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.

 

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


You've provided a source that talks about native blacks on the isles. Given that your theory is right, you should be able to point out the same thing for the continent - say France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Poland etc, etc...




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Here is an article that discusses the genetics of most areas of the world, the variance in some of those populations, when they separated, etc.

Genes, peoples, and language

Here is another one, while I don't think it is the one I'm looking for, does discuss that white skin in Europeans is recent. However, recent in this case means 6,000 to 12,000 years ago.

Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I'm just glad to see people challenging Darwin whether they're right or not.
Evolution does occur on certain levels, but I just can't believe that there was just a very small group of microbes that evolved into humans. There simply hasn't been enough time. This theory was created by people that didn't believe in God and were desparate to explain how they got here. You guys can keep throwing your facts around, but until the "missing link" is found, sorry, can't believe it.
Oh, and the reason human bodies are flawed, WE CAN'T LIVE FOREVER, WE WOULD RUN OUT OF EVERYTHING, DUH!!!!!!!!!!!! So how does that prove we weren't made be an intelligent being?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


But you can believe large beings just spawned out of creationism? I'm sorry but logically change over time makes more sense. And the world and little microbes have been around A LONG long long long time.

EDIT:

More evidence YOU started as 1 tiny microscopic cell, and grew to the size you are now.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Xiamara]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


Firstly, Darwin was spiritual. While he stopped attending Church, he still took part in Church activities and readily described himself as an agnostic. Secondly, the human body is far from perfect outside of the fact that it can die. As stated previously, the only real benefit it has is a larger prefrontal cortex. The only reason we would be created with these minor and major imperfections is because God is not benevolent, but instead wants to watch us die in the stupidest ways imaginable.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

Here is another one, while I don't think it is the one I'm looking for, does discuss that white skin in Europeans is recent. However, recent in this case means 6,000 to 12,000 years ago.


Thanks for the link but I already put a link to en.wikipedia.org... in my first post.

Thats the science that says white skin is a mutation and is basically an albino race. Which is quite simple. www.cubetopia.com...
It's leprosy, albinism is a form of leprosy. The Bible agrees with this also.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Wise Man]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Of COURSE Darwin was wrong. It is so easily provable:

There is not ONE example, in all of the historical record...in all of archaeology...in all of paleontology...in all of science, there is not ONE example of an INTERMEDIATE SPECIES.

If Darwin were right, the bones of millions of intermediate skeletons would be on display in museums all over the world. but when the Darwin cultists find they cannot come up with any proof of intermediate species proof, they tell us that the evolution they spew came in ' leaps' !!

We have proof in the fossil record of species that resemble other ones, but in no case has there ever been a find that shows a definite progression...it is always far different from the others.

Also, the Darwin cultists must ignore all the VAST evidence of prehistoric civilizations long ago....eons ago. If you examine the evidence you will be unable to ignore the facts: There are relics found in places that CANNOT have been deposited in recent times...millions of years old strata giving up obvious human implements proves the point.

Forbidden archaeology proves what the Darwinists fear most: Obvious proof of human advanced development eons ago. They hate and fear this evidence so much that academic dishonesty has become the norm, with so called ' leading professional' making silly and ridiculous claims to try and deny the facts.

Remember, in all of history, there has NEVER been found a truly intermediate skeleton...never.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Dude Hannibal was a Carthaginian. Just becauase someone is of Mediteranean descent it doesn't necessarily make them black or make them white for that matter. They are of mixed race and let's leave it at that.

In any case. I'm calling for the staff to start monitoring this thread. It's being derailed horribly by Wise Man.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Anyhow, this is wayyyyyy off topic, so may I suggest you start a thread of your own and then we can all ignore your insane, racist ramblings, as they deserve to be.

I do not understand why people enter a thread and even debate with someone but end it with calling the other person a racist so that they can hopefully have the last word.

Anyhow, so I don't go off-topic WiseMan can you please make a thread of the topic you are debating and V2V me the link of the thread?
I think it would be a fascinating debate if everyone leaves their emotions at the door. Please make it I would appreciate it


Anyhow very interesting article, out of everyone I have learnt the most from the person you tried responding to.

Article is BS though, space?
Ya so? Even island gigantism has to do with space, but so what?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 

*sigh* of course no human skeleton of an intermediate was found, but all those other humanoid ones are just fakes, oh and lets not forget all the similarities with DNA and mitochondrial Eve, and then there's other species and the fact that things on earth just poof into existence. Oh and fossils are just sooo easy to find.

You can deny all you want, but I'm logical things don't just go poof and exist out of nothing. If that's true tell the creator to create a hald naked man on my desk at work, A good looking half naked man. I'm bored at work and things just go poof and exist.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
Of COURSE Darwin was wrong. It is so easily provable:

I'm glad you've decided to breach out of your air tight box. Though next time might I suggest, before declaring such absolute wrongs to the level of insanity, that you either lrn2google, or go make a cup of hot tea

if after that you have not reconciled to reality, then may GOD have mercy on your soul



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 



Since it is likely we all originated from one single branch of black Africans we have two factors that explain the world’s ethnic makeup. The first one is migration out of Africa to the most distant location of southern South America and everything in-between, and the second is genetic distancing with mutations.

Looking at Africa in relationship to Europe it is a hop, skip and jump compared to let’s say Asia. One could logically see that Europe would most likely be populated about the time as the Middle East, but today the Middle East are much darker and genetically closer to the African than the Caucasians are. Since Europe seems to be the birth place of the Caucasian and is heavily made up of them one would need to think how did this happen when the first migration was surly African. Caucasians are the newest genetic split with a total of four genetic splits emoved from Africans, while all splits have created lighter pigmentations, so one would need to compare when these splits happen to the migration of Africans. This Caucasian split most likely happened before the Ice Age and so they would be very isolated during that time and it was suggested that the population of Humans throughout Europe and other northern parts to be as low as 10,000 in the thick of the ice age.

With this knowledge one could see Europe to be heavily populated by Africans or very close genetic variations with Caucasians isolated and with a much slower growth, due to recovery from the ice age, than the migrations from the warmer south. As we saw in the Americas where it was estimated 100 million Indians lived prior to Europe diseases wiped out about 80% of them making conquering the Americas a much easier task than if 100 million Indians were around to keep the Europeans out. So in Europe at one point the Majority was Africans with the Ice age beaten down, latest genetic split, Caucasians a small minority. Whether it was disease or finally population growth that over came the migrated Africans is anyone’s guess.

But one could say the same thing about Asia since North Eastern Asians are also four or even five splits removed from the Africans who most likely migrated long before those splits, so I'm not sure the point you are so eagerly trying to make.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Darwin WAS wrong, when he based his observations on the intelligence of a race by their culture and practices without looking at the size of the cranium, but does size show the amount of intelligence? If a person has a 'big head', is he smarter?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Onboard2]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Not all of us are wise that believe we are.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wise Man


I don`t believe that stuff they made up about everyone coming out of Africa.
My view is Biblical. Just like the white elite believe and know they come from Esau the progenitor of the Edomites which is exactly where white people come from, I believe the same.


So where did the Edomites come from? Some where there is a start even if it was Adam and Eve.

I don't see Adam and Eve as two people, but the point in human history where we became self conscious and so needed to cover our nakedness that animals do not do while being kicked out of the Garden of Eden which we could call the innocent world of Animals that are not self conscious.




I also only follow nationalities by fathers linage only as the Bible does.

The Evolution thing and everyone coming out of Africa garbage is to deflect from the truth. But thats just my opinion.


That is interesting since all of our ancestry can be only be followed through the mother’s genes and not the fathers, and this makes sense since the father gives the mother a part of the puzzle, but the baby is truly a part of the mother, so I personally see genes as a more enduring factor than a scribe to determine ancestry.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I do not understand why people enter a thread and even debate with someone but end it with calling the other person a racist so that they can hopefully have the last word.



Not at all, as you can see the silly bugger doesn't shut up. The intention of the quote you grabbed was to stop "it" derailing the thread with "it's" racist ramblings. This thread has nothing to do with a supposedly Black Europe prior to the 1500's.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wise Man

It's leprosy, albinism is a form of leprosy. The Bible agrees with this also.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Wise Man]




White skin is a form of leprosy? I've never read such utter crap in my life. Using the bible as part of your source just about says it all.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join