Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 17th, 2016 #21
Tony Houseman
Senior Member
 
Tony Houseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: England
Posts: 1,082
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthaus Hetzenauer View Post
^ Exactly what I'm talking about. Put your pic alongside that...that "woman" on the top left and you'd think they were brother and sister.

p.s. Shit, the pic you posted disappeared. Try it again, Tony.
I've done it now. I had a bit of trouble posting the pics.

Last edited by Tony Houseman; August 17th, 2016 at 10:55 AM.
 
Old August 17th, 2016 #22
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

And those bible-thumping fundamentalists with their antiquated notions of creationism still refuse to accredit Darwin, Huxley, Dawkins, et al. and the theory of evolution? Hah! what at bunch of ignorant assholes!
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old August 17th, 2016 #23
Tony Houseman
Senior Member
 
Tony Houseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: England
Posts: 1,082
Default

How can anyone say the White woman is the same species as the females in the photo below her.


 
Old August 17th, 2016 #24
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

They say the two are of the same species because they're capable, most unfortunately for the White race, of interbreeding.

Gets me to thinking...I know that Whites aren't capable of interbreeding with apes, but what about blacks interbreeding with their biological kin, the ape...wonder if that's at all possible. (Just kidding: I know black males who've experimented with the idea and have failed to sire such offspring. Then again, how to explain the aborigine.)
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old August 17th, 2016 #25
Tony Houseman
Senior Member
 
Tony Houseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: England
Posts: 1,082
Default

Donkeys and horses can interbreed to make mules but donkeys and horses are different species. Lions and tigers can interbreed to make ligers but lions and tigers are different species.
 
Old August 17th, 2016 #26
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Houseman View Post
Australian Aborigines should be classed as a separate species to African blacks as they look so different to each other apart from having black skin.
Yes, there are vast differences between the Abos and all other modern populations, with the exception of some South East Asian populations and some of the islands between Australia and SE Asia. Their origin was probably Homo erectus, with some percentage of later Homo migrations mixed in. They had reached Australia by somewhere around 50 to 80 thousand years ago, depending on whose dates you believe, certainly before H. sapiens began to spread out from the Mid-east to Europe and Asia.

A lot of progress has been made in the field of anthropology regarding our origins the last few decades but it is a touchy subject and many of the conclusions are not PC so the jew tries to keep a lid on it. But the evidence points toward an earlier split from H. erectus for the abos than other modern populations. It is thought that the early waves of H. erectus were able to walk out of Africa across what is now the Red Sea on a land bridge into the Arabian Peninsula at a point that is now Yemen. Some of them followed the coast line and were able, over a period of several thousand years, to walk down another land bridge most or perhaps all the way to Australia. As sea levels rose they were isolated in Australia.

There seems to have been a lot of physical diversity among H. erectus in different regions. That is not surprising given their almost 2 million years of existence and wide geographic dispersal in southern Europe, Asia, Malaysia, and of course Africa. There are two opposing trends in Paleoanthropology, as detailed by Donald Johanson in his book "Lucy: The Beginings of Humankind." One camp, the splitters, tend to name a new species for every genetic variation. The other camp, the lumpers, tend to group small variations into the same species, which would mean racial differences. This makes the jew uneasy. So the jew tries to explain away the differences by declaring variations in H. erectus to be different species; Homo heidelbergensis (ancestral to Neandertals), H. ergaster, etc. To do otherwise discredits their pet theory of a recent single African origin of all modern humans and its implication that we are all closely related with only minor differences. Oiy vey, can't have the detestable Goyim entertaining any thoughts of a multiregional origin. And of course when it comes to modern humanity the jew becomes a "lumper," insisting that we are all just one big happy family.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by For Understanding
I even agree with some of your points, Fred. God did regret making mankind (Genesis 6). You just kicked both God's and my ass. Congratulations.
 
Old August 17th, 2016 #27
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams View Post
This is why I told you to start a thread for your lies and insults. I can not imagine that posters here are going to put up with you taking threads off topic in your pursuit of making ridiculous accusations that you already know are false. Once again you make an accusation that you already know is crap.
Shut up, troll. The Aryans are talking here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by For Understanding
I even agree with some of your points, Fred. God did regret making mankind (Genesis 6). You just kicked both God's and my ass. Congratulations.
 
Old August 18th, 2016 #28
Tony Houseman
Senior Member
 
Tony Houseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: England
Posts: 1,082
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Streed View Post
Yes, there are vast differences between the Abos and all other modern populations, with the exception of some South East Asian populations and some of the islands between Australia and SE Asia. Their origin was probably Homo erectus, with some percentage of later Homo migrations mixed in. They had reached Australia by somewhere around 50 to 80 thousand years ago, depending on whose dates you believe, certainly before H. sapiens began to spread out from the Mid-east to Europe and Asia.

A lot of progress has been made in the field of anthropology regarding our origins the last few decades but it is a touchy subject and many of the conclusions are not PC so the jew tries to keep a lid on it. But the evidence points toward an earlier split from H. erectus for the abos than other modern populations. It is thought that the early waves of H. erectus were able to walk out of Africa across what is now the Red Sea on a land bridge into the Arabian Peninsula at a point that is now Yemen. Some of them followed the coast line and were able, over a period of several thousand years, to walk down another land bridge most or perhaps all the way to Australia. As sea levels rose they were isolated in Australia.

There seems to have been a lot of physical diversity among H. erectus in different regions. That is not surprising given their almost 2 million years of existence and wide geographic dispersal in southern Europe, Asia, Malaysia, and of course Africa. There are two opposing trends in Paleoanthropology, as detailed by Donald Johanson in his book "Lucy: The Beginings of Humankind." One camp, the splitters, tend to name a new species for every genetic variation. The other camp, the lumpers, tend to group small variations into the same species, which would mean racial differences. This makes the jew uneasy. So the jew tries to explain away the differences by declaring variations in H. erectus to be different species; Homo heidelbergensis (ancestral to Neandertals), H. ergaster, etc. To do otherwise discredits their pet theory of a recent single African origin of all modern humans and its implication that we are all closely related with only minor differences. Oiy vey, can't have the detestable Goyim entertaining any thoughts of a multiregional origin. And of course when it comes to modern humanity the jew becomes a "lumper," insisting that we are all just one big happy family.
Good post, Fred. I enjoyed reading it.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 AM.
Page generated in 0.14654 seconds.