NEANDERTHALS made WHITES more INTELLI...

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#479 Nov 17, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do since I have articles backin' my statements. However ur beliefs are all contradicted if Archaic Humans are going extinct because this shows they were NOT evolving or did NOT evolve.
AAUUUGGGHHH, YOU FÚÇKING MÓRÓN,

The article that YOU presented is THE VERY SAME ARTICLE that completely CONTRADICTS your ídiot Mr Dobson, FÓÓL.

Your ignorant misinformed notion of what YOU believe to be the inner mechanics of evolution is nothing more than the retárded musings of a stunt-witted cretin.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#480 Nov 17, 2013
trollslobber wrote:
<quoted text>
well the title of this thread is useless.
"NEANDERTHALS made WHITES more INTELLIGENT"......it's another attempt to distance whites from Africa. 1) whites mutated away from Africans (we all did) 2)NEANDERTHALS weren't really human 3)NEANDERTHALS was a extreme form of a recessive, "near human",
Type 3, aka rufous albinism.
Your no better than a 'broken record' of dim-witted assertions from the ineducable Afro-Jïggadi-ígnorant.

•••

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#481 Nov 17, 2013
Oooops, common typo = your =/= you're

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#482 Nov 17, 2013
trollslobber wrote:
<quoted text>
that troll 'barros' just wants meaningless interaction without linked proof. Tell that bastard to show linked proof.
YOU are nothing more than a completely mistaken arrogantly ignorant hypocrite.

You have yet to produce ANYTHING of ANY LEGITIMATELY RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC OR INCONTROVERTIBLE LOGICALLY COGENT NATURE.

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

WHERE'S YOUR LINKS!?

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?

No Afro-Fleebag-Blog will EVER do and no irrellevant or outdated garbage will ever be acceptable, FÓÓL.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#483 Nov 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Homo sapiens evolved in Ethiopia, dumbass. Lots of fish in the Ethiopian Highlands, boy?
Neandertalensis was a big-game hunter, mostly. They have been recently discovered to also have eaten fish and small game more than previously thought. They were adapted to their environment.
According to your idiotic assertions, as soon as humans left the coastal regions in Eurasia OR Africa, they'd have developed iodine deficiency. Yet we do not see this anywhere... not in China, India, South Africa, America, Siberia...
Dumbass.
There are Archaic Humans in Asia, Europe, Africa & elsewhere around the globe & many of them show signs of stunted growth, large brow ridges & other deficiencies related too diet. You on the other hand have no evidence of any transition. The fossil you claim which evolved into Sapiens did NOT evolve into Sapiens but co-existed with Sapiens. If these Archaic Humans are co-existing with Sapiens, this clearly highlights how slow evolution is NOT how fast.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#484 Nov 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong as always.
In fact, heidelbergensis in other parts of Africa (than where sapiens evolved) did NOT go extinct. They were still in W-Central Africa when your L2 sapiens ancestors migrated there and mixed with them, at some time after 50,000 years ago.
Neandertalensis and denisova persisted until out-competed by immigrating sapiens, and also to some extent mixed with the newcomers before disappearing as separate species.
Learn anthropology before babbling nonsense, boy.
Whether they became extinct or NOT isn't really the point. The Archaic Humans still co-existed with Sapiens so clearly Evolution is a much slower process. Plus Sapiens mating with them would have created hybrids scientists could mistake for transition.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#485 Nov 17, 2013
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
AAUUUGGGHHH, YOU FÚÇKING MÓRÓN,
The article that YOU presented is THE VERY SAME ARTICLE that completely CONTRADICTS your ídiot Mr Dobson, FÓÓL.
Your ignorant misinformed notion of what YOU believe to be the inner mechanics of evolution is nothing more than the retárded musings of a stunt-witted cretin.
Evidence shows Iodine & Omega 3 are important nutrients for Human development. If this wasn't TRUE, maybe I wouldn't agree with his theory. I don't believe Primates morphed into various species leading to Sapiens.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#486 Nov 17, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence shows Iodine & Omega 3 are important nutrients for Human development. If this wasn't TRUE, maybe I wouldn't agree with his theory. I don't believe Primates morphed into various species leading to Sapiens.
THE POINT, YOU TROLL ÁSS MÓRÓN, is that all of the scientific anthropological evidence clearly shows that the Neanderthals DID NOT SUFFER FROM any so-called CRETINISM, FÓÓL.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#487 Nov 17, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence shows Iodine & Omega 3 are important nutrients for Human development. If this wasn't TRUE, maybe I wouldn't agree with his theory. I don't believe Primates morphed into various species leading to Sapiens.
What an ignorant ineducable slip-witt does or does not believe is of no universal concern.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#488 Nov 17, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
There are Archaic Humans in Asia, Europe, Africa & elsewhere around the globe & many of them show signs of stunted growth, large brow ridges & other deficiencies related too diet. You on the other hand have no evidence of any transition. The fossil you claim which evolved into Sapiens did NOT evolve into Sapiens but co-existed with Sapiens. If these Archaic Humans are co-existing with Sapiens, this clearly highlights how slow evolution is NOT how fast.
No, dimwit, those characteristics are due to EVOLUTION not diet. Some tried this argument with floresiensis, that it was a diseased erectus or sapiens, but it doesn't work... the whole population is similar, and like neandertalensis and heidelbergensis, we see the morphology as being evolved to its environment, and consistent throughout their extensive range.
You're babbling. H. sapiens evolved from a local population of heidelbergensis in Ethiopia. Other heidelbergensis persisted elsewhere. Neandertalensis and denisova already existed, before sapiens.

Evolution can be slow or fast. Crocodilians were present in the Triassic. But sapiens is quite recent, and appeared relatively suddenly. You know nothing of evolution, obviously.

So.. what is your point? It would seem you are only babbling.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#489 Nov 17, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence shows Iodine & Omega 3 are important nutrients for Human development. If this wasn't TRUE, maybe I wouldn't agree with his theory. I don't believe Primates morphed into various species leading to Sapiens.
You don't know what the HELL you're talking about.

You are a primate, duh.

“Morphed”? The word is EVOLVED, dimwit.

Look up Australopithecus sediba. You think there are no transitionals, yet we have them in EVERY case. A. sediba is the transition to Homo. Then it would appear a mosaic evolution occurred among loosely-related sub-populations of early Homo, to whom we may end up giving the name erectus to every individual up to about 800,000 years ago, when we begin to see heidelbergensis. Over time erectus' brain increases in size, so that the latest erectus and the earliest heidelbergensis are very similar in that and other respects.

You know NOTHING about evolution.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#490 Nov 17, 2013
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
THE POINT, YOU TROLL ÁSS MÓRÓN, is that all of the scientific anthropological evidence clearly shows that the Neanderthals DID NOT SUFFER FROM any so-called CRETINISM, FÓÓL.
Neanderthals suffered from some kinda pathological condition once they begin living in HARSH environment. None of you can sit here & claim Humans can live in a HARSH environment & NOT suffer any pathological condition.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#491 Nov 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what the HELL you're talking about.
You are a primate, duh.
“Morphed”? The word is EVOLVED, dimwit.
Look up Australopithecus sediba. You think there are no transitionals, yet we have them in EVERY case. A. sediba is the transition to Homo. Then it would appear a mosaic evolution occurred among loosely-related sub-populations of early Homo, to whom we may end up giving the name erectus to every individual up to about 800,000 years ago, when we begin to see heidelbergensis. Over time erectus' brain increases in size, so that the latest erectus and the earliest heidelbergensis are very similar in that and other respects.
You know NOTHING about evolution.
Humans with pathological conditions due too diet or HARSH environment is a lot MORE logical and realistic than ur theories.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#492 Nov 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dimwit, those characteristics are due to EVOLUTION not diet. Some tried this argument with floresiensis, that it was a diseased erectus or sapiens, but it doesn't work... the whole population is similar, and like neandertalensis and heidelbergensis, we see the morphology as being evolved to its environment, and consistent throughout their extensive range.
You're babbling. H. sapiens evolved from a local population of heidelbergensis in Ethiopia. Other heidelbergensis persisted elsewhere. Neandertalensis and denisova already existed, before sapiens.
Evolution can be slow or fast. Crocodilians were present in the Triassic. But sapiens is quite recent, and appeared relatively suddenly. You know nothing of evolution, obviously.
So.. what is your point? It would seem you are only babbling.
And that is a MORE realistic argument IMO.
saythis

Howell, MI

#493 Nov 17, 2013
now say lets say man.. no racism..

And then people Are still born smarter for no reason..

I know a black guy who was born smart for no reason is probably smarter than all yall.. he's smarter than me for no reason..

he ain't smarter than me.. yall all are dumbasses I have no life and i read books all day..
saythis

Howell, MI

#494 Nov 17, 2013
I"m being smart on purpose.. just so i can beat other smart guys..

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#495 Nov 17, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans with pathological conditions due too diet or HARSH environment is a lot MORE logical and realistic than ur theories.
No, in fact it is absurd.

WHERE are neandertals who did not have a harsh environment and looked like sapiens? LOL... there were none at all. No sapiens in Europe until about 42,000 years ago.

A pathological condition affecting an entire population, which persisted thusly for 400,000 years? LOL!!

No, halfwit, if a species persists in a harsh environment it is by EVOLVING to that environment, as neandertalensis did, NOT by living for thousands of generations in a pathological condition!

DAMN you're ignorant!

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#496 Nov 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
No, in fact it is absurd.
WHERE are neandertals who did not have a harsh environment and looked like sapiens? LOL... there were none at all. No sapiens in Europe until about 42,000 years ago.
A pathological condition affecting an entire population, which persisted thusly for 400,000 years? LOL!!
No, halfwit, if a species persists in a harsh environment it is by EVOLVING to that environment, as neandertalensis did, NOT by living for thousands of generations in a pathological condition!
DAMN you're ignorant!
A specie does NOT evolve in a HARSH environment, they suffer in them. A natural environment is the environment ur most Healthy in. This is why I know Neanderthals were suffering when they were forced out of their Natural environment & had to retreat in a MORE HARSH environment. Species who are forced out their natural habitat by Humans either suffer or risk extinction unless they evolve into a different specie which is a very slow process. By this time, they would be on the brink of extinction.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/...

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#497 Nov 17, 2013
Neanderthal made whites less sociable.
trollslayer

Lansing, IL

#498 Nov 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL at your Afronazi mindset. Everything a non-Afronazi says is always based on some plot to demean africa and black people. Of course the notion of reaching conclusions based on EVIDENCE is foreign to you. You don't do that, and you can't imagine that anyone else does.
But, boy, the fact is that many of us rely on logic and science. We are not all like you, you racist scum, drawing conclusions based on racist presuppositions.
You racist piece of subhuman filth.
Boy.
LOL...you troll racist....you KNOW nothing of logic or science, which is why YOU NEVER POST LINKS. STFU

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Realtime 1,419,968
do all black women want mixed babies? 4 min BLM2016 9
Interracial relationships. Who does it AFFECT?... (Sep '15) 5 min KIP 72
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 8 min Curious Me 47,896
Do Black men like Asian girls? (Jul '13) 15 min Oh No You Di-nt 926
Why are black men so jelly of white men when th... 15 min He Dindu Nuffin 23
Trump will carry atleast 25% of the BLACK VOTE 16 min Trumping On MMXVI 271
Blue ivy is UGLY!!!! (Jul '13) 16 min Blkbeauty 59
49er QB Colin Kaepernick is WAKING UP 1 hr KIP 87
Why aren't there any Negroes in the Bible? 1 hr Michel Montvert 568
153 Years and Still Nothing??? 4 hr Trumping On MMXVI 54
More from around the web