Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: The Chaos Theory of Evolution

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 31st, 2021 @ 12:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,732
    Thanked in
    1,465 Posts

    The Chaos Theory of Evolution

    The chaos theory of evolution

    Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another!

    IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: "Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter." Darwin never did.

    To this day Lyell's question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn't one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.

    That is not to say that evolution is random - far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.

    Darwin's argument was two-fold: First, life evolves from common ancestors. Second, it evolves by means of natural selection and adaptation. The first part has been accepted as a basic premise of biology since 1859. The second is more controversial, but has come to be accepted over the past 150 years as the principal mechanism of evolution. This is what is known as "adaptationism".

    Adaptationism certainly appears to hold true in microevolution - small-scale evolutionary change within species, such as changes in beak shape in Galapagos finches in response to available food sources.

    However, there is still huge debate about the role of natural selection and adaptation in "macroevolution" - big evolutionary events such as changes in biodiversity over time, evolutionary radiations and, of course, the origin of species. Are these the cumulative outcome of the same processes that drive microevolution, or does macroevolution have its own distinct processes and patterns?

    This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.

    Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (New Scientist, 6 February, p 28).

    Palaeoecologists like me are now bringing a new perspective to the problem. If macroevolution really is an extrapolation of natural selection and adaptation, we would expect to see environmental change driving evolutionary change. Major climatic events such as ice ages ought to leave their imprint on life as species adapt to the new conditions. Is that what actually happens?

    Our understanding of global environmental change is vastly more detailed than it was in Lyell and Darwin's time. James Zachos at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and colleagues, have shown that the Earth has been on a long-term cooling trend for the past 65 million years (Science, vol 292, p 686). Superimposed upon this are oscillations in climate every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years caused by wobbles in the Earth's orbit.

    Over the past 2 million years - the Quaternary period - these oscillations have increased in amplitude and global climate has lurched between periods of glaciation and warmer interglacials. The big question is, how did life respond to these climatic changes? In principle, three types of evolutionary response are possible: stasis, extinction, or evolutionary change. What do we actually see?

    To answer that question we look to the fossil record. We now have good data covering the past 2 million years and excellent data on the past 20,000 years. We can also probe evolutionary history with the help of both modern and ancient DNA.

    The highly detailed record of the past 20,000 years comes from analyses of fossilised tree pollen from lake and peat sediments. Tree pollen is generally recognisable to the level of genus, sometimes even species, and the sediments in which it is found can easily be radiocarbon dated.

    In the 1970s and 1980s, palaeoecologist Margaret Davis at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis created a map using this data which showed how North American tree taxa reached their respective present positions after the glaciers retreated at the end of the last ice age.

    She found that the distribution shifts were individualistic, with huge variations between species in the rate, time and direction of spread. For example, larch spread from south-west to north-east, white pine from south-east to north-west. Rates vary from 100 metres a year to over 1000 metres (Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, vol 70, p 550). In other words, trees show no predictable response to climate change, and respond individually rather than as communities of species.

    The fossil record also tells us that the make-up of modern forest communities differs from those of 20,000 years ago. Today we recognise various types of forest, such as boreal, deciduous and aspen parkland, each with a distinctive mix of tree species. Yet the fossil record tells us that these are just temporary groupings. Multi-species communities do not have long histories and do not shift their distributions in a coordinated way in response to climate changes, as Darwin supposed. We therefore cannot assume that the members of modern forest communities evolved together or are somehow dependent on each other.

    The same appears to be true over longer timescales. Pollen data show that during earlier interglacial periods, when the climate was most similar to now, forest compositions were very different from today.

    Research on animals has come to similarly unexpected conclusions, albeit based on sparser fossil records. For example, palaeontologist Russell Graham at Illinois State Museum has looked at North American mammals and palaeontologist Russell Coope at the University of Birmingham in the UK has examined insects (Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol 10, p 247). Both studies show that most species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps longer, and across several ice ages. Species undergo major changes in distribution and abundance, but show no evolution of morphological characteristics despite major environmental changes.

    That is not to say that major evolutionary change such as speciation doesn't happen. But recent "molecular clock" research suggests the link between speciation and environmental change is weak at best.

    Die hard

    Molecular clock approaches allow us to estimate when two closely related modern species split from a common ancestor by comparing their DNA. Most of this work has been carried out in birds, and shows that new species appear more or less continuously, regardless of the dramatic climatic oscillations of the Quaternary or the longer term cooling that preceded it (Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 20, p 57).

    What of extinction? Of course, species have gone extinct during the past 20,000 years. However, almost all examples involve some degree of human activity, either directly (think dodos) or indirectly (large mammals at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago).

    In fact, we only know of one recent extinction with no human involvement - a species of spruce, Picea critchfieldii, which was common in the lower Mississippi valley at the height of the last ice age but died out 12,000 years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 96, p 13847). Others undoubtedly occurred, but extinction appears to be a surprisingly rare response to substantial climatic changes (see diagram).

    The overall picture is that the main response to major environmental changes is individualistic movement and changes in abundance, rather than extinction or speciation. In other words, the connection between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak, which is not what might have been expected from Darwin's hypothesis.

    If environmental changes as substantial as continent-wide glaciations do not force evolutionary change, then what does? It is hard to see how adaptation by natural selection during lesser changes might then accumulate and lead to macroevolution.

    I suggest that the true source of macroevolutionary change lies in the non-linear, or chaotic, dynamics of the relationship between genotype and phenotype - the actual organism and all its traits. The relationship is non-linear because phenotype, or set of observable characteristics, is determined by a complex interplay between an organism's genes - tens of thousands of them, all influencing one another's behaviour - and its environment.

    Not only is the relationship non-linear, it also changes all the time. Mutations occur continually, without external influence, and can be passed on to the next generation. A change of a single base of an organism's DNA might have no consequence, because that section of DNA still codes for the same amino acid. Alternatively, it might cause a significant change in the offspring's physiology or morphology, or it might even be fatal. In other words, a single small change can have far-reaching and unpredictable effects - the hallmark of a non-linear system.

    Iterating these unpredictable changes over hundreds or thousands of generations will inevitably lead to evolutionary changes in addition to any that come about by the preferential survival of certain phenotypes. It follows that macroevolution may, over the longer-term, be driven largely by internally generated genetic change, not adaptation to a changing environment.

    The evolution of life has many characteristics that are typical of non-linear systems. First, it is deterministic: changes in one part of the system, such as the mutation of a DNA base, directly cause other changes. However, the change is unpredictable. Just like the weather, changes are inexorable but can only be followed with the benefit of hindsight.

    Second, behaviour of the system is sensitive to initial conditions. We see this in responses to glaciations in the Quaternary period. The exact circumstances of the beginning of each interglacial determine the development of the whole period, leading to unpredictable differences between interglacials (Quaternary Science Reviews, vol 14, p 967).

    Third, the history of life is fractal. Take away the labelling from any portion of the tree of life and we cannot tell at which scale we are looking (see diagram). This self-similarity also indicates that evolutionary change is a process of continual splitting of the branches of the tree.

    Fourth, we cannot rewind, as Stephen Jay Gould argued in Wonderful Life. Were we to turn the evolutionary clock back to any point in the past, and let it run again, the outcome would be different. As in weather systems, the initial conditions can never be specified to sufficient precision to prevent divergence of subsequent trajectories.

    Life on Earth is always unique, changing, and unpredictable. Even if certain patterns can be dimly discerned, our ability to do so diminishes with time, exactly as for the weather. Consider any moment of the geological record of life on Earth: to what extent were the changes of the next 10 or 100 million years predictable at that time? With the benefit of hindsight, we might be able to understand what happened, and construct a plausible narrative for those events, but we have no foresight.

    This view of life leads to certain consequences. Macroevolution is not the simple accumulation of microevolutionary changes but has its own processes and patterns. There can be no "laws" of evolution. We may be able to reconstruct the sequence of events leading to the evolution of any given species or group after the fact, but we will not be able to generalise from these to other sequences of events. From a practical point of view, this means we will be unable to predict how species will respond to projected climate changes over next century.

    The question Lyell put to Darwin over 150 years ago is unanswerable because Lyell put it in terms of a particular group of organisms. Not even Darwin would be able to explain why that specific group behaved as it did.

    In the last analysis, evolution can be likened to the description of human history as "just one damn thing after another", exactly as Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini have argued.

    We still have much to learn about how life evolved but we will not develop a full appreciation until we accept the complexity of the system.

    Keith Bennett is professor of late-Quaternary environmental change at Queen's University Belfast, guest professor in palaeobiology at Uppsala University in Sweden, and author of Evolution and Ecology: The Pace of Life (Cambridge University Press). He holds a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...on.html?page=3

  2. #2

  3. #3
    New Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, June 20th, 2016 @ 03:19 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Gemany/Scotland
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Skook
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Health/P.E. Teacher
    Politics
    N/A
    Religion
    N/A
    Posts
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I believe that religion is the Jews device for disrupting our society, destroying us. Evolution is far closer to the truth.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Godwinson View Post
    The chaos theory of evolution


    Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another!

    IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: "Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter." Darwin never did.
    ...
    Are there more examples of that kind? It would indicate that perhaps the geological record doesn't represent time periods, but that fossils are distribute within it for other reasons.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,998
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,514
    Thanked in
    702 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralf Rossa
    I seem to remember a line from the Protocols of Zion which says " we will teach evolution in our schools so the Goyim will no longer belive in God, and therefore no longer the devine right of Kings, se we will be able to introdue democracy and put our own people in positions of power".
    Now, the really interesting question is, why "belief in god" MUST be a contradiction to science. Or why the king system MUST be a contradiction to religion.

    Oðinn wanted his people to know, to learn, to explore, he gave them the runes and wisdom. The jewish-christian god on the other hand considers this a sin and kicks Adam and Eve out of paradise for seeking knowledge.

    Who's the distraction? Right, judeo-christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralf Rossa
    and natural selectio
    I would like to know evolutionary steps of a reptile evolving wings large enough for flight, anything smaller would be a hinderance that the laws of natural selection would weed out before they became of any use.
    Look for example at the Mudskipper, no back legs, and what is in front 'looks' completely useless too, but its not. They didnt vanish completely because when the fish that once was the mudskipper went on land, or rather the transitional areas between water and land -> mud, they proved useful.

    Funny animals







    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Renwein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, December 28th, 2018 @ 07:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    632
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralf Rossa View Post
    Now isnt evolution one of the Jews devices for desrupting our society, destroying the enemy Christian church and getting us to reject God so they can keep him for themselves?,
    I seem to remember a line from the Protocols of Zion which says " we will teach evolution in our schools so the Goyim will no longer belive in God, and therefore no longer the devine right of Kings, se we will be able to introdue democracy and put our own people in positions of power".
    and natural selectio
    I feel like repeating myself today, so:
    (i) 'protocols' is a forgery
    (ii) it was almost certainly written by a priest (hence someone not friendly to evolution) and a csarist (hence the 'divine right' stuff)
    (iii) it's true that some jews have used evolution to undermine Christianity in the last century, probably as a deliberate attack on 'the west', but they always have to fudge the fact that predetermined biological inequality is a given fact of evolution (eg. steven jay gold and his magic 'humans are too young to be different, we are all equal' BS).
    (Meanwhile, many 'pro european' groupings have also used evolution to support their goals - more credibly, I would say).

    (iv) I don't care about the above, though, because I'm not christian myself (it's also hilariously ironic, because christ himself was a jew and christianity contains jewish writings, history, and traditions in its holy book - the bible).

    I do care, though, when people (and there are an alarming number of them about here lately) basing their opinions on a forgery to earnestly claim evolution (a scientific theory 'invented' by one of the greatest europeans - from my country) is a jewish conspiracy (or even invented by a jew as one guy did). It's so ridiculous it hurts to read.

  7. #7
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 @ 05:06 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of European descent
    Ancestry
    Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Germany Switzerland, Belgium
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Wyoming Wyoming
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    self employed
    Politics
    White nationalism
    Religion
    agnostic
    Posts
    39
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Forgery.

    That is an odd choice of words for a people who are naysaying a document
    that purports to outline how they are causing the downfall of the rest of us.

    Forgery: means an unauthorized copy. For instance, if someone forges your name on a check, they are copying your signature without the right to do so.
    When YOU copy your signature as signed on the signature card, you ARE authorized to do so, so it's authentic, not a forgery.

    On the other hand, if one were looking for the correct word that meant that said document was created by one's enemies and attributed to you in order to falsely accuse and convict you, "fabrication" would be a good word to choose. "Framed" is another reasonably correct word choice.

    Ashkenazis are, by IQ tests, considered one of the smartest average peoples on Earth, ESPECIALLY in the verbal domain. They are arguers par excellence.
    In fact, the whole "talmudic" tradition is based on arguing the slightest differences between similar wordings. So I don't buy for ONE SECOND that when Jews say "forgery" they mistakenly chose that word when they really meant "fabrication."

    So it's FASCINATING to me that Jews claim, not that the Protocols are a fabrication -- something entirely invented by enemies out of whole cloth to FALSELY ACCUSE -- but the Protocols are a FORGERY, that is, an UNAUTHORIZED copy of something that does in fact exist.

    SO, since verbally-facile Jews CHOOSE the word "forgery," then WHO IS the authorized signatory? Hmmmmmmm?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,998
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,514
    Thanked in
    702 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Renwein
    (i) 'protocols' is a forgery
    (ii) it was almost certainly written by a priest (hence someone not friendly to evolution) and a csarist (hence the 'divine right' stuff)
    The compilation of the protocolls might very well, or pretty certain, be a forgery, ie an indeed unauthorised copy and compilation, probably also extending and adding stuff. But likewise certainly not "out of nothing" (f.e. letters between the Bavarian Illuminati Jew Weishaupt and Amschil Maier Rothschild, who built his imperium of banks with the aim to exercise control over the states he and his sons subdued throughout the centuries into this new banking system and manipulated, even 'forged' European history through the power gained by indebting the states).

    And we know the practice to call everything a "conspiracy theory" to globally dismiss it. Be it the North American Alliance (reality meanwhile), be it the EUSSR (reality meanwhile and will become a catastrophic reality in 2014), both as an interims step on the way to a One World Government, hundreds of politicians mention the New World Order all the time in their speeches, but cry 'conspiracy theory' when asked for details of what they mean. The interesting thing is, that although the NAA is reality, many people still call it a conspiracy theory. Just as well as the 96 percent media ownership by Jews are called a conspiracy theory, critizing the centralisation of banking power is called a conspiracy theory to stir up anti-Semitism and so on and so forth.

    Maybe the protocolls are a forgery, this shouldnt keep anyone from looking onto the few, but important facts hidden in there. And when public people cry conspiracy theory, this meanwhile means for me to look even closer, because somewhere in that is hidden an important information to why our world goes straight down the drain.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  9. #9
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,109
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    49
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralf Rossa View Post
    I would like to know evolutionary steps of a reptile evolving wings large enough for flight, anything smaller would be a hinderance that the laws of natural selection would weed out before they became of any use.
    That's a fair point, and it's an example of something quite rare: an intelligent challenge to evolutionary theory. You're right, mutations don't occur with an object in mind. A mutation won't be selected simply on the basis that a hundred generations down the line it may evolve into something beneficial. The first mutation in a concatenation that leads to the development of, e.g., wings, must itself be beneficial in some way.

    So let's take the example of eyes first, or the sense of vision. Obviously it was never the case that one generation there was no vision, and the next generation there was a fully formed eyeball, optic nerve, and corresponding brain region devoted entirely to processing the information netted by this new organ. The evolution had to be gradual, and the first mutations in the eyeball's history needed to have been advantageous in themselves.

    What is the likely scenario is that the first mutations in the visual system's history were light-sensitive cells. The sensitivity to light and the 'awareness' of said sensitivity probably existed in a single cell. Over generations, the sensitivity to light and the 'awareness' of it separated into different cells as the organism became more complex, and these were the ancestors of the eyeball and the visual cortex respectively.

    Something similar with wings: The protrusion that would later become the wing was likely originally a limb. The organism didn't just decide it wanted its descendants to have wings somehwere down the line, so sprouted some some useless extensions that it would never need, and would probably get it killed. Something with an already specific purpose (a limb) was adapted to serve another purpose (flight) because the second purpose was more advantageous to the organism. Early mutations probably occurred that allowed an organism to glide using its limbs, and then this was positively selected and became the basis for controlled flight. Muscles/bone structure evolved that allowed the organism to actually propel itself. At no stage there does the organism have any useless traits that wouldn't be selected by nature.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Wulfram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    4 Days Ago @ 07:22 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mostly German/Some English/Some Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    State
    Texas Texas
    Location
    Portland, Maine
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Demolition
    Politics
    Far Right
    Religion
    Anti-Christian
    Posts
    2,913
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    81
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    120
    Thanked in
    98 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shakinginmyshoes View Post
    Forgery: means an unauthorized copy. For instance, if someone forges your name on a check, they are copying your signature without the right to do so.
    When YOU copy your signature as signed on the signature card, you ARE authorized to do so, so it's authentic, not a forgery.
    It could mean "forged in the name of jews" and not specifically copied from an actual document.
    If the jews claim it is a forgery/plagiarism then it is up to them to provide the original document for comparison.

    Ashkenazis are, by IQ tests, considered one of the smartest average peoples on Earth, ESPECIALLY in the verbal domain.
    jewish-invented I.Q. tests are bullshit.

    I will repeat to you the same challenge I have made to other awed-by-jews members here: Show me exactly what "high IQ" jews have contributed to this world and I will prove that Germanics have contributed 100 times more. Compare the results and you will see that our people have never needed some test on a piece of paper to "prove" if they are smart.
    I have also noticed that the overwhelming majority (like 99%) of those with high IQ's don't actually ever DO anything.

    They are arguers par excellence.
    They are bullshitters par excellence, which does not mean that they smarter than Germanics at everything else.

    SO, since verbally-facile Jews CHOOSE the word "forgery," then WHO IS the authorized signatory? Hmmmmmmm?
    In my opinion they are much too creative for a jew to write. I have still yet to see another document written by jews dating from that time (or any time) that compares to it in originality. They must have been written by a Gentile to drum up much justified anti-semitism against them.
    You know what? It works! Every person with an open mind I have shown them to went away from the experience with a much different view of jews altogether. (Although I didn't tell them that it was probably written by a victim of jewish scheming.)

    If jews had written the protocols they most certainly would not have been published in the first place. They would have been kept like top secret documents with only the very few allowed to see them.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. BBC to Air Aquatic Theory of Human Evolution
    By Shadow in forum Natural Sciences & Environment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 20th, 2016, 01:06 PM
  2. Evolution Of Human Sex Roles More Complex Than Described By Universal Theory
    By Verðandi in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, April 26th, 2009, 03:43 AM
  3. The Comos, Evolution, Life Theory
    By Elenor in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, March 30th, 2007, 06:41 PM
  4. The Theory of Rent needs a Theory of History
    By morfrain_encilgar in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, October 17th, 2005, 04:23 PM
  5. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •