It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are white people mutants?

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
In actuality the Term "White" is a Misnomer! Genetically there are "White" people who are not able to Tan (They received a Gene from their Ancestors who lived in Places were it Rained a Lot and is Rarely Sunny - Say the U.K. For Instance) - when they get Exposed to the Sun or try to Tan all that happens is that they get Sun Burn. Then there are "White" people that are able to Tan. When they do Tan their Skin becomes a Deep Golden Color. When they lose their exposure to the Sun their Skin Reverts back to a Lighter Tone/Color until they get additional exposure to the Sun.

What is the difference guys? This is all just Superficial Characteristics!




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
'White' people originated from Mars and came to earth after a cataclysm (venus) to enslave the original inhabitants(the 'blacks') of 'earth'(EA), working them away for gold and other minerals, hence the government. Over the years 'modifiers' traveled/came from under/shifted to earth to 'genetically' 'enhance' and some to manipulate mankind through whatever means. Evidence of this ancient outside contact,if you will, is everywhere if one seeks hard enough.

also There were few who were discussing the first establishment of flight/aircraft and something to do with the french being the first or the wright brothers...

www.ufoarea.com...
www.world-mysteries.com...
www.lost-civilizations.net...
www.geocities.com...

peace.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by nim_rod_13]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
What is the difference guys? This is all just Superficial Characteristics!

No SS, we must all destroy each other over differential tanning rates!!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by df1

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.
.


mind you, that sort of reinforces the racial differences argument


Actually, what is reinforces is the role of environment in human development.

I can guarantee you that if you took a Zulu baby at birth and raised him as a member of the royal court that child would speak the Queen's English and do as well on tests as his lily-white peers.

No global environment has a socially homogenous state, where all people learn the same words, concepts, phrases, and learn the same logic. As such, standardized testing that relies entirely on words, concepts, phrases, and logic as devised by one group for one group will be comprehended differently by members of different social groups with the resultant discrepency in scores, which nearsighted researchers use as 'Bell Curve' proof to show that not all races are of the same intelligence capabilities.

The Chitling Test was developed in 1971 as a half-humorous attempt to show that not all of America's children were speaking the same language.

www.wilderdom.com...

Here's a link to a sample of the test. Here's a sample question:



Which word is most out of place here?

(a) splib, (b) blood, (c) gray, (d) spook, (e) black.


English has one of the world's largest vocabularies, over 1,000,000 words. An average high school graduate uses about 10,000 words in his or her vernacular, and knows about 50,000. That means that the average person knows less than 1/10th of all the words in their own language. This is just one way of showing how different sectors of society will almost literally be speaking a different language.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII. If white people are mutants, the mutation has not improved the lot of humanity at all, but more likely has done the opposite.


and in one fell swoop you indulge in a bit of "racism" yourself

*nods sagely at the hypocrisy*



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by halo_aura



Actually, what is reinforces is the role of environment in human development.

I can guarantee you that if you took a Zulu baby at birth and raised him as a member of the royal court that child would speak the Queen's English and do as well on tests as his lily-white peers.



Actually, you couldn't offer a guarantee on the academic success or otherwise of any child, be they black, white, zulu, norwegian, we are not JUST the products of our environment.

Individually anyone can excel, it is when people look at the relevant stats for larger groupings of "races" that differences start to emerge- I find the crime states in the US particularly hard to explain away in some sort of rainbow, clap happy soundbite.

I speak as someone who treats each individual on their own merits.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by blueorder]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nim_rod_13
'White' people originated from Mars and came to earth after a cataclysm (venus) to enslave the original inhabitants(the 'blacks') of 'earth'(EA), working them away for gold and other minerals, hence the government. Over the years 'modifiers' traveled/came from under/shifted to earth to 'genetically' 'enhance' and some to manipulate mankind through whatever means. Evidence of this ancient outside contact,if you will, is everywhere if one seeks hard enough.

also There were few who were discussing the first establishment of flight/aircraft and something to do with the french being the first or the wright brothers...

www.ufoarea.com...
www.world-mysteries.com...
www.lost-civilizations.net...
www.geocities.com...

peace.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by nim_rod_13]


Dude, if white "gods" came to EA (Earth) and enslaved the native black populations, then why is it black skin is a dominate trait and white skin is recessive? Also the links you posted I already posted LOL! The Wright Brothers are credited with modern flying technology. In terms of ancient flying technology, it is non-whites... aka blacks who first had flying technolgy.

Last there is no such thing as white or black, because once again, a blue-eyed, pale skin person will have the exact same blood type as the most dark-skinned person, and not always the same blood type as another blue-eyed pale skinned person.

This fact alone makes this thread moot.

Another test biologists use to see if animals are of the same species, is if they can shag with each other. A rhino cannot shag with a lion. Because they are seperate species. "Whites" and "Blacks" are 100% shaggable compatable. This is another fact that makes this thread moot.

Isn't it intresting that "race" is only used as a difference with humans. Not with animals? Or any other living creature? With other creatures the terms species, class, phenotype, etc.. are used, to denote different.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
[ As some one mentioned on one of the past posts, then explain why Eskimos (or Inuites) who have black skin are able to survive near the North Pole?

And why when Ghenghis Khan was invading Europe he was leader of 3 armies - two of them made up of people with black skin. (The Khara Khitai, and the Kusanas.) People from India/Asia, and from modern day Africa. When they were pillaging, ravaging, and plundering, the eastern, and centrial Europeans, non of the black skinned Indians, or Africans, were keeling over from Vitamin D defencies during the years they spent taking over Europe.
[edit on 1-2-2005 by OpenSecret2012]


When referring to the term "black skin", this would be in reference to sub saharan africans, not eskimos and the soldiers of Ghengis Khan, just as a point of order


Hmm... so now the term "Black" strictly means people from only the southern area of the continent of Africa? Or people who look like the people who live in the southern area of the continient of Africa?

Why is Mariah Carey called "black" then? Her skin is pale. Why is Brad Pitt called "white" then? His skin is darker than Mariah's.
There are Indians (from India), Asians, Indonesians, Chinese, Mongolains, etc.. with skin that is jet dark "black". Ahhh but they are not from the southern area of Africa. So are they then "white"?
Eskimos have skin that is as dark as say... Charles Barkley, and Laurence Fishbourn. Eskimos have skin that is 100 times darker than Mariah Carey's skin. If those Eskimo's are not black then Charles Barkley and Laurence Fishbourn are not black.

------------------------------------------------

Here is another wrench that destroys the entire "whites are mutants" or "white skin resulted from migration to colder climates":

1. There is the fact that Eskimos have dark skin, black skin. The last Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago. They did not cross the landbridge 1 year before the ice age ended. So figure the Eskimo civilization is roughly 20,000 years old. After 20,000 years their skin is still black. Even the skin under their cloths. And they are not keeling over from vitamin D deficency.

2. Many of the soldiers in the army of Ghenghis Khan had skin just as "black" as the skin of any "black" African who lives in the southern area of the African continent. In fact there exists a famous painting in the Chinese Musem in NYC of Ghenghis Khan on horseback with 2 of the leaders of the other 2 armies he combined with - the leader of the Khara Khitai, and the leader of the Kusanas. One of the leaders is shown with skin "so black it looks purple" as the saying goes. It is brutally obvious his skin is ultra-dark "black". As "black" as the "blackest" African living in the southern area of Africa.
And of course, none of the soldiers in Ghenghis Khan's army died from vitamin D deficency while spending years taking over eastern Europe, and Central Europe.
(Watch on cable "A&E Biography: Ghenghis Khan" for a bit more info about how he took over Europe and had the Pope terrorfied.)

3. There is the fact that many "whites" have the exact same blood type as many "blacks" who live on the other side of the world. Soo far away that their tribes never met. Also many "whites" do NOT have the same blood type as other "whites". This means "whites" are exactly the same as "blacks".

4. Guess what everyone? The North Pole, and South Pole, at one time were NOT cold. But warm. Warm enough for rivers to flow, to have farmland, livestock, etc... There exist ancient maps (still around to this very day) that show Antartica without its ice cap. That show details of Antartica with rivers, lakes, ponds, streams, etc...

So the argument that "white" skin developed from tribes moving north or far south into more colder extreems gets knocked out. Since the north and far south were also at one time very warm and temperate. Warm enough that one could sweat, and get sunburned if they have pale skin. Warm enough that enough vitamin D would easily be produced by someone with "blacker" skin.

"Whites" are not a mutation. "White" skin is a recessive gene carried by people with "Black" skin. That's all there is to it.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012


Hmm... so now the term "Black" strictly means people from only the southern area of the continent of Africa? Or people who look like the people who live in the southern area of the continient of Africa?

Why is Mariah Carey called "black" then? Her skin is pale. Why is Brad Pitt called "white" then? His skin is darker than Mariah's.
There are Indians (from India), Asians, Indonesians, Chinese, Mongolains, etc.. with skin that is jet dark "black". Ahhh but they are not from the southern area of Africa. So are they then "white"?
Eskimos have skin that is as dark as say... Charles Barkley, and Laurence Fishbourn. Eskimos have skin that is 100 times darker than Mariah Carey's skin. If those Eskimo's are not black then Charles Barkley and Laurence Fishbourn are not black.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by OpenSecret2012]


That is why I wouldnt call Mariah Carey "black"- she clearly isnt, she is of mixed "race" (dunno about Brad Pitt having darker skin, but thats another issue).

I agree, "black" shouldnt be bandied about so freely, it should refer to sub saharan africans, not asians- and I certainly wouldnt say Eskimos had darker skin that Laurence Fisbourn(who again, one suspects, isnt of "pure" sub saharan ancestry)



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
What about "Alicia Keys"?! Now I am a "White Guy" - but she is a
"Soul Sista" that I would DEFINATLY like to get to know Personally - if you know what I mean!



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
What about "Alicia Keys"?! Now I am a "White Guy" - but she is a
"Soul Sista" that I would DEFINATLY like to get to know Personally - if you know what I mean!


to be honest, I find the race deniers amusing- the existence of race as an "concept" does not automatically equate to racism. Vive la difference I say, especially when it comes to the femininos



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII. If white people are mutants, the mutation has not improved the lot of humanity at all, but more likely has done the opposite.


and in one fell swoop you indulge in a bit of "racism" yourself

*nods sagely at the hypocrisy*


Does my opinion on the current global state of humankinds gross fiscal inequity and cross the board red flags of scientifically calculated cases of various impending unavoidable total resource depletion realities qualify as racist? I am truly convinced that there is only one race, the human race. My hypothetical suggestion that it appears to me that the colonial and imperial nations that have defeated, occupied, and economically directed numerous foreign nations in all areas of the world, for their own gain, have not been as forward thinking and responsible as was necessary to avert a disaster, can be interpretated as being racist, yes. However, I only made known my hypothetical opinion in the context of the mutant-white people conjecture being assumed to be correct. It is not, imho.The idea that bronze and wooden tools could have done the job in any amount of time is my take on it. The sarcophagus in the Kings chamber is a mystery all by itself. As is the 200 ton granite block in its ceiling is over 200 feet up off the ground. Modern crane operators are not able to do that with the biggest cranes in the world. those bronze tools must have been really sharp. to have so perfecty finished the facing stones so expertly. I look forward to your proofs that the logisticalk, physical, and mathmatical feats they successfully solved are indeed feasible.
I wonder how I missed this epic newsflash...oh well.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I live in Canada! Eskimos, or the Inuit do not have black skin, nor do they have brown skin. Most are actually pinkish so there!!!



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Growling Lion
I remember reading a story once that said we all come from Africa and that white people are nothing more than a genetic mutation. I wonder what would happen if black albinos were to all stick together and to try to get away and form a new group. Would all of the people stay white or if they interbred would they all stay white? I always felt that nationalities look they way they do because they interbred many years ago and all are related from a long time ago. Please put in your two cents.


Going back to the beginning, consider your question about mutation. In my thoughts mutation equates to genetic diversity. In the African population we have more genetic diversity, than in the European Caucasian population. Considering the population bottleneck some seventy thousand years ago that narrowed the genetic diversity to near non existence, this is a profound point of understanding the development of human beings. There are still more "mutations," or points of genetic diversity within the African population than within the latter Caucasian population.

So to answer your question, no the "white people," are not mutants at least within their own population if there is one, but more homogenous or evenly distributed as to genetic diversity. You may Google search on this issue of genetic diversity.

The fact that Caucasian people are derivational from African people is not the point, when one accepts the "out of Africa hypothesis," that is backed within studies of mitochondrial DNA. There appears to be no "counter migration," to Africa, to support any other theory.

I am satisfied with my earlier commentary that Caucasian people developed within the ice age and northern migration position, that Vitamin D deficiency causes rickets narrowing the hips of women. If one accepts natural selection, then it is entirely arguable that lighter skinned migrating people survived over many generations, whereas darker skinned people did not due to inefficiencies in the production of Vitamin D. While there may be countless other factors identifying "mutation," it appears the population of African people originated the lighter skinned "mutation," and rather the lighter skinned sensitivity to sun hence Vitamin D production. It arises out of the African genetic diversity and survival selectivity, and it is a quality that appears to develop over time. It is not strictly any sense of immediate mutation.

Hopefully this clarifies the original commentary and question, while the answer is no in some respects, and yes in other respects. Genetic diversity is not necessarily mutation, for example an immediate divergence from the overall population which is usually considered a defect, a non survival quantity.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman

Originally posted by Growling Lion
I remember reading a story once that said we all come from Africa and that white people are nothing more than a genetic mutation. I wonder what would happen if black albinos were to all stick together and to try to get away and form a new group. Would all of the people stay white or if they interbred would they all stay white? I always felt that nationalities look they way they do because they interbred many years ago and all are related from a long time ago. Please put in your two cents.


Going back to the beginning, consider your question about mutation. In my thoughts mutation equates to genetic diversity. In the African population we have more genetic diversity, than in the European Caucasian population. Considering the population bottleneck some seventy thousand years ago that narrowed the genetic diversity to near non existence, this is a profound point of understanding the development of human beings. There are still more "mutations," or points of genetic diversity within the African population than within the latter Caucasian population.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by SkipShipman]


That ties in with some previous reading I undertook which indicated that you get more extremes amongst sub sharahan african populations (ie black)- eg, in height terms, groupings who are the tallest and also clusters who are the smallest.

Cant remember the source of this comment, just reading that post reminded me of it.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by blueorder]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII. If white people are mutants, the mutation has not improved the lot of humanity at all, but more likely has done the opposite.


and in one fell swoop you indulge in a bit of "racism" yourself

*nods sagely at the hypocrisy*


Does my opinion on the current global state of humankinds gross fiscal inequity and cross the board red flags of scientifically calculated cases of various impending unavoidable total resource depletion realities qualify as racist? I am truly convinced that there is only one race, the human race. My hypothetical suggestion that it appears to me that the colonial and imperial nations that have defeated, occupied, and economically directed numerous foreign nations in all areas of the world, for their own gain, have not been as forward thinking and responsible as was necessary to avert a disaster, can be interpretated as being racist, yes. However, I only made known my hypothetical opinion in the context of the mutant-white people conjecture being assumed to be correct. It is not, imho.The idea that bronze and wooden tools could have done the job in any amount of time is my take on it. The sarcophagus in the Kings chamber is a mystery all by itself. As is the 200 ton granite block in its ceiling is over 200 feet up off the ground. Modern crane operators are not able to do that with the biggest cranes in the world. those bronze tools must have been really sharp. to have so perfecty finished the facing stones so expertly. I look forward to your proofs that the logisticalk, physical, and mathmatical feats they successfully solved are indeed feasible.
I wonder how I missed this epic newsflash...oh well.



Basically, what I am saying is that you are perfectly entitled to hold the notion of one race, ie the human race, but there is no need to indulge in semi-racist talk when you speculate as to whether whites have caused this world more harm than good (which actually counters your "one race" argument.

I on the other hand do believe that are certain differences in groupings to provide the basis for the idea that racial differences (or as some prefer it ancestral origin) exist- this does not make me a racist, just open minded, and someone willing to treat each person on the basis of their own abilities. That being said, I refuse to bury my head in the sand on such matters due to prevailing societal whims.

Not sure about your comment on the sarcopohagus has in relation to this debate
(genuinely I dont)- if you can enlighten me I'll do my best to respond.



[edit on 14-2-2005 by blueorder]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
[edit on 14-2-2005 by therichman_315746]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman

Originally posted by Growling Lion
I remember reading a story once that said we all come from Africa and that white people are nothing more than a genetic mutation. I wonder what would happen if black albinos were to all stick together and to try to get away and form a new group. Would all of the people stay white or if they interbred would they all stay white? I always felt that nationalities look they way they do because they interbred many years ago and all are related from a long time ago. Please put in your two cents.


Going back to the beginning, consider your question about mutation. In my thoughts mutation equates to genetic diversity.


From a biological view, the majority of mutations, are negative. A mutation is something that happens that is not ment to happen. "White" skin is not a mutation. It is a recessive gene. It is ment to be there. A mutation is something not ment to be there. Blue eyes, green eyes, grey eyes, are all recessive to brown eyes, dark brown eyes. It does not mean blue, gree, and grey, eyes are all mutations.




In the African population we have more genetic diversity, than in the European Caucasian population. Considering the population bottleneck some seventy thousand years ago that narrowed the genetic diversity to near non existence, this is a profound point of understanding the development of human beings. There are still more "mutations," or points of genetic diversity within the African population than within the latter Caucasian population.


Of course there is more diversity among the "black" skinned populations. Because they carry both dominate genetic traits, and recessive genetic traits.



So to answer your question, no the "white people," are not mutants at least within their own population if there is one, but more homogenous or evenly distributed as to genetic diversity. You may Google search on this issue of genetic diversity.


You got it right, "whites" are not genetic mutants. Not in their own populations, and not when they first popped out of their "black" skinned mothers, when their "white" skinned recessive gene showed.



The fact that Caucasian people are derivational from African people is not the point, when one accepts the "out of Africa hypothesis," that is backed within studies of mitochondrial DNA. There appears to be no "counter migration," to Africa, to support any other theory.


Before modern times, there is no way there could have been a counter migration. Pale skin burns in the sun. When it is said someone is getting sunburn, from a biological view, it means the sun is burning their skin off!. They are dying. They are being killed off by the sun! A "white" skinned person has no choice but to stay away from the equator area.

A "black" skinned person does have the choice to move away from the equator. There are many variations of "black" skin. The extreem "soo black that they look purple" would yes risk suffering vitamin D deficiantcies leading to rickets if they went too far north, or too far south. Even then, rickets is not immediate. It takes months to occure.
The less extreem scale of "black" skin, which is half to more than half of all "black" people, would not risk suffering rickets. They could migrate north or south at will.

But there was no real life threating reason from the enviorment forcing anyone with "black" skin to migrate north or south. Why migrate when you don't have to? Unlike their offspring who showed the recessive "white" skin gene.




I am satisfied with my earlier commentary that Caucasian people developed within the ice age and northern migration position,


The problem with this is what about before the Ice Age? The Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago. Before the ice age happened, there were dark skinned people in Antartica. (None in the north pole because it's all water, no land there.) Proof of this is the many ancient maps of Antartica, and the South Pole, that show it without any ice. That show rivers flowing, lakes, ponds, and streams, in Antartica. Africans and middle eastern rulers had these maps. No European rulers had these maps.




that Vitamin D deficiency causes rickets narrowing the hips of women.


1. I have never heard of rickets narrowing women's hips.

2. Even if rickets does narrow the hips of women, it does not matter because the woman would be dead from rickets long before being able to give birth. Rickets takes roughly 3-6 months to kill someone. A baby takes roughly 7-9 months to reach full term and try to be born when the narrow hips would pose a problem.

3. Only the most extreem case of "black" skin would suffer from rickets. People who have "skin soo black they look purple". I'm going to ask you this:
- Does Laurance Fishbourn have "black" skin? Does he suffer from rickets?
- Does basketball player Charles Barkley have "black" skin? Does he suffer from rickets?



If one accepts natural selection, then it is entirely arguable that lighter skinned migrating people survived over many generations, whereas darker skinned people did not due to inefficiencies in the production of Vitamin D.

The theory of "nstural selection" and Charles Dawin has been 100% proven false. Ready for the best example? Hundreds of thousands of ancient people instantly migrated north. Using.... *drumroll* boats and ships. From Africa, from the Middle East, all the way to northern Europe, modern day Britian, and other parts of Europe. Proof of their presence is the fact many ancient European artifacts have markings found in Africa. Many European traditions, customs, and languages, are direct decendants from African languages, and middle eastern languages.

The Phonecians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Olmecs, Toltecs, Berbers, Indians (from India), engaged in seafaring. None of them suffered rickets when they traveled to northern Europe and left their mark. And then there is the example of the Moors who later invaded Europe and hung out for hundreds of years - none of the Moors keeled over from vitamin D defecientcies or from rickets.



While there may be countless other factors identifying "mutation," it appears the population of African people originated the lighter skinned "mutation," and rather the lighter skinned sensitivity to sun hence Vitamin D production. It arises out of the African genetic diversity and survival selectivity, and it is a quality that appears to develop over time. It is not strictly any sense of immediate mutation.


A mutation is something that happens that is not suppose to happen. A mutation is something that does not happen regularly, or often. "White" skin is a recessive gene. It happens regularly, and often, in "black" families. Back then, and right now present time. Save up 25k, and travel to various African countries, the middle east, and asia, and you will see jet "black" skinned families, some with "white" skinned kids.




Hopefully this clarifies the original commentary and question, while the answer is no in some respects, and yes in other respects. Genetic diversity is not necessarily mutation, for example an immediate divergence from the overall population which is usually considered a defect, a non survival quantity.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by SkipShipman]


I completly agree with this last point you make. Mutation and recessive genes are two very different things. "White" skin is a recessive gene. Not a mutation.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
I live in Canada! Eskimos, or the Inuit do not have black skin, nor do they have brown skin. Most are actually pinkish so there!!!


Travel to Alaska, and visit the Eskimos, or Inuits, who still away from civilization, still living life like their ancient ancestors. Still have 99% of their blood. The majority of "black" skinned Eskimos died off from not having any resistances to European diseases. Too many modern Eskimos are mixed with "whites". Either on purpose, or because of what happens whenever one group of people defeats another group of people - kill the men and rape the women.

But that is besides the point. Right now present time, there are millions of "blacks" living in Canada. And they are not keeling over from vitamin D deficentcies. (they fled to Canada to escape the religious Amiercans who thought nothing of beating their slaves Monday - Saturday, then attending church on Sunday so they could go to heaven, then go back to beating their slaves the next day.)



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
If you beleive in evolution then all of us are mutants. Indians with their straight hair and thin noses are mutants, Aborigines with their deep eyebrow ridges and frizzy hair are mutants so would Orientals with their slanted eyes are mutants. But evolution isn't real and the Caucasian was here before the Negro therefore can't be a modified human. According to darwinism they maybe a variation from the Negro , but if you are an accurated Alien Creationist you know much better. For instnce Caucasians are considered to be part of the Modern human race where as the Negro are classed as primitive men. So, in so many words, they are not part of the same species and are not variants of each other.




top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join