It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

racist much? all of your genes originated in Africa. You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that it isn't true but the DNA doesn't lie.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Why would sub Saharan Africa tribes need the neaderthal admixture? There are other archaic humans and they don't have to have mixed with neaderthal for anything I described. There is also the chance they do have admixture and it's very low and have been isolated in breeding for thousands of years.


I never said that they need the mixture. I said that they do not have the mixture (and this is based on studies that have already been posted in the thread) and asked you to explain how that could happen if didn't come from Africa. That's all I was asking and you turned it into some giant semantics fiasco.


I clearly never said the statement you used or anything like it.


Look at you diverting the topic and backtracking, AGAIN. Is it really that difficult to answer my question as to where the logic is in the example statement I gave? You definitely DID say that there was nothing illogical about the statement. Are you going to explain yourself or dodge the question for the 3rd time?


You should go to science forums and not debate on a conspiracy forum if you don't want to get into philosophy.


You should go to philosophy forums and not debate on a conspiracy forum if you don't want to get into science.


You have provided nothing but strawmans for the last several posts using arguements i was never even engaged in or posting. I clearly very clearly from the beginning state this is the best theory we have with the data we have. You keep keep trying to simplify my arguement without actually considering it. I also NEVER ONCE pit forth a theory to counter ooa I said I am waiting for more facts and gave examples of how I think the data is not large enough or possibly skewed because of where the focus of research is. Nothing is illogical about that. I was proven wrong several times and admitted this. That is how science and debate works.


Sorry, but you are full if it. I very clearly explained the so called strawmans and gave you examples above. But once again, you choose to ignore my statements and repeat your original argument as if I never said them. I have not used a single logical fallacy to argue my case. Conversations aren't supposed to go in circles. If you aren't responding to anything I said, then the conversation cannot progress. I have not once over simplified your argument. You are the one who is stuck on this semantics nonsense and YOU are over simplifying MY position.


Your definition of logic completely disregards philosophy which is fine for you.


No it doesn't. I quoted directly from a philosophy website. Your definition of logic disregards reality completely, which apparently is fine for you.


PS your two statements are not the same.

On claims no subsaharan tribes have neaderthal DNA the other says some. How do you not see that?


There is obviously some some kind of language barrier or something going on here because you are OBJECTIVELY wrong and still trying to salvage a lost cause. Just give it up already. Do we really need to break my 2 statements down word by word????? For somebody that already told me to learn to read earlier in thread, this is downright ridiculous.


How do you reconcile the fact that sub Saharan African tribes do not have the Neanderthal mix?

Again, I asked you to explain the ones that DO NOT have the Neanderthal DNA.


Sorry bud. Basic English here. Neither statement claims that NO sub Saharan tribes have neanderthal DNA. Both of them are asking you to explain why some sub saharan tribes DO NOT have the Neanderthal DNA. I can't believe I have to explain this in such detail to somebody with multiple college degrees. I'm trying to be calm and patient with you, but you are just making yourself look bad at this point. If you have something tangible or logical to argue, let's hear it instead falsely altering my statements to say what you want them to say rather than what they actually say.


edit on 2 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Well I think your wrong. I gave you a definition of logic from websters. I pointed you to Kant who is probably the most respected philosopher to date who extensively talks about knowledge and logic.

I pointed out your strawmans.

You argue nothing about my logic at all. You have not pointed out one illogical statement. I made.

I am done. You keep insisting your right but you have no proof of this.

Your statement
How do you reconcile the fact that sub Saharan African tribes do not have the Neanderthal mix?

This includes all tribes there is no modifier. Get it. You do not say nor does this imply or mean the tribes that 'do not '.

So another adhominem.
edit on 24-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

LMAO! So you just repeat the same bull# again? Really? Nothing to say against my counterpoints about the fallacies? No offense, but this is hilarious. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

My statement DID NOT SAY "How do you reconcile the fact that ALL sub Saharan tribes....etc". I never implied that they ALL do not have it. How much clearer do I need to make that for you? ALL doesn't magically get placed into the statement by default just because you want it that way and interpreted it that way. You are arguing absolutely NOTHING but semantics here. Maybe you can answer the question now that you understand it? Or perhaps dodge it for the 4th or 5th time? Hey this train is going to keep rolling, better quit before you lose all credibility.


So another adhominem.




You're killing me! Did you really just say that after everything I have said to you?




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Since the actual topic of the thread seems to have been forgotten for awhile now, who thinks the skull in the OP has any bearing on OOA?

For future reference, philosophy discussions occur HERE. In this thread, the topic is whether or not an archaic human skull from Greece has any effector bearing on OOA.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't think it does. I think the two caves i mentioned in Israel are interesting but certainly not definitive and the stone tools found in Oman are interesting but I have to admit defeat here as far as having any solid proof of there being any other explanation. At least for now.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Triton1128



No respectable professor whom belong to societies built on the foundation of centuries passed down knowledge, want to come forth and admit that most of what they've been teaching, "could" be wrong.


No professor who who refuses to admit that anything they have been teaching "could" be wrong is 'respectable'.

When science recognizes new 'truths' then science advances. No 'respectable' scientist will refuse new results, whether they contradict the 'foundation of centuries passed down knowledge' or not.

Of course there is a REASON that 'centuries passed down knowledge' has been successfully passed down and serves for the foundation of todays science: it is, fundamentally, correct.

Newton has proved correct for 'slow' moving objects but Einstein showed that fast moving objects behave differently and gravity can change light itself. Newton was not overthrown, he was enhanced. Newton works perfectly well for calculating the orbit of Earth, but not so well for Mercury. Einstein works for the Earth, Mercury, and even Gravitational lensing.

Scientists did not 'refuse' to admit they were wrong about Newton, they rejoiced that they found something new and could work on new sets of problems. Einstein too may have to be 'enhanced' in the same way if the Dark Matter 'problem' ends up requiring something new in our understanding of gravity.

Yes, its true that science is reluctant to embrace every new alternate hypothesis that comes along. It has to prove itself in the field of ideas. If you want to replace Einstein (not just supplement, but REPLACE)? That is going to take a heck of a lot of replacing. You have got to explain EVERYTHING that Einstein explains at least as well as Einstein does AND stuff that he doesn't explain. You have solved the Phyisist's Holy Grail and devised a Quantum Gravity theory? That's cool, does it explain gravity lenses and the orbit of Mercury and calculate global positioning satellite orbits and results and the big bang and the cosmic background radiation and the formation of galaxies and galactic clusters, etc, etc, etc?

Because to REPLACE 'the foundation of centuries passed down knowledge' you have to BEAT it on its own terms.

On the other hand, ENHANCING 'the foundation of centuries passed down knowledge' is a LOT more do-able (and respectable).

Enhancing human knowledge is not tearing down 'the foundation of centuries'. Of course sometimes that does require acknowledging a new way of looking at things. Our model of the Atom has gone through a number of changes, from J.J. Thompson's 'Plum Pudding Model' to the Rutherford model to the famous Bohr Model to the Quantum 'probability cloud' model. Nobody 'refused to admit' the previous stuff was 'wrong' (they weren't wrong anyway, they just didn't work as well as the new ideas), 'everybody' acknowledged that the new models 'worked better', solved more problems, and enabled them to predict new things, like quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling allows the transistor to work, is there anyone who seriously denies that the transistor works?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Very well said. Sadly it will fall on deaf ears as the OP hasn't been back to comment any their thread since halfway down page 1.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I can think of several cases this isn't true.

Alfrd Wegener being one of the most recent. Steven Hawkings another. Gregor Mendel wasn't exactly received with open arms. Semmelweis told drs they had to wash their hands nobody believes him. Darwin was said to have withheld his ideas for fear of persecution by the science community. Louis Pasteur was rejected. Bacteria causing stomach ulcers was rejected until recently.

There are plenty of examples. Science may come around eventually but, you can't pretend their isn't opposition, particularly to ideas that upset the status quo. Not only opposition but redicule. In the case of Wegener it was long after he was dead. In the long term sure science comes around. That doesn't always mean in your lifetime. Even with the evidence that is necessary because plain and simple people don't like to think the model and beliefs they have been using are false.
edit on 26-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Nochzwei

racist much? all of your genes originated in Africa. You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that it isn't true but the DNA doesn't lie.

you have been wrongly led to believe so. Lot of money was spent on the genome project, so to be politically correct, they amalgamated the African race into the mix. African race is significantly different in appearance and bone structure. So it has got to be in the dna



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
you have been wrongly led to believe so. Lot of money was spent on the genome project, so to be politically correct, they amalgamated the African race into the mix. African race is significantly different in appearance and bone structure. So it has got to be in the dna


I'd love to see some evidence of your claim here that we have been misled. Africans are homo sapiens, just like you (I hope). We are all the same species. Just because your skin isn't dark, doesn't mean your ancestors didn't originate in Africa a million+ years ago as ALL the fossil and genetic evidence suggests.

I think it is you that has been misled. Think about how the polar bear evolved from the grizzly bear. They look noticeably different, but are they really? Nope. Did they share a common ancestor and geographical origin? Yes.


edit on 2 26 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Finally something we can both strongly agree with.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Nochzwei

racist much? all of your genes originated in Africa. You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that it isn't true but the DNA doesn't lie.

you have been wrongly led to believe so. Lot of money was spent on the genome project, so to be politically correct, they amalgamated the African race into the mix. African race is significantly different in appearance and bone structure. So it has got to be in the dna


Not enough to matter at all. In the end, we're all Human beings. We should celebrate how we are the same rather then how we are different. Why would we care how we are different?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Nochzwei

racist much? all of your genes originated in Africa. You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that it isn't true but the DNA doesn't lie.

you have been wrongly led to believe so.

By whom exactly have I been misled? It's not as if I went to a genetic story hr at the local library and heard the data 2nd or 3rd hand.


Lot of money was spent on the genome project, so to be politically correct, they amalgamated the African race into the mix.


Raw data isn't affected by anyone's political correctness, nor their lack thereof. Trust me, I know exactly how much money was spent there as I've seen the stock options and buyout packages offered when HGP went public. The money has nothing to do with the results the project achieved. At least not in the fashion you are attempting to I attribute.


African race is significantly different in appearance and bone structure. So it has got to be in the dna.


There is no "African race". There is only Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It doesn't matter if the person has familial origins in Africa, Asia or Australia, the genetics do not tell tall tales. The morphological variations between an African born person and an Aboriginal Australian or Inuit are so minor as to be insignificant. The only skeletal variation is in cranial morphology. The post cranial is exactly the same as yours. Because that's where your genetic lineage stems from whether you want to accept that or not.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The races aryan, slavic, viking, celtic , eskimo, native Indian, Mongoloid, Anglo, all having links to African race is a bit of a stretch. a reply to: peter vlar



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
The races aryan, slavic, viking, celtic , eskimo, native Indian, Mongoloid, Anglo, all having links to African race is a bit of a stretch. a reply to: peter vlar



No, the only stretch here is the one where you attempt to create multiple fictitious races to support your rhetoric. There is only one race. Human. We are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Every piece of evidence in biology, anthropology and evolutionary biology supports this. You have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict this aside from your borderline racist hyperbole. Support your statements with facts and there may be a discussion to be had. Until then, I'll stick with the science.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I was leaning more towards historical records or the "interpretation" of them. Not trying to re-write the laws of physics. You took this to an extreme


Take a historian, one who is the former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs. Zahi Hawass

^ His arrogance and refute to work along side others in the field, because they don't fall directly in line with his theory/beliefs is a perfect example.

He would rather belittle anyone else s opinion then accept ANY change outside of this bubble.


I agree that acceptance and enhancement of what we know is ultimately the direction we NEED to take in order to advance. But you have to HAVE the support and consideration of those who taught, to try and understand the new angles that are presented. Not to be shunned out of the field because you "think" differently.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Police forensic labs can dig out these races from samples. suggest talk to them



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Why would I talk to the police? Are you incapable of supporting your position with anything aside from hyperbole and anecdote? Show me actual science that supports a single thing you have said. I won't hold my breath.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Nochzwei

Why would I talk to the police? Are you incapable of supporting your position with anything aside from hyperbole and anecdote? Show me actual science that supports a single thing you have said. I won't hold my breath.

do some homework there hombre'. ive read about the police forensic labs on the internet a long time ago. go talk to a few of them and satisfy your curiosity




top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join