Obscuring EVOLUTIONARY racist extremism

or ,, A classic example of Acadaemic Absurdity asserting it's asinine inane ideology is sound logic and proven theory.

Okay,,ol' moneil from the excite forums can't seem to say much for his/her self but instead likes to just post the words of others so I figured that this one should get a point by point like any other 'personal viewpoint' offered up on the boards.

You can find the original thread here:


Okay,,since you insist on using others words,,I will treat your ccp as though it were your words mo-kneel.

Naturally,,doing that makes for a large response,,which will finish in the staks:

~People are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, with residents of various continents becoming increasingly different from one another, researchers say.~

Perhaps this is an erroneous conclusion brought about due to:

~"I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed," explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. "The opposite seems to be true."~

Since such would not have had the balancing effect of 'a possibility' science could be wrong being taaught along with the theories and data provided by science seeking truth,not presuming truth.

Here look,,,

~If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found.~

The fact that there are fewer chages than they 'presume' should be there could be due to other reasons.


a.The chimp-human differences do not indicate what they presume it does.

b.The alledged split doesn't exist or did not occur when they presume it did.

But the point is,,if they start examining anything from a base which is 'fatally flawed' logically by NOT holding high the precept that untill a thing is CONCLUSIVELY proven,,science does not say it is true and accurate,,they will NOT come to a factually accurate conclusions since any thing less would be 'biased' or 'a presumptuous conclusion' as in 'premature'.

Now,,here,,let me point out how the 'eugenics' of all this may work into someones mind and cause 'racist flavored' conclusions and beliefs that can remain hidden conveniently behind the 'eu-genetics' of it all:

Remember though,,all that this is evidence of is ONLY micro-evolution,,there are no 'phylum changes' being mentioned in any form nor fashion.

~And they found that different changes are occurring in Africans, Asians and Europeans.

Most anthropologists agree that humans first evolved in Africa and then spread to other areas, and the lighter skin color of Europeans and Asians is generally attributed to selection to allow more absorption of vitamin D in colder climate where there is less sun.~

I like how he used,,'most',,that conveniently presumptuously discredits any dissenting report,,without out even recognising it.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html *

* By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, December 16, 2005; A01

Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.*

Which increases the light of credulity shining on the accounts in certain 'old books' from a certain 'peoples' that say just such a thing,,there was Adam (mankind),,and it was good,,then he made Ha-Adam,,then told a story about eth Ha-Adam,,The Man Adam and his progeny.But,,of course,,THAT'S religion and faith based with no verifying evidence provided by science,,right?

Yet regardless,,they are misapplying what they wish to present as new knowledge when old knowledge,,such as 'husbandry' or 'galapagos galvanisation' allready adequately describes and validates the 'alledged new info'.

~The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because "we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt," Harpending adds. "And with a larger population, more mutations occurred."~

That is equally an indication of 'inbreeding',,which is what Darwin observed on the Galapogos cluster,,and equates to 'microevolution',,and only produces variations within a species,,not the 'disputed form called macro' which produces a 'new phylum'.


cont: in the staks v2: http://royharbin.tripod.com/staks/evilutinary_science_swerve.html


~In another example, the researchers noted that in China and most of Africa, few people can digest fresh milk into adulthood. Yet in Sweden and Denmark, the gene that makes the milk-digesting enzyme lactase remains active, so almost everyone can drink fresh milk, explaining why dairy farming is more common in Europe than in the Mediterranean and Africa, Harpending says.~

This in no way takes into account that those very qualities are quite common in the white gene packs,,the group heavily influenced by certain old teachings found in an old book.

And it doesn't seem to be a consideration unless you factor in the 'timing' involved.

Did you notice,,their examples were 'a little in China,,a lot in Africa,,and two known very white white populations that are not so JudeoChristian in the eyes of the world?

(Why no mention of the 'great melting pot' as a representative element for 'the mixing' except for a notoriously inbred group?)

~The researchers studied 3.9 million gene snippets from 270 people in four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba tribe and Utah Mormons who traced their ancestry to northern Europe.~

And this is,,IMHsmellyO,,a blatant act of allowing the 'assumption' to fly since it suits the persons agenda in regards to their over laying 'belief system',,the same the fella said he has reason to now doubt.

~Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he thinks the researchers reasoning regarding rapid adaptive change is plausible.~

And did you see the 'disclaimer' that 'legalistically' untethers the assumption the statement is meant to lead YOU to?


Just like a 'pharisee' would work something.

~The study mainly points to an overall expansion in the human population over the past 40,000 years to explain the genetic data.~

Yeah,,and it started right after 'A BIGASS Flood'.

That's equally 'plausible',,ain't it?

Now this just points out the inherent nature of humans to 'group according to kind':

~"Yet the archaeological record also shows that humans increasingly divided themselves into distinct cultures and migrating groups ? factors that seem to play only a small role in their analysis. Dividing the human population into finer units and their movement into new regions ? the Arctic, Oceania, tropical forests, just to name some ? may have also forced quicker adaptive evolution in our species," Potts said.~

Did you catch:

~seem to play only a small factor~


~may have also ~


Here,,the fellow actually comes close to revealing some of the secret knowledge his Acadaemic Class really don't want revealed:

~Potts, who was not part of the research team, added that he liked the report "because it points to how genetic data can be used to test a variety of ideas about recent human adaptation."~

He didn't really complete the statement,,he should have told the truth,,

Like this:

He liked the report "because it points to how genetic data can be used to test a variety of ideas about how to manipulate the understandings of evidence disrupting the 'darwinistic concepts' account of human evolution on the general public.

And just to drive the 'manipulated info' even deeper into the readers psyche,,,they gibe ya this:

~Two years ago Harpending and colleague Gregory M. Cochran published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews ? those of northern European heritage ? resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors.~

This seems to be a 'directly intentional' attempt to buttress many 'racists' views against 'the jew',,which is a sterotypical catch all phrase for any Israeli Hebrew

(Don't say if they use a racist term for themselves that other races can use it,,ref:'nigger')

Which,,as far as I can see,,is an unintended,,'by them',,confirmation that 'similsexuality' and other 'behaviours' is a result of choice not just genes if allowed.

Now,,look at this clincher:

~Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes, they suggested. ~

This lends validity to many 'white supremacists' ideological assumptions,,doesn't it?

After all,,they say that the white race is more suitable to 'rule' because they are smarter,,right?

And the 'other minority groups' consistantly say the 'whites' are allways 'subjegating' other colored folks,,right?

Well,,that's what this article says as well when it said what it did.

Of course,,they 'only suggested it',,right?

~That evolution also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.~

Again,,the info says more than that,,it also says that aberrant behaviour is equal to such a 'genetic malady' if a certain race has instituted behaviour to the point where it becomes 'a genetic trait'.

So that means,,with out a doubt that,,if a culture eradicates such as behave undesirably then,,

'these things shall cease from amongst' them by removing them from the breeding populations 'gene pool' .

Doesn't it?

Or do you only see what fits your 'desired conclusion'?

Of course I am not surprised at the way the study is presented since:

~The new study was funded by the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Aging, the Unz Foundation, the University of Utah and the University of Wisconsin.~

Big surprise,,right?

With all due respect to all on this planet,,

The DANG-DInGIE American

aka,, The Evil White Man







roy harbin is roy l.harbin aka,,the dang-dingie american aka,,the evil white man