Well, I thank you for that. Right or wrong, however; you must admit that it is you evolutionists and creationists who are compelled to agree with your respective "group", whereas we skeptics are simply thinking for ourselves. There is no pressure from any peer group encouraging skepticism.

Evolution is primarily based on the idea of species change over time based on some purely mechanical action. That requires some mechinism, which has not been demonstrated.

The mechanism is mutation and natural selection. We see it all around us every day. Who cannot see that White people are being selected against when they refuse, for job reasons or consumerism or whatever, to recreate their line by having children? Nature selects against feminism. The thing that evolution fails to explain is the beginning of life.

The mechanism is mutation and natural selection. We see it all around us every day. Who cannot see that White people are being selected against when they refuse, for job reasons or consumerism or whatever, to recreate their line by having children? Nature selects against feminism. The thing that evolution fails to explain is the beginning of life.

Yes. Good example. I hadn't gotten around to answering Chulthu yet. In fact, natural selection is clearly underway big time on the White race. When White women select, by their own volition, niggers to fuck and get impregnated by instead of MARRYING a superior White man and having his kids -- this is natural selection in action. And the result, if it continues, will be to change the characterisics of the White race, to niggerfy the White race -- with all that that implies.

Well, it's not fully natural selection -- it's really more artificial selection. The jews are acting as our God here -- or as our breeder. The jews have mixed their various herds together and are actively encouraging interbreeding. Under natural conditions in which White men control White nations, Heidi Blum would no more consider marrying and having the children of her 67 IQ African nigger than she would now consider marrying a gorilla and having its children (although who knows, she might be considering that, having gone half way there already).

Mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, artificial selection. Although the article says these mechanisms are not quite facts -- they're FACTS. Or, Chulthu, would you want to argue that these mechanisms don't change the genetic characteristics of a species. Go ahead, make my day.

Well, it's not fully natural selection -- it's really more artificial selection. The jews are acting as our God here -- or as our breeder. The jews have mixed their various herds together and are actively encouraging interbreeding.

Human culture does indeed add more variable into the genetic outcome because it does act like an overlord to the individual selectively breeding him into culturally induced categories, but broadly speaking, white women marrying and reproducing with niggers would probably be referred to as sexual selection. Natural selection and sexual selection are the two main mechanisms that Darwin spoke of as deciding which organisms are favored to survive over the long haul. Human culture obviously transcends much of this.

Human culture does indeed add more variable into the genetic outcome because it does act like an overlord to the individual selectively breeding him into culturally induced categories, but broadly speaking, white women marrying and reproducing with niggers would probably be referred to as sexual selection. Natural selection and sexual selection are the two main mechanisms that Darwin spoke of as deciding which organisms are favored to survive over the long haul. Human culture obviously transcends much of this.

Yes, that's right. I like your wording and point that culture acts like an overlord and hence (indirect) breeder. Forgot about sexual selection. Natural selection, sexual selection, mutations, genetic drift, artificial selection -- those are the mechanisms for evolution. Are there more, Imadrifter?

Mutations are too rare to even create a single new species, let alone create the infinite diversity of life on earth. You know this but continue to deny reality in favor of your darwinian religion.

Yes, that's right. I like your wording and point that culture acts like an overlord and hence (indirect) breeder. Forgot about sexual selection. Natural selection, sexual selection, mutations, genetic drift, artificial selection -- those are the mechanisms for evolution. Are there more, Imadrifter?

Not that I know of.

Mutations are too rare to even create a single new species, let alone create the infinite diversity of life on earth. You know this but continue to deny reality in favor of your darwinian religion.

I do not think mutations are all that rare. Take identical twins for instance. They are never completely identical. There is always some difference, i.e. some mutation taking place when the genes are copied.

Mutations are too rare to even create a single new species, let alone create the infinite diversity of life on earth. You know this but continue to deny reality in favor of your darwinian religion.

Not sure how rare minor mutations are, but major (monstrosity) mutations are rare. Mutations are only ONE of evolution's mechanisms. The others include natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, and (might as well throw this in here rather than having a separate category altogether) artificial selection (breeding, agriculture). Mutation would normally work in concert with other mechanisms.

A probable example would be how the White race and the mongoloid race got their white skin. No, Donger, scientists weren't there to observe this process, so scientists have had to use current knowledge of genetics plus current observations of natural selection plus some deductive reasoning. I've read two different possibilities for the change to white skin in the White race. One is that it happened about 200,000 years ago in the Caucuses, even before the creation (just joking) of homo sapien sapiens (modern man). The other that it happened recently, about 10,000 years ago in Europe and NE Asia. Very likely, mutations caused a genetic change for some individuals in the population, making their skin whiter: see the article below. Notice I didn't say the entire population of the future White race suddenly were mutated White on Christmas eve in the year 35,000 BC. No. Other evolutionary mechanisms would have been required.

Natural selection: there was and is a survival advantage to having white skin versus black or brown skin in wintry/cloudy environments: the production of vitamin D. In fact, niggers trying to live in North America, without our aid by putting vitamin D in their milk, would probably DIE OFF for lack of that necessary vitamin (promoting bone growth for their hard thick skulls where brains should be). In other words, the non-whites died off in the cold cloudy environments of Europe and northern Asia and the mutated lighter skinned individuals survived to produce similar offspring, increasing this characteristic.

Sexual selection was doubtless also involved: men have always preferred lighter skinned women. Getting lighter skinned women required lighter skinned women mating with light skinned (or men who had recessive genes for light skin) and having more light skinned baby girls and boys.

What more need be said? A damned good example of the mechanisms of evolution in action -- mutation, natural selection, and sexual selection. Three evolutionary mechanisms functioning together to evolve the marker characteristic of two new races (or varieties) -- of one new species, modern man.

Good example, Joseph and Cthulhu and Donger? Or, despite the overwhelming evidence and valid reasoning, do we need a different agency -- God? Problem with God creating the White race and the mongoloid race is that there is no known mechanism at all for His having done so? And when did he do it?

Is He still creating, by the way? He better -- because we're in the midst of a worldwide die-off of species right now. So we should witness a bunch of brand spanking new species creations any day now. Right -- Joseph and Cthulhu and Donger and Steve B?

It is futile to prove a fact made obvious through direct sensory observation. Taking into account views that present no POSITIVE backing is complete waste of time. Just like considering one's view that looking directly towards the sun corrects your cataract. What I'm saying is that rubbish belongs to the trash can...

Do you have any idea what the probability of such a thing actually taking place is? You are saying that two non-Whites were produced in the same locale and at the same time and both had an extremely rare mutation that left them with not only white skin, but also the ability to pass it on as an hereditary trait. These two one-in-a-million long shots then fell in love and started a family that, despite the intensive inbreeding, managed to maintain their robustness and grow to millions strong.

Amazingly, despite the much larger populations of non-Whites in existence now and since, this mutation of the genetic code never happened again.

Your entire theory is a religious one based on challenging the "other" dominant bullshit religious theory. To believe this, nonsensical impossibility you must have greater faith in your religion than does the pope in his.

Here's the supporting article. The anti-white PC'ing is truly hillarious. You'll enjoy this one.

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

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. [color="Red"][That is, skin color alone according to the jews = race.]

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. [color="Red"][This out of Afreeka theory is questionable from the standpoint of logic -- why would the intelligent/creative White race develop in tropical, no-challenge fucking Africa?] 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. [color="Red"][They're so so so worried. Mustn't let the White race begin to realize it's a race.]

In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being. [color="Red"][Uh oh, jews and lackeys. You let it slip that time. It takes ONLY ONE TINY GENETIC DIFFERENCE to make a MAJOR RACIAL EFFECT. In other words, your claim that race is a social construct because the genetic differences are so small -- is a GOD DAMNED LIE. Right, jews?]

"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," [color="Red"][oh for pitty's sake!] aid Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University [color="Red"][and a fucking jew], who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep." [color="Red"][Aaaaah, shad up, jew.]

The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.

The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.

Several sociologists and others said they feared that such revelations might wrongly overshadow the prevailing finding of genetics over the past 10 years: that the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within any single racial group. [color="Red"][Liars. Your entire article and the finding itself well illustrates that SMALL IS LARGE in genetics.]

Even study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races -- the most long-standing and inflammatory of those being intelligence. [color="Red"][Discredited by jews and you. "Do bad things"??!! You mean like the Holocaust?? Oh, horrors.]

"I think human beings are extremely insecure and look to visual cues of sameness to feel better, and people will do bad things to people who look different," Cheng said. [color="red"][Yeah, YOU are insecure that White people might look to visual cues of sameness.]

The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal Science, was an unexpected outgrowth of studies Cheng and his colleagues were conducting on inch-long zebra fish, which are popular research tools for geneticists and developmental biologists. Having identified a gene that, when mutated, interferes with its ability to make its characteristic black stripes, the team scanned human DNA databases to see if a similar gene resides in people.

To their surprise, they found virtually identical pigment-building genes in humans, chickens, dogs, cows and many others species, an indication of its biological value. [color="Red"][Gosh. Does that mean that humans are chickens and dogs? You don't mean to imply that humans are part of the animal kingdom, as distinguished from God's Angelic Kingdom -- do you?]

They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene. [color="red"][Wait a minute, idiot anti-white PC'ers. I thought there was only ONE race.]

Skin color is a reflection of the amount and distribution of the pigment melanin, which in humans protects against damaging ultraviolet rays but in other species is also used for camouflage or other purposes. The mutation that deprives zebra fish of their stripes blocks the creation of a protein whose job is to move charged atoms across cell membranes, an obscure process that is crucial to the accumulation of melanin inside cells.

Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.

A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest.

Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago. [color="Red"][Or out of somewhere -- like the Caucasus Mountains, for instance.]

Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.

Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin. In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin's ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes.

Today that solar requirement is largely irrelevant because many foods are supplemented with vitamin D. [color="red"][Yeah. What fools we Whites be.]

Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.

Cheng and co-worker Victor A. Canfield said their discovery could have practical spinoffs. A gene so crucial to the buildup of melanin in the skin might be a good target for new drugs against melanoma, for example, a cancer of melanin cells in which slc24a5 works overtime.

But they and others agreed that, for better or worse, the finding's most immediate impact may be an escalating debate about the meaning of race.

Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity. Yet geneticists' claims that race is a phony construct have not rung true to many nonscientists -- and understandably so, said Vivian Ota Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda. [color="red"][Your pants are on fire.]

"You may tell people that race isn't real and doesn't matter, but they can't catch a cab," Ota Wang said. "So unless we take that into account it makes us sound crazy." [color="red"][Oh, I see. Race is so inconsequential that it only counts in catching cabs. Do niggers catch cabs? Well, duh. At the point of gun. Nothing to do with race though. But wait. You said race did count in catching cabs. Guess you're right after all.]

"Or, Chulthu, would you want to argue that these mechanisms don't change the genetic characteristics of a species."

There is no change from one species into a new one incapable of breeding and having offspring with only themselves. Evolution would require such.

Now stop talking crap Devere. You are better than that. I have explained a position well considered and yet throughly IGNORED currently, people prefering that science knows best, or the God did it all route, neither of which I have suggested.

Read up on more outside your square or don't, see if I care but please stop pointing your finger at me and mistaking your finger for who I am.

It is futile to prove a fact made obvious through direct sensory observation. Taking into account views that present no POSITIVE backing is complete waste of time. Just like considering one's view that looking directly towards the sun corrects your cataract. What I'm saying is that rubbish belongs to the trash can...

I still have no idea what you're saying. Evolution is rubbish? Creation is rubbish? Both are rubbish?

Your entire theory is a religious one based on challenging the "other" dominant bullshit religious theory. To believe this, nonsensical impossibility you must have greater faith in your religion than does the pope in his.

And you have no theory whatsoever. Or do you? would love to hear it.