God Commands Racial Segregation--forbids Mongrelization

Rubbish. You don't know what you are talking about and are a hypocrite.

 

Had you any basis for your maundering about "white Homo heidelbergensis in North Africa,' you would have presented it. Apparently, you haven't.

Face it, dude. The first real humans were black, and Europeans are a side shoot that had the good fortune to be born in a good location.

 

I never said they were white.
I said I guess they were the same color as modern North Africans.
Nobody knows what color they were.
We certainly don't know they were "black".

You are nothing more than a troll.

 

Rubbish. All of their descendants who did not procede from an idaltu/neanderthalensis or idaltu/denisovan mating are BLACK.

You offer no slightest bit of evidence to the contrary. You are nothing more than a troll.

 

If there is no evidence it doesn't mean you can just make up whatever you want.
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here, other than destroying what little credibility you have.
If that is what you are trying to do, congratulations.

 

There is evidence. Everyone south and east of the areas in which idaltu is found are black. There is no evidence of any other form of H. sapiens sapiens in North Africa. They had to have been black.

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here, other than destroying what little credibility you have.

 

The first two Sapiens fossils are found in Ethiopia (brown) and Morroco (light skinned).

Stop lying.

 

No proof of that exists. From all indications H. sapiens sapiens radiated from the Middle East into Africa, Europe and Asia and was black. They could not have been white and sired African and Australoids. It really is that simple.

 

Quite correct, Mr. Dark-skin-evolved-from-light-skin.

BTW, if you agree with OP who thinks "God Commands Racial Segregation--forbids Mongrelization", why exactly are you trying to use evolution to defend your beliefs? Shouldn't the Bible be enough for you?

 

There is no evidence that the first Sapiens was black and you are lying.

The really funny part is that nobody cares what color it was.

 

apparently you do that's why you keep arguing the facts.

 

You don't have any facts. You are liars.

 

There, there. It's okay; science is hard. *pats cute little racist wannabe on head*

 

So you're saying the first Sapiens had black skin? What is your evidence for that? Do you have an academic source which backs it up?

It's OK white-hater, lies are always exposed in the end.

 

Lol. He makes up bs for his "dark skin developed from white skin" bs, when asked for a source claims untruthfully that it's common knowledge, and now is demanding a source. Ur funni.

No, I'm not a "white-hater", whatever that is but you're right about lies being exposed in the end.

Actually the lies were obvious all along. Only the liar has deluded themselves into thinking they're fooling anyone.

 

Yes, they do kind of show their asses at times. Like dodging the fact that there is little, if any differencew between the mitocrondrial DNA of living humans, to include those of radiclly different racial types.

The DNA of Europeans is clearly related closely to that of humans of every color, to the point that it renders multi-centrism laughable.

 

Of course dark skin evolved from light. Our ancestors were covered in hair and developed light skin after they lost it.

Where is your source the first Sapiens (which developed from Heidelbergensis in North Africa) had dark skin?

Oh, you don't have one.

Why are you lying?

 

Can you not read? I posted sources from wiki which you in your infinite wisdom determined weren't good enough.

At this point you so deserve to be Rick Rolled.

 

Oh, you posted sources from wiki and then launched a rick roll.

Congratulations.

Get a rice krispy square and a 12oz sunny D, you've earned it.

 

Are you ever going to get around to posting some evidence for your inane belief that the frirst H. sapiens was white?

Whatever the outcome, it is clear that cross-breeding back and forth between the more advanced individuals of distinct populations was what advanced evolution overall, and thus is a requirement, rather than something to avoid.

That there were more advanced civilizations in those parts of Africa where there was more than one ethnic stock is further indication that it is beneficial to mix genetic stocks.

There simply is no proof that it is detrimental.

There is no divine law given to us in the context of any valid world religion that does not address a real concern in the context of public health and good order. Even the commandment to wipe out the Canaanites addressed the fact that they had become degenerate in their governance and in their worship of their idols. How many references do you find in the Bible to "causing their children to pass through the fire?"

Think a bit about it.

 

No. I said I don't know what color they were. You said they were black. Stop lying.

 

Stop babbling. Without hair, in the tropics, it would not have been advantageous, from a survival aspect, to develop white skin. It would have a survival advantage in frozen-over Europe where they had to wear clothes. You have nothing. You are taking far too much pride in your ignorance.

 

No. I said I don't know what color they were. You said they were black. Stop lying.

 

Are you familiar with what projection is, "Mikey"?

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]"

Read more here.

 

Yes. I'm also familiar with the fact that people can project their own projection.

Oh, BTW: I said I don't know what color they were. You said they were black. Stop lying.