Re-Examining the "Out Of Africa" Origin of Europeoids

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I am Native American and really don't care what race we were before. If our races started out white...maybe nature decided to make some improvements..



I actually love all races...too many beautiful females of every race out there to be racist..

edit on 2-8-2014 by Onslaught2996 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
I am Native American and really don't care what race we were before. If our races started out white...maybe nature decided to make some improvements..



I actually love all races...too many beautiful females of every race out there to be racist..


That's the thing "Race" is a social construct we just make it up as we go,that said the question posed by the O.P is not necessarily about race in of itself although it's lurking in the back ground, but about from where we sprang some are inclined to favor one geographical location for the rise of humanity over another based off their perceived place of origins,as far as present knowledge is concern that point of origins is located in East Africa for " Modern Humans" from multi-disciplinary sources.

About the females and their wonderful varieties..what can I say but amen.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

Having studied anthropology and held many fossils and complete skeletons to compare their features, I find it difficult to assess this matter. We miss many skeletons that would allow us tracing evolution in detail.

I believe it all depends on how old human species is (or just the Homo genus). We all know or can read about it. In principle, the human race was not around when all continents were still an unique lad mass, Pangaea . If that would have been the case we could say there would be traces of divergent evolution when the Pangaea started to fragment.

If we just consider the fossils it would be impossible to put the Homo genus 200 million years ago to support that thesis (the Homo fossil genus records date it as 2.3-2.4 million years old).

Not being a geology specialist I can only make general assumptions. Many of the evidences disappeared during while earth's crust has being remodeled. Lost continents, seas, mountains, everything is transitory.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: novrod

"Everything is transitory" ain't that the truth!!!

Still....I have a sneaking suspicion we've been around longer than science can accurately measure. We're still "ball parking" it. No bible stuff, but odds dictate we've been around in whatever version for much longer than we currently suspicion. Insights into our past are fascinating, at least to me.

In finding this study I in no way saw it as anything racial. In fact I'm surprised people keep discussing that aspect of it.
People is people.....what we have in common outweighs the minor differences. What's amazing is our range of adaptations and our resilience. In my mind our diversity adds to our probable survival, much like non-hybridized seed stock is vital to overall crop survival.

I hadn't thought about the panangea upheaval as destroying lots of evidence but ....there it is smack in our face!
.....having a Captain Oblivious moment here!!!!!



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
www.academia.edu...

atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au...

Excerpted:
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."

It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.

In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.

A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”



(If this is in the wrong section please move it!)

Now before anyone expects me to be able to converse in halo types excetera....well I can't. But this is a stunning find by the geneticists!
I had no idea I'd been fibbed to by the original "EVE" authors!

Right there I got hooked, mystery DNA? Unknown ancestor?
WOW!



How would that fit in with the presence of Neanderthal DNA with that of Homosapien?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
I am Native American and really don't care what race we were before. If our races started out white...maybe nature decided to make some improvements..



I actually love all races...too many beautiful females of every race out there to be racist..


That's the thing "Race" is a social construct we just make it up as we go,that said the question posed by the O.P is not necessarily about race in of itself although it's lurking in the back ground, but about from where we sprang some are inclined to favor one geographical location for the rise of humanity over another based off their perceived place of origins,as far as present knowledge is concern that point of origins is located in East Africa for " Modern Humans" from multi-disciplinary sources.

About the females and their wonderful varieties..what can I say but amen.



What we are referring to as Homosapien, is a hybrid product of more than one species of human. This is already proven by the presence of Neanderthal DNA in Europeans and Asians, with the exception of indigenous sub-Saharan Africans, who did not migrate into Eurasia, where the other species were developed.

My personal opinion is that there were no continental migrations of any significance that far back, and that there were many species of humans that developed, interbred and coexisted in regions and continents we find them in today.

The Neanderthals, Denisovans and surely others were replaced or absorbed by us, the hybrids, who inherited genetic benefits and advantages from the others which allowed us to succeed where the others fell short.
edit on 3-8-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
.....BUT it is also possible that HSS, HSN and HSD all came from the same prior ancestor and then they having moved apart geographically, evolving separately for X time, then 'reintegrated' as mankind 'sloshed' around the planet.
edit on 3/8/14 by Hanslune because: edited for spelling



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
www.academia.edu...

atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au...

why should i care about one guys paper when i can't even find the impact for that journal anywhere?


Excerpted:
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."

except no it isn't, and why should i give a damn what a historian thinks about science? the concept of race was debunked ages ago, try 1871 jefferys, when darwin wrote descent of man. race only continued because people tried to deny reality.


It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.

get with the times, this is four years out of date.


In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.

four years out of date.

A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

let me know when the guy publishes in nature please, some obscure journal no ones cares about doesn't prove anything.
also mDNA proves him wrong.




(If this is in the wrong section please move it!)

Now before anyone expects me to be able to converse in halo types excetera....well I can't. But this is a stunning find by the geneticists!
I had no idea I'd been fibbed to by the original "EVE" authors!

Right there I got hooked, mystery DNA? Unknown ancestor?
WOW!


this is two guys in an obscure journal i find no cites for, and mtDNA and Y-DNA supports the revised version of theO OA theory, the guys doing that study you cite doesn't even tell you the methodology they use, they just say "nope we didn't find what mainstream science says we should, proof!"

also en.wikipedia.org...

why would you trust a publisher who exploits people who want to publish on it? or steals from other journals? or even publishes stuff from random text generators? basically you are trusting in racists and frauds, both of the authors are frauds who denigrate the methodology of scientists who they disagree with, but hide their own from peer review.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767


I actually believe the out of africa theory to some degree but like any theory it is simply that a theory, a hypothetical suggestion about the origin's of the various sub race's of man that follow's a less than tenuous trail of breadcrumb's and arrives at one of several possible conclusion's, it is however backed up by one glaring and simple fact.


please learn what a theory in science is, a theory is what all science amounts to, GR is a theory, SR is a theory, newton's gravitation laws are theories, well backed theories in context but still theories.
evolution is a theory, it's also a fact.
it boggles my mind at the idea people can pontificate about a topic while holding such views, theories are well tested,well observed explanations for phenomena, they are not a "hypothetical suggestion".

i find it more boggling that people will believe anything so they can stay in ignorance and denial, like the drivel the OP posted, this may be harsh but people need to learn that being in a journal hardly means anything when the journal is fraudulent.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
imo ooa is a lot of baloney. Every race smells different. just ask the French perfume makers, how they test their perfumes. they must have researched the races at some point, I would imagine



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
imo ooa is a lot of baloney. Every race smells different. just ask the French perfume makers, how they test their perfumes. they must have researched the races at some point, I would imagine

Ferchrissakes do you know what a sweat gland is?? ..listen you have a thing called local evolution that depends on environments,these affects hair, color of skin,body shapes and what not and yes the amount of sweat produced in their localized environments an Eskimo will not sweat at the same rate as a person born south of the equator ,there are no races!! there are more variations within Africa than all folks who leave Africa a long time ago combined,but still closer to each other than any two communities of chimps..SIGH!!
edit on 5-8-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
On the contrary I know what sweat glands are. Am talking of smell without any sweating whatsoever. Do some research on how French perfumes are tested, then come and reply to my post
a reply to: Spider879



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
On the contrary I know what sweat glands are. Am talking of smell without any sweating whatsoever. Do some research on how French perfumes are tested, then come and reply to my post
a reply to: Spider879



SO are you saying if everyone just got out of the shower dry thoroughly we can detect different body odor without the issue of sweating??..for if not then it goes right back to local environment,like the thing with ear wax, Northeastern Asians and some Native Americans have dry ear wax,Africans and Europeans have wet types,based on that alone would that make Africans and Europeans the same race and North Asians another??
As for B.O Africans and Europeans are smellier than North Asians..why?? again that's due to sweat glands also diet has a role to play here, but I'll look into French perfume making but Iam willing to bet I won't find anything I didn't know already certainly anything to prove we smell differently because of our multi-genesis evolution.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Nochzwei
On the contrary I know what sweat glands are. Am talking of smell without any sweating whatsoever. Do some research on how French perfumes are tested, then come and reply to my post
a reply to: Spider879



but I'll look into French perfume making but Iam willing to bet I won't find anything I didn't know already certainly anything to prove we smell differently because of our multi-genesis evolution.

I read an article quite a while back, I think in readers digest cant remember exactly, about French perfume making and how they tailor it to suit different races



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
The big question is why Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA is absent in Africa ?

What kept those species "Out of Africa" ?

And I wonder if Neanderthals and Denisovans have the "Lucy" genetics ?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The big question is why Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA is absent in Africa ?

What kept those species "Out of Africa" ?

And I wonder if Neanderthals and Denisovans have the "Lucy" genetics ?


Err no! they were dead -enders which the newly arriving Africans moving into Eurasia cannibalized out stripped technologically and out bred ,driving them into ultimate extinction so if anything it was modern "US" who carried the Lucy genes. ( for those who don't know Xuechen and I are referring to a new movie action Sy Fi called Lucy).
edit on 5-8-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Making too much of a study like this has many problems.

First, we are often talking about SNPs in single genes on one chromosome. This is where a single set of nucleotides, in either a coding or more often, a non-coding section of the gene is changed. The effect of most of these SNPs is nothing. They either cause a problem in the coding region, in which case the mutation usually dies out, or it does nothing other than ride along with ones offspring.
While people of a certain race can be predominately one haplotype, it does not mean the people of the same “unpolluted” race, who happen not have the predominate type will in general be any different from their neighbors who do. It is like blood type, which unlike most haplotypes actually does make a difference in us. While a certain race may have a blood type that predominates in the population, there are people in that race who have a different blood type, and you can’t be sure of a persons blood type no matter how hard you try to look at their outward appearance.

Second, we tend to assume that newer must be better, so we tend to not only assume that the mutation causes an effect, but we automatically assume it must have been a positive effect. Then we often even go further and attribute the effects of many other factors in the success of these genes to their obvious superiority.

Lastly, the genetic markers don’t directly tell you anything about where they originated. This has to be inferred, and you just can’t do this on the time scales being discussed here. Everyone has some theories and they are all equally speculative without other evidence.

The movement and development of mutations in genes is not the same as the movement and development of the human race.

M



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: demongoat
this is two guys in an obscure journal i find no cites for, and mtDNA and Y-DNA supports the revised version of theO OA theory


Why would the distribution of mutations in mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes be the same or overlap, or run together through time? These are two completely different sets of genes!





top topics
 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join