Did our species evolve only in Africa? Some paleontologists do not accept the last stage in this story. They reject the Out-of-Africa theory that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa then migrated out, replacing earlier human species as it spread out over the face of the globe. Instead, they put forth a multi-regional proposal, sometimes called the Regional Continuity Theory. This theory proposes a single very early migration out of Africa to Europe and Asia, followed by two million years of evolution in place. African, European, and Asian lineages evolved separately, adapting to local conditions, yet all were linked evolutionarily by occasional migration. While distinct human races developed, the exchange of genes promoted by occasional migrants prevented major genetic differences from persisting, so no race was able to become a separate species. Eventually this evolving stream of populations became what we now recognize as Homo sapiens.
Who is right? One obvious way to sort out this problem without resorting to statistical shenanigans is to find enough genetic variation to make clear comparisons, and then ask if humans in Africa, Europe, and Asia have the same amount of it. Species accumulate genetic mutations over time, and if multi-regionalism is right, then humans in the three regions should have about the same amount. On the other hand, if our species originated only in Africa, and migrated out to Europe and Asia later, then you would expect that many more genetic mutations would have accumulated in Africa, for our species would have been there much longer.
This presents a significant problem in studying human evolution, as human species have evolved within the last two million years, too short a time to accumulate many gene differences (humans and chimps differ by less than 2% of their DNA).
The solution is to compare genes that evolve a lot faster than average ones. On the human chromosomes, certain genes evolve very fast indeed. A clear test of the multiregional proposal is possible using such highly variable portions of chromosomal DNA, as they provide a large number of "markers" to compare.
In 1996 a large team of scientists from six countries set out to settle the matter once and for all. They carried out a comprehensive study of DNA from human populations all over the world, analyzing two highly variable segments on chromosome 12. Sixteen hundred individuals were examined in 42 populations.
A total of 24 different versions of the two segments were found, each a different but related gene sequence. Fully 21 of them were present in African populations, while 3 were found in Europeans, and only 2 in Asians and in Americans.
Since DNA accumulates mutations over time, the oldest populations of humans should show the greatest number of genetic differences. This result thus argues forcefully that human chromosome 12 has existed in Africans far longer than among non-African humans. Said differently, the European and Asian humans haven't been around nearly as long as African ones. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Out-of-Africa theory was right all along.
While multi-regionalists still argue the point ferociously, the tentative consensus among evolutionary biologists is that our species evolved in Africa recently, and spread from there to the rest of the world, eventually replacing earlier human species in Europe and Asia. But according Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata, in their book "Where do we came from? The Molecular evidence for Human Descent" argue: "Scientists that believe in multi-regional theory have no problems to explain human genetic 10%-15% diferences because to them, biodiversity process beginned about 2 million years ago. The Homo Erectus settled lots of regions in that planet and there were time to get those biodiversity. Scientists that don´t believe in the multi-regional theory have some problems to explain all our biodiversity because according some accounts, all human variations probably would not appear in just 100,000 years. This would happened just if there were no mixing in our specie and this hypothesis is not so realistic.". We can say that lots of physical anthropologists note important similarities between the old "Pekin´s man" and certain Asian populations.
But are Neanderthals our cousins, or a separate species? DNA analysis of Neanderthal bones over 30,000 years old reveal that Neanderthals have quite different DNA than Homo sapiens, supporting the view that Neanderthals were a separate species. Their very distinct DNA also indicates that Neanderthals did not interbreed with the modern humans that began to supplant them about 50,000 years ago. Now comes the vituperous e mail mentioned at the outset of this article. Researchers studying a 25,000 year old Neanderthal jaw bone from Portugal reported this June that it contained a mix of modern human and Neanderthal traits, and concluded that humans and Neanderthals must have hybridized after all. Other researchers in a companion report criticized this conclusion as subjective and based on flimsy evidence, and the fray was joined. Who is right? I guess that Neanderthals let their genetic print in some European populations. Sometimes I get very sure about that when I see Oliver Khan
(German Goal kiper), lolololol...
This fuzzy picture, with conflicting ideas sticking out akwardly here and there, is the sort that excites scientists. Science at work is not pretty -- but it sure is fun.
Bruno!!!
SOME CREDITS FOR THE MULTI-REGIONAL THEORY...
39 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
SOME CREDITS FOR THE MULTI-REGIONAL THEORY...
by Bruno » Thu Sep 25, 2003 12:15 am
Once, there were the Beatles. And that's it.
-
Bruno - Caraíba
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:02 pm
- Location: São Paulo
by Brazuca » Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:59 pm
What's with all this "rssssss" business? Are y'all a bunch of Russian snakes or something? 
Brazil is a strategically important country in the escalating culture wars.
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
-
Brazuca - Jaci
- Posts: 6211
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:24 am
- Location: Austrialia del Espiritu Santo
Brazuca...
by Bruno » Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:28 am
No snakes, Brazuca... It just laughs...
So, tell me... what do you think about my post ??? Do you believe in the mukti-regional theory ???
Bruno!!!
So, tell me... what do you think about my post ??? Do you believe in the mukti-regional theory ???
Bruno!!!
Once, there were the Beatles. And that's it.
-
Bruno - Caraíba
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:02 pm
- Location: São Paulo
by Brazuca » Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:04 am
I thought you should have known by now. I don't believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Rssssssss!
Rssssssss!
Brazil is a strategically important country in the escalating culture wars.
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
-
Brazuca - Jaci
- Posts: 6211
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:24 am
- Location: Austrialia del Espiritu Santo
by Bruno » Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:32 am
Child's skeleton links Neanderthals to modern humans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The skeleton of a four-year-old child, who died some 24,500 years ago according to Oxford scientists, has produced new evidence to suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans did interbreed.
The discovery, made last November at the Abrigo do Lagar Vehlo in central western Portugal, also provides the first direct indication of an early member of our own species—Homo sapiens sapiens—in southern Iberia, a region for which the extinction of Neanderthals and colonisation of our own species is much debated.
The child's remains were found along with a shell pendant, the remains of a red deer placed above the child's shoulders, and the vertebral column of a rabbit placed on the child's chest.
Fragments from the bones, as well as a lump of charcoal from the same grave, have been dated by the University's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and a laboratory in Groningen. Results place the date of the burial between 24,000–25,000 years ago.
Dr Paul Pettitt, Senior Archaeologist at the unit and a Junior Research Fellow at Keble College, said: `The anatomical traits that are together characteristic of Neanderthals began emerging as early as half a million years ago, and are clearly in place by 100,000 years ago. They did not become extinct until long after our own species emerged some 100,000 years ago.
`Some scholars have suggested that they met and interbred, but until now this has remained pure speculation.'
The study of the anatomical features of the Lagar Velho child, by Professor Erik Trinkaus of Washington University, has yielded fascinating results. Certain anatomical features—such as the curvature of the long bones, tooth size, and proportions, and prominent chin align the child with Homo sapiens sapiens. But others, such as the stocky trunk, short limbs, and robust long bones are traits characteristic of Neanderthals.
Features of the child, including the jaw, teeth, and limb bones, exhibit a mix of European early anatomically modern human and Neanderthal features. The results are surprising as the burial dates up to 5,000 years later than the last known Neanderthals in the region.
`This demonstrates contact between Neanderthals and modern humans.' Dr Pettitt said.
`It also reveals the deep complexities of the Late Pleistocene emergence of our own species, and demonstrates that the simple replacement of archaic humans by moderns does not hold for this region.'
Bruno!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The skeleton of a four-year-old child, who died some 24,500 years ago according to Oxford scientists, has produced new evidence to suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans did interbreed.
The discovery, made last November at the Abrigo do Lagar Vehlo in central western Portugal, also provides the first direct indication of an early member of our own species—Homo sapiens sapiens—in southern Iberia, a region for which the extinction of Neanderthals and colonisation of our own species is much debated.
The child's remains were found along with a shell pendant, the remains of a red deer placed above the child's shoulders, and the vertebral column of a rabbit placed on the child's chest.
Fragments from the bones, as well as a lump of charcoal from the same grave, have been dated by the University's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and a laboratory in Groningen. Results place the date of the burial between 24,000–25,000 years ago.
Dr Paul Pettitt, Senior Archaeologist at the unit and a Junior Research Fellow at Keble College, said: `The anatomical traits that are together characteristic of Neanderthals began emerging as early as half a million years ago, and are clearly in place by 100,000 years ago. They did not become extinct until long after our own species emerged some 100,000 years ago.
`Some scholars have suggested that they met and interbred, but until now this has remained pure speculation.'
The study of the anatomical features of the Lagar Velho child, by Professor Erik Trinkaus of Washington University, has yielded fascinating results. Certain anatomical features—such as the curvature of the long bones, tooth size, and proportions, and prominent chin align the child with Homo sapiens sapiens. But others, such as the stocky trunk, short limbs, and robust long bones are traits characteristic of Neanderthals.
Features of the child, including the jaw, teeth, and limb bones, exhibit a mix of European early anatomically modern human and Neanderthal features. The results are surprising as the burial dates up to 5,000 years later than the last known Neanderthals in the region.
`This demonstrates contact between Neanderthals and modern humans.' Dr Pettitt said.
`It also reveals the deep complexities of the Late Pleistocene emergence of our own species, and demonstrates that the simple replacement of archaic humans by moderns does not hold for this region.'
Bruno!!
Once, there were the Beatles. And that's it.
-
Bruno - Caraíba
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:02 pm
- Location: São Paulo
by Brazuca » Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:48 am
Bruno wrote:Don´t you believe in evolution, Brazuca ??? And why not ??? religion ???
Religion is an inescapable concept. Everybody is religious. It is not a matter of whether one is religious or not but rather which religion it is to which one subscribes. Some are obviously more self-consciously religious than others; but either way, everybody is religious.
The theory of evolution by natural selection just isn't my religion. Evidently it's yours.
Brazil is a strategically important country in the escalating culture wars.
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
-
Brazuca - Jaci
- Posts: 6211
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:24 am
- Location: Austrialia del Espiritu Santo
by cman » Sat Sep 27, 2003 7:52 am
Along Brazuca's concept of everybody being religious is the idea that all people have to be able to explain how and why they are here. In order for western science to elevate themselves above other religions, they created this concept of scientific objectivity so when they float their own line out there, people are supposed to buy into it because they can some how prove what and the hell they are talking about.
-
cman - Juiz Aposentado
- Posts: 1931
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:46 am
- Location: U.S.
by Brazuca » Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:58 am
cman wrote:Along Brazuca's concept of everybody being religious is the idea that all people have to be able to explain how and why they are here. In order for western science to elevate themselves above other religions, they created this concept of scientific objectivity so when they float their own line out there, people are supposed to buy into it because they can some how prove what and the hell they are talking about.
Are you agreeing with me here or disagreeing with me here? :?
Brazil is a strategically important country in the escalating culture wars.
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon & Schuster (March 7, 2000)
-
Brazuca - Jaci
- Posts: 6211
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:24 am
- Location: Austrialia del Espiritu Santo
by um observador » Sat Sep 27, 2003 5:03 pm
Bruno, Brazuca and Cman:
Brazuca:
Whether cman agrees with you or not, he is correct. Mordern (western) science presumses this concept of "scientific objectivity". However, interesting enough, "scientific objectivity" is a natural outgrowth of a thiestic world view (shared by many religions Christianty, Judasim, Islam, and some others) that presums that the world is ordered because it was created by a reasonable logical God.
As I see it, the problem with scientific objectivity is no different with the problem that exists with all religions (in this fallen world). Those who use "scientific objectivity" it are often not scientificaly objective. Often, they are unable (or unwilling) to consider the significance of the belief system upon which their arguments are based.
Bruno:
Regarding your discussion of: "Out of Africa Theory" and the "multi-regional proposal". Both operate on the presumption that the distribution of occurrence of genetic mutations over time is known.
How does this relate to religion?
A common extension of the above presumption is that the cause of a particular mutation at a particular time can be inferred from the "known" distribution. In fact, most people go so far as to say that the distribution caused the event. This is the most common meaning of the words "random event." This, is common way of saying that the event happened for no reason.
There are some (i.e., Brazuca) who would argue that there has been no change in the human race over time. I do not fully understand the reasoning. However I think it based on a strict interpretation of the Bible.
There are others (i.e., me, An Observer) who argue that the human race may have changed over time due to genetic mutations. But I differ strongly with those who casually say that the distribution of mutations caused the mutation. When you think about it, even for a moment or two, it is clear that the individual mutations give rise to the observed distribution of mutations. Each mutation occurred for a specific reason. I may not know the reason. Possibly no one knows the reason except for an all knowing God. Yet I know that each event happened at a particular time for a particular reason. The event was either caused by the will of a being (human or otherwise), or it deterministically followed as a result of the willful acts of a being or multiple beings (human or otherwise).
Brazuca:
Whether cman agrees with you or not, he is correct. Mordern (western) science presumses this concept of "scientific objectivity". However, interesting enough, "scientific objectivity" is a natural outgrowth of a thiestic world view (shared by many religions Christianty, Judasim, Islam, and some others) that presums that the world is ordered because it was created by a reasonable logical God.
As I see it, the problem with scientific objectivity is no different with the problem that exists with all religions (in this fallen world). Those who use "scientific objectivity" it are often not scientificaly objective. Often, they are unable (or unwilling) to consider the significance of the belief system upon which their arguments are based.
Bruno:
Regarding your discussion of: "Out of Africa Theory" and the "multi-regional proposal". Both operate on the presumption that the distribution of occurrence of genetic mutations over time is known.
How does this relate to religion?
A common extension of the above presumption is that the cause of a particular mutation at a particular time can be inferred from the "known" distribution. In fact, most people go so far as to say that the distribution caused the event. This is the most common meaning of the words "random event." This, is common way of saying that the event happened for no reason.
There are some (i.e., Brazuca) who would argue that there has been no change in the human race over time. I do not fully understand the reasoning. However I think it based on a strict interpretation of the Bible.
There are others (i.e., me, An Observer) who argue that the human race may have changed over time due to genetic mutations. But I differ strongly with those who casually say that the distribution of mutations caused the mutation. When you think about it, even for a moment or two, it is clear that the individual mutations give rise to the observed distribution of mutations. Each mutation occurred for a specific reason. I may not know the reason. Possibly no one knows the reason except for an all knowing God. Yet I know that each event happened at a particular time for a particular reason. The event was either caused by the will of a being (human or otherwise), or it deterministically followed as a result of the willful acts of a being or multiple beings (human or otherwise).
-
um observador - Ceci
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:25 pm
- Location: aka Off_Broadway, Boston MA USA
by cman » Sat Sep 27, 2003 6:22 pm
Brazuca, I wrote my response like that because I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I agree with your point as I wrote it. How you define everyone being religious or how you distribute your value judgements might be different. However If what I wrote shows you that we agree on the point, then we can frame this point of agreement. 
-
cman - Juiz Aposentado
- Posts: 1931
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:46 am
- Location: U.S.
To everybody
by Bruno » Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:16 am
To everybody (Brazuca, Macunaíma, an oberver, cman...)
"Great.
Now the creationist has gotta have his say, too.
Hey folks! Whatever happened to science?" (Macunaíma)
Hey, Macu, a scientist can be a religious man... Science do not deny religion. There are lots of very famous religious scientists like Ramajandran, for example. Once a friend told me: "I´m not religious. I berlieve in science". Oh, science and religions are not oposite things, specially because science isn´t dogmatic. Science can´t deny god existence or deny the existence of life after death... But according to Lavoisier, energy is never lost... Just changed. A human being is pure energy. After death, this energy go to somewher, but it doesn´t desapear... The creationist can have their space too... in some american states, Darwin´s theory is forbidden in the clasrooms. it´s a very dumb thing, but we can´t be angry with a the creationist like Brazuca. I want to be a scientist one day and I´m catholic. Two diferent things.
"Bruno:
Regarding your discussion of: "Out of Africa Theory" and the "multi-regional proposal". Both operate on the presumption that the distribution of occurrence of genetic mutations over time is known.
How does this relate to religion?
A common extension of the above presumption is that the cause of a particular mutation at a particular time can be inferred from the "known" distribution. In fact, most people go so far as to say that the distribution caused the event. This is the most common meaning of the words "random event." This, is common way of saying that the event happened for no reason.
There are some (i.e., Brazuca) who would argue that there has been no change in the human race over time. I do not fully understand the reasoning. However I think it based on a strict interpretation of the Bible.
There are others (i.e., me, An Observer) who argue that the human race may have changed over time due to genetic mutations. But I differ strongly with those who casually say that the distribution of mutations caused the mutation. When you think about it, even for a moment or two, it is clear that the individual mutations give rise to the observed distribution of mutations. Each mutation occurred for a specific reason. I may not know the reason. Possibly no one knows the reason except for an all knowing God. Yet I know that each event happened at a particular time for a particular reason. The event was either caused by the will of a being (human or otherwise), or it deterministically followed as a result of the willful acts of a being or multiple beings (human or otherwise)." (an observer)
Nice words, man!!! A clear mind guy... Just one thing: Science says that all human beigs have a common descent. There is a father and a mother for al human beings. And bible says the same thing, with Noí© (I´m using the portuguese names). Noí© had 3 sons: Cam, Sem and Jafí©. Cam is the father of all african peoples. Sem is the father of all semitic peoples and Jafí© is the father of all European peoples. (Cam = Dark, black, ebony...., Sem = Olive, Jafí© = White or blond). Bible says that Gomer (Jafí©´s son) is the father of germans and scandinavians. Well, science showed us that both peoples had a common descent! Bible says that Javã (other Jafí©´s son) is the father of greeks and italians. Well science showed us thart greeks and italians are very closer to each other! Bible says that Isaac is the father of arab peoples and Ismael is the father of all jews... And both were brothers, both were Abraan´s sons! And again, sciensce confirmed bible: Arabs and jews are genetically very close to each other!! So, we can be a darwinist and a little creationists too... I´m not against you, Brazuca!!!
Bruno!!
"Great.
Now the creationist has gotta have his say, too.
Hey folks! Whatever happened to science?" (Macunaíma)
Hey, Macu, a scientist can be a religious man... Science do not deny religion. There are lots of very famous religious scientists like Ramajandran, for example. Once a friend told me: "I´m not religious. I berlieve in science". Oh, science and religions are not oposite things, specially because science isn´t dogmatic. Science can´t deny god existence or deny the existence of life after death... But according to Lavoisier, energy is never lost... Just changed. A human being is pure energy. After death, this energy go to somewher, but it doesn´t desapear... The creationist can have their space too... in some american states, Darwin´s theory is forbidden in the clasrooms. it´s a very dumb thing, but we can´t be angry with a the creationist like Brazuca. I want to be a scientist one day and I´m catholic. Two diferent things.
"Bruno:
Regarding your discussion of: "Out of Africa Theory" and the "multi-regional proposal". Both operate on the presumption that the distribution of occurrence of genetic mutations over time is known.
How does this relate to religion?
A common extension of the above presumption is that the cause of a particular mutation at a particular time can be inferred from the "known" distribution. In fact, most people go so far as to say that the distribution caused the event. This is the most common meaning of the words "random event." This, is common way of saying that the event happened for no reason.
There are some (i.e., Brazuca) who would argue that there has been no change in the human race over time. I do not fully understand the reasoning. However I think it based on a strict interpretation of the Bible.
There are others (i.e., me, An Observer) who argue that the human race may have changed over time due to genetic mutations. But I differ strongly with those who casually say that the distribution of mutations caused the mutation. When you think about it, even for a moment or two, it is clear that the individual mutations give rise to the observed distribution of mutations. Each mutation occurred for a specific reason. I may not know the reason. Possibly no one knows the reason except for an all knowing God. Yet I know that each event happened at a particular time for a particular reason. The event was either caused by the will of a being (human or otherwise), or it deterministically followed as a result of the willful acts of a being or multiple beings (human or otherwise)." (an observer)
Nice words, man!!! A clear mind guy... Just one thing: Science says that all human beigs have a common descent. There is a father and a mother for al human beings. And bible says the same thing, with Noí© (I´m using the portuguese names). Noí© had 3 sons: Cam, Sem and Jafí©. Cam is the father of all african peoples. Sem is the father of all semitic peoples and Jafí© is the father of all European peoples. (Cam = Dark, black, ebony...., Sem = Olive, Jafí© = White or blond). Bible says that Gomer (Jafí©´s son) is the father of germans and scandinavians. Well, science showed us that both peoples had a common descent! Bible says that Javã (other Jafí©´s son) is the father of greeks and italians. Well science showed us thart greeks and italians are very closer to each other! Bible says that Isaac is the father of arab peoples and Ismael is the father of all jews... And both were brothers, both were Abraan´s sons! And again, sciensce confirmed bible: Arabs and jews are genetically very close to each other!! So, we can be a darwinist and a little creationists too... I´m not against you, Brazuca!!!
Bruno!!
Once, there were the Beatles. And that's it.
-
Bruno - Caraíba
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:02 pm
- Location: São Paulo
Some Negroes facial features look like Gorillas
by I hate dumb mofos » Sun Sep 28, 2003 3:59 am
it's a goddam fact, mofos, pc or not. and i said 'some'.
no boubt some asswipe pc-bitch will find some spelling error or some shit - nowt to do all fkin day but live on 'da internet'.
observations: big lips, wiiidde nostrils, enlarged occiptal bone of skull, bulging forehead, potruding eyes, o yah its also black
LMFAO
ps now wheres dat skiiny midget nigga spinaloony?
which of his 3 posts (he's only got 3) will he choose to respond with?
1 shade of black - naming various famous blacks
2 what type of woman do you prefer to f**k? black or white
3 some other shit
why isnt he like his friends:
1 selling crack
2 in prison (can they access internet in prison these days?)
3 pimping his momma and sistahs for 50c (geddit?) on da street
LOLOL
ps i'll beat dat dumb mofo asswipe black & blue (can he get darker?) like de father he never had. bitch ran away from his momma when he saw spinaloonys face, LOL.
no boubt some asswipe pc-bitch will find some spelling error or some shit - nowt to do all fkin day but live on 'da internet'.
observations: big lips, wiiidde nostrils, enlarged occiptal bone of skull, bulging forehead, potruding eyes, o yah its also black
LMFAO
ps now wheres dat skiiny midget nigga spinaloony?
which of his 3 posts (he's only got 3) will he choose to respond with?
1 shade of black - naming various famous blacks
2 what type of woman do you prefer to f**k? black or white
3 some other shit
why isnt he like his friends:
1 selling crack
2 in prison (can they access internet in prison these days?)
3 pimping his momma and sistahs for 50c (geddit?) on da street
LOLOL
ps i'll beat dat dumb mofo asswipe black & blue (can he get darker?) like de father he never had. bitch ran away from his momma when he saw spinaloonys face, LOL.
Sorry the truth hurts, mofo.
Ain't nothin' but Niggering down...
Ur still and always will be my Bitch.
I'm ur Daddy yo.
Dont be Niggering..
Ain't nothin' but Niggering down...
Ur still and always will be my Bitch.
I'm ur Daddy yo.
Dont be Niggering..
-
I hate dumb mofos - Deputado/a Estadual
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:23 am
Re: To everybody
by um observador » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:48 am
Bruno wrote: ..........
Nice words, man!!! A clear mind guy... Just one thing: Science says that all human beigs have a common descent. There is a father and a mother for al human beings.
most evidence supports this theory.
Bruno wrote:
And bible says the same thing, with Noí© (I´m using the portuguese names). Noí© had 3 sons: Cam, Sem and Jafí©. Cam is the father of all african peoples. Sem is the father of all semitic peoples and Jafí© is the father of all European peoples. (Cam = Dark, black, ebony...., Sem = Olive, Jafí© = White or blond). Bible says that Gomer (Jafí©´s son) is the father of germans and scandinavians. Well, science showed us that both peoples had a common descent! Bible says that Javã (other Jafí©´s son) is the father of greeks and italians. Well science showed us thart greeks and italians are very closer to each other! Bible says that Isaac is the father of arab peoples and Ismael is the father of all jews... And both were brothers, both were Abraan´s sons! And again, sciensce confirmed bible: Arabs and jews are genetically very close to each other!! So, we can be a darwinist and a little creationists too... I´m not against you, Brazuca!!!
Bruno!!
Darwinists and Creationist at the same time? I have no problem with that. Provided your definition of Darwinism is not the common illogical babble pushed by most who use the word Darwinism.
If your brand of Darwinism presumes that all events are caused by the will of beings (human or otherwise) or are deterministic result of the will or wills of beings (human or otherwise), I agree with you.
If your brand of Darwinism presumes that events are caused by an observed distribution, you have things backwards. And I disagree with you.
The observed distribution is caused by the events, the events follow deterministically from will (human or otherwise).
-
um observador - Ceci
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:25 pm
- Location: aka Off_Broadway, Boston MA USA
Re: Some Negroes facial features look like Gorillas
by Marina » Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:59 am
I hate dumb mofos wrote:it's a goddam fact, mofos, pc or not. and i said 'some'.
no boubt some asswipe pc-bitch will find some spelling error or some shit - nowt to do all fkin day but live on 'da internet'.
observations: big lips, wiiidde nostrils, enlarged occiptal bone of skull, bulging forehead, potruding eyes, o yah its also black
LMFAO
ps now wheres dat skiiny midget nigga spinaloony?
which of his 3 posts (he's only got 3) will he choose to respond with?
1 shade of black - naming various famous blacks
2 what type of woman do you prefer to f**k? black or white
3 some other shit
why isnt he like his friends:
1 selling crack
2 in prison (can they access internet in prison these days?)
3 pimping his momma and sistahs for 50c (geddit?) on da street
LOLOL
ps i'll beat dat dumb mofo asswipe black & blue (can he get darker?) like de father he never had. bitch ran away from his momma when he saw spinaloonys face, LOL.
Where you been, Towellie?
Shove it!
-
Marina - Jaci
- Posts: 6438
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 12:45 am
- Location: no fim do mundo
Oberser...
by Bruno » Sun Sep 28, 2003 3:51 pm
My brand of Darwinism presumes that all events are caused by the will of beings or are deterministic result of the will or wills of beings, Oberver... So I can be Darwinist and Criationist at the same time...
But even if I tough in other ways, I think that I could still be Darwinist and Criationist. Science hasn´t the power to nulify religion. I´m catholic and I want to be scientist when I finish the University...
Science and religion can´t nulify each other... And I think that science and ideology need to be very, very far to each other ( don´t you think, Macucu ???
)
Bruno !!!
But even if I tough in other ways, I think that I could still be Darwinist and Criationist. Science hasn´t the power to nulify religion. I´m catholic and I want to be scientist when I finish the University...
Science and religion can´t nulify each other... And I think that science and ideology need to be very, very far to each other ( don´t you think, Macucu ???
)Bruno !!!
Once, there were the Beatles. And that's it.
-
Bruno - Caraíba
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:02 pm
- Location: São Paulo
39 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Translated by Maël Soucaze © 2009 phpBB.fr
Visit Brazzil
Brazil / Organic personal skin care wholesale / Brazil
Translated by Maël Soucaze © 2009 phpBB.fr
Visit Brazzil
Brazil / Organic personal skin care wholesale / Brazil