Re: Is the black race/culture under evolved (NON RACIST THREAD)?

On Jun 11, 5:02 pm, Nic <harrisonda...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11 Jun, 19:35, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 11, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:36 pm, Artificer <eliezerfigue...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As far as I know there are not "black" highly developed countries. I
mean countries like the USA, Japan or Europe but where the primary
race is black. Somebody told that this is prove that white and yellow
races are far more evolved.

My personal opinion is that the reason for these phenomena is more
historical than evolution related.

Anybody could please contribute with NON RACIST information in favor
or against this theory. I really will like to make an intelligent
discussion out of this!

Clearly, the adaptation of darker skin pigment and the adaptation of
the eyelid against glare are significant evolutionary advancements in
human biology. These are the qualities of a more evolved human than
the Asian and White "races". But, as a consequence of being better
adapted to their environment, Blacks don't have the same needs for
clothing to protect their skin from the sun or hats to protect their
eyes from glare, so no significant need to originate a textile
industry. Asians and whites have adapted their cultures to deal with
their biological shortcomings and having found ways to overcome their
shortcomings, they have learned to be inventive in many other ways.
Africans are better adapted to the environment, therefore the need to
be inventive is greatly reduced. Biological evolution is not equal to
industrial developement.

Nobody can fit more errors into a single paragraph than Grisham.

Dark skin has evolved many times in human populations and so has light
skin, in response to particular environments. Dark skin works better in
the tropics, light away from the tropics. Both are selected in their own
environments and neither can be said to be more "advanced". If we all
accept that we came from Africa, then it's probably that dark skin was
the original human condition.
SNIP...

Imagine that; a man with a degree in evolutionary biology hiding
behind "science" and saying that human beings began in Africa after
evolving from a quasi Stone Age hybrid ape-man freak.

This is your racist brain on evolution.

John Harshman is a racist promoting human evolution to somehow be
science. The depths the Atheist must go to account for the origins of
mankind: human evolution based on racism (just like Darwin).

Why do evolutionists get a free ride?

Please don't try to move on to another subject so quickly! You were
not being sufficiently clear in the above, and accusations of racism
need some clarity, or they don't look very good.


Okay, I'll be a little more clear. In the late 1830s when Darwin
"established" that species were mutable productions he instantly
concluded that humans had evolved. Professor Larson and Darwin's own
notebooks say that he also based the idea on the "similarity" of
Fuegians to "primates in the London zoo" (Larson 2004:66,67).

Darwin had no evidence collected, nor had he done ANY investigation
into human evolution in the 1830s. Originally, human evolution was
based on a racist belief after God was rejected as Creator.

This means human evolution, in the mind of its original progenitor,
that is, the person who made the age old idea accepted, was born in a
racist gaze in his racist mind after God was dismissed.

We know Dana Tweedy has vehemently defended the practice of placing
the word transitional and African in the same context, so has Steven
J. But don't think that you are exempted, Nic. You too are a gutter
racist. Anyone who believes in human evolution is a gutter racist.
Human evolution is racism hiding behind the "it is science" card
protected by fellow Darwinists who control the media microphones.

Imagine that; "intelligent" men digging for scraps in Africa;
presupposing human evolution; if you could only leave your body for
one minute and get a glimpse of yourselves digging for bones! The sum
total of fossil evidence allegedly showing human evolution gets a free
pass on objective evidential value, any other discipline would have
become extinct due to the extremely low volume of "evidence." Since
Atheists have no choice but to believe the impossible it is
understandable for them, but for "Christians" like Ron Okimoto it is
unconscionable. No one has yet explained how Christians and Atheists
suddenly get along concerning origins. Luckily, my paper will. The
truth is going to hurt.

Nic: you are an unrepentant racist for defending human evolution.

Ray




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the black race/culture under evolved (NON RACIST THREAD)?
    ... the Asian and White "races". ... human evolution based on racism. ... He had no evidence specific to humans that early - that I know of. ... suddenly get along concerning origins. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is the black race/culture under evolved (NON RACIST THREAD)?
    ... the Asian and White "races". ... accept that we came from Africa, then it's probably that dark skin was ... human evolution based on racism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Coons "Origin of Races"
    ... Carleton S Coon, The Origin of Races. ... books on human evolution they had. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • MediaMatters: Wash. Times promotes "white nationalist" website
    ... excerpted a column by Steve Sailer that originally appeared on the ... The excerpt the Times reprinted, taken from Sailer's August 7 VDARE ... if they believe in the preservation of favored races in the struggle ... The Origin of Species does not concern human evolution at ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tweedys Turkana Boy
    ... excellent example of a transitional fossil between humans and non-human ... requires an assumption that human evolution did happen. ... is to interpret evidence in favor of the assumption. ... except by so called "Christians" who support the fraud ...
    (talk.origins)