There is no fossil evidence of evolution. Saying there is proves that you are simply uninformed on the subject. It seems every theory proposed is proof to you.

The only reason you believe in evolution is because you have been told your whole life that it is a fact. This whole debate proves that even the racially conscious can be lemmings.

What an amazingly absurd statement! You keep saying this kind of stuff but never back it up with anything.

Given the amount of evidence -- fossil and otherwise -- for evolution, in order to disprove the theory of evolution, you'll have to go through this evidence and show the error. Moreover, you'll have to also show that the reasoning (the underlying premises) of evolution and its mechanisms are invalid.

Good luck.

The fossils of extinct critters as well as the so-called transitional fossils are proof of evolution to those of you who pre-believe in evolution and need something to back up your claim. To us skeptics, however; the extinct fossils may as well be proof of The Magic Pixie King having slain the wicked demons throughout history.

What did you think of the videos?

I believe evolution is real. Let's think about it in terms of a simple life form that breeds and dies quickly.

A virus, for example, might have a life span of 48 hrs or so. It seems that every time modern medicine comes up with a cure. The virus evolves into a hardier form of itself. This insures its survival. If it doesn't evolve, it dies. Our evolution is much slower, and takes thousands of years, but I do believe it is there.

How about man? The White man from the north, endured horribly cold winters. He had to get smart, and plan ahead, to insure his survival. Planting crops, building shelter,etc.

Do you think you could take a nigger from Africa, and put him in the north, and he'd survive? Of course not. This is why I consider niggers, to be a sub-species of man. Scientifically, I'm sure that holds true. their brains are smaller because they did not need to evolve, so it wasn't necessary.

I'd like to see a little more compelling evidence for you naysayers, to get me to think otherwise.

I believe evolution is real. Let's think about it in terms of a simple life form that breeds and dies quickly.

A virus, for example, might have a life span of 48 hrs or so. It seems that every time modern medicine comes up with a cure. The virus evolves into a hardier form of itself. This insures its survival. If it doesn't evolve, it dies. Our evolution is much slower, and takes thousands of years, but I do believe it is there.

How about man? The White man from the north, endured horribly cold winters. He had to get smart, and plan ahead, to insure his survival. Planting crops, building shelter,etc.

Do you think you could take a nigger from Africa, and put him in the north, and he'd survive? Of course not. This is why I consider niggers, to be a sub-species of man. Scientifically, I'm sure that holds true. their brains are smaller because they did not need to evolve, so it wasn't necessary.

I'd like to see a little more compelling evidence for you naysayers, to get me to think otherwise.

The evolution of the White race versus the evolution of the negro. Yes. This is, for us particularly, a compelling example. Why is the White man superior to the sub-human negro? How did that happen? Did "intelligent design" create a superior White race and an inferior negro race? Doesn't sound too intelligent to me. Why not just the superior race? Anyway, does "intelligent design" create races or species? A race is a variety within a species. Get your story straight. Evolution explains why there are both varieties and species and how varieties become eventually new species. In comparison, "intelligent design" (creationism) seems rather stupid.

Did "intelligent design" create a superior White race and an inferior negro race? Doesn't sound too intelligent to me.

Devere,

Take the hour to watch the video Joseph posted, even someone vehemently in favor of evolution should find reason to give pause.

Devere,

Take the hour to watch the video Joseph posted, even someone vehemently in favor of evolution should find reason to give pause.

I will for sure -- I've got to prioritize my time though. In the next few days, I'll take a look at it.

Question: Why would an "intelligent designer" create a nigger?

I will for sure -- I've got to prioritize my time though. In the next few days, I'll take a look at it.

Question: Why would an "intelligent designer" create a nigger?

I would have to guess that the DNA code was designed to create multiple bipedal types and sub types with the intelligent design goal being natural selection of whichever of those bipedal types and sub types proves itself to be the most worthy of survival.

I would have to guess that the DNA code was designed to create multiple bipedal types and sub types with the intelligent design goal being natural selection of whichever of those bipedal types and sub types proves itself to be the most worthy of survival.

Kinda sounds like evolution, to me.

Your ignorance of evolution is showing. It happened in tiny steps over a 3.5 BILLION year period. The mechanism was survival of the best adapted. A number of different shots at vision were taken -- as is evidenced by fish eyes, insect eyes, reptilian eyes, mammalian eyes. Some animals have reversed this evolutionary process and are losing their eyesight: moles, for example

Careful, &#8216]a number of different shots at vision were taken"

Behe would say: "the entire system must have appeared simultaneously & instanteously because it is irreducibly complex and requires a minimum functionality to be effective. You can’t have ‘half-blind’ creatures stumbling around. Natural selection would quickly cull them"

Also: they would say: that creatures 'losing their sight' is a result of harmful mutations that, while conferring a temporary advantage, offers no overall benefit!

Vision involves an irreducibly complex bio-chemical cascade: the smallest component of which, if missing, would cause catastrophic failure: the system is clearly operating algorithmically with various conditional sequences and sub-routines evident

Here is how Behe describes the mechanism:
"When light strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which re-arranges within pico-seconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it behaviour. Now caled metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called trandsucin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But, when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule caled GTP(closely related to but different from GDP) binds to transducin. GTP-transducin- metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP(a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP) Initially, there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell but the phosphodisterase lowers its concentrations, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bath-tub.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gate-way that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally, the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentarion of positively -charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an im-balance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain, The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision..
If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and sodium ions would quickly be depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its original state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark, the ion channel(in addition to sodium ions) also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein so that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channnel, calcium ion concentration decreases too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroy cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylated cyclase begin to re-synthesise cGMP when calcim levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarrhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So: the cell contains mechanism to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon. (in effect: ‘a power transistor’ mechanism....my cmmnts!)
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol—a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to from 11-cis-retinal, a cycle is complete"

As such: a neo-Darwinian explanation is clearly inappropriate to account for the origin(s) of such structured bio-chemical cascades.
Only three realistic options remain:
i/punctuated equilibria(wherein massive 'transformational or saltational jumps' are made between one state and the next)
ii/directed panspermia....or: 'evolution from space'
iii/direct intervention of intelligent entities to 'kick start' and/or 'guide' the entire cycle!

That's why i currently restrict my-self to 'arguing the obvious': such as race vis a vis Darwin's 'Descent' and Rushton's 'Race, Evolution and Behaviour'!

(jimbo!)

Kinda sounds like evolution, to me.

You should watch that video too.

I would have to guess that the DNA code was designed to create multiple bipedal types and sub types with the intelligent design goal being natural selection of whichever of those bipedal types and sub types proves itself to be the most worthy of survival.

Well, here's the definitive answer to your "intelligent (make that idiotic) designer": Whites are more WORTHY of survival than niggers. Had he listened to me, he could have saved himself and us and the world a lot of trouble and problems. Now -- thanks to the jews and, I guess, your Intelligent Designer -- we've got a BILLION sub-human, dumb, violent, disease-ridden niggers to deal with, destroying everything that comes within their reach -- including the African wildlife.

The Intelligent Designer sure made a retarded mistake there. Surely, one gazelle or leopard or laughing White baby is worth all the niggers in the world, wouldn't you say?

Well, here's the definitive answer to your "intelligent (make that idiotic) designer": Whites are more WORTHY of survival than niggers. Had he listened to me, he could have saved himself and us and the world a lot of trouble and problems. Now -- thanks to the jews and, I guess, your Intelligent Designer -- we've got a BILLION sub-human, dumb, violent, disease-ridden niggers to deal with, destroying everything that comes within their reach -- including the African wildlife.

The Intelligent Designer sure made a retarded mistake there.

We had the upper hand for years yet we kept them around.

No fault of the designer that we conquered the world and then gave it back.

Either nigs in their native habitat are fascinating and beautiful creations of nature, or they are our human competitors. If you believe they are ugly people. then you are an equality monger. Which is it? Do the nigs belong roaming the plains and jungles of the dark continent, along with their ape and hyena competitors, or do they belong in our cities competing with us for survival?

Either nigs in their native habitat are fascinating and beautiful creations of nature, or they are our human competitors. If you believe they are ugly people. then you are an equality monger. Which is it? Do the nigs belong roaming the plains and jungles of the dark continent, along with their ape and hyena competitors, or do they belong in our cities competing with us for survival?

Now (at last) you've made a good point -- assuming I understand your point. Niggers on their own -- unaided by our sanitation and cities and medication and schooling -- living as simple aboriginal humanish animals -- would be fine and even rather interesting ("fascinating and beautiful creations of nature" might be overstating it). Nature without White aid (plus black aids) would keep their population pared to a million or so. No problema. Then we could confine them to an African national park in Uganda, while we take over and save the rest of Africa and turn it into another wonderful White civilization.

(Just a brief and little daydream.)

If you've ever been to a zoo and watched the gorillas for a length of time, you'd have seen some pretty nasty behavior by human standards. Throwing feces, male aggression against females, etc. But they are magnificent animals if you take them for what they are. The most fascinating part being how much they remind us of ourselves. Now look at niggers, niggers are far superior to gorillas. Niggers can mimic human speech and other human behaviors, whereas a chimp can barely sign.

All the vitriolic hate for these animals is sorely misplaced. The hate belongs squarely on Whites - especially christians - and of course, our good friends the jews.