User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:09:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No such thing as Neanderthals. There are people today for instance aboriginal Australians who look exactly like that: http://s27.postimg.org/t82fbi6gz/abo2.jpg Much like the Piltdown man, Neanderthals are a myth created by mixing bones from different sources lol no |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:10:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Definition of anthropology : the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture Definition of genetics : the scientific study of how genes control the characteristics of plants and animals Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. But I heard in another thread that evolution didn't cover how living beings originate, you need abiogenesis for that. Once again, evolution getting made up as it goes http://i.imgur.com/VtDNEw8.gif mdk89 is correct. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life on the planet it only explains what happened to life after it emerged. So that definition of Creationism above is flawed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:23:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
mdk89 is correct. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life on the planet it only explains what happened to life after it emerged. So that definition of Creationism above is flawed. Evolution isn't meant to explain the origins of all life, merely the origins of the species (pun intended). Physics and biology explains the origins of life. Physical anthropology explains the origin of hominids. Evolution teaches that life evolved. Creationism teaches that the Bible was right all along, despite all scientific discoveries since the Council of Nicea, which is why its bulshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:24:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The stupid people are breeding much faster than the smart people, and Darwin's Law is no longer being applied. IMO the human race/civilization will collapse under it's own weight due to the lack of culling of the weak/stupid. Not due to lack of culling of the feeble but rather a highly vulnerable, complex system that is in so many ways fragile. 1) Power grid goes down due to solar flare. No energy = no computers for credit system. No fuel for trucks and no food to cites. City folks die. Sanitation breakdown = more disease. 2) Monetary failure. No $$$ or credit = no food deliveries. People die. It's been said that 7 million Ameircans starved during the Great Depression. 3) Hacking of power grid. See #1. 4) Act of God (earthquake, floods/hurricanes/tsunamis, volcanos, drought followed by famine). 5) Nuclear war or just plain, old fashion war with destruction of enemy's infrastructure. 6) Disease. Got Ebola or other nasty things? How about those super-bugs that can't be killed via regular anti-biotics? With jet travel that stuff goes global quickly. The trouble with globalization is its very advantage. The inter-connectiveness and reliance upon others makes the nation dependent on its trading partner. A failure of one affects all others and no one escapes unscathed. Agricultural societies, less developed nations will be less affected. Highly complex societies like our own, Europe, some parts of Asia will suffer. Now, the farmers always do well so long as the weather holds out and the rain/rivers falls/flows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:27:16 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The stupid people are breeding much faster than the smart people, and Darwin's Law is no longer being applied. There it is. In any discussion about evolution it eventually goes down that road. Do the smart people also need to secure the existence of their people and a future for smart children? Then what were those words that come after, I forgot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:31:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No such thing as Neanderthals. There are people today for instance aboriginal Australians who look exactly like that: http://s27.postimg.org/t82fbi6gz/abo2.jpg Much like the Piltdown man, Neanderthals are a myth created by mixing bones from different sources |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:35:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You've obviously never been to a snowy area, no wonder since you claim to be from Somalia, land of political freedom. The snow reflects light. Ever wonder why people where sunglasses while sking? Or wonder how snow blindness happens? No, you never heard about those things because you know it all already. More sources for you to not read: The importance of sun protection- Yes, even in Alaska! They say ignorance is bliss, in that case you must be a very content person. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:Tell me something I don't know. And then explain the eskimos and the Sami. Judging by your constant focus on skin color I'm guessing you are referring to the darker shade of skin of both those peoples. There is this thing called the sun. When you spend your life outdoors your skin darkens. Some call this miracle of science "weathered." Google "Eskimo baby" and "Sami baby" and go to images. Notice what skin color they are before becoming weathered by the sun? Of course not, because you're not doing any of this because you don't give a shit because you're focusing solely on light skinned Neanderthals and getting angry because you think liberals are insulting your race. Not everything is shot you. I know everything is not shot me. You've obviously never been to a snowy area, no wonder since you claim to be from Somalia, land of political freedom. The snow reflects light. Ever wonder why people where sunglasses while sking? Or wonder how snow blindness happens? No, you never heard about those things because you know it all already. More sources for you to not read: The importance of sun protection- Yes, even in Alaska! They say ignorance is bliss, in that case you must be a very content person. I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:39:50 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean like how they find 2 teeth and a leg bone and build a complete and complex history of the animal/humanoid with behavioral patterns and everything? Or as my Professor in college said "pulling it out of their asses". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No one knows when neanderthals became neanderthals, no one knows when modern humans became modern humans. Most of what has been taught is bullshit pipe dreams made up by people who cant stand to admit that they do not know what they do not know. What we know is what has been observed.. the rest is just inference. And anyone can infer with the best of them. You mean like how they find 2 teeth and a leg bone and build a complete and complex history of the animal/humanoid with behavioral patterns and everything? Or as my Professor in college said "pulling it out of their asses". Where did you go to college? And your professor...what was his field? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:43:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd be more likely to invoke Occam's Razor than Poe's law, with these "studies" like the one referenced in the OP that keep getting made up as they go. In 2014, it was Neanderthals never went extinct all the rage Now, it is this one In a year or two, it will be something different and this article will be obselete And its all based on some bones that are indistinguishable from modern skeletons of people suffering from Rickets, and the facial reconstructions are indistinguishable from some ethnic groups alive today. If you look at it logically it starts becoming clear that many facets of evolutionary science are being made up, and then the big question becomes why... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No such thing as Neanderthals. There are people today for instance aboriginal Australians who look exactly like that: http://s27.postimg.org/t82fbi6gz/abo2.jpg Much like the Piltdown man, Neanderthals are a myth created by mixing bones from different sources Poe's Law like a motherfucker. I'd be more likely to invoke Occam's Razor than Poe's law, with these "studies" like the one referenced in the OP that keep getting made up as they go. In 2014, it was Neanderthals never went extinct all the rage Now, it is this one In a year or two, it will be something different and this article will be obselete And its all based on some bones that are indistinguishable from modern skeletons of people suffering from Rickets, and the facial reconstructions are indistinguishable from some ethnic groups alive today. If you look at it logically it starts becoming clear that many facets of evolutionary science are being made up, and then the big question becomes why... Just because some media outlets pick up a story and publish news articles about it, it doesn't mean that a large portion of the scientific community supports the idea. Weak, unpopular papers that go against other evidence are published every day in this country. Hell, I just read a draft of a paper yesterday showing that "Method A, developed in 2014, is less repeatable than method B, which was developed in the 1980's, therefore Method B is more desirable to use". While this conclusion is true for the data in the study, it misses one big point: Method B has long been shown to not correspond well to any physical phenomenon, its more of an empirical relation. Which means in other situations other than those tested in the study, method B means pretty much jack shit. I don't know who reviewed that paper, but if I was the reviewer I probably would have either rejected it or required them to revise the paper to address this fact. As it stands now, I pretty much hate the paper. Now imagine for a minute this paper was something interesting enough that the media picked up the story (trust me, its not  ), you'd probably be saying "look at this paper, it contradicts things that were published before, it was all the rage for a short time, and now things are contradicting it"It would reflecting nothing but your own inexperience on the topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:45:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There it is. In any discussion about evolution it eventually goes down that road. Do the smart people also need to secure the existence of their people and a future for smart children? Then what were those words that come after, I forgot. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The stupid people are breeding much faster than the smart people, and Darwin's Law is no longer being applied. There it is. In any discussion about evolution it eventually goes down that road. Do the smart people also need to secure the existence of their people and a future for smart children? Then what were those words that come after, I forgot. So what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:47:10 PM EDT
[#11]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:49:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And any discussion of god leads to people who believe in a supernatural dear leader straight out of the worst North Korean Nightmare who will punish you for eternity for thought crimes. So what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The stupid people are breeding much faster than the smart people, and Darwin's Law is no longer being applied. There it is. In any discussion about evolution it eventually goes down that road. Do the smart people also need to secure the existence of their people and a future for smart children? Then what were those words that come after, I forgot. So what? You copied and pasted that straight from Christopher Hitchens. Wonder what Hitchens would say if he could come back right now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:50:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But I heard in another thread that evolution didn't cover how living beings originate, you need abiogenesis for that. Once again, evolution getting made up as it goes Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Definition of anthropology : the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture Definition of genetics : the scientific study of how genes control the characteristics of plants and animals Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. But I heard in another thread that evolution didn't cover how living beings originate, you need abiogenesis for that. Once again, evolution getting made up as it goes It is not saying that universe or life itself came about due to evolution. Sorry that you don't have the education to understand things that were published 200 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:54:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where did you go to college? And your professor...what was his field? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No one knows when neanderthals became neanderthals, no one knows when modern humans became modern humans. Most of what has been taught is bullshit pipe dreams made up by people who cant stand to admit that they do not know what they do not know. What we know is what has been observed.. the rest is just inference. And anyone can infer with the best of them. You mean like how they find 2 teeth and a leg bone and build a complete and complex history of the animal/humanoid with behavioral patterns and everything? Or as my Professor in college said "pulling it out of their asses". Where did you go to college? And your professor...what was his field? Imagine in 20,000,000 years, some scientist finding two turkey tracks in the mud and somehow extrapolating that they all had bald heads and that those of the males could turn colors as they strutted to establish mating dominance. Sure thing, bro. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:58:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You copied and pasted that straight from Christopher Hitchens. Wonder what Hitchens would say if he could come back right now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The stupid people are breeding much faster than the smart people, and Darwin's Law is no longer being applied. There it is. In any discussion about evolution it eventually goes down that road. Do the smart people also need to secure the existence of their people and a future for smart children? Then what were those words that come after, I forgot. So what? You copied and pasted that straight from Christopher Hitchens. Wonder what Hitchens would say if he could come back right now. When people start talking about god, they usually are talking about the Abrahamic god. Possibly the most evil character conceived by man. Its not just social Darwinism that leads people down dark paths, but also religions who believe god wants to fuck with people who don't believe a certain way, such as christianity/islam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:59:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since secular civilization has killed off God, we need to replace it with something http://s11.postimg.org/wsgsl20zn/bb41d6_4967527.jpg Where is the meme of the Christian who believes that dinosaurs still live in Africa? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:00:59 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No such thing as Neanderthals. There are people today for instance aboriginal Australians who look exactly like that: http://s27.postimg.org/t82fbi6gz/abo2.jpg Much like the Piltdown man, Neanderthals are a myth created by mixing bones from different sources You're consistent, I'll give you that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:01:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or, they find two tracks in petrified mud and think they know the actual behavior of the animal in question? Imagine in 20,000,000 years, some scientist finding two turkey tracks in the mud and somehow extrapolating that they all had bald heads and that those of the males could turn colors as they strutted to establish mating dominance. Sure thing, bro. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No one knows when neanderthals became neanderthals, no one knows when modern humans became modern humans. Most of what has been taught is bullshit pipe dreams made up by people who cant stand to admit that they do not know what they do not know. What we know is what has been observed.. the rest is just inference. And anyone can infer with the best of them. You mean like how they find 2 teeth and a leg bone and build a complete and complex history of the animal/humanoid with behavioral patterns and everything? Or as my Professor in college said "pulling it out of their asses". Where did you go to college? And your professor...what was his field? Imagine in 20,000,000 years, some scientist finding two turkey tracks in the mud and somehow extrapolating that they all had bald heads and that those of the males could turn colors as they strutted to establish mating dominance. Sure thing, bro. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:09:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When people start talking about god, they usually are talking about the Abrahamic god. Possibly the most evil character conceived by man. Its not just social Darwinism that leads people down dark paths, but also religions who believe god wants to fuck with people who don't believe a certain way, such as christianity/islam. You mean the God that sent his own SON here, to live and die as a man, in order to redeem lost sinners of their own making.. We are created in God's image, if you are a parent maybe you can imagine just a tiny bit of what God felt when He sent his own Son so that YOU wouldn't have to pay the price for your own sin. There is mercy (not giving someone the punishment they deserve), and there is grace (giving someone something they don't deserve), and what God the Father did and what Jesus Christ did on the cross is the perfection of both. It took God just 6 days to create the entire universe, galaxies, life, literally everything. But it took 33 years of Jesus Christ living as a man, his death on the Cross, then 3 days in the grave, and the Resurrection to complete the work of Salvation. And yet you turn around and call him evil for extending this opportunity to you. It is not that people are by default "good people" and God is unfair by sending us to hell. We are conceived in sin, and born sinners, WE are what is evil and God is the very image of mercy and grace by extending this opportunity to avoid this well deserved punishment of eternity in hell, and not only that but to reign on Earth for 1000 years, and an eternity in Heaven with renewed access to the tree of life. Imagine there was a prisoner on death row for a crime he was wholly guilty of, and the judge himself came to him with a clemency that his own son had to die to secure. The prisoner says no and is put to death. The prisoner did not die because of a "thought crime" of refusing the clemency, he died because of the crime he already committed. The judge is not evil for signing the death warrant, the prisoner was practically begging for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:12:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is the meme of the Christian who believes that dinosaurs still live in Africa? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since secular civilization has killed off God, we need to replace it with something http://s11.postimg.org/wsgsl20zn/bb41d6_4967527.jpg Where is the meme of the Christian who believes that dinosaurs still live in Africa? Turns out some things are so sad even the internet won't make a meme about them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:16:25 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there.
I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:17:22 AM EDT
[#22]
Wait. Are people really questioning the existence of Neanderthals?
If you want to have a little fun visit scholar.google.com and search trinkaus. That should give you enough reading material to last until 2017. And if you really want to know about skin color variation in humans, search jablonski and read until 2018. Enjoy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:17:45 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean the God that sent his own SON here, to live and die as a man, in order to redeem lost sinners of their own making.. We are created in God's image, if you are a parent maybe you can imagine just a tiny bit of what God felt when He sent his own Son so that YOU wouldn't have to pay the price for your own sin. There is mercy (not giving someone the punishment they deserve), and there is grace (giving someone something they don't deserve), and what God the Father did and what Jesus Christ did on the cross is the perfection of both. It took God just 6 days to create the entire universe, galaxies, life, literally everything. But it took 33 years of Jesus Christ living as a man, his death on the Cross, then 3 days in the grave, and the Resurrection to complete the work of Salvation. And yet you turn around and call him evil for extending this opportunity to you. It is not that people are by default "good people" and God is unfair by sending us to hell. We are conceived in sin, and born sinners, WE are what is evil and God is the very image of mercy and grace by extending this opportunity to avoid this well deserved punishment of eternity in hell, and not only that but to reign on Earth for 1000 years, and an eternity in Heaven with renewed access to the tree of life. Imagine there was a prisoner on death row for a crime he was wholly guilty of, and the judge himself came to him with a clemency that his own son had to die to secure. The prisoner says no and is put to death. The prisoner did not die because of a "thought crime" of refusing the clemency, he died because of the crime he already committed. The judge is not evil for signing the death warrant, the prisoner was practically begging for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When people start talking about god, they usually are talking about the Abrahamic god. Possibly the most evil character conceived by man. Its not just social Darwinism that leads people down dark paths, but also religions who believe god wants to fuck with people who don't believe a certain way, such as christianity/islam. You mean the God that sent his own SON here, to live and die as a man, in order to redeem lost sinners of their own making.. We are created in God's image, if you are a parent maybe you can imagine just a tiny bit of what God felt when He sent his own Son so that YOU wouldn't have to pay the price for your own sin. There is mercy (not giving someone the punishment they deserve), and there is grace (giving someone something they don't deserve), and what God the Father did and what Jesus Christ did on the cross is the perfection of both. It took God just 6 days to create the entire universe, galaxies, life, literally everything. But it took 33 years of Jesus Christ living as a man, his death on the Cross, then 3 days in the grave, and the Resurrection to complete the work of Salvation. And yet you turn around and call him evil for extending this opportunity to you. It is not that people are by default "good people" and God is unfair by sending us to hell. We are conceived in sin, and born sinners, WE are what is evil and God is the very image of mercy and grace by extending this opportunity to avoid this well deserved punishment of eternity in hell, and not only that but to reign on Earth for 1000 years, and an eternity in Heaven with renewed access to the tree of life. Imagine there was a prisoner on death row for a crime he was wholly guilty of, and the judge himself came to him with a clemency that his own son had to die to secure. The prisoner says no and is put to death. The prisoner did not die because of a "thought crime" of refusing the clemency, he died because of the crime he already committed. The judge is not evil for signing the death warrant, the prisoner was practically begging for it. I'm pretty sure he was talking about the rigged moral system, genocide, slaughter of children...you know...that kind of thing. Coming up with a plan to save a few when you set up the system that will doom billions is still fucked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:20:00 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean the God that sent his own SON here, to live and die as a man, in order to redeem lost sinners of their own making.. We are created in God's image, if you are a parent maybe you can imagine just a tiny bit of what God felt when He sent his own Son so that YOU wouldn't have to pay the price for your own sin. There is mercy (not giving someone the punishment they deserve), and there is grace (giving someone something they don't deserve), and what God the Father did and what Jesus Christ did on the cross is the perfection of both. It took God just 6 days to create the entire universe, galaxies, life, literally everything. But it took 33 years of Jesus Christ living as a man, his death on the Cross, then 3 days in the grave, and the Resurrection to complete the work of Salvation. And yet you turn around and call him evil for extending this opportunity to you. It is not that people are by default "good people" and God is unfair by sending us to hell. We are conceived in sin, and born sinners, WE are what is evil and God is the very image of mercy and grace by extending this opportunity to avoid this well deserved punishment of eternity in hell, and not only that but to reign on Earth for 1000 years, and an eternity in Heaven with renewed access to the tree of life. Imagine there was a prisoner on death row for a crime he was wholly guilty of, and the judge himself came to him with a clemency that his own son had to die to secure. The prisoner says no and is put to death. The prisoner did not die because of a "thought crime" of refusing the clemency, he died because of the crime he already committed. The judge is not evil for signing the death warrant, the prisoner was practically begging for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When people start talking about god, they usually are talking about the Abrahamic god. Possibly the most evil character conceived by man. Its not just social Darwinism that leads people down dark paths, but also religions who believe god wants to fuck with people who don't believe a certain way, such as christianity/islam. You mean the God that sent his own SON here, to live and die as a man, in order to redeem lost sinners of their own making.. We are created in God's image, if you are a parent maybe you can imagine just a tiny bit of what God felt when He sent his own Son so that YOU wouldn't have to pay the price for your own sin. There is mercy (not giving someone the punishment they deserve), and there is grace (giving someone something they don't deserve), and what God the Father did and what Jesus Christ did on the cross is the perfection of both. It took God just 6 days to create the entire universe, galaxies, life, literally everything. But it took 33 years of Jesus Christ living as a man, his death on the Cross, then 3 days in the grave, and the Resurrection to complete the work of Salvation. And yet you turn around and call him evil for extending this opportunity to you. It is not that people are by default "good people" and God is unfair by sending us to hell. We are conceived in sin, and born sinners, WE are what is evil and God is the very image of mercy and grace by extending this opportunity to avoid this well deserved punishment of eternity in hell, and not only that but to reign on Earth for 1000 years, and an eternity in Heaven with renewed access to the tree of life. Imagine there was a prisoner on death row for a crime he was wholly guilty of, and the judge himself came to him with a clemency that his own son had to die to secure. The prisoner says no and is put to death. The prisoner did not die because of a "thought crime" of refusing the clemency, he died because of the crime he already committed. The judge is not evil for signing the death warrant, the prisoner was practically begging for it. You're quite possibly the worst preacher I've ever met. Seriously, you suck at this. I want to become a Buddhist or an atheist after reading your sermons. Don't they have schools to learn how to do this right? You spent all your time focusing on Horvind's bullshit about dinosaurs being vegitarians that you missed all the parts of how to communicate your message in a clear and non insane manner. Read this, you're welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:27:00 AM EDT
[#25]
it was rape.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:30:20 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean the God that sent his own SON here, to live and die as a man, in order to redeem lost sinners of their own making.. We are created in God's image, if you are a parent maybe you can imagine just a tiny bit of what God felt when He sent his own Son so that YOU wouldn't have to pay the price for your own sin. There is mercy (not giving someone the punishment they deserve), and there is grace (giving someone something they don't deserve), and what God the Father did and what Jesus Christ did on the cross is the perfection of both. It took God just 6 days to create the entire universe, galaxies, life, literally everything. But it took 33 years of Jesus Christ living as a man, his death on the Cross, then 3 days in the grave, and the Resurrection to complete the work of Salvation. And yet you turn around and call him evil for extending this opportunity to you. It is not that people are by default "good people" and God is unfair by sending us to hell. We are conceived in sin, and born sinners, WE are what is evil and God is the very image of mercy and grace by extending this opportunity to avoid this well deserved punishment of eternity in hell, and not only that but to reign on Earth for 1000 years, and an eternity in Heaven with renewed access to the tree of life. Imagine there was a prisoner on death row for a crime he was wholly guilty of, and the judge himself came to him with a clemency that his own son had to die to secure. The prisoner says no and is put to death. The prisoner did not die because of a "thought crime" of refusing the clemency, he died because of the crime he already committed. The judge is not evil for signing the death warrant, the prisoner was practically begging for it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When people start talking about god, they usually are talking about the Abrahamic god. Possibly the most evil character conceived by man. Its not just social Darwinism that leads people down dark paths, but also religions who believe god wants to fuck with people who don't believe a certain way, such as christianity/islam. You mean the God that sent his own SON here, to live and die as a man, in order to redeem lost sinners of their own making.. We are created in God's image, if you are a parent maybe you can imagine just a tiny bit of what God felt when He sent his own Son so that YOU wouldn't have to pay the price for your own sin. There is mercy (not giving someone the punishment they deserve), and there is grace (giving someone something they don't deserve), and what God the Father did and what Jesus Christ did on the cross is the perfection of both. It took God just 6 days to create the entire universe, galaxies, life, literally everything. But it took 33 years of Jesus Christ living as a man, his death on the Cross, then 3 days in the grave, and the Resurrection to complete the work of Salvation. And yet you turn around and call him evil for extending this opportunity to you. It is not that people are by default "good people" and God is unfair by sending us to hell. We are conceived in sin, and born sinners, WE are what is evil and God is the very image of mercy and grace by extending this opportunity to avoid this well deserved punishment of eternity in hell, and not only that but to reign on Earth for 1000 years, and an eternity in Heaven with renewed access to the tree of life. Imagine there was a prisoner on death row for a crime he was wholly guilty of, and the judge himself came to him with a clemency that his own son had to die to secure. The prisoner says no and is put to death. The prisoner did not die because of a "thought crime" of refusing the clemency, he died because of the crime he already committed. The judge is not evil for signing the death warrant, the prisoner was practically begging for it.  Where is the meme "Let me save you, from what I'll do to you if you don't worship me". What a wonderful philosophy you've got there, that could in no way for people to justify all sorts of terrible acts.  eta: The judge was evil for suggesting that he could scapegoat someone else to pay for that guy's crime. The judge has no interest in justice, just killing for some odd reason. Not to mention the judge is not only a judge, but literally a supreme leader, who could just pardon the guy or give him a lesser sentence if he truly cared. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:30:30 AM EDT
[#27]
I did that DNA testing thing and came back about 2% neanderthal. Am I a child of rape? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:32:56 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're quite possibly the worst preacher I've ever met. Seriously, you suck at this. I want to become a Buddhist or an atheist after reading your sermons. Don't they have schools to learn how to do this right? You spent all your time focusing on Horvind's bullshit about dinosaurs being vegitarians that you missed all the parts of how to communicate your message in a clear and non insane manner. Read this, you're welcome. And reading your 3000 word essays defending Obama's foreign policy and justifying Islamic terrorism, makes me not want to be American anymore. So we are even. Maybe go read your own link 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:40:39 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And reading your 3000 word essays defending Obama's foreign policy and justifying Islamic terrorism, makes me not want to be American anymore. So we are even. Maybe go read your own link Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're quite possibly the worst preacher I've ever met. Seriously, you suck at this. I want to become a Buddhist or an atheist after reading your sermons. Don't they have schools to learn how to do this right? You spent all your time focusing on Horvind's bullshit about dinosaurs being vegitarians that you missed all the parts of how to communicate your message in a clear and non insane manner. Read this, you're welcome. And reading your 3000 word essays defending Obama's foreign policy and justifying Islamic terrorism, makes me not want to be American anymore. So we are even. Maybe go read your own link In case you skipped over my post, here's a primer on it. scholar.google.com search trinkaus Read some papers search jablonski Read some papers |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:44:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imagine 20,000 years from now some future race long after our current civilization is destroyed and knowledge lost finding these same tracks and claiming that they were formed 5,000 years ago in a great flood cause by the sky god. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No one knows when neanderthals became neanderthals, no one knows when modern humans became modern humans. Most of what has been taught is bullshit pipe dreams made up by people who cant stand to admit that they do not know what they do not know. What we know is what has been observed.. the rest is just inference. And anyone can infer with the best of them. You mean like how they find 2 teeth and a leg bone and build a complete and complex history of the animal/humanoid with behavioral patterns and everything? Or as my Professor in college said "pulling it out of their asses". Where did you go to college? And your professor...what was his field? Imagine in 20,000,000 years, some scientist finding two turkey tracks in the mud and somehow extrapolating that they all had bald heads and that those of the males could turn colors as they strutted to establish mating dominance. Sure thing, bro.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:48:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And reading your 3000 word essays defending Obama's foreign policy and justifying Islamic terrorism, makes me not want to be American anymore. So we are even. Maybe go read your own link Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're quite possibly the worst preacher I've ever met. Seriously, you suck at this. I want to become a Buddhist or an atheist after reading your sermons. Don't they have schools to learn how to do this right? You spent all your time focusing on Horvind's bullshit about dinosaurs being vegitarians that you missed all the parts of how to communicate your message in a clear and non insane manner. Read this, you're welcome. And reading your 3000 word essays defending Obama's foreign policy and justifying Islamic terrorism, makes me not want to be American anymore. So we are even. Maybe go read your own link Don't be an American. Please...Get. The. Fuck. Out. I'm sure the Triceratops of Africa would love to have you as a neighbor, because I sure as hell wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:52:23 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there. I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:05:49 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there.
I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? Do you know why skin is lighter in higher latitudes? To make production of Vitamin D easier since your body can synthesize it using UV radiation. Eskimos have a diet high in Vitamin D, thus they had no evolutionary pressure to select lighter color skin. Here's a pretty basic article to help you understand the reasoning behind skin variation http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said pressure to select lighter skin, I'm not talking about conscious decision making. It describes evolutionary fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) and how that impacted the skin variation seen in this part of the world in combination with cultural buffering to make Arctic conditions manageable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:12:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Neanderthals are still breeding with each other, you want proof go to any of the Appalachian states, hell the missing link is probably there.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:13:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there.
I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? I never said they were white. They are different from other races based on physical appearance. Meanwhile there are Semetic people in Sweden. How did they get their? The same as everyone else, whether the Germanic Scandanavians or the Asiatic Sami, they migrated there. Caucasian people started out as a very small group, a cluster of kin who all came from the same area, and then over thousands of years they grew and passed on their genes representing pale skin and other common European attributes. But they became white for a reason, it wasn't chance, and it didn't start out that way. Just like Asians didn't always have epicanthic folds on their skin, and just like blacks didn't always have pale palms and bottoms of feet, but dark skinned everywhere else. Over time, climate and terrain dictate which physical attributes win out, and that's through survival and reproduction, the cornerstone of all biological organisms from bacteria and viruses, all the way up to humans. Pale skin often does better in cold cloudy climates because it absorbs Vit. D. easier, especially important when humans switched to cultivated grains, away from the more nutritious (but less reliable) hunting and gathering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:13:33 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the running theory is that Neanderthal did struggle, but because they were hardier, stronger, possibility even smarter (we're talking about a time when early tools was as smart as anyone got), it allowed them to survive better than homo sapiens, which is partly why the Neanderthal was replaced. Because they were hardier, they didn't need to socialize as a priority to survive, which entails building complex family and clan units, thus they ended up becoming a weaker culture than early humans. A Neanderthal family unit was probably smaller and less organized than a homo sapien type. When it comes to humans, our brains are just part of the reason we succeeded, that we are actually designed pretty poorly to survive alone, we're not strong, fast, great eyesight, great hearing, great noses. Thus we are forced to really more on our wits and we must work together to overcome, which makes us much stronger as a culture/society. Add in an easier ability to communicate, innovate, and learn and it means we quickly (over tens of thousands of years, which is an evolutionary blink of the eye) learned how to surpass every other competing animal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So this happened after the big die off leading to the offspring of Mitochondrial Eve leaving South Africa and heading north? A distinct possibility it seems, but I'm not sure if she is the correct Common Ancestor for this case. Another piece for me to mull over and look at human migration and genetics. That's where it gets confusing then. Because if Mi. Eve happened after human-neanderthal breeding, that whole line died off. It would have had to happen again after Mi. Eve's offspring treked north. BWT, I know most of this stuff is bullshit, but all human cultures love a good origin story. The Carthagians had Dido, Rome had Aeneus, England had Alfred the Great. Since secular civilization has killed off God, we need to replace it with something, physical anthropology is a decent substitute if you accept it for what it is. Brings up an interesting idea, if sapiens had a population crash(which current research is showing that it may not have been as severe but more long-term), did neanderthals as well, if no why not. Multiple excursions to a "new" land is pretty common in human history, so there may be multiple interbreeding events and the last one just coincided with the rise of sapiens as the dominant sub-species. I think the running theory is that Neanderthal did struggle, but because they were hardier, stronger, possibility even smarter (we're talking about a time when early tools was as smart as anyone got), it allowed them to survive better than homo sapiens, which is partly why the Neanderthal was replaced. Because they were hardier, they didn't need to socialize as a priority to survive, which entails building complex family and clan units, thus they ended up becoming a weaker culture than early humans. A Neanderthal family unit was probably smaller and less organized than a homo sapien type. When it comes to humans, our brains are just part of the reason we succeeded, that we are actually designed pretty poorly to survive alone, we're not strong, fast, great eyesight, great hearing, great noses. Thus we are forced to really more on our wits and we must work together to overcome, which makes us much stronger as a culture/society. Add in an easier ability to communicate, innovate, and learn and it means we quickly (over tens of thousands of years, which is an evolutionary blink of the eye) learned how to surpass every other competing animal. Neaderthals were good for the bitter northern climates of the ice age. They were physically strong but their squat physique was built for warmth and were much less agile then homo sapiens. They also required a lot higher caloric intake and their diet was almost entirely based upon meat we are talking 90%. Compare to homo sapiens that ate a lot more fish, nuts and berries allowing them sustain themselves when big game was not found. Technologically they also were stunted, when homo sapiens were running around with the atlatls and slings allowing them to effiently engage big game at distance, neanderthals were still having to close in with spears meaning their percentage for injury was much higher. Also modern scans of their remains cast doubt on whether neaderthals could have moved on much past their current stage due to the limits on their vocal range. It would be as if they could only pronounce the first five letters of the alphabet. That pretty much stunts your ability to construct complex ideas and social groups. As for homo sapiens being weak, actually it is the reverse. Bipedal movement is actually very efficient and homo sapiens are built to run, but not for speed but endurance. Homo sapiens are one of the best long distance runners on the planet, and a lot of early hunting involved chasing game until it tired and layed down accepting its fate. There are still isolated tribes on earth who have the ability to naturally run like our ancestors. Its probably how the 3 toed horses in north america went extinct. Then you have our ability to endure extreme temperates thanks to our excellent thermo regulation. We can essentially survive indefinitely at high temperatures that would kill most orther large fauna as long as we are properly hydrated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:13:39 AM EDT
[#37]
When you've had 'Thal, you've had it all....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:15:53 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you know why skin is lighter in higher latitudes? To make production of Vitamin D easier since your body can synthesize it using UV radiation. Eskimos have a diet high in Vitamin D, thus they had no evolutionary pressure to select lighter color skin. Here's a pretty basic article to help you understand the reasoning behind skin variation http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said pressure to select lighter skin, I'm not talking about conscious decision making. It describes evolutionary fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) and how that impacted the skin variation seen in this part of the world in combination with cultural buffering to make Arctic conditions manageable. Even if Eskimos did have significant vit. D. definicies due to their skin color and poor diets, they haven't really been in the region long enough to kill off dark skinned traits through selective breeding. They've only been in North America for about 1,000 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:18:54 AM EDT
[#39]
There is genetic evidence that supports the hypothesis that those who left Africa interbred and those who didn't got zero of the neanderthal genes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:19:10 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said they were white. They are different from other races based on physical appearance. Meanwhile there are Semetic people in Sweden. How did they get their? The same as everyone else, whether the Germanic Scandanavians or the Asiatic Sami, they migrated there. Caucasian people started out as a very small group, a cluster of kin who all came from the same area, and then over thousands of years they grew and passed on their genes representing pale skin and other common European attributes. But they became white for a reason, it wasn't chance, and it didn't start out that way. Just like Asians didn't always have epicanthic folds on their skin, and just like blacks didn't always have pale palms and bottoms of feet, but dark skinned everywhere else. Over time, climate and terrain dictate which physical attributes win out, and that's through survival and reproduction, the cornerstone of all biological organisms from bacteria and viruses, all the way up to humans. Pale skin often does better in cold cloudy climates because it absorbs Vit. D. easier, especially important when humans switched to cultivated grains, away from the more nutritious (but less reliable) hunting and gathering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there.
I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? I never said they were white. They are different from other races based on physical appearance. Meanwhile there are Semetic people in Sweden. How did they get their? The same as everyone else, whether the Germanic Scandanavians or the Asiatic Sami, they migrated there. Caucasian people started out as a very small group, a cluster of kin who all came from the same area, and then over thousands of years they grew and passed on their genes representing pale skin and other common European attributes. But they became white for a reason, it wasn't chance, and it didn't start out that way. Just like Asians didn't always have epicanthic folds on their skin, and just like blacks didn't always have pale palms and bottoms of feet, but dark skinned everywhere else. Over time, climate and terrain dictate which physical attributes win out, and that's through survival and reproduction, the cornerstone of all biological organisms from bacteria and viruses, all the way up to humans. Pale skin often does better in cold cloudy climates because it absorbs Vit. D. easier, especially important when humans switched to cultivated grains, away from the more nutritious (but less reliable) hunting and gathering. Sorry, but that is not true. The agricultural transition led to worse health and was less reliable than a foraging subsistence (search Larsen, 1995: Biological changes in human populations with agriculture). People, on average, spend less time gathering food for more calories than agriculturalists do planting and maintaining fields. One pressure towards pastoralism/horticulture/agriculture was population growth made those subsistence strategies unsustainable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:20:03 AM EDT
[#41]
My living room sofa created everything, scientists got it wrong. My sofa wrote a book about it (I helped a little.). The book proves that the sofa is right. /End of thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:23:41 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And reading your 3000 word essays defending Obama's foreign policy and justifying Islamic terrorism, makes me not want to be American anymore. So we are even. Maybe go read your own link Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're quite possibly the worst preacher I've ever met. Seriously, you suck at this. I want to become a Buddhist or an atheist after reading your sermons. Don't they have schools to learn how to do this right? You spent all your time focusing on Horvind's bullshit about dinosaurs being vegitarians that you missed all the parts of how to communicate your message in a clear and non insane manner. Read this, you're welcome. And reading your 3000 word essays defending Obama's foreign policy and justifying Islamic terrorism, makes me not want to be American anymore. So we are even. Maybe go read your own link Remember, renunciation has to be witnessed at a US embassy in a foreign country. Take care now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:25:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if Eskimos did have significant vit. D. definicies due to their skin color and poor diets, they haven't really been in the region long enough to kill off dark skinned traits through selective breeding. They've only been in North America for about 1,000 years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you know why skin is lighter in higher latitudes? To make production of Vitamin D easier since your body can synthesize it using UV radiation. Eskimos have a diet high in Vitamin D, thus they had no evolutionary pressure to select lighter color skin. Here's a pretty basic article to help you understand the reasoning behind skin variation http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said pressure to select lighter skin, I'm not talking about conscious decision making. It describes evolutionary fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) and how that impacted the skin variation seen in this part of the world in combination with cultural buffering to make Arctic conditions manageable. Even if Eskimos did have significant vit. D. definicies due to their skin color and poor diets, they haven't really been in the region long enough to kill off dark skinned traits through selective breeding. They've only been in North America for about 1,000 years. The region they previously inhabited (Beringia) was pretty close to the Arctic conditions they had. And before you say they weren't in that area long enough, look at O'Rourke and Raff that shows the genetic evidence for migrations into the New World. The population that sprouted Native Americans was isolated in Beringia/Eastern Siberia since 30,000 BC, hence the evolutionary timeframe allowing differential survival and reproduction to noticeably affect population genetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:29:44 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you know why skin is lighter in higher latitudes? To make production of Vitamin D easier since your body can synthesize it using UV radiation. Eskimos have a diet high in Vitamin D, thus they had no evolutionary pressure to select lighter color skin. Here's a pretty basic article to help you understand the reasoning behind skin variation http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said pressure to select lighter skin, I'm not talking about conscious decision making. It describes evolutionary fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) and how that impacted the skin variation seen in this part of the world in combination with cultural buffering to make Arctic conditions manageable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there. I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? Do you know why skin is lighter in higher latitudes? To make production of Vitamin D easier since your body can synthesize it using UV radiation. Eskimos have a diet high in Vitamin D, thus they had no evolutionary pressure to select lighter color skin. Here's a pretty basic article to help you understand the reasoning behind skin variation http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said pressure to select lighter skin, I'm not talking about conscious decision making. It describes evolutionary fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) and how that impacted the skin variation seen in this part of the world in combination with cultural buffering to make Arctic conditions manageable. The entire theory hinges on having white skin exposed to gather that sunlight in the winter. And on that white skin not tanning to counter the effects of the white skin. How much white skin gets exposed when it's cold? And how much sunlight is there during such times in extreme northern climes? Yet the people who live the farthest north (eskimos and Sami) tan no matter how little light hits their skin. And they appear to suffer not at all for it. Does that not make anyone but me question the theory itself? Yes, I've heard the counters about dietary factors and such, but I would counter the counter with the fact that the white folks in similar regions have a similar diet. So what real effect is the white skin, anyway? Things are not as simple as they might seem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:30:20 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neaderthals were good for the bitter northern climates of the ice age. They were physically strong but their squat physique was built for warmth and were much less agile then homo sapiens. They also required a lot higher caloric intake and their diet was almost entirely based upon meat we are talking 90%. Compare to homo sapiens that ate a lot more fish, nuts and berries allowing them sustain themselves when big game was not found. Technologically they also were stunted, when homo sapiens were running around with the atlatls and slings allowing them to effiently engage big game at distance, neanderthals were still having to close in with spears meaning their percentage for injury was much higher. Also modern scans of their remains cast doubt on whether neaderthals could have moved on much past their current stage due to the limits on their vocal range. It would be as if they could only pronounce the first five letters of the alphabet. That pretty much stunts your ability to construct complex ideas and social groups. As for homo sapiens being weak, actually it is the reverse. Bipedal movement is actually very efficient and homo sapiens are built to run, but not for speed but endurance. Homo sapiens are one of the best long distance runners on the planet, and a lot of early hunting involved chasing game until it tired and layed down accepting its fate. There are still isolated tribes on earth who have the ability to naturally run like our ancestors. Its probably how the 3 toed horses in north america went extinct. Then you have our ability to endure extreme temperates thanks to our excellent thermo regulation. We can essentially survive indefinitely at high temperatures that would kill most orther large fauna as long as we are properly hydrated. Chasing down of animals is a social "pack" hunting technique that requires high intelligence. It requires planning, teamwork, communication, improvise, adapt, overcome. These are all traits more akin to the large brain capacity that just bipedal mobility and ease of cooling through sweating and breathing through the nose. In many areas its just as easy, if not more so, to hunt large game without chasing them down over 10-15 miles, like the methods used to bring down bison (cliffs) or mammoths, using ambush methods and rock slides. Here's where humans truly excelled, thinking and coordinated through communication and more advanced bonding between one another brought on by a mutual need for assistance. The only way humans could survive was teamwork, not on their own. Furthermore, early man had an extremely simplistic language capability, so while he might have the physical abilities to pronounce more syllables, we're simplifying tens of thousands of years of cultural evolution as their language abilities grew. Also let's also not forget that body language has been and is still a major form of communication. For hunter gather people, loud communication is a hindrance anyway, hand and arm signals are and will always be the primary way of communicating on the hunt. Especially among tight nit family units whose members rarely if ever leave the group, little speaking is actually needed to get a point across. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:32:05 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never said they were white. They are different from other races based on physical appearance. Meanwhile there are Semetic people in Sweden. How did they get their? The same as everyone else, whether the Germanic Scandanavians or the Asiatic Sami, they migrated there. Caucasian people started out as a very small group, a cluster of kin who all came from the same area, and then over thousands of years they grew and passed on their genes representing pale skin and other common European attributes. But they became white for a reason, it wasn't chance, and it didn't start out that way. Just like Asians didn't always have epicanthic folds on their skin, and just like blacks didn't always have pale palms and bottoms of feet, but dark skinned everywhere else. Over time, climate and terrain dictate which physical attributes win out, and that's through survival and reproduction, the cornerstone of all biological organisms from bacteria and viruses, all the way up to humans. Pale skin often does better in cold cloudy climates because it absorbs Vit. D. easier, especially important when humans switched to cultivated grains, away from the more nutritious (but less reliable) hunting and gathering. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there. I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? I never said they were white. They are different from other races based on physical appearance. Meanwhile there are Semetic people in Sweden. How did they get their? The same as everyone else, whether the Germanic Scandanavians or the Asiatic Sami, they migrated there. Caucasian people started out as a very small group, a cluster of kin who all came from the same area, and then over thousands of years they grew and passed on their genes representing pale skin and other common European attributes. But they became white for a reason, it wasn't chance, and it didn't start out that way. Just like Asians didn't always have epicanthic folds on their skin, and just like blacks didn't always have pale palms and bottoms of feet, but dark skinned everywhere else. Over time, climate and terrain dictate which physical attributes win out, and that's through survival and reproduction, the cornerstone of all biological organisms from bacteria and viruses, all the way up to humans. Pale skin often does better in cold cloudy climates because it absorbs Vit. D. easier, especially important when humans switched to cultivated grains, away from the more nutritious (but less reliable) hunting and gathering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:33:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even if Eskimos did have significant vit. D. definicies due to their skin color and poor diets, they haven't really been in the region long enough to kill off dark skinned traits through selective breeding. They've only been in North America for about 1,000 years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Do you know why skin is lighter in higher latitudes? To make production of Vitamin D easier since your body can synthesize it using UV radiation. Eskimos have a diet high in Vitamin D, thus they had no evolutionary pressure to select lighter color skin. Here's a pretty basic article to help you understand the reasoning behind skin variation http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said pressure to select lighter skin, I'm not talking about conscious decision making. It describes evolutionary fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) and how that impacted the skin variation seen in this part of the world in combination with cultural buffering to make Arctic conditions manageable. Even if Eskimos did have significant vit. D. definicies due to their skin color and poor diets, they haven't really been in the region long enough to kill off dark skinned traits through selective breeding. They've only been in North America for about 1,000 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:37:27 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, but that is not true. The agricultural transition led to worse health and was less reliable than a foraging subsistence (search Larsen, 1995: Biological changes in human populations with agriculture). People, on average, spend less time gathering food for more calories than agriculturalists do planting and maintaining fields. One pressure towards pastoralism/horticulture/agriculture was population growth made those subsistence strategies unsustainable. Hunter gathering is just plain harder. Not by time spent, but because its not reliable. Hunting pressure, missing a hunt, losing an animal, bad weather for a couple weeks, all of it means starvation for those who don't have a ready supply of stored food. Cultivating wild cereals is much more productive in terms of caloric intake, it was then, it is now, starches are cheap and easy calories. Planting is even more reliable than collecting wild grain. Of course its less nutritious, that's the point I was making, that absence of Vitamin D coming from a vitamin deficient diet meant they must these deficient minerals through other means, in this case through sun light. Lighter skin makes this process easier, hence children born with lighter skin would survive to adulthood in those trying environments, they'll reproduce, and they'll pass on their own physical attributes (assuming everything else works out). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:42:19 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know the theory, but I see it not in actual application. The entire theory hinges on having white skin exposed to gather that sunlight in the winter. And on that white skin not tanning to counter the effects of the white skin. How much white skin gets exposed when it's cold? And how much sunlight is there during such times in extreme northern climes? Yet the people who live the farthest north (eskimos and Sami) tan no matter how little light hits their skin. And they appear to suffer not at all for it. Does that not make anyone but me question the theory itself? Yes, I've heard the counters about dietary factors and such, but I would counter the counter with the fact that the white folks in similar regions have a similar diet. So what real effect is the white skin, anyway? Things are not as simple as they might seem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:I grew up in the relative tundras of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It was fucking cold in the 1970s, there. Remember all the speculation about a new ice age? I lived it there.
I know all about snow, in all its permutations, and how I should protect myself, and what wax each requires that I apply to my cross-country skis. Hell, I hunted off my cross-country skis. Do you even klister, bro? I used to camp in it, snow-shoe in it, cross-country ski in it, bow-hunt in it, snowmobile in it, ice-fish in it, etc. I remained white through all those many winters, even though MN/WI gets massively more winter sun than AK/Norge does. Yet all those eskimos and Sami were asian-dark. Hmmmm . . . FWIW, I have enjoyed your posts that fall within your areas of knowledge, such as those regarding the Middle East. No homo, though. If you live a life outdoors in an area full of glare from UV rays bouncing off crystalized snow, your skin is going to tan like a saddlebag. Snow exacerbates the problem, I mentioned snow blindness, which is testament to the power of the sun's rays in cold climates. Like I said before, go look at the color of the skin of Eskimo and Sami children at young ages. They aren't milky white (which is very rare actually), but they aren't dark either, that happens later because both of those cultures you are describing generally spent their lives outdoors, they don't have wide brimmed hats associated with their culture to protect their skin from the sun, so they get dark as shit. Add in that the Eskimos are Asians, they crossed the land bridge from Asia, it makes them likely to be darker because most asians have the potential to be pretty dark. Pure blooded Sami are the same thing, their people migrated from the east. How come so many Finnish people look East Asian? You think that negates my point? LOL. It makes my point. They are asians. They somehow have not magically turned white, as all the wags would have predicted when they moved into the north so long ago. They have been there for long enough to have turned white, yet they did not turn white. They tan when the sun is out and stay tanned all winter long, whereas your average Norse or Icelander tans in the summer and turns into a pale creature all winter. Hmm. Isn't that fascinating? Do you know why skin is lighter in higher latitudes? To make production of Vitamin D easier since your body can synthesize it using UV radiation. Eskimos have a diet high in Vitamin D, thus they had no evolutionary pressure to select lighter color skin. Here's a pretty basic article to help you understand the reasoning behind skin variation http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 EDIT: Just to be clear, when I said pressure to select lighter skin, I'm not talking about conscious decision making. It describes evolutionary fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) and how that impacted the skin variation seen in this part of the world in combination with cultural buffering to make Arctic conditions manageable. The entire theory hinges on having white skin exposed to gather that sunlight in the winter. And on that white skin not tanning to counter the effects of the white skin. How much white skin gets exposed when it's cold? And how much sunlight is there during such times in extreme northern climes? Yet the people who live the farthest north (eskimos and Sami) tan no matter how little light hits their skin. And they appear to suffer not at all for it. Does that not make anyone but me question the theory itself? Yes, I've heard the counters about dietary factors and such, but I would counter the counter with the fact that the white folks in similar regions have a similar diet. So what real effect is the white skin, anyway? Things are not as simple as they might seem. White skin will always tan in response to UV. That is one of the jobs of melanin (to protect the skin cells from damaging the DNA). So tanning is a human universal that has no bearing on it. The base color (levels of melanin) matters in response to the average amount of UV you experience. It's a balance between protecting the body and ensuring the synthesis of Vitamin D. You will always have at least some exposure to sunlight. To maximize the production during that limited time, lighter skin would be selected. You are also neglecting the source populations for the groups. The underlying population genetics also plays a role in in, but that does not mean UV radiation has no effect on skin variation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 1:47:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hunter gathering is just plain harder. Not by time spent, but because its not reliable. Hunting pressure, missing a hunt, losing an animal, bad weather for a couple weeks, all of it means starvation for those who don't have a ready supply of stored food. Cultivating wild cereals is much more productive in terms of caloric intake, it was then, it is now, starches are cheap and easy calories. Planting is even more reliable than collecting wild grain. Of course its less nutritious, that's the point I was making, that absence of Vitamin D coming from a vitamin deficient diet meant they must these deficient minerals through other means, in this case through sun light. Lighter skin makes this process easier, hence children born with lighter skin would survive to adulthood in those trying environments, they'll reproduce, and they'll pass on their own physical attributes (assuming everything else works out). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry, but that is not true. The agricultural transition led to worse health and was less reliable than a foraging subsistence (search Larsen, 1995: Biological changes in human populations with agriculture). People, on average, spend less time gathering food for more calories than agriculturalists do planting and maintaining fields. One pressure towards pastoralism/horticulture/agriculture was population growth made those subsistence strategies unsustainable. Hunter gathering is just plain harder. Not by time spent, but because its not reliable. Hunting pressure, missing a hunt, losing an animal, bad weather for a couple weeks, all of it means starvation for those who don't have a ready supply of stored food. Cultivating wild cereals is much more productive in terms of caloric intake, it was then, it is now, starches are cheap and easy calories. Planting is even more reliable than collecting wild grain. Of course its less nutritious, that's the point I was making, that absence of Vitamin D coming from a vitamin deficient diet meant they must these deficient minerals through other means, in this case through sun light. Lighter skin makes this process easier, hence children born with lighter skin would survive to adulthood in those trying environments, they'll reproduce, and they'll pass on their own physical attributes (assuming everything else works out). Where are you getting your research from that H-G is harder and not reliable? |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
