Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

Did you not see my last comment on the subject? Check post #614.

 

**Correction: My last post should have 3 more zeros (i.e. $50,000,000,000,000)


[HR][/HR]

 

'In 2001, the New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial provocatively titled “Racial Profiling in Medical Research.” The author, Robert Schwartz, reiterated the commonly held view that no biological basis exists for race, and then argued that physicians should not consider race in their research or medical practice. This prompted a sharp response from geneticist Neil Risch, who pointed out that numerous studies had demonstrated significant genetic differences among humans based on continental ancestry, suggesting evidence of five distinct races. Among the reasons for recognizing such variations: research shows that people of different races sometimes vary in their responses to medicines.'

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/bc0606sm.html

 

While there are genetic differences between populations and we can use ancestry informative markers to identify continental ancestry the concept of race is inapplicable to humans therefore race-based medicine is not recommended by many scientists. Instead scientists such as Joseph Graves recommend looking at individual family histories when prescribing medicine and considering the role that evolution plays in genetic predispositions as well as social environment in health disparities between demographic groups.

[video=youtube;lwPH9sAWX98]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPH9sAWX98[/video]

 

I believe so. I don't see you supporting your claim that a 0.10 correlation coefficient would not increase black IQ with more white heritage.

 

I clearly said I was done arguing about that whole issue so why are you so fixated on it?

 

'A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic research. Some claim 'no biological basis for race' while others advocate a 'race-neutral' approach, using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity.'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/

 

'Race' seen as a real guide to track roots of desease.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/science/race-is-seen-as-real-guide-to-track-roots-of-disease.html



Medical research and treament for Blacks hampered by "race does not exist" dogma

Political correctness backfires and vicitmizes Blacks: research about how to improve black health care gets attacked and repressed. If optimal medical treatment differs by race, then researchers gets attacked. After all, race does not exist and is only a construct. And it is only skin deep.

Our comments about such nonsense are at race and intelligence and political correctness. Any forensic specialist can tell the race of a person from a few bones. (Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?)

The "race does not exist dogma" and "all races are equal dogma" is an impediment to medical research and victimizes black people who are denied optimal medical treatment.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=palemoon&q=race+does+not+exist"+a+"PC+dogma

 

White Anthropologists who still insist race does not exist............

http://www.vdare.com/posts/white-anthropologists-who-still-believe-race-does-not-exist


Is Race a valid taxonomic construct?

Over the years egalitarians have questioned the taxonomic classification of race in terms of its empirical value and utility. Notwithstanding these criticisms, which seek to undermine the legitimacy of race as a scientific concept, the answer to the question posed in the title of this paper is ‘yes.’ If the concept of race didn’t exist, science would have to invent it (and did)! Race is a valid taxonomic construct because it allows us to make predictions about people’s behavior, especially at the group level.”

In summary, the same racial pattern would not occur so consistently all around the world and over time if race were a mere social construct. If it were a meaningless construct, it would have no power to predict phenomena like brain size, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability. Other evidence also shows that race is a biological reality. For example, coroners in crime labs can identify race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can even identify race from blood, hair, or semen. How could they do this if race was only a social construct? The scientific evidence shows that the politically correct mantra ‘race is just skin deep’ is a case of deep denial.” –J. Philippe Rushton, Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct?

 

Rushton had a very elementary understanding of the no biological races position promoted by mainstream scientists. He confused ancestry with race and did not seem to comprehend that race doesn't merely refer to geographically based genetic variation (which no one denies) but to a typological categorization of humans that isn't supported by genetic data. Rushton also tried to blend his pseudoscientific claims of behavioral and evolutionary differences with forensic research to try to legitimize race as a valid biological construct.

I have already posted counter sources to Rushton several times on this board. Are you going to keep spamming sources or are you going to try to actually discuss some of the material you are referencing? Again all you seem capable of doing is spamming and ranting instead of making coherent, reasonable arguments. But since you want to talk about Rushton why don't you read these sources and provide some feedback?

[video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]

 

The problem with attempting to create a biology-based race classification is that it's very subjective how you draw the lines. As has been pointed out, genetic variation across region exists. However, each allele has its own distribution pattern. It's not a case where white people have all one set of alleles, and black people have their own set. Skin color is just one genetic trait. Beyond that, if you look at a different trait, you (often) get a completely different map. Even then, we're only talking about differences in allele frequencies. An allele with very different frequencies in two populations can still be fairly significant or fairly insignificant in both populations.

 

A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. Biologists scanning the genome fo
Genetics and Social Behavior

Human evolution has not only been recent and extensive, it has also been regional. The period of 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, from which signals of recent natural selection can be detected, occurred after the splitting of the three major races, so represents selection that has occurred largely independently within each race. The three principal races are Africans (those who live south of the Sahara), East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans), and Caucasians (Europeans and the peoples of the Near East and the Indian subcontinent). In each of these races, a different set of genes has been changed by natural selection. This is just what would be expected for populations that had to adapt to different challenges on each continent. The genes specially affected by natural selection control not only expected traits like skin color and nutritional metabolism, but also some aspects of brain function. Though the role of these selected brain genes is not yet understood, the obvious truth is that genes affecting the brain are just as much subject to natural selection as any other category of gene.

Human social structures change so slowly and with such difficulty as to suggest an evolutionary influence at work.What might be the role of these brain genes favored by natural selection? Edward O. Wilson was pilloried for saying in his 1975 book Sociobiology that humans have many social instincts. But subsequent research has confirmed the idea that we are inherently sociable. From our earliest years we want to belong to a group, conform to its rules and punish those who violate them. Later, our instincts prompt us to make moral judgments and to defend our group, even at the sacrifice of one’s own life.

Anything that has a genetic basis, such as these social instincts, can be varied by natural selection. The power of modifying social instincts is most visible in the case of ants, the organisms that, along with humans, occupy the two pinnacles of social behavior. Sociality is rare in nature because to make a society work individuals must moderate their powerful selfish instincts and become at least partly altruistic. But once a social species has come into being, it can rapidly exploit and occupy new niches just by making minor adjustments in social behavior. Thus both ants and humans have conquered the world, though fortunately at different scales.

Conventionally, these social differences are attributed solely to culture. But if that’s so, why is it apparently so hard for tribal societies like Iraq or Afghanistan to change their culture and operate like modern states? The explanation could be that tribal behavior has a genetic basis. It’s already known that a genetic system, based on the hormone oxytocin, seems to modulate the degree of in-group trust, and this is one way that natural selection could ratchet the degree of tribal behavior up or down.

Human social structures change so slowly and with such difficulty as to suggest an evolutionary influence at work. Modern humans lived for 185,000 years as hunters and gatherers before settling down in fixed comm

 

'A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. Biologists scanning the genome for evidence of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. No less than 14% of the human genome, according to one estimate, has changed under this recent evolutionary pressure.

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.

Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles.

The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies.


Genetics and Social Behavior

Human evolution has not only been recent and extensive, it has also been regional. The period of 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, from which signals of recent natural selection can be detected, occurred after the splitting of the three major races, so represents selection that has occurred largely independently within each race. The three principal races are Africans (those who live south of the Sahara), East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans), and Caucasians (Europeans and the peoples of the Near East and the Indian subcontinent). In each of these races, a different set of genes has been changed by natural selection. This is just what would be expected for populations that had to adapt to different challenges on each continent. The genes specially affected by natural selection control not only expected traits like skin color and nutritional metabolism, but also some aspects of brain function. Though the role of these selected brain genes is not yet understood, the obvious truth is that genes affecting the brain are just as much subject to natural selection as any other category of gene.

Human social structures change so slowly and with such difficulty as to suggest an evolutionary influence at work.What might be the role of these brain genes favored by natural selection? Edward O. Wilson was pilloried for saying in his 1975 book Sociobiology that humans have many social instincts. But subsequent research has confirmed the idea that we are inherently sociable. From our earliest years we want to belong to a group, conform to its rules and punish those who violate them. Later, our instincts prompt us to make moral judgments and to defend our group, even at the sacrifice of one’s own life.

Anything that has a genetic basis, such as these social instincts, can be varied by natural selection. The power of modifying social instincts is most visible in the case of ants, the organisms that, along with humans, occupy the two pinnacles of social behavior. Sociality is rare in nature because to make a society work individuals must moderate their powerful selfish instincts and become at least partly altruistic. But once a social species has come into being, it can rapidly exploit and occupy new niches just by making minor adjustments in social behavior. Thus both ants and humans have conquered the world, though fortunately at different scales.

Conventionally, these social differences are attributed solely to culture. But if that’s so, why is it apparently so hard for tribal societies like Iraq or Afghanistan to change their culture and operate like modern states? The explanation could be that tribal behavior has a genetic basis. It’s already known that a genetic system, based on the hormone oxytocin, seems to modulate the degree of in-group trust, and this is one way that natural selection could ratchet the degree of tribal behavior up or down.

Human social structures change so slowly and with such difficulty as to suggest an evolutionary influence at work. Modern humans lived for 185,000 years as hunters and gatherers before settling down in fixed communities. Putting a roof over one’s head and being able to own more than one could carry might seem an obvious move. The fact that it took so long suggests that a genetic change in human social behavior was required and took many generations to evolve.

Tribalism seems to be the default mode of human political organization. It can be highly effective: The world’s largest land empire, that of the Mongols, was a tribal organization. But tribalism is hard to abandon, again suggesting that an evolutionary change may be required.

The various races have evolved along substantially parallel paths, but because they have done so independently, it’s not surprising that they have made these two pivotal transitions in social structure at somewhat different times. Caucasians were the first to establish settled communities, some 15,000 years ago, followed by East Asians and Africans. China, which developed the first modern state, shed tribalism two millennia ago, Europe did so only a thousand years ago, and populations in the Middle East and Africa are in the throes of the process.

Two case studies, one from the Industrial Revolution and the other from the cognitive achievements of Jews, provide further evidence of evolution’s hand in shaping human social behavior within the recent past'.

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

 

I hope everyone here understands that every human alive or dead had DNA that indicated their distant ancestors originated out of Africa??

THAT'S RIGHT!!!

Your ancestors were at one time....BLACK!!!

AboveAlpha

 

ElDiablo,

Give a response to the material I posted refuting Rushton in your own words. If you want to back up your argument with sources fine but extrapolate an argument from those sources in your own words. Try using your brain for once. Or can you not do it?

 

I am still waiting for a coherent summary of what you believe regarding the erroneous proposition that the environment is responsible for black/white i.q. gap. Posting of supposed data(often skeward) and often skeward stats does nothing to advance your agenda. In other woids....sum up in a coherent manner if possible what you find that best states your position. Not even to mention ray has already exposed your lack of expertise in properly understand the stats and data you present.

You always want others to focus in on your p.c. nonsense but time and again you fail to address posts indicating that the genes play the dominant role in determining intelligence.

You have said that poverty, lack of education and waycism are responsible for the low black average i.q.---yet when confronted with the fact that other population groups have suffered as much and more than the African population you claim it is meaningless....you seem to infer though yo deny it that the African Environment is somehow different aka it has more influence on its population than other environments have on other population groups ....aka you are not being consistent....especially since on the one hand you say you believe the genes determine intelligence but then you turn around and say that in the case of blacks....it is the environment responsible for the gap....even in America...which of course you blame on waycism....which is always the fall back position of the politically correct aka all the worlds problems are due to white racism...pathetic.

In a nutshell what you need to face up to is that the intelligence of all races is determined by genetics and that in all races the environment plays a significant but undetermined role as in exactly what percentage of the i.q. is determined by environment and vice-versa.... at the same time you need to understand that science cannot really prove any of the above....all we have is evidence...thus it is up to the experts to determine which evidence is the most supportive of their position....also as more and more genetic research becomes available....it points more and more to the genes being the dominant influence.

 

heheh I will try and break this to you gently as you seem like a sensitive soul..................Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html

BTW....here is something you really need to focus in on..............'The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies'.

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

 

You already got a coherent summary of my correct position that environment is entirely responsible for the Black-White IQ gap earlier in the thread in this post. I already summarized the evidence that best supports my position several times, for example in this post. You have repeatedly ignored responding to the evidence. Rayznack's reasoning on the interpretation of stats and data was dismissed by an expert. You are basically dodging responding to my arguments and ranting again. You are incapable of defending Rushton's arguments or responding to my points regarding racial IQ gaps. I have been very patient with you and given you many chances but your tendency to rant and spam defying all logic in the conversation seems to be all you are able to do.

 

You are delusional...but that neither picks my pocket nor breaks my bones.

Ray nailed you and all you said was...'I am not discussing that anymore' aka I am taking my ball and going home....but alas you are still here. hehheh

 

I said I'm not discussing it any more because he just repeats the same crap over and over. I already cited two experts who disagree with him. Nothing more needed to be said.

Don't try to change the subject. I clearly gave you a summary of my position on the Black-White IQ gap. You have links to the posts in question and you are incapable of responding to that argument. I also thoroughly refuted Rushton in this thread yet you continue to cite him as some credible source. It's time to put up or shut up. Defend your position or concede defeat.

 

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa you refuted Rushton hahahhahahaha Yep delusional is da woid.

Your comprehension leaves much to be desired.

 

http://www.intelltheory.com/jensen.shtml

 

Absolute B.S.!

Beyond idiocy!!!

Go get a DNA trace of your lineage.

Your ancestors original origin are African!

AboveAlpha

 

You just do not keep up with the latest news.............................http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Q3DvPRKOc


I've always been annoyed with the whole Creationist-like Out of Africa myth where modern humans supposedly magically appeared in Africa between 50,000 to 200,000 years ago and spread all over the globe supposedly wiping out the Neanderthals. Here is evidence that modern humans interbred with the Neanderthals(and I'm sure that other apemen species all over the globe interbred with other hominids including Cro-Magnon as well):-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...genes-from-interbreeding-50000-years-ago.html

In other words, the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Cro Magnon etc. were not separate species but all one happy family, capable of interbreeding with each other.


https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_africans_a_different_subspecies/

 

A Story of the Origin of Humans:

Here is a short story of the origin of man propounded in this book. Much of it is, admittedly, speculative, but it provides a more-or-less complete story, even if it involves some guesswork, a better read than isolated facts separated by chasms of mystery. I will not endlessly repeat, “according to the author,” and the reader should realize that deductions and explanations are the author’s opinion, supported by the quotations and citations that are given.
    The story begins about 60 mya in the tropics of SE Asia. Early primates (“prosimians&#8221 chatter in the trees where they are safe from most predators. Some of the prosimians cling to trees vertically and have a vertical posture. They support themselves and climb with their strong back legs and use their front legs to grasp branches and food.
    Some primates become larger, making it more difficult to walk on top of the branches, so they begin to move by hanging from the branches by their feet and arms, then just by their arms; they are “brachiators.” Arms become longer as those with longer arms can move more efficiently with larger swings, just as longer legs make walking more efficient. Tails are no longer needed for balance and are a waste of the body’s resources, so the brachiators who have shorter tails now have an advantage and tails decrease in size, then disappear entirely.
    Less mobile in the trees and too heavy to reach fruit on the end of small branches, the tailless brachiators spend more time on the ground, where their size eliminates the threat of small predators and enables them to eat foods, such as underground tubers, unavailable to their tree-bound predecessors. They have not evolved the anatomy needed for efficient walking on two feet so they walked partly bent over supported by palms in Eurasia and knuckles in Africa. The environment on the ground is more complex, giving a survival advantage to those who have larger brains and are more intelligent. It is about 25 mya and the tailless brachiators have become apes.
    Some of the Eurasian apes live in swampy areas, near lakes or the sea, or in forests near rivers, where they feed on plants and aquatic animals. When they are in the water, they walk on two feet (“bipedalism&#8221. Over time, they become more and more anatomically adapted to bipedalism and venture farther away from the safety of shallow water and nearby trees. This is the first “giant step for mankind” because bipedalism was the single most important adaptation in the evolution of man; man is the only habitually bipedal mammal. It is about 10 million years ago and bipedal apes have arrived.
    The Eurasian bipedal apes follow the fruiting of trees and bushes and the herds of animals that predators feed on, scavenging the remains. Walking on two feet lets them travel farther and faster and with less energy than the quadrupedal apes, 1 and there are many other significant advantages as well. Their hands are free to carry food and rocks 2 and sticks for weapons, 3 standing upright presented less surface area to the sun, keeping them cooler and able to forage longer 4 and, by standing, they could better spot predators. 5 Weapons and tools improve, as they can now be carried with them instead of being made only when needed, then discarded. Larger brains enabled them to plan better hunting strategies, thereby obtaining more meat to fuel their growing brains, creating a feedback loop of bigger brain → better tools and weapons → more meat → bigger brain (where “→” means “makes possible” or “goes to&#8221. 6
    Because the bipedal apes move about on the ground so much, they are constantly in different environments. They must remember where to go, when to go there, and what dangers and food sources to look for in all the many different locations they visit. A larger brain, despite its high energy requirements and additional weight, becomes worth its high cost.
    Moving around on two feet means that a mother can hold her baby with one hand and gather food with the other while it nurses. 7 Walking uses less energy if the legs are close together (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 92), and women with a narrower birth canal, and therefore closer legs, survive better. But a narrower birth canal means that babies must be born less developed so their brains and skulls can fit through the narrower canal during birth; the growth of the brain is delayed and it has its greatest growth after birth. 8 While that solves one problem, it creates new problems, for now the less-developed baby requires longer care in order to survive. 1 The bipedal ape’s numbers increase rapidly and like his predecessors he, too, migrates into Africa, where he drives all the other great apes to extinction, except for the chimpanzee and the gorilla, who retreat to more isolated and less desirable territories. It is about 4 mya; the bipedal ape has become Australopithecus, the last bipedal ape.
    While Australopithecus ventured into the subtropics, man could go farther north, into a seasonal and colder climate. Had Australopithecus remained in the tropics, there would today be no men, Homo. But when the tropics were full, some Australopithecines, the losers in the competition for the best territories, were pushed into less desirable territories, one of which was the colder north.
    A seasonal climate is vastly more mentally challenging than a tropical climate. In the tropics, different types of plant food are available all year long, but in a more seasonal climate, plants begin to limit their edible portions to only the warmer seasons, which also limits the biomass of the animals who eat them. Thus, more skill and intelligence are required than in the tropics. While some species of Australopithecines partially adapted to a cooler climate, they could not go as far north as man, and hibernation was not an option. 9
    The seasonal climate strongly selected for the greater intelligence needed to survive in this more mentally challenging environment. Individuals who had it survived and passed their particular genes on to their children; those who lacked it did not. Gradually, they extended their northern range. By about 2½ mya, the combination of efficient bipedal walking, free use of hands, and greater intelligence had paid off big time and the ape had become man. Sometime around 2 mya, a dramatic change began in these more northern Australopithecines – their brains enlarged dramatically, as must have their intelligence. This was the birth of the genus Homo, the first men.
    For early man, struggling to survive as seasonal differences became ever more severe with each extension to the north, his larger brain, and greater intelligence, was the key to the completely different mindset needed in this environment. Impulsiveness and immediate gratification was out; saving for the future was in. Ignoring the future consequences of actions was out; careful planning became a necessity. Nature’s price for becoming man was high, no more tropical Garden of Eden, but desperate preparation for the trials of winter. The hukana matata (“no worries&#8221 grasshopper, 10 happily singing his days away in the sun, becomes Homo, the hard-working, struggling ant.
    The relationship between the sexes also changed. In the north, where hunting was a more important source of food, women could no longer gather the provisions needed to sustain themselves and their children throughout the year. Without a man to provide for them, they died and their children died. 11 Men who committed to a single woman and cared for her, the “dads,” passed on their pair-bonding genes; fewer “cads” passed on their philandering genes.
    An early species of man, Homo erectus, spread into the warmer areas of Africa, Europe, and Asia, as far north as his naked body could tolerate the cold, driving his predecessor, Australopithecus, to extinction. 12 When he had filled all the territory he could, his great expansion stopped. Any further migrations meant moving into territory already occupied by other erectus and fighting and defeating them. That was not easy to do because the resident erectus knew the land, the food sources, and the dangers, and he fiercely defended his homeland. 13
    In widely separated and different environments, erectus continued to evolve, each population becoming better adapted to its unique environment; erectus, like Australopithecus before him, becomes distinct and genetically different races. 14 In the northern range of Asian erectus, the climate was much colder, so those individuals who had traits that made them better able to endure the cold survived there while others did not.
    In Europe and western Asia, early erectus eventually evolved into Neanderthals (also spelled “Neandertals&#8221 about 350,000 ya. In East Asia, cold-adapted erectus acquires control of fire, 15 moves still farther north, and evolves into Homo sapiens (Hs), archaic man, about 200,000 ya. Similar changes occurred in West Asia, but without cold adaptations. The last stage before becoming modern, Hs further improved his skills and increased his intelligence, extending his range still further north. By about 150,000 ya, archaic man became Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss), modern man. Where this happened is a major contention that is the subject of much of the rest of this book, but the author believes it happened in East and West Asia.
    Like his predecessors, the new-found tools, weapon, and intelligence of Hss were an advantage not only in the north, but also in the south, still occupied by Hs and even by some erectus in the tropics. So, when his numbers increased and the climate became colder and winters so severe that the snow no longer melted, he moved south, invading Hs and erectus territory, driving them to extinction, but sometimes interbreeding with them along the way, creating hybrids. The glaciation of the north lowered sea levels and migration to Pacific islands and Australia became feasible. When the ice finally began to melt thousands of years later and the cold retreated, Hss moved north once again. West Asian Hss spread into Europe, where he bred to a limited extent with the Neanderthals, becoming today’s Caucasians.
    About 50,000 ya, one or more mutations occurred in a Eurasian population that affect the functioning of man’s brain. These mutations were so favorable that they rapidly spread through to Eurasians. Man created an elaborate culture, acquired religious beliefs, and crafts, art, and tools that had to be visualized in his mind. Agriculture and the domestication of animals followed about 10,000 ya and the rest, as they say, is history.
   
This is our origin, according to the author Richard D. Fuerle..... Those who favor a divine origin for man will not agree, nor will most scientists who believe man’s origins were in Africa. Nevertheless.

For the Book from which this story was excerpted ..........see>>>>>>http://erectuswalksamongst.us/