Are Asians/whites more evolved?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#818 Nov 8, 2011
RasTinny wrote:
That the theory of evolution, including common descent, is very well supported by the evidence is NOT in dispute by me. Told you before look for someone else to chat ya fukry to
Again,*what is your point*?(And what is it with this gibberish you seem so fond of?)
RasTinny wrote:
when it comes to Darwin you still wrote a bunch of fuckry like: "Darwin never claimed that whites and blacks were of different species"
The truth is of course that Darwin writes in his own words "I shd look at races of man as deserving to be called distinct species"
It does not matter which definition of species you use Darwin believed that races or species 'of man' were different.
Which they are, as they are of different populations that lived in different parts of the world, meaning that they had different combinations of alleles. So what?
RasTinny wrote:
"I didn't claim that it was unavoidable. But it was indeed normal, and it continues to this day."
I still disagree: Slavery remains widespread but it never was and never will be normal.
You can disagree all you like, but you can't dispute the facts. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "normal". Common. Typical. Usual. Crime is normal. Poverty is normal. It doesn't mean that either one is desirable. Apparently, you've confused the concepts of "normal" and "desirable".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#819 Nov 8, 2011
Yeah, it's not as if slaves could have children, right?
RasTinny wrote:
The children of slaves are free humans not slaves.
Not in the American antebellum South, they weren't. Have you bothered to read *any* history?
RasTinny wrote:
Are you a descendant of European slave drivers? You seem to share the same sick way of thinking
Being aware of history and failing to deny the historical facts does not make one "sick" in their thinking. Ignoring history and denying the historical facts, as you have done, does.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#820 Nov 8, 2011
RasTinny wrote:
Your statements about Maroons are incomplete
And my statements about Maroons would have meant the same thing if I had added French and Dutch to my list. But you attacked it because you couldn't attack the underlying point.

Since: Sep 11

United States

#821 Nov 8, 2011
One word Aztec
tryfe

Monticello, IN

#822 Nov 8, 2011
hel no they aren't.. are you fckin stupid??
tryfe

Monticello, IN

#823 Nov 8, 2011
YES you are..!!
tryfe

Monticello, IN

#824 Nov 8, 2011
you just had to post that after like a binge drink or some crap..

what is the probability that someone has posted something racists after doing

drugs or getting high.. not that high or not that low??

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#825 Nov 9, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no hierarchy there; he's merely saying he could imagine the "more civilized" humans destroying the "less civilized" humans. That's not a hierarchy, any more than saying the North beat the South in the American Civil War demonstrates a hierarchy, or the Russians invading Poland demonstrates a hierarchy, or the Germans killing the Jews demonstrates a hierarchy. Which population survives and which doesn't isn't a demonstration of hierarchy. But, maybe if you repeat your lie enough times, someone will believe you. At the very least, maybe you'll believe you.
Lol desperate... He duppy go and look at the only figure in On the Origin of Species and tell me of what it is. Yes... the one named nested HIERARCHY... Funny you must have never even seen the book...

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#826 Nov 9, 2011
"First, I never claimed that Maroons were *exclusively* from Spanish and Portuguese colonies."

Eh you wrote:

"The Maroons were runaway slaves from the Spanish or Portuguese colonies"

Lol sad... you forgot to write the 'exclusively' so yes you did... and again you were wrong. But your not going to admit it your going to try to worm your self out of it. NO YOUR WRONG Like you were wrong about DARWIN when you said that

"Darwin never claimed that whites and blacks were of different species"

The truth is of course that Darwin wrote in his own words "I shd look at races of man as deserving to be called distinct species"

Go and read the book first then come talk to me... bye

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#827 Nov 9, 2011
"First, I never claimed that Maroons were *exclusively* from Spanish and Portuguese colonies."

Eh you wrote:

"The Maroons were runaway slaves from the Spanish or Portuguese colonies"

Lol sad... you forgot to write the 'not exclusively' so yes you did... and... you were wrong. But your not going to admit it like a politician your going to try to worm your self out of it playing with words. NO YOUR WRONG Like you were WRONG about DARWIN when you said that

"Darwin never claimed that whites and blacks were of different species"

The truth is of course that Darwin wrote in his own words "I shd look at races of man as deserving to be called distinct species"

Go and read the book first then come talk to me... bye

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#828 Nov 9, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Again,*what is your point*?(And what is it with this gibberish you seem so fond of?)
<quoted text>
Which they are, as they are of different populations that lived in different parts of the world, meaning that they had different combinations of alleles. So what?
<quoted text>
You can disagree all you like, but you can't dispute the facts. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "normal". Common. Typical. Usual. Crime is normal. Poverty is normal. It doesn't mean that either one is desirable. Apparently, you've confused the concepts of "normal" and "desirable".
Are you still asking what my point is. Look you just quoted part of it yourself. I'll re quote the complete sentence lol

"The point I made about this is that: Most sustainable and enduring societies have a different philosophies about humans relating to each other but especially to their ecosystems which has produced different models of development than those applied by for example some Europeans and Egyptians. To learn about development and more sustainable models of development we should therefore look at what we can learn from not only the models of development but also the philosophies of people who have a record of sustaining human societies and ecosystems better than the currently dominant West."

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#829 Nov 9, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And my statements about Maroons would have meant the same thing if I had added French and Dutch to my list. But you attacked it because you couldn't attack the underlying point.
So you should have you did not... Your wrong try again. Your 'underlying' point that slavery was widespread was not even in dispute. You irrelevant and wrong. Bye...

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#830 Nov 9, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And my statements about Maroons would have meant the same thing if I had added French and Dutch to my list. But you attacked it because you couldn't attack the underlying point.
So maybe you should have added them but you did not... So you were wrong. Wrong... try again... By the way your 'underlying' point that slavery was widespread was not even in dispute. You irrelevant and wrong. Bye..

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#831 Nov 9, 2011
<quoted text>
So why do you choose to live in a Western society if you feel that other societies have a superior method of sustainment?
<quoted text>

Ah...I am a development educator so I teach sustainable development..It couldn't be more appropriate

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#832 Nov 9, 2011
RasTinny wrote:
"First, I never claimed that Maroons were *exclusively* from Spanish and Portuguese colonies."
Eh you wrote:
"The Maroons were runaway slaves from the Spanish or Portuguese colonies"
Which they were. That there were Maroons that were *also* from French or Dutch colonies does not change the underlying point. Because you could not attack the underlying point, you engaged in an irrelevant red herring attack.
RasTinny wrote:
you forgot to write the 'exclusively' so yes you did
I didn't "forget" to do anything. Now, are you going to continue with your red herring, or are you going to address the actual point?
RasTinny wrote:
NO YOUR WRONG Like you were wrong about DARWIN when you said that
"Darwin never claimed that whites and blacks were of different species"
The truth is of course that Darwin wrote in his own words "I shd look at races of man as deserving to be called distinct species"
Funny how I already responded to you on that by pointing out how you took it out of context. Yet you keep leaving out that context. Why is that?
RasTinny wrote:
Go and read the book first then come talk to me... bye
Go learn how to not take things out of context and how not to engage in silly red herrings, then come back.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#833 Nov 9, 2011
RasTinny wrote:
"The point I made about this is that: Most sustainable and enduring societies have a different philosophies about humans relating to each other but especially to their ecosystems which has produced different models of development than those applied by for example some Europeans and Egyptians. To learn about development and more sustainable models of development we should therefore look at what we can learn from not only the models of development but also the philosophies of people who have a record of sustaining human societies and ecosystems better than the currently dominant West."
What does *any* of this have to do with the modern theory of evolution?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#834 Nov 9, 2011
And my statements about Maroons would have meant the same thing if I had added French and Dutch to my list. But you attacked it because you couldn't attack the underlying point.
RasTinny wrote:
So maybe you should have added them but you did not
Again, as adding them would not be *relevant* to the underlying point, why are you arguing irrelevancies rather than the underlying point?
RasTinny wrote:
By the way your 'underlying' point that slavery was widespread was not even in dispute.
That wasn't the underlying point. The point was that the Maroons originated from slave-holding cultures.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#835 Nov 9, 2011
RasTinny wrote:
I am a development educator so I teach sustainable development..It couldn't be more appropriate
And how does the modern theory of evolution interfere with that?

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#836 Nov 9, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And how does the modern theory of evolution interfere with that?
I was NOT arguing the validity of the Evolution Theory. I largely agree with it. And I think I told you this before...Again you are arguing the wrong person if you are arguing about the validity of the evolution theory. I have never denied it. Which just underscores my point: you ask questions to make a point that is your own head not paying attention that the person you attach may even agree with the particular point. In fact my commend was not even addressed to you. You poked your nose into something you don't know shit about... Besides that though:'your point' about evolution has been made repeatedly, more eloquently and more convincingly by real Biologist. Your point is secondary school biology...It is not in question (by me anyway). I got 'your point' since secondary school. You really don't need to make it any more. I past my Biology paper more than 20 years ago.

Level 2

Since: Nov 10

Ireland

#837 Nov 9, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And how does the modern theory of evolution interfere with that?
I was NOT arguing the validity of the Evolution Theory. I largely agree with it. And I think I told you this before...Again you are arguing the wrong person if you are arguing about the validity of the evolution theory. I have never denied it. Which just underscores my point: you ask questions to make a point that is your own head not paying attention that the person you attach may even agree with the particular point. In fact my commend was not even addressed to you. You poked your nose into something you don't know shit about... Besides that though:'your point' about evolution has been made repeatedly, more eloquently and more convincingly by real Biologist. Your point is secondary school biology...It is not in question (by me anyway). I got 'your point' since secondary school. You really don't need to make it any more. I past my Biology paper more than 20 years ago. You and the other idiot Lowell guy...is that his name? and your endless questions and heaps of nonsense are pathetic. From your comments I know that neither one of ye have even seen or read a paragraph of any of Darwins writings. Ye did not even know the only picture in his most popular book...lol what a joke look ye really need to read a bit wider before poking your nose into peoples conversations...Off you go now

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min replaytime 67,322
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 6 min Subduction Zone 353
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Into The Night 28,678
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Subduction Zone 383
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 160,967
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr pshun2404 174
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr 15th Dalai Lama 3,538
More from around the web