or the bible or wherever else people may use to find a correlation between the two people.
It amazes me how even one of my own friends says there is nothing but a physical connection to Africa.
Look up the similarities of AAVE (African American Vernacular English) and West African Languages.
People can say what they want about Jesus, etc, I don't get into that stuff. I don't allow myself to be Christian. In one thread that I started and didn't even know that I started, everyone assumed that I was a Muslim. I am not a Muslim either, just to clarify. Unfortunately, the thread is now closed and I can't make my position clear, Anyway I am disgressing.
I just like to study the language, culture and socialization of people as it can teach you more about history than anything else. That is all that is needed to see the connection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
nnferyn,
Science shouldn't even be commenting on faith or religious issues. Science studies the natural world. The moment religion makes a claim about the natural world, it is open to scientific investigation. I religion doesn't want to come under the scrutiny of scientfic inquiry, it should stop making claims about the natural world. Yet instead we find science moderating how they talk to speak to those with faith or religious issues. That sentence is, though grammatically correct, completely void of meaning One would think evolutionists target audience is the very people, who will never care what evolutionists say.
What does that mean? |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
@ Dru So you are saying that a scientist can not be a christian Absolutely not. All scientists should be Christians just like Sir Isaac Newton. Why should they be Christians? Are you supporting the dominionist agenda? Nferyn said that he moderates his words so that Creationists don't abuse them. I don't really moderate hem, but rather I try to choose them carefully and be as precise as possible. Survival of the fittest carries a colloquial meaning that will always be referenced by creationists, even thoug hthe real meaning of that phrase is quite precise and doesn't include the connotations that creationists ascribe to it. That's why I avoid using it. It only takes 1 minute to make a false claim but an hour to debunk that false claim. In effect Creationists are absolutely correct with their biggest underlying argument against Evolution.
i.e. It portends to be "neutral" when in fact it is nothing more than a program to get at creationists.
Ah, the fundamentalist persecution complex at work. Newsflash: a large majority of Christian denominations worldwide and even in the US accepts the theory of evolution. There is no 'getting at creationists' involved, when creationists stop trying to subvert science education, no 'evolutionists' care about what those creationists say. Let them preach in their churches all they want, as long as they don't force their views on others. |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
It portends to be "neutral" when in fact it is nothing more than a program to get at creationists. Well, that is where I beg to differ. I completely believe in Intelligent design but I do not buy the idea that the evolutionist thoery was chiefly proposed to ridicule religion. I think it was just a case of man using his limited and mortal ability to try and define the unknown which unfortunately is (the unknown) is not mortal nor limited. As a result of this there has been so many misconceptions and misinterpretations in the quest to answer some questions posited by nature. Evolutionary theory is just science. it uses naturalistic methods to examine the natural world. The evolutionist theory : Man came as result of millions of years of evolution from single cells living in water.
My View : Water was among the first thing mentioned in Genesis. Those millions of years of evolution might in fact be a couple of days in the eyes of HIM. In the eyes of God a million years is just like a minute while a minute is like a million years. So to him Time is not a limiting factor but for man time is such a limiting factor that everything has to be defined by it. Your religion does not need to be in contradiction with science as long as you don't insist on a literal reading of you religious text anyway. The evolutionist theory : There is a remarkable similarity , difference and gradation from the simplest organism to the most complex organism. Thus, all species came from one common source. They called that a cell.
My view : I agree. We must have all come from one common source only that I do not call it a cell. I call that source God.
Actually, that's a bit of an oversimplification of the origin of life, but when you talk about your source being God, that shouldn't be a problem. Here's an excellent site on theistic evolution and how to reconcile religion and science: http://www.epicofevolution.com/index.html |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
I think destroyng Christanity was the last thing on Darwins mind, I think that in general there was a great need to answer the question: "Are whites evil for what they have done to Black people?" That's anachronistic BS. That was the last thing on Darwin's mind when he came out with his theory. Actually, the descent of man, which does talk about human evolution, was effectively debunking the commonly held racist views of that time. You must know that 'lying for Jesus' is bad, don't you? Darwins book was well recieved because it said no, it is just a matter of survival of the fittest. The lion does not eat the gazelle beause it is evil but simply because it is what is programmed to do. It was well received? That's new to me. Darwin was very much vilified and especially by the religious creationists that used their religion as justification for the subjugation of blacks. This is why Darwin was so embraced. He answered the evil question.
Repition doesn't make your answer more true. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Nferyn,
it seems to me fairly clear that empirical science (but not positivism) has the best track record of any epistemology. Whether or not scientists have a "right" to present their knowledge is kind of beside the point; their knowledge does society more good, more reliably, than anyone else's. I, for one, am not interested in arguing about whether or not science is the Great Satan. But. I don't see why the above argument detaches scientific inquiry from the moral considerations (whatever they are) that we attach to other activities. For example, I don't see why a scientist who believes that the result of a particular inquiry or publication will be negative is obliged to do it anyway, when, say, a worker is obliged *not* to do. (As per the Nuremburg tribunal and almost every other moral code.) If we want to be amoral empiricists, that is quite fine with me, but I don't see us applying that logic very broadly. I also don't see--and this is a practical, not a moral, issue- -why science assumes that the rest of world will just let them do their empirical thing without sending them to the camps. I mean, all the die-hard empiricists are scientists, anyway. The people who aren't--and we see today, in particular, that these are some people with authority--are not scientists and could give a s**t about empiricism for its own sake. To me, abandoning one's PR efforts is tantamount to a persecution complex. Finally--and this is actually the point irritates me the most--I think that glossing over the rough spots in the history of science does a disservice not only to history, but to the scientific method. I think, for example, that as much as we all want to show that Darwin was a great guy--and I never said he was a racist or that his theory was primarily motivated by racism--it is *important* that his theory was adopted for certain social reasons. The obvious example is Erasmus Darwin, who arguably formulated the first freestanding theory of evolution in the Enlightenment. The reasons why C.D. tried so hard to belittle E.D., at least in his earlier career, are interesting, but not the issue. What is interesting is that E.D.'s theories were associated with a very radical politics: outright atheism, feminism, and to some extent with Godwinian anarchism. What Charles did, in addition to deepening and improving his granddad's theory (and worsening it, e.g. in geology) was present evolution with a more palatable set of political connotations, and even religious connations, because Chas never comes right out and says "God is irrelevant," whereas his grandfather literally lists religious belief as a mental illness. Aaaah, what's my point here? I think it is myopic to ignore the social vectors that impact the acceptance or rejection of scientific theories. Because they're still here, as Georgia demonstrates so well. We may like to think that science is a chess game for truth, but in reality is more like mud-wrestling for truth, and we might as well talk about it that way.
(not drusilla)
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
anhk.jpg (2.15 KB, 71x120 )