Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are white people mutants?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION
i have heard of no facts that can bridege the gap between neanderthal man and civilized (civilization building - sapiens sapiens). That is the explanation i refer to.

Neanderthal is not thought to be an 'ancestor' of homo sapiens. HOmo sapiens is thought to have arisen out of populations of homo erectus. Also, homo sapiens co-existed with neanderthal, and both had nearly identical cultures. Ie both had littl etechnology outside of stonetools. Spaiens hasn't allways been 'civilized'.




Humans do not fit with the natural order of earth

How do you mean and how does that mean that they aren't terrestrial THe virus bit seems to mean that you think man doesn't fin in because man pollutes. But this is something that all animals do, humans are just capable of doing it on a wide scale. Plants pollute the air with oxygen, in fact the oxygen atmosphere is thought to have been a result of rampant unstoppable pollution by oygen spewing mircoorganisms. Animals are only 'in balance' with the enviroment in general, because they wreck it, and die in the process, or their numbers are contrlled by a similar mechanism. So man isn't 'out of balance' with the planet merely because he is polluting.



not to mention we are unique in our evlution in terms of mentally (right? im not sure as i cannot interpret animal consciousness)

Well, animals have culture, ie stuff that is passed on through demonstration and education,and technology, but of course man is unuique in having language. Why does that mean that man is extraterrestrial? Either way there'd have to be non-speaking non-'human mentality' primitive organisms giving rise to them. THis extraterrestrial idea just moves the location. Infact, it means that the issue of human mentality being unique to the planet can't be cited. And of course, neanderthal had a similar culture and techonology as sapiens when they were co-existing, and they may have spoken. There isn't much to suggest that they didn't speak in fact, and the stone tool technology suggest that they probably did.



and not to mention how the egyptian society was so advanced that our top minds cannot comprehend its techniques (ie pyramid construction) etc.

What do you mean that the 'top minds' haven't figured it out? They have, infact there are a few techniques suggested as to how they did it. Besides, whats so amazing, impressive yes but not unbeleivable, that man had been able to build the pyramids.


one of tghe earliest know civ.s

Yes, but egyptian civilization was around a long time before the pyramids were built. Furthermore, one finds that before the pyramids proper were around, there were multiple pervious and more 'primitive' attemps, liek the bent pyramid, and more importantly the stepped pyramid and, ultimately, the single layer tombs.




posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
That is a little off topic, pyramid stuff, but weren't they all built all over the world in one time of human history, why is that?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Try stacking rocks, you would probably start with a base than slowly work up in smaller stacks.

It's just a testament to Vanity and power. No mystery.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Yes I remember now, when it snows we were making one large ball of snow, then one smaller, and put it on the top of it, then one even smaller.
I think I now what you think, it is natural. But this urge to build is interesting
This is maybe rgiht answer, with primitive techniques of masonry, only way to go up is enlargin the bse of building, so in Egypt we had three main ways of building.
step by step, pyramids have stories, then we had straight lines, but ending with multiangled pyramidsm, those are even more interesting. I think those latest were like Bent pyramid.

google search



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Why would people discount the egyptians navigating the seas. The Pharoahs and their courts did use coc aine. Cocaine was and still is produced in only South America.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MankoW
That is a little off topic, pyramid stuff

Apparently its part of the topic now.


but weren't they all built all over the world in one time of human history,

No, infact they weren't. Not all of them. The american 'pyramids', which are rather different from the egyptian pyramids, were built at very different times. The babylonian ziggurats, if one wants to call them pyramids, were built for a different function, and the chinese 'pyramids' are, literally, stacks of dirt.


why is that?

Monumental building is a 'sensible' stage for early civilizations to go through, and if you want to build something big but don't have concrete and steel support structures, you'd make it wide at the bottom and smaller at the top. Thats about the only way that the various 'pyramids' resemble each other.


justanotherperson
It's just a testament to Vanity and power. No mystery.

In egypt the pyramids represented the primordial mound from which existence itself arose. The pyramids in many cultures allowed people to releive their tensions and stresses about their continued existence and well being. In egypt in particular the skilled and unskilled workers were assembled from all over the countryside, they mixed and intermingled and this all lead possibly to the national identity of egypt, egypt as something distinct from unconnected tribes and villages.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justanotherperson
Why would people discount the egyptians navigating the seas.

Who's discounting this? I agree that egyptians were into nautical exploration, but what civilization near a large body of water wasnt?

Originally posted by Justanotherperson
The Pharoahs and their courts did use coc aine.

What does coc aine have to do with any of this? Although I do agree that great leaders can be coc aine users. Just look at President Bush for example.

Originally posted by Justanotherperson
Cocaine was and still is produced in only South America.

It's not only produced in South America. It's also produced in my friends makeshift labatory.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Not sure why this thread has gone on as long as it has, but the absence of melanin (as stated before), or ablinism, can be found in all races. Including white people. End of discusion.

Brush up on your Anatomy and Physiology if you think otherwise.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   
In fact we haven't came to an answer, this albinism is only example. This was just showing the idea if any race can develop its characteristics separating under different climate, job, like hunting in one region, or any criteria in order to make a racial difference, maybe the food they eat made them different.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Albinism was stated by the proprietor of the post as being an idea as to how white people formed their distinct skin color. Since we know white people still have melanin with in them the arguement that was previoulsy stated is moot. Melanin's genetic/chemical structure is manipulated by the surounding enviornment, but does necesitate that the change in melanin is mutation. If it were mutation, by that standard tall people can be attributed to mutation, or fat people, or bald people. But it is merley genetics.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   
You see, then it is a mutation. Any change even being tall is gene mutation.
Albinism hasn't any bigger difference, so it is possible to have one part of raceto separate and form unique characteristics. (color is most visible but other as well).



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I believe that whites and blacks (i hate using these terms as I feel they are derogatory to both those with light and dark skin) are completely different strains, not mutations.I have nothing to base this on, but I do sense a difference - not saying whites are better than blacks (or vice versa) just different.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Let's not confuse inheritance with mutation. A mutation is a sudden change in a chromosome that is not present in its parent. If I marry a tall woman and our kid comes out tall as well, his height is an inherited trait and not a mutation. On the other hand, if he gets zapped by x-rays while still a cluster of cells and comes out with different colored eyes than he would have otherwise, then his eye color is the product of mutation. It's worth noting that mutations in humans usually happen at a cellular level. Cancer is the result of a mutation, but having it doesn't make you a mutant


Even though mutation might have had some part in determining the melanin levels of different human populations, few if any white/asian/whatever people today would be what they are as the result of a mutation. Most of the physical differences between ethnicities can be explained by the relatively closed populations of each group (even in these supposedly enlightened times, inter-racial couples are far from common). Even within "races," there are different physical traits associated with subgroups (southern Europeans vs northern Europeans, for instance). This is a combination of cultural and geographical issues, but mutation isn't really a major part of it.

edit in response to post above: Race isn't really a hard and fast entity. The biological differences are actually highly superficial. What makes it relevant is the cultural significance and definitions placed on it by various societies, for whatever reason. Not all societies define race by skin color, and the way we arrived at it is just as arbitrary as any other.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Yorick]



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra


A few days ago, someone created a thread along the lines of Jesus was truly black. The entire concept of proving Jesus skin color is a sign of a week and feeble mind. What do you have to prove? Ok Jesus was black, whats the difference? Do you believe in a religion because of the creators skin color or because of the ideology?


If we were truly united we would throw all this pseudo-racist science out of the window and rebuild our society from the ground up. The hell with Them


His name wasn't Jesus. It's Jehushua. And he didn't have pale skin. He was a raggidy bum. Spent 30 some years as a carpenter's apprentices, then a carpenter. Doing construction work in that middle eastern sun. His skin had to be dark enough to not get sunburn. No hardware store back then to buy PH block.
Rome under Emperor Constitine converts to Christianity. "If we can't stamp out this heathen religion, we'll make like we're joining it! Then twist it and control it from within! Muahahaaa!". Rome went on to conquor most of Europe. And bring civilization to Britian, and the rest of Europe. They brought the religion too.

Later when the classical artists were commissioned to do their famous paintings of Jesus on the churches, halls, and castles, they had to make a picture pleasing to the ruler. Or else no payment for them, or get their head chopped off. So they said "Right now what is our culture's idea of what is beautiful?"

Having dark skin was looked down on. It ment you were lower class because lower class did the farm work, back work, field work, ALl the work LOL! So the artists made Jesus with super pale skin, and other beautiful features that pleased the kings, church rulers, whoever was paying for the artwork.

Later Europe conquors most of the planet. Brings their religious ideas to everywhere. Including their idea of Jesus. A cool, pale skinned, blue eyed, sometimes brown eyed, upper class, aristocratic, guy, who loves everyone, even the hypocrites who ignore how he was a lower class, bummy, raggidy, laborer, with darkskin toiling with just a loincloth in the middle eastern sun for decades.

If the true picuture of Jesus was used in all books, paintings, right now. Then YES, YES, YES, many would STOP following that religion! Skin color does matter to them! Pat Buchanon, Storm Thurmond, Ross Perot, Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Kerry, Bush, everyone including most dark skinned people, would never worship a dark skinned saviour!



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MankoW
You see, then it is a mutation. Any change even being tall is gene mutation.

Any change to a gene is a mutation, but not all physical differences are the result of mutations. There isn't a 'gene' for most characteristics, but rather a set of factors that influence how different proteins react with each other and other chemicals. Tallness, for an obvious example, is controlled by genetics and environmental factors, such as nutrition. It doesn't require a mutation to become taller than ones parents.


Albinism hasn't any bigger difference,

I don't know the specifics about albinism, but since its an outright lack of melanin, a chemical produced by the body, its probably due to a disfunctional melanin producing gene.


so it is possible to have one part of raceto separate and form unique characteristics. (color is most visible but other as well).

Since 'race' hasn't been demonstrated to exist, its kind of meaningless. Different populations of humans certainly can and do seperate into little groups and happily go along on their own little genetic history, but there are allways 'outside' influences, gene flow, migration, interbreeding, that keep the overall gene pool very mixed. As such, there aren't any races.


opensecret2012
His skin had to be dark enough to not get sunburn.

Black people's skin gets sunburnt also. The extra melanin protects from harmful cancer causing radiation, not 'sunburn'.

Rome under Emperor Constitine converts to Christianity. "If we can't stamp out this heathen religion, we'll make like we're joining it! Then twist it and control it from within! Muahahaaa!

Constantine said that he was converted by, i beleive, a vision sent from god, and apparently the people in his court were somewhat put off by his piousness.

Rome went on to conquor most of Europe.

Rome didn't do this after christianity. By the time constantine was emperor, it had long since more or less 'conquered' the world (its world anyway).

Later when the classical artists were commissioned to do their famous paintings of Jesus on the churches, halls, and castles, they had to make a picture pleasing to the ruler

I don't think a conspiracy is necessary to get populations of people to make their gods look like them.


df1

posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Molloy XX
The reality of racial differences...

A number of years ago in a college sociology class we were administered an IQ test developed by blacks. The results of the test indicated that blacks in the class had a higher IQ than whites. The whites in the class howled that the test was bias. It seems that your "facts" are most likely guilty of a similar bias.
.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
it doesnt really matter since we're all conciouse living human beings. I wonder if any of those tests were ever done on oriental people. I wonder if it would be higher or lower



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I believe that evolution has played the biggest role in our traits such as skin color, hair texture, etc. As the continents split apart, all life forms made the neccessary changes to survive their individual climates and conditions. I think the most evident of evolutionary adaptation is the animal life in Australia (kangaroo's, koala's, platypus,etc.) If you think about the continental climates and conditions, and compare the various skin tones of the natives of each land, I think it is fair to assume that we evolved to best survive our climates. I believe the angles that UV rays from the sun shine upon the surfaces of each land determines the pigmentation needed for each people to absorb or reflect heat and light safely, so that is what originally decided our skin tones. With modern education and science, we have evolved beyond the need for such drastic differences in pigment, ie; clothing, sunblockers, shelter,etc.
It is also obvious that "cross breeding", or mixing races is the quickest and most assured way to induce skin color changes. Although it is possible for 2 "white" people to deliver a "black" child if there were race mixing with at least one of the parents ancestors.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
"I believe that whites and blacks (i hate using these terms as I feel they are derogatory to both those with light and dark skin)"

I havent figured out how to implement the quote boxes yet but I took this from an earlier post, and would just like to ask, what is derogatory about the terms?
Descriptively, what will be an acceptable term for our differences? When will it quit being such a tender issue with everyone. I am kind of an olive-reddish-tannish-peach color, but it just seems so much easier to say white!
I admit, I do get accused of being racist at times (those who know me know better), but because I am not, I dont waste my time trying to convince people. I also find that I am only ever accused by people that are insecure and have already pre-judged me!



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION

Originally posted by Nygdan



No real evidence for either other than logic.
Humans do not fit with the natural order of earth...
what did Agent Smith say to Morpheus?
ahh...
something regarding us as a virus that spreads and destroys....
sometimes i believe i see that....
not to mention we as a race are unsatisfied (spiritually - perhaps) HeRe



Yea your wrong buddy, People of Ancient Asia(China,Tibet,India etc.) and North and South America fit in with the natural order of earth. It was part of there beleive structure. I can only think of Europeans,Africans and Middle eastern people to be the virus that spreads and destroys. But since the western European tribes set out to rule the world they brought there plagues and destructive ways with them.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join