Why Evolution is True

[ModerateMuslim]

horta, everyone tends to forget this, but in today's there are some so-called 'humans' who've descended from apes (along with swines): the jews. so if they jews are 'humans', then the filthy atheists are in a way correct: the theory of evolution is (partly) true.

you have all the traits of an ape mentality, imbecile go and help your folks in southern Somalia

you're probably a jew, that's why you're offended most likely.

[Goljano Lion]

horta, everyone tends to forget this, but in today's there are some so-called 'humans' who've descended from apes (along with swines): the jews. so if they jews are 'humans', then the filthy atheists are in a way correct: the theory of evolution is (partly) true.

you have all the traits of an ape mentality, imbecile go and help your folks in southern Somalia

you're probably a jew, that's why you're offended most likely.

trust me, it is a privilege to be a Jew so if i have to choose between Hawiye and a Jew ...you know the answer

[ModerateMuslim]

trust me, it is a privilege to be a Jew

well, of course its a privilege for a slave to attain the status of its master (:

[ToughGong]

Darwin's Source of Inspiration: Malthus's Theory of Ruthlessness

Darwin's source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean "permanent war."

In the 19th century, Malthus's ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In the article "The Scientific Background of the Nazi 'Race Purification' Programme", the importance 19th century Europe attached to Malthus's views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations,"and so forth and so on.3

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called "oppression of the poor" policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The "struggle for survival" demanded by Malthus's theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified and unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying the Creation, and thus undermined at all ethical values that might prove to be obstacles to the ruthlessness of the "struggle for survival."

Humanity has paid a heavy price in the 20th century for the dissemination of these callous views which lead people to acts of ruthlessness and cruelty.

[ToughGong]

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on Theory":

[ToughGong]

Footprints of Today's Man, 3.6 Million Years Old!

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of present-day man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave.

The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:

Make no mistake about it, ...They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.95

After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of North California made the following comments:

The arch is raised-the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do-and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe… The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms.96

Examinations of the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and moreover, a present-day human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle, who also examined the footprints wrote:

A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.97

Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a 10-year-old present-day human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly normal people like us.

This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the centre of discussions for years. Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a contemporary man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During the 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The evolutionists decided that these footprints must have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a Homo species to have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in an article in 1990:

In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there had been made by a member of our genus, Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.98


Another example showing the invalidity of the imaginary family tree devised by evolutionists: a modern human (Homo sapiens) mandible aged 2.3 million

years. This mandible coded A.L. 666-1 was unearthed in Hadar, Ethiopia.

Evolutionist publications seek to gloss it over by referring to it as "a very startling discovery"... (D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p.169)

To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on the assumption that humans could not have lived so long ago.

These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory into doubt being either ignored or distorted to support the theory.

Briefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.

[Voltage]

horta, everyone tends to forget this, but in today's there are some so-called 'humans' who've descended from apes (along with swines): the jews. so if they jews are 'humans', then the filthy atheists are in a way correct: the theory of evolution is (partly) true.

Ilaahoow hana cadaabin. So what do you want us to do? Laugh? Snicker? clap our hands with joy?

You sxb are the most lame, dull brained creature to grace this forum and after the likes of many other brain dead people we have witnessed, you should really see what we think of that comment there.

[Kismaayo21]

horta, everyone tends to forget this, but in today's there are some so-called 'humans' who've descended from apes (along with swines): the jews. so if they jews are 'humans', then the filthy atheists are in a way correct: the theory of evolution is (partly) true.

you have all the traits of an ape mentality, imbecile go and help your folks in southern Somalia

you goat phucker the northeners need more help, atleast the south has multiple facions who if united wud take somaliland in a blink of an eye, futhermore international aid is not something to be proud of but the south still gets it whereby the northeners are starving like marving

[ToughGong]

who if united wud take somaliland in a blink of an eye

So where was this blink when S/Land was been fought for

[Kismaayo21]

who if united wud take somaliland in a blink of an eye

So where was this blink when S/Land was been fought for

fought for by who

let me ask yu a simple question


if lets say all the factions in sL were to fight the rest of somalia e.g shabab, hizbul islam, TFG, untland, Galgaduud the other militias, bits and bobs of cagdheers here and there the sade crew the left vers moriyaan whu wud win......I just want 2 know the winner spare me details

[Narcissistic]

Gee, I get enough of this from my professors'... Had to cram some of this b.s for my bio exam. I dunno if it was the cramming but evolution on a macro level is something I find conceptually incoherent, sorry but Darwin was just some God-forsaken closet racist.

[Narcissistic]

evolution - the religion of atheists - hasn't been - and never will be - accepted by science.

I wish I could agree with you there. But sadly this load of b.s infiltrates the basics of biology...from anatomy, genetics to physiology and what not.

[Voltage]

Gee, I get enough of this from my professors'... Had to cram some of this b.s for my bio exam. I dunno if it was the cramming but evolution on a macro level is something I find conceptually incoherent, sorry but Darwin was just some God-forsaken closet racist.

I am not a proponent of Darwinism but I think you misunderstood or are going with common misconception about some base stuff in his theory.

[Narcissistic]

Gee, I get enough of this from my professors'... Had to cram some of this b.s for my bio exam. I dunno if it was the cramming but evolution on a macro level is something I find conceptually incoherent, sorry but Darwin was just some God-forsaken closet racist.

I am not a proponent of Darwinism but I think you misunderstood or are going with common misconception about some base stuff in his theory.

That bolded bit was in a light-hearted manner, mate. While it is possible I have 'misunderstood' aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution, I think I've grasped more than enough to pass judgment.

[Voltage]

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with races.