Kinism

How many layers of ideology are you on, my dude?

Australia is the only nation I can think of that created real policies to mix out Aboriginal peoples. It's quite exceptional but whitening beliefs are quite common in the colonized nations of the Americas

>not sinful
>proceeds to call it evil
u wot

Is there a third option?

Learn to read.

No, not inherently. Sometimes it is used as a form of population control like the Han Chinese in Tibet and the Goumier in post WWII Italy. However when not forced by the government or foreign armies it isn't inherently bad.

>racemixing is non sinful
>racemixing is pernicious
pick one.

Just because something is pernicious doesn't mean that it's a sin, or sinful. A sin is a strictly religiospiritual transgression.

racemixing isn't evil though. if it is, then it would be sinful. every action we do will be judged in the final day.

Ideas primarily buddy, dont get it twisted. Back in the old days the best and only way to transfer idea was by people.

He didn't post "evil", he posted "pernicious".

LEARN
TO
FUCKING
READ

youtu.be/jdpSLsXMDD8
>judges you in Christian

...

faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/

>Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part1
; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Seems about right.

Pernicious just means detrimental, perjudicial. It has no ethical or moral connotations.

>using an obvious alt-right echo chamber as a source

By that logic ethnic mixing is genocide. Fuck off.

You dropped your trip Paco

>wishing for the diversity God created to go down the drain
Look at the racist. Look at him and laugh heartily.

Finns have a mixture of East Asian and European haplotypes and that worked out better than fine

No.

>worked out better than fine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_heritage_disease

You have a very /pol/ understanding of genetics if you think mixing can cause Mendelian disorders. It actually decreases their frequency.

...

The Homo lineages are fucked. The Erectus subspecies are obviously Races by our standard, and Neanderthal and Denisovan are H. sapiens by the biological species conceit

>implying the subspecies of erectus weren't isolated af
>implying neanders and denisovans weren't at the very edge of genetic compatibility
They are pretty fucked, but not that fucked.

Relatively isolated for a couple tens of thousands of years, you dipshit, like most Human races were.

Also, why the fuck would they be on the edge of compatibility when they should little evidence of inability to produce healthy,virile hybrids. Heavy phenotypic variety does not a species make.

Are a Dutchman and a Pygmy on the very edge of compatibility?

>Are a Dutchman and a Pygmy on the very edge of compatibility?
Well obviously a Pygmy would die trying to bear a European child.

The head of the child would tear that bitch apart.

>Implying the pygmy is the mother

Edge of compatibility is a tricky concept since it doesn't map to generations but their population sizes.
Genetic drift is strongest in small groups while in large ones it doesn't happen in the same way which would lead to chromosomal differences.

If Chinese and Europeans were separated for 10 million years they could with relative ease crossbreed if their populations were stable in the several millions or higher.

geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/02/04/were-neanderthals-a-different-species/amp/
This explains than I ever could.

It was also encouraged in the Americas.

>Is racemixing "genocide"
Not if it's between two consenting people
>"sinful?"
Depends on your moral values, one could even argue the reverse. But morality is relative so whether it's sinful is pure opinion.

>Heretical Scripture arguments from obvious redneck church

>Genocide
Not unless it is a systematic attempt to wipe out an ethnic or racial group. If the US said "blacks can only marry and reproduce with whites" than sure its an active attempt at genocide but if Sally Sluthole decides to fuck black guys exclusively and gets knocked up it is in no way genocide, just Sally being a shallow slut.
>Sinful
I suppose in some religions, but not in most, Christianity and Islam don't oppose race mixing.

>americas
Only on the mesoamerican tribes and Brazil. They are inferior.

Incas were superior to european though.

You're an idiot. Homo erectus lasted nearly 2 million years. There are subspecies of Homo erectus that were once assumed to be different species, that's how physically diverse they were.

Nice religion, not observable science though.

Keep your evolution faith to yourself.

...

Nice try. There are hundreds of Homo erectus fossils, are you willing to tell me that they're all fake? Actually, what is your view on Homo erectus? To me, that's a normal, if not robust human from the neck down, but the smaller skull, longer face, no chin, and larger brow ridges all have a very different look than us.

This is another Homo erectus (H. erectus georgicus) by the way. For a long time, scientists thought that it was a different species, until skulls from 2013 that superficially looked pretty damn different all had the same basic traits. Turns out, they're all early Homo erectus that moved out of Africa early on, but kept their archaic features.

These are the fossils he's talking about.

You mean fossils of apes and fossils of humans.

You project your imagination and wild fantasies on the data and ***speculate*** on how they might have looked like.

Drawings of hairy cavemen is not proof for your dying theory.

Anything to do with evolution relies heavily on
>Vivid imagination
>unprovable assumptions
>biased interpretation
>outlandish speculation and
>conjecture
and of course GULLIBLE people like you to swallow it.

I call it Voodoo Science, Junk Science or Zombie science.

>You mean fossils of apes and fossils of humans.
And you know which is which, how?

>You project your imagination and wild fantasies on the data and ***speculate*** on how they might have looked like.
You mean using the facial musculature and features of humans and extant apes for comparison?

>Drawings of hairy cavemen is not proof for your dying theory.
But fossils are.

Thanks user, that's a good picture.

You didn't answer my question. What is Homo erectus user? By the way, the way you described your twisted vision of evolution can easily be said about religion in general. At the very least, things are allowed to change in science If someone is wrong. Plus, if someone is repeatedly wrong, they're ignored like David Peters.

Fossils show that something died. That's it. Nothing more.

When you add an interpretation on the fossil to fit your personal beliefs, you are outside the realm of science.

>Fossils show that something died. That's it. Nothing more.
Just as with a recently deceased cadaver,

>When you add an interpretation on the fossil to fit your personal beliefs, you are outside the realm of science.
But isn't that what you're doing? I'm merely comparing and contrasting the different forms.

>inb4 le fork-spork-spoon pic
Cutlery cannot reproduce.

>Just as with a recently deceased cadaver,
Cont.
Each fossil tells us something about the past. From what has been observed thus far, it seems man has a much longer family history than a mere 6,000-10,000 years.

>What is Homo erectus
A term made up by adherents of the evolution myth.

You look at a bunch of objects that look similar and give it a name. Then draw a bunch of comic books and "reconstruct" imaginary plastic Flintstone characters to brainwash kids into believing their grandparents were shit-flinging apes.

And don't try the "science always changes" cop-out.
Evolutionism is not science, it's pseudo-science that borderlines on a religious world view (for atheists).

Please show me evidence that
>the world is gorillions of years old
>life magically came from inorganic materials
>animals produce something that is not their own kind

You rely on "beneficial mutations" which is not a thing. All mutations are harmful and unnatural. There are genetic fixes in place, or the animal would not survive in the wild. Even if it did, it would have to find a partner with the same mutation to pass it on to their offspring.

God created animals and mankind to produce after their own kind. This is all we see and all we observe, throughout history. Every farmer and breeder counts on evolution NOT happening.

I don't force my religion to be taught in public schools. But fundamental atheists want to poison the minds of children by shoving Darwinism down their throat.

What makes you believe that?
Uniformitarianism has been debunked by the way.

You evolutionists have a weird fascination with dead things, it's really creepy.

>Each fossil tells us something about the past
Yeah, it tells us that someone died. That's it.

I see the bones of a dead human in that image. You apparently are psychic and can see the past and know exactly how the person looked like.

the bible talks about this user.

fools claiming to be wise.
worshipping the creation over the creator.
vain imaginations.
the fool tells himself there is no god

etc

the reason evoltards have a fascination with dead skeletons is because evolution is a religion of death, as opposed to christianity which is about life.

If evolution was true there would be millions of transitional fossils.

Instead we have zero.

Evolution only happens in their mind, it's all imagination.

>A term made up by adherents of the evolution myth.
How about the fossils that the term applies to?

>You look at a bunch of objects that look similar and give it a name.
Like how humans are classified as homo sapiens, or chimps are pan troglodytes. Classification is necessary in any view, evolutionary or otherwise.

>And don't try the "science always changes" cop-out.
But it does.

>Evolutionism is not science, it's pseudo-science that borderlines on a religious world view (for atheists).
Got anything to back that up?
>inb4 piltdown and nebraska
Later findings falsified piltdown, and nebraska was an honest mistake, but he certainly wasn't thought to be a man of any sort.

>the world is gorillions of years old
>what are the various dating methods that have verified time and time again?

>life magically came from inorganic materials
>what is the Miller-Urey experiment?

>animals produce something that is not their own kind
Define a "kind" first.

>You rely on "beneficial mutations" which is not a thing. All mutations are harmful and unnatural.
sciencemag.org/news/sifter/green-anole-lizards-are-evolving-our-eyes

>God created animals and mankind to produce after their own kind.
>breeding: basically incest to create weird-ass shit for pay
You're right about one thing.

>I don't force my religion to be taught in public schools.
"Darwinism" hasn't been used in years, I don't kniw why you're complaining.

>What makes you believe that?
Evidence, something your side is severely lacking in.

>Uniformitarianism has been debunked by the way.
>man misuses (x) dating method
>"DA ERTH IS YUNG!"

>You evolutionists have a weird fascination with dead things, it's really creepy.
Then I guess the forensics used in criminal cases are "creepy" as well?

>Yeah, it tells us that someone died. That's it.
A fossil represents a population, not just one animal

>I see the bones of a dead human in that image.
Interesting. What about this?

Are you trolling user?

Still avoiding it? I'll make it as easy as possible: Is Homo erectus a species of human, or a non-human ape?

>Still avoiding it? I'll make it as easy as possible: Is Homo erectus a species of human, or a non-human ape?
He's just going to keep avoiding the question if you use terminology that can't understand. Just use a pic, and see what he says.

I like how it's quite simple to see how many of the younger specimens of Homo erectus are more gracile looking than their earlier kin.

...

Depends more on the group. Ergaster is a bit more gracile than its Eurasian relatives/descendants, though our family went through a few weird phases beforehand.

Make an argument rooted in any major branch of ethics--deism, virtue ethics, or utilitarianism--that clearly shows miscegenation is wrong

Oh wait you can't! Because it's trivial and nobody cares.

...