Are white people mutants?

Originally posted by Asia Minor
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.

Evolution as been proven false. According to it, changes are accidental, and take millions of years.
- Middle Easterners sailed by ships to Europe, from Egypt, Inda, and other middle eastern countries. They instantly landed in Europe, and never keeled over from "vitamin D defencientcies".

- A mutation is something that majority of the time is a negative. Like cancer (which is a mutation of cells). A mutation does not reguarly happen. Thus it cannot be said Indians (from India) with their straight hair, straight noses, and super dark skin, are mutants. Etc.. etc...

But evolution isn't real

I see you are abrest of current, recent, info.

and the Caucasian was here before the Negro therefore can't be a modified human.

Post your proof. Post your sources.
If "whites" were around before "blacks" then how come "whites" cannot produce "black" kids?
How come "blacks" are able to produce "white" kids?

BTW, the word "caucasian" comes from the Caucasious Mountians. Are you saying people lived in the Caucasious mountains before people lived in Egypt, India, Ethiopia, China, Tibet? More proof that Caucasians were not the first humans. More proof that everyone else do not come from caucasians.

According to darwinism they maybe a variation from the Negro ,

You just said you feel evolution isn't real. Why are you still talking about it? And Darwin the guy who supports it? BTW according to Darwinism it isn't a case of maybe, it's a case of "whites" do so come from "blacks". But that it was a gradual thing over millions of years. Gradual migration, etc...

but if you are an accurated Alien Creationist you know much better.

This is just your opinion that people who believe Aliens made humans "knkow 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.

First of all the terms used is sooo off. A Japanese person is someone from Japan. A French person is someone from France. A Colombian is from Colombia. Etc.. Etc... Do you see Austrailians calling theirselves British? Do you see Canadians calling theirselves French?
Only people who know for sure their families once lived up in the Caucasious Mountains can call theirselves Caucasian.

The word "caucasian" didn't exist 5,000 or more years ago, because no one reached the caucasian mountains.
The word "negro" (Latin for the color black. Hey, how come we don't call the other "races" the blanco, the rojo,and whatever the latin word is for yellow?), didn't exist 3,500 years ago. Because the Latin empire wasn't formed yet.

Next, everyone seems to want to talk only about "whites" and "blacks". Everyone forgets on purpose there are people who have perfectly straight hair, straight noses, all the facial features of "whites", but have jet dark skin. Where did they come from? Then there's people who have these strange looking slanty eyes... where'd they come from?

Define "modern human race"? Walking upright? Able to form full sentances? Being able to build tools? Being able to make things out of metals? Define what is "modern human race".

Lets clarify some things folks, because I see alot of misinformation going on here.

In Europe, Jesus was white. Now go to Mexico. There, Jesus looks like an Aztec Indian. Go to Africa, and Jesus is black. Go to Asia, and Jesus eyes look slanted, his cheekys padded.

This has nothing to do with conspiracy. It has everything to do with the adage: Man makes god in his own image. In every culture and every religon, people make images of their gods to resemble themselves. Look at ancient Egyptian gods, they look like the ancient Medditerranian Egyptians. In ancient Greece and Rome, we see statues that resemble ancient Greeks and Romans. Look at chinese and Japanese gods: they look Asian. This is because people adapt their gods to look like themselves, because its easier to worship something familiar.

By comparison, look at all the statues of Buddah in Asia. He looks like a fat happy Asian guy. But most records seem to show the Original Buddah was a white guy: an Aryan prince from Northern India with red hair and blue eyes.

All people adapt god in their own image, look everywhere for evidence of this.

Someone said there are non white people who have blue and green eyes. Those "non white" people I guarantee you have white ancestors. You do not find light depigmented eyes in any non whoite population naturally unless there are white ancestors. My point? race mixing was ALOT more prevailent in ancient times, but it was limited to certain areas of the world, racial "buffer zones" where different peoples often invaded, met, married, ect. Such buffer zones: North Africa, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, the middle east. These are places where whites, Arabs, Asians, and blacks all crossed, through trade, invasion, or spread of religon. The middle east is the most racially mixed area in the world. One can find a mix of all races there.

However, much of the rest of the world had little to no racial intermixing. East Asia, Norhtern and central Europe, Southern and central Africa, and the Americas, were generally racially homogenous. For example, today in say Medieval Leeds, England, you simply would be very shocked if you were the average person and saw say an African or a Middle easterner walking through town. It simply was very rare. Now, one would be more shocked NOT to see such a person walking through Leeds.

Total and world wide racial migration even into the remotest parts of the world didnt happen until this century.

Well lets go back to the Mutation. After the mutation to where someone turns white it seems possible to breed the dark skin gene away. An old neighbor of mine told me like 4-5 generations back one of his relatives was of African descent. Now he looks like a white guy with darker feaures; hair, eyes, skin, but is far from being black. Now his father had more darker characteristics. His children do not appear to be of African descent at all with their light eyes and blond hair. If the dark skin gene is always dominate then why is it that as each generation goes with this family they get lighter. I know his brothers and sisters and their children real good and they all seem to get lighter each generation. If the "domiante" gene is always passed then where has it been the last 3 generations? To me it seems that the gene is being bread out. If it is always dominant it seems sooner or later someone will be born with real dark skin and this is not the case. Someone throw in their two cents please.

Whats interesting to note: 97% of blacks in America have white ancestors. This is due to the slave owners frequenting the slave quarters and having sex with the slave women. If you look at American blacks, they look different from native Africans. This is why here in the states, you get ocasionally black parents who give birth to a white kid. Sometimes, white parents give birth to a black kid.

An amusing tale: this white couple, the man being a member of Aryan nations, and his wife also racist, married. The wife gave birth to a child. a mulloto looking black child. The husband was near ready to beat the wife to death, but they did a DNA analisys. Seems the white woman, who was blonde haired and blue eyed, had a great great grandmother who was black. These genes occasionally do resurface in people.

I thought it was a very funny and true story. Poetic justice.

It is weird really, but we still can't claim how some genes are stronger or not.
Lion seems to have right, when we go through generations, grand grandmother's genes who were black are just less then 10% or even smaller of all the genes mixed there, and surely not stronger then others, don't mix brown eyes and hair with skin color here.
That story wouldn't be so interesting story if it hapened on regular base, so it is NOT common to happen.
One thing is clear if we continue to mingle more all will become one race. is that true?
One more thing, a lot of white people are whiter only because they live in colder areas and receive less sun. If they relocate to the warm regions great many of tthem become darker skinned. that is true.

Originally posted by MankoW
That story wouldn't be so interesting story if it hapened on regular base, so it is NOT common to happen.

I think it is more common than you think. Especially during the times of slavery.

Originally posted by halo_aura

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.

LOL!! Good post, I like that. That's funny!

Originally posted by Asia Minor
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.

LOL! If you go by the alien creation theory it would seem the white race is actually the ones on the bottom and the less evolved and more primative because whites are the ones who it could be said look the most like animals. With hair like animal fur that comes in different colors like animal fur and being the most hairiest of races and blacks are the least hairy with dark skin that hasn't been covered in fur, and hair that's not like animal fur. Animals skin under their fur is pale or pink like, caucasion skin could get the whiteness from having been covered in fur & not exposed to the sun. So if you do go the route of alien creation theory which I don't believe in, it would seem the white race would actually be the less evolved and on the bottom and the darker people on the top most evolved which is why black genes dominate. So the whites would actually be the primitive ones. So niether evolution nor the alien creation theory works.



[edit on 2/22/2005 by Leading Lady]

Originally posted by Growling Lion
Well lets go back to the Mutation. After the mutation to where someone turns white it seems possible to breed the dark skin gene away. An old neighbor of mine told me like 4-5 generations back one of his relatives was of African descent. Now he looks like a white guy with darker feaures; hair, eyes, skin, but is far from being black. Now his father had more darker characteristics. His children do not appear to be of African descent at all with their light eyes and blond hair. If the dark skin gene is always dominate then why is it that as each generation goes with this family they get lighter. I know his brothers and sisters and their children real good and they all seem to get lighter each generation. If the "domiante" gene is always passed then where has it been the last 3 generations? To me it seems that the gene is being bread out. If it is always dominant it seems sooner or later someone will be born with real dark skin and this is not the case. Someone throw in their two cents please.

LOL! When it's even like a black and white person mixing, then the darker genes dominate, but as each person with fewer and fewer dark genes mix with whites, the dark genes get bred out due to being outnumbered by white genes. When there's an equal amount of black & white genes, the darker genes tend to dominate.

[edit on 2/22/2005 by Leading Lady]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Whats interesting to note: 97% of blacks in America have white ancestors. This is due to the slave owners frequenting the slave quarters and having sex with the slave women. If you look at American blacks, they look different from native Africans. This is why here in the states, you get ocasionally black parents who give birth to a white kid. Sometimes, white parents give birth to a black kid.

An amusing tale: this white couple, the man being a member of Aryan nations, and his wife also racist, married. The wife gave birth to a child. a mulloto looking black child. The husband was near ready to beat the wife to death, but they did a DNA analisys. Seems the white woman, who was blonde haired and blue eyed, had a great great grandmother who was black. These genes occasionally do resurface in people.

I thought it was a very funny and true story. Poetic justice.

LOL!!!!!!

Originally posted by MankoW
It is weird really, but we still can't claim how some genes are stronger or not.
Lion seems to have right, when we go through generations, grand grandmother's genes who were black are just less then 10% or even smaller of all the genes mixed there, and surely not stronger then others, don't mix brown eyes and hair with skin color here.
That story wouldn't be so interesting story if it hapened on regular base, so it is NOT common to happen.
One thing is clear if we continue to mingle more all will become one race. is that true?
One more thing, a lot of white people are whiter only because they live in colder areas and receive less sun. If they relocate to the warm regions great many of tthem become darker skinned. that is true.

That's why the whole notion of race and who is greater, better, etc is so silly. All races can be described as being less and all can be described as being more or better. There's only one race the human race.

Not only are we muntants, the white race is becoming a miniorty in the U.S. due to the fact that we are allowing just anyone who wants to enter the U.S. do so and it does'nt appear to matter if they are illegal either.

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.

Exactly! And when you look at what whole groups of people did to other whole groups of people to keep them locked out of the so called mainstream or dominent culture in the land, there's no wonder that they speak different words and have different ways all within one language. A biased test giving the dominent culture an advantage over the minority culture who are locked out of the mainstream culture will easily have a problem with certain tests based more around a certain culture more so than intellegence. So the chitlin tests shows exactly what blacks who were locked out of certain parts of the culture were faced with. Those tests developed by the dominent group didn't really determine intelligence it determed how much one knew about a certain culture.

[edit on 2/22/2005 by Leading Lady]

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
Not only are we muntants, the white race is becoming a miniorty in the U.S. due to the fact that we are allowing just anyone who wants to enter the U.S. do so and it does'nt appear to matter if they are illegal either.

LOL!

asia minor
According to darwinism they maybe a variation from the Negro , but if you are an accurated Alien Creationist you know much better

How does an 'alien creationist' know anything? Since there is no evidence fro this?

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Evolution as been proven false. According to it, changes are accidental, and take millions of years.
- Middle Easterners sailed by ships to Europe, from Egypt, Inda, and other middle eastern countries. They instantly landed in Europe, and never keeled over from "vitamin D defencientcies".

How in the world does that disprove evolution?

- A mutation is something that majority of the time is a negative. Like cancer (which is a mutation of cells). A mutation does not reguarly happen. Thus it cannot be said Indians (from India) with their straight hair, straight noses, and super dark skin, are mutants. Etc.. etc...

That doesn't even make sense, let alone disprove evolution.

growling lion
After the mutation to where someone turns white

Again, the problem is that there isn't a mutation that is going to due this. Albinism resulting froma single mutation, sure why not, but not 'being white'. White (non albino) skin is skin that has a certian density of melanin, its not going ot be controlled by a single mutation, especially since the number of melanocytes (melanin producing cells) is the same race to race. So no mutation is likely to result in 'white skin' instantly. Its a process, wherein one skin colour tends to be favoured amoung others amoung certain populations. All the populations are variable for skin colour. THe 'pale' populations probably became pale because of the benefit in absorbing sunlight in cloudy european/artic environments, and because the people there just probably happened to favour slightly lighter skin, for whatever the reason. Meanwhile, back in africa and 'the sun belt' of the world, darker skin was favoured by biology and by society, so it stayed common.

Constintine felt that way because the ancient gods (annunaki) where blonde hair and light eyed or red haired and light eyed. They thought the fair ones were gods. That is why Hilter thought blondes were superior too.

It makes sense, blue eyed gods and blonde hair, white skin, too it seems.
Anyway white race characteristics are weaker when mixed with others.
This is running round in circles, again white gods, black Earthlings, or colored in different variations.
Wait a minute, isn't others nation gods, their skin colored or I am wrong?
I thought god was snake with feathers
or it was white man old and with a beard white too?
Creationists are very close to the reality we have, in recent history there were no new races, but people more look like each other.
So only answer is that god(s) created races very different, but later they mixed with the locals, whatever color of skin, I personaly think locals were white and god created other races to adapt them for certain climate. That's so complicated, I give up on thinking more. It makes more sense other races evolved from the white race, and more of that if their genes prevail over time it is logical.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

One problem is that theier are a lot of racist, confused and misinformed Negroes preaching their mistheories as the main basis of science. I must look down upon this shame and set things straight. For one thing, if one is to believe in evolution then one must believe that the Negro theoretically could be here before Negroes. Skin color isn't neccessary to live. As we don't see every white skinned person laying out dead. In evolution many believe that dark skin was a result of losing hair. Then the skin color act as the protectant that the hair once acted as since many animals skins are white underneath. In other words, manu of the Negroes said the caucasian has more primitive features. Well? Look at this, an ape evolving into man begins to stand upright and lose hair bearing....white skin. Hmm.
having the thin lips of an ape with relatively sparse body hair compared to the ape along with straight hair we have an early man? This is what they want to say, but strange ironically they also want to say that they were here first. You can't have it two ways. The Negro developed skin color to work as the fur worked before it was shed. The caucasian didn't develop skin color because it wasn't necessary. That theory of evolution could easily make it seem that the Caucasian was here first and it includes the beliefs of many of you. However evolution is a flaw and we know that the idea of them being only 50,000 years old as wrong. But the Caucasian skeletons(caucasoids and Mongoloids are considered modern men by anthropologists) have indeed been found to be here for hundreds of millions of years. There were many different periods of existence and the earliest skeletons ever found were of the modern man or caucasian. Do the research. This is the facts that I accept. However, Darwinism is mainstream anthropological study and they are tossed out because they don't fit in with Darwinism. According to Darwin everyone may have came from the Negro. But even if that was the case they couldn't be considered mutants as mutating is part of evolution. The Negro could be considered a mutant/ape the caucasian can be considered a mutant/Negro. Yet you can't consider anyone a mutant unless one kind is recognized as a STANDARD. Since the caucasian is recognized as the modern man he can't properly be referred to as a mutant. Mutant because of skin? Well, that's rediculous because the over production of Melanin in certain races is what gives them certain defects. Many Negroes , Indians and have sexual defects and stygopeia as a result of their overproductive biochemicals. So what is the norm? Personally I believe the caucasian was modeled in the image of the Nordic-Extraterrestrials aliens/Gods and that the different races and subraces is to give the diversity needed to maina healthy biosphere. I kinda follow the Ickeman myself. However, I beleive like black muslims that the biblical term "man" refers to the whit-caucasian and my own beleif is that it is in the higher-beings interest to secure caucasian rule over the Earth. What does that have to do with this. Well, in so many words the caucasian is the norm, therefore can't be a mutrant. Another fact is that malanin causes premature aging. Whites appear to age quicker but most coloreds generally have a shorter life-span. That is because in the coloreds the cranium and sexual development starts much earlier than in the caucasian. This overall makes them less able to compute and decipher things. The most advanced culture was that of the people of India but that was led by the Brahmas which ARE white and children of the Brahmas(meaning gods) but what gods? the caucasoid gods of space that put them in rule, contrary mistheory the Aryan invasion. See skin color is effective for the ULTRAVIOLET RAYS not light rays therefore the Nordic Gods lack this. My theory is not only that but we know that primitive race races of the world were created for a metaphysical purpose. Black skin absorbs certain detrimental energies. The darker races were created to purify the atmosphere of detrimental forces which is why we see so much negaitivity in communities of certain ethnicities. So they act as a psychic filter. Yeah, sometimes white people get cancer but at the same time the off-key biochemistry of many coloreds equally gives them Karsoma's Melanoma which indeed is a skin disease. Their were experimental periods in which caucasians were pretty much the only people on Earth around the Cambrian period. But these periods were failed test and this period is experimental as well but this time Negroes, Mongoloids, Americana and my race now are on the planet as well. Hope you catch my drift.[edit on 22-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Asia Minor]

Originally posted by Asia Minor
The Negro developed skin color to work as the fur worked before it was shed. The caucasian didn't develop skin color because it wasn't necessary.

This doesn't make sense. Chimps are pink skinned, yes. You are saying that modern blacks evolved to have dark skin to protect the skin, but that caucasions didn't because they didn't need the protection. Yet all chimps are found in africa, and most apes are foudn in africa, and the oldest human fossils are found in africa. So if africans developed dark skin, it stands to reason that as the chimp-men lost their hair, their skin became darker, to protect it, which you agreed was necessary. Thereby there was no naked pink skinned ape phase.

That theory of evolution could easily make it seem that the Caucasian was here first and it includes the beliefs of many of you.

Sure, it can go either way since we have no idea what the skin color of the pre-human ancestors were.

have indeed been found to be here for hundreds of millions of years.

Are you trying to say that modern skeletons are older than supposedly more primitive ones? Demonstrate this if so.

There were many different periods of existence and the earliest skeletons ever found were of the modern man or caucasian. Do the research.

Perhaps you should do the research. the most modern skeletons are the last ones to show up.

But even if that was the case they couldn't be considered mutants as mutating is part of evolution.

That doesn't even make sense. A mutant is the result of a mutant. Humans are mutant chimps. Chimps are mutant apes. Apes are mutant monkeys, etc etc.

Yet you can't consider anyone a mutant unless one kind is recognized as a STANDARD.

Or you can say a mutant is simply somethign that came about thru mutation, regardless of 'standard'.

Since the caucasian is recognized as the modern man he can't properly be referred to as a mutant.

That hardly makes sense at all. If modern man arose via mutations, then modern man is de facto a mutant. Its not liek we're talking mutants like x-men comic books or mutant ninja turtles or somethign here.

So what is the norm? Personally I believe the caucasian was modeled in the image of the Nordic-Extraterrestrials aliens/Gods and that the different races and subraces is to give the diversity needed to maina healthy biosphere.

Ok, so you have silly and meaningless personal beleifs. Why should anyone else care?

the biblical term "man" refers to the whit-caucasian

Again, who cares about your silly and meaningless personal beleifs? All humans are human, no 'race' is 'subhuman'. Every human is an anatomically modern human. Man is every person on the planet.

Well, in so many words the caucasian is the norm, therefore can't be a mutrant.

Ok, you are scared of the word mutant and don't want to be called a mutant. That hardly changes that you are a mutated ape.

Another fact is that malanin causes premature aging.

Demonstrate this

Whites appear to age quicker but most coloreds generally have a shorter life-span.

And you think having a higher concentration of a particular protein in the out layer of skin is a good explanation of this?

The most advanced culture was that of the people of India but that was led by the Brahmas which ARE white

Genetic analyses have only ever shown that the people in india are indians, with some, who live near central asian populations, haveing some central asian genes.

See skin color is effective for the ULTRAVIOLET RAYS not light rays therefore the Nordic Gods lack this.

Why? Melanin can block UV radiation, which is radiated by the sun onto the earth. Its beneficial becaues it can prevent mutations, like melanomas. Nothign more.

Black skin absorbs certain detrimental energies.

Black skin is exactly the same as white skin, except that it has more melanin in it. The only thing it absorbs are UV radiation and heat.

The darker races were created to purify the atmosphere of detrimental forces which is why we see so much negaitivity in communities of certain ethnicities.

Mumbo jumbo, on both statements.

were pretty much the only people on Earth around the Cambrian period.

There were not people in the cambrian.

Hope you catch my drift.

Basically from that I could get that you were a pig ignorant racist #tard. Is that what you were going for?