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

AboveAlpha · Jan 21, 2016

ElDiablo said: ↑

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/
Click to expand...

Human Beings in one form or another have been on Earth for over 5 Millions years!!!

Our Species originated OUT OF AFRICA!!!

You are talking about species of humanity that only go back less than 200,000 or so years!!!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!!

AboveAlpha

AboveAlpha · Jan 21, 2016

ElDiablo said: ↑

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/
Click to expand...

Just to add...although PRIMATES existed in Africa and Eurasia the first APES...as HUMANS ARE APES.....came about in AFRICA!!!!

NOT EURASIA!!!

AboveAlpha

lynnlynn · Jan 22, 2016

ElDiablo said: ↑

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 authors 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) 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 bodys 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). 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). 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 apes 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. Natures 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) 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) 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 todays Caucasians.
    About 50,000 ya, one or more mutations occurred in a Eurasian population that affect the functioning of mans 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 mans origins were in Africa. Nevertheless.

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

This story makes the most sense.

lynnlynn · Jan 22, 2016

AboveAlpha said: ↑

Just to add...although PRIMATES existed in Africa and Eurasia the first APES...as HUMANS ARE APES.....came about in AFRICA!!!!

NOT EURASIA!!!

AboveAlpha
Click to expand...

Humans did originate in Africa but Modern Humans evolved in Eurasia when we began agriculture and domestication of animals, etc.

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

lynnlynn said: ↑

Humans did originate in Africa but Modern Humans evolved in Eurasia when we began agriculture and domestication of animals, etc.
Click to expand...

Those animals that existed before humans were not human....perhaps you could correctly define them as pre-human.

Thus humans did not come out of Africa.................................http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

The skull that challenges the out of africa theory>>>>http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283

lynnlynn · Jan 22, 2016

ElDiablo said: ↑

Those animals that existed before humans were not human....perhaps you could correctly define them as pre-human.

Thus humans did not come out of Africa.................................http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

The skull that challenges the out of africa theory>>>>http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283
Click to expand...

If that is what makes you feel better by calling them pre-Human or whatever. It is Humans that created language and how it is defined to describe everything in life.

ThirdTerm · Jan 22, 2016

The map shows the spread of Indo-European R1a and R1b lineages around Europe and R1b is found at the highest frequency in the British Isles (over 80%). R1a and R1b are both Indo-European lineages with the light skin allele SLC24A5. The genes for blond hair are strongly correlated with the distribution of Haplogroup R1a and R1b people are either red-haired (Irish) or brown-haired (Spanish). Roughly 30% of Germans are blond-haired, while 60% of Russians are blond-haired, and the Slavic people are ironically more Aryan than the R1b branch of Indo-Europeans in Western Europe. The frequency of the Indo-European haplogroup R1a in Slovakia is about 40%, slightly lower than that of Russia. The Poles have the highest Indo-European ancestry in terms of R1a (60%), while it's only 20% in Austria, Hitler's birth place. Haplogroup R* originated in Siberia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present) and Haplogroup R1a branched off from R1* after the LGM. Haplogroup R* was identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the "Mal'ta boy" from the Altai region (Raghavan et al. 2013), which makes Russia the motherland for many of us with Indo-European heritage.

The average cranial capacity of the Neanderthals was 200 cm3 larger than that of modern humans and the Neanderthals were actually the most evolved human species ever. Homo heidelbergensis died out in Europe before H. sapiens left Africa but the Neanderthals and Denisovans were our contemporaries and interbreeding with the Neanderthals may have made us smarter than H. sapiens. The Red Deer Cave people discovered in China are thought to be a mixed breed between the Denisovans and modern humans and they may be related to modern Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians with substantial Denisovan ancestry (5-6%). Denisovan admixture clearly had a reverse effect in terms of intelligence as the average IQ of Aboriginal Australians is only 61.

With an average cranial capacity of 1600 cm3, Neanderthal’s cranial capacity is notably larger than the 1400 cm3 average for modern humans, indicating that their brain size was larger. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. They conducted DNA analysis on it and found that it was genetically distinct from Neanderthals and humans.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/archaeology/humanitys-relatives-modern-homo-species/

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

lynnlynn said: ↑

If that is what makes you feel better by calling them pre-Human or whatever. It is Humans that created language and how it is defined to describe everything in life.
Click to expand...

Dolphins have a language. Do you think the pre-humans had a language?

http://wakeup-world.com/2011/11/28/the-discovery-of-dolphin-language/

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

ThirdTerm said: ↑

The map shows the spread of Indo-European R1a and R1b lineages around Europe and R1b is found at the highest frequency in the British Isles (over 80%). R1a and R1b are both Indo-European lineages with the light skin allele SLC24A5. The genes for blond hair are strongly correlated with the distribution of Haplogroup R1a and R1b people are either red-haired (Irish) or brown-haired (Spanish). Roughly 30% of Germans are blond-haired, while 60% of Russians are blond-haired, and the Slavic people are ironically more Aryan than the R1b branch of Indo-Europeans in Western Europe. The frequency of the Indo-European haplogroup R1a in Slovakia is about 40%, slightly lower than that of Russia. The Poles have the highest Indo-European ancestry in terms of R1a (60%), while it's only 20% in Austria, Hitler's birth place. Haplogroup R* originated in Siberia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present) and Haplogroup R1a branched off from R1* after the LGM. Haplogroup R* was identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the "Mal'ta boy" from the Altai region (Raghavan et al. 2013), which makes Russia the motherland for many of us with Indo-European heritage.

The average cranial capacity of the Neanderthals was 200 cm3 larger than that of modern humans and the Neanderthals were actually the most evolved human species ever. Homo heidelbergensis died out in Europe before H. sapiens left Africa but the Neanderthals and Denisovans were our contemporaries and interbreeding with the Neanderthals may have made us smarter than H. sapiens. The Red Deer Cave people discovered in China are thought to be a mixed breed between the Denisovans and modern humans and they may be related to modern Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians with substantial Denisovan ancestry (5-6%). Denisovan admixture clearly had a reverse effect in terms of intelligence as the average IQ of Aboriginal Australians is only 61.

With an average cranial capacity of 1600 cm3, Neanderthal’s cranial capacity is notably larger than the 1400 cm3 average for modern humans, indicating that their brain size was larger. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. They conducted DNA analysis on it and found that it was genetically distinct from Neanderthals and humans.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/archaeology/humanitys-relatives-modern-homo-species/
Click to expand...

A lot of theories....but yet some want to seize on one that fits their pc agenda and tout it as the final truth on the subject.....ridiculous .....how it all came about can be conjectured on and theorized on......but it is all theories.

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

AboveAlpha said: ↑

Human Beings in one form or another have been on Earth for over 5 Millions years!!!

Our Species originated OUT OF AFRICA!!!

You are talking about species of humanity that only go back less than 200,000 or so years!!!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!!

AboveAlpha
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define humans.....care to give it a try? Since humans are mostly water and that liquid is very similiar ...almost the same constitutents as sea water....one could say....using your logic....that humans came out of the sea.

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

ElDiablo said: ↑

Depends on how you define humans.....care to give it a try? Since humans are mostly water and that liquid is very similiar ...almost the same constitutents as sea water....one could say....using your logic....that humans came out of the sea.
Click to expand...

In fact our ancestors(though they were not anymore human than those in Africa) came out of the sea................

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

ElDiablo said: ↑

Depends on how you define humans.....care to give it a try? Since humans are mostly water and that liquid is very similiar ...almost the same constitutents as sea water....one could say....using your logic....that humans came out of the sea.
Click to expand...

But those 'ancestors' that came out of the sea were not anymore human than those in Africa.....................Our ancient ancestors came out of the water and evolved from swimming to crawling to walking. Human fetuses still have “gill-slit” structures in their early stages of development, and we spend our first nine months of life immersed in the “watery” environment of our mother’s womb. When we’re born, our bodies are approximately 78 percent water. As we age, that number drops to below 60 percent — but the brain continues to be made of 80 percent water. The human body as a whole is almost the same density as water, which allows us to float. In its mineral composition, the water in our cells is comparable to that found in the sea. Science writer Loren Eiseley once described human beings as “a way that water has of going about.

So....obviously this pc marlarky trying to claim we are all Africans is ridiculous. Just political b.s.

All the most credible evidence indicates that Modern Humans did not come out of africa....you know the ones you would recognize as being human. The animals in Africa that you allege are our ancestors....simply were not human. If you saw one in the woods today you would probably shoot it out of fear.

Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it.”

https://theawakezone.wordpress.com/...lly-out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked/

The “Out of Africa” theory was not created by actual scientists. It was cooked up by left-wing college administrators and forced onto the science departments. It was a myth designed to promote the left-wing agenda on multiculturalism. Every new discovery in the fields of anthropology and genetics continues to completely disprove this left-wing fantasy. Europeans and Asians have substantial amounts of Neanderthal ancestry, while Sub-Saharan Africans do not. Further, the Neanderthal genome project has revived the group’s placement as “proto-Caucasian.” Neanderthal can be divided into at least three regional sub-groups. Some Neanderthal, at least those living in Europe had members with fair skin and red hair.

http://conservative-headlines.com/2010/10/new-discoveries-disprove-out-of-africa-myth/

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/russian-geneticists-disprove-out-of.html

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

AboveAlpha said: ↑

Human Beings in one form or another have been on Earth for over 5 Millions years!!!

Our Species originated OUT OF AFRICA!!!

You are talking about species of humanity that only go back less than 200,000 or so years!!!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!!

AboveAlpha
Click to expand...

Shallow thinking much? hehheh Your key woids being....'in one form or another'

ThirdTerm · Jan 22, 2016

We know now that all human mtDNA haplogroups are descendants of Mitochondrial Eve (L). Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. For example, the Cro-Magnons belonged to Haplogroup N and two Cro-Magnons' mtDNA (23,000-year-old Paglicci 52 and 24,720-year-old Paglicci 12) was identified as Haplogroup N, from which all European haplogroups originated. 50% of the Jomon was also identified as mtDNA Haplogroup N9b, a Japanese branch of Haplogroup N.

Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago,[3][4][5] most likely in East Africa,[6] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago,[3][4][5] most likely in East Africa,[6] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species. Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration.[7] The dating for "Eve" was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis and a boost to the theory of the origin and dispersion of modern humans from Africa, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, a consensus emerged among anthropologists that the latter theory was more plausible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Click to expand...

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

lynnlynn said: ↑

If that is what makes you feel better by calling them pre-Human or whatever. It is Humans that created language and how it is defined to describe everything in life.
Click to expand...

You might find this interesting>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.koshertorah.com/essays/humanitybeforeadam.html

ElDiablo · Jan 22, 2016

ThirdTerm said: ↑

We know now that all human mtDNA haplogroups are descendants of Mitochondrial Eve (L). Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. For example, the Cro-Magnons belonged to Haplogroup N and two Cro-Magnons' mtDNA (23,000-year-old Paglicci 52 and 24,720-year-old Paglicci 12) was identified the as Haplogroup N.
Click to expand...

http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http://trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.php
The Mitochondrial Eve theory has been debunked>>>>http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http:/ /trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.php

Criticism and new evidence

Soon after the watershed publication, some population geneticists criticised the analytical method as flawed, and also criticised some of the secondary conclusions[40] while some claimed the interpretation as dubious.[41][42][43][44] Alan Templeton asserted that the study did "not support the hypothesis of a recent African origin for all of humanity following a split between Africans and non-Africans 100,000 years ago" and also did "not support the hypothesis of a recent global replacement of humans coming out of Africa."[45] This criticism was popularised into a general conception that human mtDNA analysis and the hypothesis of recent African origin are false.[46][47]

Although the original research did have analytical limitations, DNA tests among African residents suggest the "Out of Africa" hypothesis still could be accurate.[48][49] However they should be interpreted, estimates of the age of the last common mitochondrial ancestor continue to be refined. A recent estimate (March 2013) from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology shows that Mitochondrial Eve lived about 160,000 years ago (within the reserved estimate of the original research) and also that the non-African humans were separated from Africans about 95,000 years
ago.[50] In August 2013, a study led by Stanford University School of Medicine geneticists reported the age of Mitochondrial Eve to be between about 99,000 and 148,000 years, and the Y-MRCA to have lived between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, based on genome sequencing of 69 people from 9 different populations.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

DarkSkies · Jan 31, 2016

My intention is not to downplay the negative effects of communities going without so many fathers, if anything said here is offensive, I apologize beforehand. The "fatherless home" idea gets brought up a lot. It is usually accompanied by a series of other stereotypes as a case suggesting that certain issues regarding fatherhood in the Black Community are due to IQ deficiencies. I'm going to address that too.

The statistics people cite regarding fatherlessness is one that shows that upwards of 72% of all African-American children are born to unwed mothers. An unwed mother doesn't necessarily equate to no father in the picture. Despite the marital status, a black father's involvement looks like this compared to others:

This stereotype appears to look at the marital status versus the actual interactions fathers have with their children.

[HR][/HR]

Now to address the IQ talking point attached to fatherlessness.

First, is IQ really the reason for fathers leaving the home? No. American Thinker author Dean Kalahar writes an article that demonstrates how the Black family was mostly intact before the mid 1960's. Among a list of stats, the authors states, "In 1950, 72 percent of all black men and 81 percent of black women had been married." So, a massive behavioral change took place since then. If marital status was related to IQ, the marital stats would always have been as low as it is now.

Perhaps a change in the environment or culture? Yes, this could be a major part of it. Kalahar suggests that perhaps it was the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 that began the erosion of the Black Family. He mentions Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who called the incentives in the CRA a defining deviancy downward." Overall, the fathers not marrying the mothers and a whole host of cultural shifts are related to the incentives in the environment and not in the Intelligence Quotient.

References
http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...namerican_children_born_to_unwed_mothers.html

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/dat...6,868,867,133,38/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/the_decline_of_the_africanamerican_family.html

DarkSkies · Jan 31, 2016

This is a particularly pervasive stereotype that suggests that Black people are genetically predisposed to criminality. Those who subscribe to this belief usually point to U.S. crime statistics depicting a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Black people in America.

Of course, I believe that this is a false stereotype.

Let me point to one of the most populous places on Earth, Nigeria, Africa. Nigeria is home to over 177,000,000 dark-skinned African people yet houses a little over 57,000 prisoners. Contrast that with the United States, which is home to only 41,000,000 African-Americans, many of whom contain European and other genes, yet almost 1,000,000 of them are in prison. Another contrast is that Nigeria has 0 cities or states listed in the top 50 most violent places in the world. Conversely, four Black American cities have landed on the list.

Some will argue that Africa does not have a good record keeping system or justice system. But this counter refutes nothing. Even if America removed the Black count from its overall prison total, there would still be over 1.3 million people in prison! We could even look to well developed nations and compare totals. Without the Black count, Americas per capita/total prison population is higher than the other nations.

Overall, the incarceration rates appear more to do with culture/environment than it does genes.

DarkSkies · Jan 31, 2016

Ive seen this phrase quite a few times and it always felt off. But, on closer inspection, it reveals a slight of hand that attempts to cover up a double standard while ignoring a significant amount of history. For consistency purposes, it should be, Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, and Europe for Europeans shouldn't it?

Those who use this phrase utter it in protest against what they perceive to be a wave of immigration into White countries. Immigration into White/Western countries is usually due to a need to alleviate economic issues. These issues include aging populations, low replacement birth levels, and an enormous desire for cheap labor.

Without Immigrant Labor, the Economy Would Crumble

The Complexities of Immigration: Why Western Countries Struggle with Immigration Politics and Policies

The historical part ignores incursions that took place from ancient times up until present colonial and imperialism times. Africa, for example, is now known as Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa. Caucasians have also set themselves up in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and a few other African countries. And what of North America, Australia, Asia, and some other places? Europeans had no problem barging in on those non-white continents. Next, the white countries part of the mantra is an acknowledgment, intentional or not, that some major white countries are not even in Europe, thus noting a double standard.

Therefore, those who complain that Asia is for Asians, Africa is for Africans, and white countries is for everyone should consider looking into economics, imperialism, colonialism, and human history over at least the last 500 years. Hopefully, this catchphrase dies soon.
[HR][/HR]
Additional Resources:
Scramble for Africa
Impact of Western Colonialism and Imperialism in Asia and Africa
European discovery and the colonization of Australia

Jabrosky · Feb 5, 2016

We keep hearing about how poor benighted Africans were victims of enslavement throughout history, either at the hands of each other or of Europeans and Arabs. It's a brutal historical reality, but it's my feeling that emphasizing how Africans were often enslaved makes them seem powerless and subordinate in world history. So what of the reverse scenario, namely Africans enslaving or buying slaves from other races?

I know the Egyptians, like other Africans as well as many other ancient peoples, habitually enslaved their war prisoners. Slaves were never monument builders as portrayed in the movies, but they could work in grueling mines or work as house servants for rich Egyptians. And while Egyptians would make slaves out of all foreigners, during the New Kingdom most of their slaves would have come from their military ventures in the Middle East. They also made slaves out of Mediterranean Libyans and even Europeans like the Sea Peoples.

I have yet to look deep into Africans south of the Sahara participating in an "inverted" slave trade. But I know Europeans could be caught and sold as slaves throughout ancient and medieval times, and probably some Middle Easterners did. So I have reason to believe various slave trades across Africa were bi-directional.

None of this is meant to portray Europeans or other non-Africans as morally superior. Slavery, barbaric as it was, was a common feature throughout the pre-industrial world. Furthermore, in the context of American politics, the effects of our racialized version of slavery and subsequent oppression and alienation of African-Americans are far more pertinent than what people back in Africa did hundreds of years ago.

AboveAlpha · Feb 5, 2016

ElDiablo said: ↑

Shallow thinking much? hehheh Your key woids being....'in one form or another'
Click to expand...

Our direct ancestors.

AboveAlpha

rayznack · Feb 5, 2016

DarkSkies said: ↑

This is a particularly pervasive stereotype that suggests that Black people are genetically predisposed to criminality. Those who subscribe to this belief usually point to U.S. crime statistics depicting a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Black people in America.

Of course, I believe that this is a false stereotype.

Let me point to one of the most populous places on Earth, Nigeria, Africa. Nigeria is home to over 177,000,000 dark-skinned African people yet houses a little over 57,000 prisoners. Contrast that with the United States, which is home to only 41,000,000 African-Americans, many of whom contain European and other genes, yet almost 1,000,000 of them are in prison. Another contrast is that Nigeria has 0 cities or states listed in the top 50 most violent places in the world. Conversely, four Black American cities have landed on the list.

Some will argue that Africa does not have a good record keeping system or justice system. But this counter refutes nothing. Even if America removed the Black count from its overall prison total, there would still be over 1.3 million people in prison! We could even look to well developed nations and compare totals. Without the Black count, Americas per capita/total prison population is higher than the other nations.

Overall, the incarceration rates appear more to do with culture/environment than it does genes.
Click to expand...

LoL.

Nigeria has a homicide rate of 17.7.

rayznack · Feb 5, 2016

DarkSkies said: ↑

I’ve seen this phrase quite a few times and it always felt off. But, on closer inspection, it reveals a slight of hand that attempts to cover up a double standard while ignoring a significant amount of history. For consistency purposes, it should be, “Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, and Europe for Europeans” shouldn't it?

Those who use this phrase utter it in protest against what they perceive to be a wave of immigration into “White countries.” Immigration into White/Western countries is usually due to a need to alleviate economic issues. These issues include aging populations, low replacement birth levels, and an enormous desire for cheap labor.

Without Immigrant Labor, the Economy Would Crumble

The Complexities of Immigration: Why Western Countries Struggle with Immigration Politics and Policies

The historical part ignores incursions that took place from ancient times up until present colonial and imperialism times. Africa, for example, is now known as Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa. Caucasians have also set themselves up in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and a few other African countries. And what of North America, Australia, Asia, and some other places? Europeans had no problem barging in on those non-white continents. Next, the ‘white countries’ part of the mantra is an acknowledgment, intentional or not, that some major ‘white countries’ are not even in Europe, thus noting a double standard.

Therefore, those who complain that Asia is for Asians, Africa is for Africans, and white countries is for everyone should consider looking into economics, imperialism, colonialism, and human history over at least the last 500 years. Hopefully, this catchphrase dies soon.
[HR][/HR]
Additional Resources:
Scramble for Africa
Impact of Western Colonialism and Imperialism in Asia and Africa
European discovery and the colonization of Australia
Click to expand...

Your first source is an Op-Ed which doesn't cite any sources for its information.

I note the author's surname is Jacoby...

DarkSkies · Feb 5, 2016

rayznack said: ↑

LoL.

Nigeria has a homicide rate of 17.7.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you laughing.

Your piece of information negates nothing I said though. Harharhar.

AboveAlpha · Feb 5, 2016

DarkSkies said: ↑

Glad to see you laughing.

Your piece of information negates nothing I said though. Harharhar.
Click to expand...

Human Beings are Human Beings.

The only reason that Whites look as they do is for 100,000 of years of living at a specific latitude.

Same with Blacks.

Same with Olive Skins,

Same with Orientals.

It is GENETICS...and it is 100% VERITABLY PROVEN UPON A MOLECULAR/ATOMIC LEVEL!!

This tantamount to a Mathematical Proof.

I find the ignorance of some...distasteful in the extreme.

AbobeAlpha

Log in or Sign up

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

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

lynnlynn New Member

lynnlynn New Member

ElDiablo Banned

lynnlynn New Member

ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

Jabrosky Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

rayznack Well-Known Member

rayznack Well-Known Member

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

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

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

lynnlynn New Member

lynnlynn New Member

ElDiablo Banned

lynnlynn New Member

ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

ElDiablo Banned

ElDiablo Banned

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

Jabrosky Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

rayznack Well-Known Member

rayznack Well-Known Member

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches