Since when did blasphemy become the standard in hip hop?
Options
Comments
-
For clarity and to eliminate the ? , we are dealing with the biological definition of evolution #3....
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Exactly. As stated previously:
Natural Selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution
BTW, It's well known that speciation occurs by way of genetic changes.
new species can emerge if genetic change occurs, as by mutation or gradual accumulation of the "right" genes that make the descendants fit for an available niche.
http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/ecosystems/module_1/whyitmatters2.htm
So,
Darwinism: The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin
Evolution: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earthYour theory answers no questions relating to the biological definition of evolution #3.......
So if you can prove how "flora and fauna evolving and changing over time" in relationship to definition #3 and not the obvious connection to #1 & 2......
Feel free, but all of that fossil ? is not "proven" or "factual" and is old news in the realm of creation and evolution research.....
You cannot say that it has not been proven by simply denying hard evidence. Evolution answers the questions posed in relation to the definition of number 3; I'm not seeing how you would think otherwise.“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
In the same article you posted:
The authority that DNA has earned through its use in freeing falsely convicted inmates, preventing disease and reconstructing family ties leads people to wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-
So.....
Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth, formulated by Charles Darwin aka Darwinism.....
As I stated eariler....
"all of that fossil ? is not "proven" or "factual" and is old news in the realm of creation and evolution research"
You keep posting that old ass blanket statement from the human genome project
Get with the new ? ? .....
Typical Darwinist response.....
If the research does not correspond with the theory.....
Ignore it or call it junk....
My research contradicts your assumption that " no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another"......
So address the info or stop posting your old ass links.......
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=allShiveDreadz wrote: »True
Word ? ....
-
I didn't ignore anything. I posted that again to prove to you the opposite and I read your article and posted an exerpt from it. Here it is again:
The authority that DNA has earned through its use in freeing falsely convicted inmates, preventing disease and reconstructing family ties leads people to wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Basically, you read the article wrong. And I provided that link that you keep ignoring so you can see clearly and hopefully get the ? straight. You gon have to find a new angle, brother man cuz yo ? don't add up. -
If the research does not correspond with the theory.....
Ignore it or call it junk....
Which is what you creationists do with fossil evidence that is very factual and is in fact proven.So.....
So.... we agree to what evolution is and we agree that it is true and factual, just as your man True Flesh stated:The True Flesh wrote: »I see evolution for what it is, adaptations and mutations are very observable thus making "evolution" as a whole true and scientific.
The only hangup you have is with racists using the theory of evolution against you but the problem is, they are basing their racist ideas off of falsehoods.
-
That is one snippet of the article......
The gif I posted illustrates how large the 1% difference is between humans......
And I already explained how large the 2% difference is between humans and chimps.......
You just have a limited understanding of genetics and DNA research......
I see why you cling to the broken fossil record....
So in layman's terms.....
just because genetic structures can be nearly identical.....
Does not mean that they are.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=all
-
That is one snippet of the article......
The gif I posted illustrates how large the 1% difference is between humans......
And I already explained how large the 2% difference is between humans and chimps.......
Yeah, that's one snippet of the article but like you say, a small percentage can make a big difference.
Let's say I author an autobiography. It's a completely false account of my life. People may believe it to be true if I don't write somewhere in the book: Everything stated in this book is not true, or something to that effect. One sentence in a book regardless of size can make all the difference.
Your own article agrees with me and is showing how
people wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Context, my brother, context.
The truth is that
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
That 1% you continue to harp on explains, like your picture says, things like the production of skin pigments and the reduced ability to sweat and corresponds with the article I posted that says that people who live in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common. Like I've been trying to tell you this entire time I've known you online, "NO ALLELE WILL BE FOUND IN ALL MEMBERS OF ONE POPULATION AND IN NO MEMBERS OF ANY OTHER". All humans are the same species -
? please......
That snippet does not even prove ? except the dangers of using genetic research for social issues.......aka. Social Darwinism
Don't put words in my mouth ? ....
I stated that the universe could be described as in the definition for evolution #1 & 2.....
Not # 3....
1. Any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. A product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
-
We're talking about biological evolution, which was #3For clarity and to eliminate the ? , we are dealing with the biological definition of evolution #3....
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »
Which I also stated was false and unproven -
The 1% that I "harp on" describes racial differention....
? -
-
I posted a pic for ? with low reading comprehension skills.....
It is all the "proof" that you need -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »
Which I also stated was false and unproven
You saidEvolution = change over time..... undeniable...
Evolution of species deals with a specific change, genetic changes over time. Genetic changes can trigger speciation, which is the emergence of a new species. This is equally undeniable, again, like you said. -
I posted a pic for ? with low reading comprehension skills.....
It is all the "proof" that you need
Man the picture accounted for ? we already been over. Read again.Roots Oceanic wrote: »Your own article agrees with me and is showing how
people wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Context, my brother, context.
The truth is that
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
That 1% you continue to harp on explains, like your picture says, things like the production of skin pigments and the reduced ability to sweat and corresponds with the article I posted that says that people who live in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common. Like I've been trying to tell you this entire time I've known you online, "NO ALLELE WILL BE FOUND IN ALL MEMBERS OF ONE POPULATION AND IN NO MEMBERS OF ANY OTHER". All humans are the same species
-
In case you missed it,
People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
..specifically those examples that your picture talks about.
But then,
no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
-
Don't put words in my mouth ? ....
I said.....Public Service Announcement for dumb ? ......
Your theory answers no questions relating to the biological definition of evolution #3.......
However the development of this universe can be described as evolution # 2......Roots Oceanic wrote: »DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans.
However new research shows that.....Roots Oceanic wrote: »Evolution of species deals with the emergence of a new species.
LOL..... -
Either you're trolling or your beliefs are clouding your vision. Everything already said is what I'd say again. You're misreading your information. Go over what we talked about and we can discuss it later when you finally realize you just lost this debate. My shift is over anyway. I'll hit this thread up again, though. Peace.
-
LOL....
I think you are a little too slow to comprehend this material during your "shift".......
So now that you have finished making fries, you might finally realize that you lost this debate twice.......
And then, as usual find another thread to spread your ? in.......
http://youtu.be/6PQ6335puOc -
Les walk step by step thru this so you can maybe have a better understanding.
1. We'll start with your picture since thats what you want to keep referring to. It says that people of different geographic regions share genetic similarities, accounting for the difference between people in different continents/locations.
2. Your article then goes on to say that people wrongly use genetics as a primary explanation for differences between people of different geographic regions. The article shows why people do that and gives the alternative answer. If you need help interpreting the article, let me know.
3. My article agrees and says that we do see small genetic differences, that 1 to 2% you keep talking about, in people who have lived in the same geographic region for a long time. However, DNA studies do not show that there are seperate classifiable subspecies in modern humans.
4. Basically, what your article is trying to tell you, and its soaring over your head, and my article puts down bluntly is that the differences in people of different geographic regions is not because of race, which technically does not exist but because of other influences. Remember that not everyone in africa is black and not everyone in asia is yellow. -
And as far as speciation is concerned, you already admitted that evolution by way of change is undeniable. Just like anything else, changes can occur in genes and when this happens, it can prevent one group from interbreeding with another, unable to successfully produce fertile offspring. If that happens, they become seperate species and then as they continue to travel down their evolutionary pathways, one may physically become very different from the other, like lions and tigers, more recent examples being mojavensis and arizonae. So, the pics are indeed there. All that is left for you to do is look at them and study the scientific classifications and taxonomy.
-
? is a marketing and brainwashin tool and in the industry you start to realize it first hand
going over contracts and signing your literal life away
-
thedesolateone wrote: »? is a marketing and brainwashin tool and in the industry you start to realize it first hand
going over contracts and signing your literal life away
That's one of the most ignorant ? I ever heard those christian and Catholic churches got yall buggin -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Les walk step by step thru this so you can maybe have a better understanding.
1. We'll start with your picture since thats what you want to keep referring to. It says that people of different geographic regions share genetic similarities, accounting for the difference between people in different continents/locations.
In other words it illustrates new research that can classify humans by their country of origin / race through DNA....Roots Oceanic wrote: »2. Your article then goes on to say that people wrongly use genetics as a primary explanation for differences between people of different geographic regions. The article shows why people do that and gives the alternative answer. If you need help interpreting the article, let me know.
It also illustrates how this information could be dangerous if misused.....
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”Roots Oceanic wrote: »3. My article agrees and says that we do see small genetic differences, that 1 to 2% you keep talking about, in people who have lived in the same geographic region for a long time. However, DNA studies do not show that there are seperate classifiable subspecies in modern humans.
Your article suggests that because humans are 99% genetically similar, there is no reason to classify different races....
Perhaps you should research into the 1% before assuming that it is not enough to classify human by their race or country of origin.....Roots Oceanic wrote: »4. Basically, what your article is trying to tell you, and its soaring over your head, and my article puts down bluntly is that the differences in people of different geographic regions is not because of race, which technically does not exist but because of other influences. Remember that not everyone in africa is black and not everyone in asia is yellow.
Basically, what you need to do is provide some type of evidence that the genetic information located in the 1% is not enough to classify humans by their country of origin / race......
And then provide some evidence for this incredible claim......Roots Oceanic wrote: »Evolution of species deals with the emergence of a new species.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »And as far as speciation is concerned, you already admitted that evolution by way of change is undeniable. Just like anything else, changes can occur in genes and when this happens, it can prevent one group from interbreeding with another, unable to successfully produce fertile offspring. If that happens, they become seperate species and then as they continue to travel down their evolutionary pathways, one may physically become very different from the other, like lions and tigers, more recent examples being mojavensis and arizonae. So, the pics are indeed there. All that is left for you to do is look at them and study the scientific classifications and taxonomy.
We already did this one B.....
You have no proof of any living creature evolving into another or different species, which is vital to establishing your theory of evolution.....
http://youtu.be/1AMrWRizlD8
-
The more I directly experience the spiritual realm and see undeniable physical effects, the funnier discussions like this become. Everybody reap what they sow, so if a ? wanna step on toes... I'm cool with it...cause they aint my toes. 10 times out of 10 they kick themselves in the ass with that same foot. As far as framing the very real errant forms of esoteric knowledge i.e. the "Illuminati" vs Christianity.. that ? is the biggest joke of all. Classic example of Hegelian dialectic. Two sides of the same coin. I dont listen to nobody talking ? if theyre in my face so Ill be damned if I willingly download an album or buy a physical CD to hear it. 90% of popular rap doesn't need a ? throwing up hand signs or using religious figures or books as the ass of their punchlines to be considered blasphemous. Most of the stuff is just negative...period. So I dont listen...... ? 'em. Its not like they have to answer to me for what they was big and bad enough to say. I know whats real and I put in my work to know. Most ? dont...they just be riffing. Let the dead bury the dead I say....
For my real ones.. ? arguing with these stupid ass meat bags. They cannon fodder. Go cop you some fulvic/humic acid drops, liquid zeolite and some of those Etherium ORMUS products. Discipline your mind in conjunction with the things I listed and see why I aint bothered to discuss anything on here for so long...
This discussion has been closed.