"Pygmies’ short life spans may be behind their small size
December 11th, 2007 - 4:17 pm ICT by adminWashington, December 11 (ANI): A new study suggests that the smaller life spans of pygmies across the world might be a reason as to why they are smaller in size than average humans.
The research suggests that brief life spans put evolutionary pressure on pygmy women to stop growing and to start giving birth sooner."
And it "suggests" meaning what? Who wrote this article? An evolutionist of course, so of course it's going to suggest evolution is true. Big duh. And suggests to who lol? To creationists who don't lie for profit and pride? Creationists who aren't in the habit of lying? So that's the powerful evolutionary evidence? To bullshit and be vague? And how does brief life span = stop growing? Is evolution now like karma? It's magically intelligent? It's some sort of god now? The article goes on to say:
"As a result of this, the energy that should normally be expended on growth gets spent on reproduction at a younger age."
Wow, check that out, their evidence is to repeat what they just said. Thanks for wasting my time. No wait, not a total waste, they've demonstrated more evidence for their "repeat a lie enough and people will believe it" technique. The article then says:"“The idea is that (pygmies) have to stop growing earlier, because when you start reproducing at least for women all the energy you would put in growth is put into reproduction,” the National Geographic quoted Andrea Migliano, the lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow at Clare College, Cambridge, in the United Kingdom, as saying."
For the third time the article repeats this theory without citing evidence for its validity. And besides that did you notice any errors? Notice Andrea avoided the issue of why the men would not grow taller being that they don't have to expend much energy carrying around and feeding a baby? So much for her "idea". Furthermore, what is the evidence that "all of the energy" a pygmy uses is put into reproduction? You mean they don't dance, sing, learn, hunt, grow, nurse babies, or have fun doing other things? So they can't do both huh, they can only be baby machines? Would pygmies disappear if they were more active? Furthermore, how much energy could it possibly for a human to grow from 1 foot to 5 or 7 feet in FOURTEEN-EIGHTEEN YEARS? Since when does growing to even eight feet after eighteen years make a person unable to give birth to two or three kids and unable to be a very active person? Does anyone notice anyone living shorter and shorter lifespans from being very active lol? So this is evolutionary science? Teaching evolutionary theory is a shameful waste of tax-payer money (including that of creationist Christians who are illegally made to fund it when it is opposed to their conscience), time that could be used to make real advancements in technology and science. It is worthless compared to bull shit; bull shit can be used as fertilizer and fuel and used to save lives. But what is good is evolution except to show that creationists are right and that evolutionists are wasting-time?The article then says:
"“You have to choose either you grow or you reproduce,” she added."
Cuz she said so (damn, I can either be 1 foot or have kids), and didn't I virtually read that stupid teaching three other times in this article without any evidence to back it? And what's with the switcheroo? First were talking about life-span, then it shifts to height. What the hell? Can evolutionists stop going off on illogical tangents?There is no magical evolution law that says, "Hi, if you live longer you can't more kids!"
Ironically, in atheist-evolutionist dominated China, they even force abortions on those, including christians who try to have more then one or two children. Sick atheist-evolutionists try and force their theories to come true. Sick, vile, sick.
