I n d i G o| b L u

WordPress.com

Myth|about HIV/AIDs & |the True Origin|of Mankind

So the story, in a nutshell, bascially goes….Out of Africa..into the Middle East..into Asia, then into Europe  (Map)

 Evolution A gradual process in which something changes into a different and more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. The process of developing. Gradual development.

Perhaps evolution does exist, but perhaps its definition, especially in this case, is flawed. What, exactly, is more complex or better with seemingly unbeneficial mutations? Lighter skin, straighter hair, different color eyes, and different color hair—how are any of these things more complex or in a “better” form other than the myth of European features being aesthetically appealing more so than African features.

18th century anthropologist Christoph Meiners, who first defined the term, characterized the “Caucasian” as having the characteristics of “lightness“, “beauty” and being “handsome” with the “ancient Germans” having the “whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin” because they were the most racially pure Caucasians.

18th century anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, the second person to define the term, considered Caucasians to be the top of “racial hierarchy” he organized where,

 the white color holds the first place, such as it is that most Europeans. The redness of cheeks in this variety is almost peculiar to it: at all events it is but seldom seen in the rest.” and described Caucasians as, “Color white, Cheeks rosy; hair brown or chestnut-colored; head subglobular; face oval, straight, its parts moderately defined, forehead smooth, nose narrow, slightly hooked, mouth small. The primary teeth placed perpendicularly to each jaw: the lips (especially the lower one) moderately open, the chin full and rounded.

Further definition of evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Of course, Europeans are not a different species, considering the fact they have the least genetic diversity which makes them much more susceptible to harmful mutations only invalidates this definition more. Moreover, all humans share more than 90% of their DNA with each other, so the genetic variation that does exist is very minute to their genetic commonality, with people of African decent having the most genetic diversity.

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.

Favorable by whose standards–defiantly not mother natures.

 More than this, what happened to the extinction aspect of evolution in this case, if everyone else ultimately evolved from Africans, why is the African populations not dwindling on the point of extinction? Just how much time is required, it’s been about 100,000 years. In 2007, the population of Africa was 965 million, while Europe has 731 million. Of course not everyone in Europe is of European decent and the same can be said for Africa, however, most are actually of the origin of the continents –give or take a few.

Those who try to argue about AIDS playing out the role of natural selection on the African population (which is by the way, very unintelligent) —you’d have to say that Europeans and people of other races are not able to contract the virus—and everyone knows that they are just as capable as anyone else of contracting AIDS. If they were somehow evolved, as a “better developed breed”, so to speak, they’d have immunity to this OR somehow adapted in some way. I just wanted to address the stupidity before it came.

Why would one think, and be justified in thinking, that AIDS, or HIV is a man-made disease? Two very simply reasons..maybe three–besides the ones listed on the above mentioned site.

  1. The fact that this virus has two strains in such a short amount of time, and it just sprouted up all of a sudden, out seemingly no where. Monkeys were discovered to have the virus parallel to the time it began to spread in the (African) human population. As many experiments that monkeys and apes have been subjected to since the breaking age of science, it is highly unlikely that scientist, all of sudden found out those animals had HIV–at least they would have noted a decline in the population much earlier than the time it took to spread in the human population.
  2. The way the virus works, turning the immune system against itself, is unnaturalin its entirety. There is no other disease or virus known to do this.
  3. There are occurrences of two women from China who were exposed to the HIV virus AND actually showed immunity to it.
  4. Magic Johnson is alive and well (almost 20 years) and it is pubically known that he has/had HIV/AIDs.

Fishy stuff, huh? Everyone’s life is affected and at risk by AIDS. Start asking questions, seeking information, and demandig answers—real answers. I’ve noticed how many people just take whatever the media/government feeds—much like jumping of a cliff because someone simply told you to jump”. 

Other Helpful links: http://rense.com/general67/viru.htm  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIDS3.html         http://www.aliveandwell.org/

Advertisements

2 Comments»

  Mike wrote @

Evolution A gradual process in which something changes into a different and more complex or better form.

Except that’s not right. Evolution is the change in the frequency of certain alleles in the population.

More than this, what happened to the extinction aspect of evolution in this case, if everyone else ultimately evolved from Africans, why is the African populations not dwindling on the point of extinction?

Because evolution does not depend upon previous extinction. Most evolution depends upon separated populations which develop differently because of different selection pressures rather than extinctions.

The fact that this virus has two strains in such a short amount of time, and it just sprouted up all of a sudden, out seemingly no where. Monkeys were discovered to have the virus parallel to the time it began to spread in the (African) human population. As many experiments that monkeys and apes have been subjected to since the breaking age of science, it is highly unlikely that scientist, all of sudden found out those animals had HIV–at least they would have noted a decline in the population much earlier than the time it took to spread in the human population.

Well, maybe the apes are affected differently by their virus. Also, there are different strains of the flu every year, but I don’t see you calling that a conspiracy.

The way the virus works, turning the immune system against itself, is unnatural…in its entirety. There is no other disease or virus known to do this.

HIV is one of a family of retroviruses which act in a similar fashion.

There are occurrences of two women from China who were exposed to the HIV virus AND actually showed immunity to it.

Maybe there are. That doesn’t prove anything, though…

  indigoblu wrote @

*Except that’s not right.

Here’s where I got the definition:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/evolution

I would tell you that you should contact them and let them know that their definition is wrong–but it’s more or less the same thing; I believe they were just trying to make it less complicated in wording–you just used more scientific terms like alleles (alternative forms of genes)

Furthermore, I looked at all aspects of the definition, not just one. I further elaborated and defined it as:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Rough translation (what you said): *Evolution is the change in the frequency of certain alleles in the population.

**Because evolution does not depend upon previous extinction.

–Natural selection does, though, which is part of the evolutionary process.

**Most evolution depends upon separated populations which develop differently because of different selection pressures rather than extinctions.
-Selection based on WHAT though? This is one of the key issues. Lighter skin, straighter hair, different color eyes, and different color hair—how are these things any more or less favorable by nature? During the natural selection process, there are beneficial traits inherited that can sustain one group because they have a certain trait(s) but not the other group because they lack the trait(s), but there is nothing seemingly beneficial other than someone’s idea of beauty– which could actually be more harmful than helpful-but nothing from nature, there are no developmental changes, fundamentally, merely physical, seemingly unbeneficial mutations. You are talking in theory, but theory is not proving itself here.

Check out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080220-dna-evolution.html

**Well, maybe the apes are affected differently by their virus. Also, there are different strains of the flu every year, but I don’t see you calling that a conspiracy.

-Actually, the original primate strain, SIV, is more or less the same; It acts slower, typically, than HIV to show physical affects but the affects are very similar. The monkey SIV strains do not infect humans and HIV-1 does not infect monkeys. Moreover, both HIV-1 and HIV-II emerged from two distinct monkey ancestral relatives during the last 100 years; this can not be compared to the flu virus.

**HIV is one of a family of retroviruses which act in a similar fashion.

-HIV is undeniably more complicated than that. It is different from other viruses because it attacks the immune system. It basically turns the immune system AGAINST the body–this is not natural. Other viruses do not work this way. Other viruses trigger the immune system and the body fights against the VIRUS.

(There are occurrences of two women from China who were exposed to the HIV virus AND actually showed immunity to it.)
***Maybe there are. That doesn’t prove anything, though…

-This is not the first occurrence; it’s merely the most recent. There have been occurrences in people of European and African decent as well. It, to me, is a clear indication, that there is a cure at hand-probably has been for years.

Just look at Magic Johnson. Who has ever heard of “beating” AIDs? People “beat” cancer and other illnesses but AIDs? It can either be slowed down, or the person may show immunity to HIV but he had full blown AIDs and is alive and well now and by science standards, he should be in a grave by now or at least on the verge of it.

Clearly, he’s not.
I think I’ll add him to my list.

I would suggest you read this AND research it; there have been court cases as well: http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: