Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 278910111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 125

Thread: Were We Stronger when We Were Pagan?

  1. #111
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    4 Hours Ago @ 07:25 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,814
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,026
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,173
    Thanked in
    490 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    That site is hardly any good source, it clearly has an political motive and it has not even been updated since may 2011.
    Yeah, all (genetic) "science" has a political agenda, if you havent noticed. The dogma is called "mankind is one", and appears first in an UNO resolution called The Race Question in 1950.

    The introduction states that it was inevitable that UNESCO should take a position in the controversy. The preamble to the UNESCO constitution states that it should combat racism. The constitution itself stated that "The great and terrible war that has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races."

    A 1948 UN Social and Economic Council resolution called upon UNESCO to consider the timeliness "of proposing and recommending the general adoption of a programme of dissemination of scientific facts designed to bring about the disappearance of that which is commonly called race prejudice." In 1949, the UNESCO adopted three resolutions which committed it to "study and collect scientific materials concerning questions of race", "to give wide diffusion to the scientific material collected", and "to prepare an education campaign based on this information." Before undertaking this campaign, the scientific position had to be clarified.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question


    Nitpicking, this statement turns the table to those who claim that mankind is one to actually deliver proof for that, which they cant though, because mankind simply is not "one".


    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    Not at least 4%, but between 1 and 4%. Many people on skadi have taken the DNA test by 24andme (myself included), but noone has over 4%. However you are correct that genetic evidence suggests that Neanderthals are closer to non-African than African anatomically modern humans, which is probably due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of the Eurasians.
    I said identifiable, I know that the tests dont return more than 4%.

    But for one, Africans do not possess any Neanderthal genes, so at least they are not in the same way "human" like we are (if they are at all properly human), and there was another study that pointed out that the Asian Neanderthal was also different from the Eurasian Neanderthal.

    At any rate, Europeans and Africans differ by ~4%, which is more than what is alleged for the difference between "humans" (which humans?) and great apes (is there a study that takes the differences of the various human races into account when checking for difference with the ape genome?). This makes us so much of a seperate species as it possibly gets.

    And considering that we and plants still share like 60%, which makes it "neutral" genes in any test, and that humans still share ~98% (also have seen numbers ranging between 96% and 99%, which would be a VAST difference... which one is it?) with great apes, and that "non-coding DNA" was only rather recently renamed from "junk DNA", and that it is here where the "switches" are that activate or inactivate alleles and genetic expression, I'd be interested to see studies researching the difference in this DNA parts and see how much of them are "neutral" too, or whether there are differences that further prove that the human races / species are seperate.

    In the intervening years, comparisons between humans and chimpanzees were made with many additional proteins and with DNA. These results, reported herein, are consistent with the early results. Moreover, they tell us that the genes of the human and the chimpanzee are as similar as those of sibling species of other organisms (2). So, the paradox remains. In order to explain how species which have such similar genes can differ so substantially in anatomy and way of life, we review evidence concerning the molecular basis of evolution at the organìsmal level. We suggest that evolutionary changes in anatomy and way of life are more often based on changes in the mechanisms controlling the expression of genes than on sequence changes in proteins. We therefore propose that regulatory mutations accoúnt for the major biological diîïerences between humans and chimpanzees.
    http://teosinte.wisc.edu/gen677_pdfs/king.pdf


    It is also interesting to note that the more recent any such study is regarding apes and humans, the shared percentage becomes ever smaller, as became the actual number of genes and gene sequencies compares (which makes the alleged percentual differences both highly inaccurate and sort of questionable, percentages dont say much anyway, imho). They simply leave out "noncoding" DNA, repetitive DNA (which makes up up to 50% of the human genome) and ditch maybe who knows what else. So instead of returning greater difference, as would be expected from the development from older, more primitive methods for genetics, where the difference was commonly accepted to be 4%, to refined genetic testing methods, where they simply throw out ~50% of the human and ape genome and compare only a part of the sequences of the other 50% and suddenly the difference is only less than 2%. Ah, yes. Talk about political agendas....

    Still, this table on that site looks closer on relevant things genes do, like proteins, receptors etc, where one can also see that some parts of the genome are rather "neutral" (are similar and do similar things in different species) and distance is low, while others are clearly very different, and do different things, which reflects in higher distance.


    There is also evidence that the difference between human species is higher than the difference between chimp species, this table clusters even 9 human species/subspecies/races however one wants to call it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9_Cluster_Tree.png


    I'm waiting for a full comparison of the various human genomes, without taken out and ignored parts and artifically re-inferred parts, and with a close look on what these genes, while "looking" similar, actually do. Isnt it meanwhile completely mapped? Shouldnt be too long.... if there wasnt the UNESCO resolution....
    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

  2. #112
    Pining for a Mythical Past
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sehnsucht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    Monday, May 16th, 2016 @ 02:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism, Pro Brexit
    Posts
    487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Different races mix and produce offspring fine in the wild when they meet and always have. So they are of the same species. Going by Darwin's simple explanation you could argue about separate species. But it is problematic.

    Races are subspecies, and that is why race continues to be problematic for those who try claim race doesn't exist. They ignore reality.

  3. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 6th, 2012 @ 07:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    German/Irish
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Computer CAD/ Civil
    Politics
    Libertarian/Conservative
    Posts
    1,773
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I said identifiable, I know that the tests dont return more than 4%.

    But for one, Africans do not possess any Neanderthal genes, so at least they are not in the same way "human" like we are (if they are at all properly human), and there was another study that pointed out that the Asian Neanderthal was also different from the Eurasian Neanderthal.

    At any rate, Europeans and Africans differ by ~4%, which is more than what is alleged for the difference between "humans" (which humans?) and great apes (is there a study that takes the differences of the various human races into account when checking for difference with the ape genome?). This makes us so much of a seperate species as it possibly gets.
    I would think that race is somewhat like what breeds of Dogs are, in the since that you have multiple breeds of Dogs that are very different in height colour and various other aspects. But as such they are all Dogs and not a separate species.

    But as such that does not really change the fact that you cannot breed a Chiwawa with a Great Dane, without bad repercussions.

    So there is no real need to have humans be of a different species to raise the question about Interracial marriage and other such things.

    The Multicultural Left have made the assertion that there is no such thing as race, which is obviously a bold faced lie. It would be like me making the statement that there is no such thing as a different breeds of dogs. Which any sane person would laugh off as stupidity.


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I'm waiting for a full comparison of the various human genomes, without taken out and ignored parts and artifically re-inferred parts, and with a close look on what these genes, while "looking" similar, actually do. Isnt it meanwhile completely mapped? Shouldnt be too long.... if there wasnt the UNESCO resolution....
    I would say we are a long way form completely understanding the human genome. That being said Multicultural Pseudoscience is a major problem we see and is likely to not help us reach any sort of real science.

    Because at the end of the day, it is only FACTS that reveal TRUTH, and Liberals have a long history of avoiding facts and truth that is not convenient for them. They are the modern worlds version of zealots.

  4. #114
    Hundhedensk "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hersir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Håløyg
    Ancestry
    Norway
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    I2b1
    mtDNA
    J2a1a1b
    Country
    Norway Norway
    State
    South Trondelag South Trondelag
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Posts
    5,966
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    771
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    556
    Thanked in
    258 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet
    Yeah, all (genetic) "science" has a political agenda, if you havent noticed. The dogma is called "mankind is one", and appears first in an UNO resolution called The Race Question in 1950.
    Good science does not have a political agenda. Your so-called source is not even from a science site.

    NESCO and UN are certainly not scientific organisations.

    I am still waiting for sources on your claim.


    In the intervening years, comparisons between humans and chimpanzees were made with many additional proteins and with DNA. These results, reported herein, are consistent with the early results. Moreover, they tell us that the genes of the human and the chimpanzee are as similar as those of sibling species of other organisms (2). So, the paradox remains. In order to explain how species which have such similar genes can differ so substantially in anatomy and way of life, we review evidence concerning the molecular basis of evolution at the organìsmal level. We suggest that evolutionary changes in anatomy and way of life are more often based on changes in the mechanisms controlling the expression of genes than on sequence changes in proteins. We therefore propose that regulatory mutations accoúnt for the major biological diîïerences between humans and chimpanzees.
    http://teosinte.wisc.edu/gen677_pdfs/king.pdf

    DNA does not attribute for all of the genetic material. This article does not even mention that chimpanzee's are two separate species.


    However, the substantial anatomical and behavioral differences between hums and chimpanzees have led to their classifcation in seperate familes.
    Not correct. Humans, chimpanzee and gorilla belong to the same family: Hominidae (superfamily: Hominoidea)

    We've had tremendous progress in DNA since the writing of this article, but it confirms that the average human polypeptide is more than 99% identitical to its chimpanzee counterpart, so nothing new there.

    Chimpanzee and humans differ in 3 billion DNA base pairs which makes 35 million single base differences between us. Only 50 to 100 genes has been lost between the two species.


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet
    There is also evidence that the difference between human species is higher than the difference between chimp species, this table clusters even 9 human species/subspecies/races however one wants to call it.
    Why would there be? The two chimp species have their last common ancestors about 2 million years ago, long after human-chimpanzee split 5 million years ago.

    Where is the evidence?

  5. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 21st, 2012 @ 11:02 PM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    If this were true, it presupposes that the significance of the different 'wholes' to their respective parts (which is the group to the whole of humanity, the family to the whole of the group, the individual to the whole of the family) is of equal worth. Is it?
    Not at all, the significance increases the more parts are encompassed in the whole. The continuance of life in general on Earth trumps all, the survival of the species trumps that of its parts, on and on. The lowest is the individual family and those which place this at the top have inverted that hierarchy. It is these which posterity will not remember be they singular persons or groups of.

    To counter this it can be argued that the whole always preceeds its parts, f.e. there is no race without humanity or humanity without life.
    All specific concepts arise from the general, the reverse on the other hand, is incomprehensible.

    But the competition between groups is only a struggle between groups. It's a battle between different parts against eachother, not of a single part against the encompassing whole which is humanity.
    If the races have been embroiled in a struggle for evolution, que bono? Struggling for the sake of struggle is foolish, being strong for the sake of strength is no less. Surly there is a goal and that goal can only be in service to improving the whole not to revel in its own narcissism and that group of persons which does this does act heroically.

  6. #116
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    4 Hours Ago @ 07:25 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,814
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,026
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,173
    Thanked in
    490 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir View Post
    Good science does not have a political agenda. Your so-called source is not even from a science site.

    NESCO and UN are certainly not scientific organisations.

    I am still waiting for sources on your claim.

    Where is the evidence?
    Yes, where is the evidence for the claim that there is only one human race/species?

    This claim stems from UNESCO, it is entirely unscientific and does not base in facts.

    Re your peptides. They make hormones, aminoacids, proteins etc. If we are going to compare the human genome parts responsible for that with the parts in say bears, or dogs, or any other mammals, it would quite certainly return a great similarity too. Which leads to the conclusion that a comparison is invalid to determine actual differences.


    Yup, it does:

    Mice and humans (indeed, most or all mammals including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and apes) have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes -- about 3 billion base pairs. This comparable DNA content implies that all mammals contain more or less the same number of genes, and indeed our work and the work of many others have provided evidence to confirm that notion.

    {snip}

    These appear to make up a small percentage of the total genes. I believe the number of human genes without a clear mouse counterpart, and vice versa, won't be significantly larger than 1% of the total. Nevertheless, these novel genes may play an important role in determining species-specific traits and functions.

    {snip}

    The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...n.shtml#stubbs



    Useless information, since it applies to all mammals, and probably to all living organisms except bacteria.


    I've searched the interweb for an actual genetic study that takes the sequences responsible for morphology and other genetic expression and compares them. All I found was articles explaining that these - the important and relevant - sequences have never been subject to comparative studies yet.

    On the other hand, we do know that ethnicities carry genetic markers that not only identify them as clearly belonging to one ethnic group, but also give hints to their geographic origin (see the tearful 'ancestor search' of Morgan Freeman some years ago). We also know from the Jewish genome (the best researched human genome) that despite the fact that Jews assimilated themselves to countless different ethnicities all over the globe, they still are more closely related with each other than they are with their respective host population.

    “Each of the Jewish populations formed its own distinctive cluster, indicating the shared ancestry and relative genetic isolation of the members of each of those groups.”

    The various Jewish groups were more related to each other than to non-Jews, as well. Within every Jewish group, individuals shared as much of their genome as two fourth or fifth cousins, with Italian, Syrian, Iranian, and Iraqi Jews the most inbred, in the sense that they married within the small, close-knit community.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-children.html


    Another interesting information I came across was that obviously the "source material" for most, if not all (except Jewish genome research), genetic studies done so far has been taken from the most mixed population on earth: Brasilians (where mixes from Europeans, Blacks, Asians, Amerindians, native Indians etc are common). If that is true, that this is the source material against which any other tested genome is checked, which would of course return only small difference and great similarity (because on top, the source material is mathematically averaged and also ignores the relevant parts of the genome), the studies are worthless anyway.


    As said, I still like to see a study that directly compares the full genomes of Blacks, Asians, and Whites, with proper analysis done of what these genes actually do, and then spits out the absolute number of differences, and not some pun with percentages as the nonsense that most "scientific" studies spit out just to agree with the religious dogma that "races dont exist". These studies do not yet exist, and most likely never will as long as the religious dogma is in place and dictates what science has to "find".
    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

  7. #117
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    832
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    57
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    36 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    Not at all, the significance increases the more parts are encompassed in the whole. The continuance of life in general on Earth trumps all, the survival of the species trumps that of its parts, on and on. The lowest is the individual family and those which place this at the top have inverted that hierarchy. It is these which posterity will not remember be they singular persons or groups of.
    This counts only when the whole is perceived as that which its parts have in common, it doesn't count for the whole as the sum of its parts. The species do not go extinct when all parts except one will go extinct; the part which remains will be the species. That which defines the species (i.e. what the parts have in common) still lives in this part. This is actually how Darwin described the origin of species: they start out as varieties.
    And so we arrive at what I've already written in my previous post. The fight of a human group against another does not equal a fight against their common humanity but only against that which is specific in the other group.
    More practically, would it affect my identity if there were no indigenous people on Kamchatka? I doubt it. Would it affect my identity if there were no other Dutch people in the other Dutch provinces? Of course. Although that what humans have in common (what defines the whole) is most significant for defining myself, other specific offshoots of humanity have far less significance: the sum of its parts is not what defines a part.
    You have mistaken two things. 1. The human being and 2. all human beings. The first one is biological and the second one is sociological (what was the initial concern of your post). So again your question. Why stop with loyalty to the nation and not go further and be loyal to humanity? Because the significance of ones fellow countrymen in constituting ones being is far greater than that of all human beings. This is not the same as saying that the significance of race is greater than that of species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    All specific concepts arise from the general, the reverse on the other hand, is incomprehensible.
    Yet that's what you were doing by defining the general by its specific off-shoots when you claimed that the human species defining us more than our race implies the superiority of loyalty to all human beings (specific parts).

    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    If the races have been embroiled in a struggle for evolution, que bono? Struggling for the sake of struggle is foolish, being strong for the sake of strength is no less. Surly there is a goal and that goal can only be in service to improving the whole not to revel in its own narcissism and that group of persons which does this does act heroically.
    Struggling for the sake of struggle is indeed foolish. Accepting that physical struggle is the ultimate possibility on the other hand is what constitutes the political (the Ernstfall of Carl Schmitt).

  8. #118
    Senior Member Germania Magna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 04:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Religion
    reality
    Posts
    200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Paganism has an important intuitive aspect as well as the symbolic aspect of the gods and godesses. Genuine paganism means to freely be oneself in one's encounter with the universe and to live one's own life according to one's own nature and thus to develop one's full potential as a particular person. Religion should represent the natural intuitions of a people and never hinder deeper intuition. Religion should afford fluidity of insight and adaptation. Religion should be intuitive and natural and represent our encounter with nature and with its laws and its charms. It should be philosophical and aesthetic. Religion should be cool; I think that Germanic paganism is very cool. Dogmatic religions like christianity are set in stone and place a shackle on the mind and on the soul. Christianity presents the dogma of an alien race and the conversion to christianity must represent an awful psychological trauma for the individual and for the race. Apostasy from christianity is the greatest act of self-liberation. It is a return not only to one's roots but a return to oneself. One cannot say that one has truly and authentically lived unless one is oneself. Jesus claimed to give eternal life but in fact he takes away the life that we have. He is a demon in that respect. The dogmatic and alien alternative to paganism is alienation from oneself, to be subsumed under an alien and abstract idea. The christian god is above the person and outside of him/ her. Nature is within and without, it transcends the boundaries of distinct individual natures. All is One. The universe is like unto an organism and individuals are passing yet substantial scenes of an eternal drama. Nature is One, and we are one part of that One. Thus paganism gives wholeness to human experience, both to the person as an individual and as a universe. We have to act our rightful and natural part in that drama without alienation. Our insight makes us spiritual yet we must never forget that we are animals who must struggle against other animals in order to survive and to live. Our personal nature must never be allowed to dissolve psychologically into the transcendent whole. Personal dissolution is death and personal death has its time. Life also has its time and to live is to be a particular nature - within a general race and a general species, one among many. We are one and we are One. Oneness and universality are universal yet they are concrete in the particular individual. Paganism is ontological and aesthetic as well as political. Paganism is natural and it makes the person natural. Genuine religion is no different to philosophical atheism. Our will to live and to be oneself informs them both in exactly the same way. Genuine religion and philosophical atheism are also one. For the person is one and our expressions intuit our wholeness. Christianity ruptures the metaphysical wholeness of the universe and it destroys the wholeness and the integrity of the individual and the particular race. It is radically unAryan and its 'god' represents a radical rupture of the universe and of the personal psyche. The christian god is not a part of the One; that religion does not represent the unity of the One or the integral nature of the individual and the race. The christian god is the destroyer of nature and indeed the Bible says that their god will eventually destroy this world. Christianity is hostile to nature and to personal integrity, to free and authentic human existence. The alienation is taking us to ruin not only as individuals but as a race and as a species, possibly as a living planet.

    Prince Philip of England

    Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for Creation’’ conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.

    It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.

  9. #119
    Senior Member Feyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 11:14 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Grandparrents Faroese, now live in germany
    Ancestry
    My grandparrents on mother side where faroese, my father was born in munich,
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Baden-Wuerttemberg Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Location
    schwäbisch hall
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Heilerziehuingspfleger
    Politics
    no party affiliation
    Religion
    germanic heathen norse
    Posts
    325
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    A difficult question, since we first have to establish what exactly strong means. Our ancestors had of course more physical strenght, since they work all day often quite hard labor.
    Do you mean mental strenght ? Now that´s quite a tough nut ! I would say they had definitely more endurance, wouldnt give up easy.
    In terms of education our knowledge is of course far superior.
    What e4lse could you define as strenght ? How about military power, though that´s hard to really meassure against each other, but since our ancestors where able to beat the roman army at the height of romes power (not when it was already falling apart like later conquerors did), at its time no doubt the best army in the world (!), I guess that point goes to them without argument !

    Have some more definitions for strenght ???
    There won't be humans in 500 years. Enough people choke themselves when they jerk off we gave it a name. We ain't a species made to last.

    Judging by it´s name common sense must once have been a pretty common thing. When and why did that change, so it became the rare treasure it is today???

  10. #120
    Vulferam
    Guest
    I think its difficult to argue % in terms of DNA when

    We share 35% of the nearly 7,000 tested genes (2,489/6,968) with the algae Chlamydomonas and the flowering plants including banana plants.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/8…

    some say 50% with a banana... + everything of Earth being a carbon based life form so basically nature works with similar patterns/ building blocks

    1% could mean a galaxy of difference

    Reminds me of Sacred Geometry and the Flower of Life

    The Fibonacci sequence or Pi or Phi

    It's kind of like, what can you build with earth, water and fire? From the most crude dwelling to the Acropolis or the pyramids - materials are basically the same though?

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 278910111213 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What to Eat for a Stronger Immune System
    By Nachtengel in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016, 12:12 AM
  2. Are Ethnic Mixed Children Physically Stronger?
    By FearingAfrica in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 09:27 AM
  3. "We Afrikaners Are Stronger Than Ever"
    By Nachtengel in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, April 11th, 2009, 08:54 PM
  4. Race or Religion: Which Is Stronger?
    By Blutwölfin in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Friday, August 25th, 2006, 06:04 AM
  5. Higher Education Fuels Stronger Belief in Ghosts
    By Thruthheim in forum Alternative Sciences
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 12:52 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
  •