Progressives seem to want to have thier cake and eat it too. They push for anti religous goals such as gay marriage, men and
women having same roles etc. They want to push the notion that everyone is equal, but that evolution is also our roots. Let me
show the irony of this:
According to evolution and the science behind it we are far from equal. In fact according to the science of evolution the
ancestry of humans was not a direct transition from one species to the next but a gradual seperation from the more primative
ancestry. Human ancestors originating from Africa from primates that existed there. Some of these 'people' proceeded to move
further and further away from Africa becoming thier own unique gene pool while others proceeded to remain in Africa
continuing to mix with their primative ancestry.
So this would mean that those that were further from Africa would have began to evolve seperately from the ancestor while
those that remained were still continuing to remain geneticly similar through breeding with the ancestor.
Since people intermarry with neighbors, and have wars where they rape and capture eachother nobody was truly totaly seperate
and distinct, and would be mixed with those they lived near, but those living the furthest from the primative ancestor would
be the most removed contuing to evolve quite seperately at a much faster pace.
To further complicate things it is believed quite likely that the already distinct 'Neanderthal' (which actualy had a larger
brain than current man) didn't necessarily go extinct through competition, but was absorbed by the ancestors of man they
lived near. The Neanderthals existed in European areas mainly, as well as in parts of current East Asia.However this is not
certain.
Regardless man would evolve seperately. While those still at the source of human ancestry would still be mixing with the
ancestor not becoming distinct and seperate for tens of thousands of years, and thus be vastly behind in development and
evolution. They would still be stronger and more robust on par with the apes in physical potential, and yet not mentaly
evolved as those far and distant in harsher climates had become to survive in intellectual potential.
Following this to it's conclusion would mean that those of Sub-Saharan African descent prior to the colonization in the the
ninteenth century (where they would gain as much European ancestry as African) they would have been tens of thousands of
years removed in evolution.
While those in the far reaches of eastern Asia (oriental areas) and northern Europe would have been the most removed and
evolved the furthest from thier ancestry. How they evolved would have been dependent on how they applied themselves and what
genes gained favored..While those in between would be mixes of early and later migrations out of Africa.
Thus according to evolution mixing with those least removed from the ancestors of modern man (most recent inhabitants of
Africa) would be akin to going thousands of years backwards in evolution.
Race is often described in modern terminolgy as color, yet genetics are quite seperate in that one's color while attributed
to genetics is only a minute aspect of the science and one's genetics could be removed significantly from what any color
designation would imply. Meaning that color alone would be a poor measure from which to determine genes and therefore race.
Yet it along with bone structer and even further DNA can be used to asses ancestry.
So according to the science progressives teach in school we are not equal, yet according to Christianity's interpretation we are closer to
being equal. Yet progressives like the ideology of equality, and trust in science which proves otherwise.
For if evolution is accurate then men and women are also far from equal in that both are designed for quite different roles.
So naturaly, fullfilling those roles should leave one more content in life than striving to do the role the other has evolved
further in. These roles are clearly defined in conservative views, which are quite contrary to those of progressives.
So obviously the progressives science is quite conflicting with thier ideology and viewpoints. Eating thier cake and having
it too?
Comments not concerning belief or non belief in evolution and instead commenting on progressive viewpoints ( which we call
liberal Democrats ironicly) would be appreciated.
women having same roles etc. They want to push the notion that everyone is equal, but that evolution is also our roots. Let me
show the irony of this:
According to evolution and the science behind it we are far from equal. In fact according to the science of evolution the
ancestry of humans was not a direct transition from one species to the next but a gradual seperation from the more primative
ancestry. Human ancestors originating from Africa from primates that existed there. Some of these 'people' proceeded to move
further and further away from Africa becoming thier own unique gene pool while others proceeded to remain in Africa
continuing to mix with their primative ancestry.
So this would mean that those that were further from Africa would have began to evolve seperately from the ancestor while
those that remained were still continuing to remain geneticly similar through breeding with the ancestor.
Since people intermarry with neighbors, and have wars where they rape and capture eachother nobody was truly totaly seperate
and distinct, and would be mixed with those they lived near, but those living the furthest from the primative ancestor would
be the most removed contuing to evolve quite seperately at a much faster pace.
To further complicate things it is believed quite likely that the already distinct 'Neanderthal' (which actualy had a larger
brain than current man) didn't necessarily go extinct through competition, but was absorbed by the ancestors of man they
lived near. The Neanderthals existed in European areas mainly, as well as in parts of current East Asia.However this is not
certain.
Regardless man would evolve seperately. While those still at the source of human ancestry would still be mixing with the
ancestor not becoming distinct and seperate for tens of thousands of years, and thus be vastly behind in development and
evolution. They would still be stronger and more robust on par with the apes in physical potential, and yet not mentaly
evolved as those far and distant in harsher climates had become to survive in intellectual potential.
Following this to it's conclusion would mean that those of Sub-Saharan African descent prior to the colonization in the the
ninteenth century (where they would gain as much European ancestry as African) they would have been tens of thousands of
years removed in evolution.
While those in the far reaches of eastern Asia (oriental areas) and northern Europe would have been the most removed and
evolved the furthest from thier ancestry. How they evolved would have been dependent on how they applied themselves and what
genes gained favored..While those in between would be mixes of early and later migrations out of Africa.
Thus according to evolution mixing with those least removed from the ancestors of modern man (most recent inhabitants of
Africa) would be akin to going thousands of years backwards in evolution.
Race is often described in modern terminolgy as color, yet genetics are quite seperate in that one's color while attributed
to genetics is only a minute aspect of the science and one's genetics could be removed significantly from what any color
designation would imply. Meaning that color alone would be a poor measure from which to determine genes and therefore race.
Yet it along with bone structer and even further DNA can be used to asses ancestry.
So according to the science progressives teach in school we are not equal, yet according to Christianity's interpretation we are closer to
being equal. Yet progressives like the ideology of equality, and trust in science which proves otherwise.
For if evolution is accurate then men and women are also far from equal in that both are designed for quite different roles.
So naturaly, fullfilling those roles should leave one more content in life than striving to do the role the other has evolved
further in. These roles are clearly defined in conservative views, which are quite contrary to those of progressives.
So obviously the progressives science is quite conflicting with thier ideology and viewpoints. Eating thier cake and having
it too?
Comments not concerning belief or non belief in evolution and instead commenting on progressive viewpoints ( which we call
liberal Democrats ironicly) would be appreciated.
