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: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Triton1128



I was leaning more towards historical records or the "interpretation" of them.


You specifically said:



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. So in many cases you find them banning together and shunning out those that have ideas, or proof that falls outside this "standard of knowledge" that they swear by.


You made a general declaration about all "professors" in all organized 'societies' (assumed here to mean a scientific society, but the statement could also mean a political society I suppose) based on passed down knowledge. ALL scientific 'societies' are based on the 'foundation of centuries passed down knowledge'.

If you meant to complain about one person and his personal ego, then say so. Dr. Hawass' personal 'quirks' are well known. Mistaking those personal 'quirks' for professional incompetence is, however, a huge mistake. That he likes to be front and center on archaeology documentaries doesn't say anything about his professionalism any more than any other science educator. He is, after all, paid by the Egyptian Government to be its chief Archaeologist and its number one educator.

One of Dr. Hawass' fundamental tasks is to preserve Egyptian Antiquities for the future, not only for Egyptians but the whole of mankind. The history of Egyptian Archaeology has been the appropriation of those antiquities by those with the money to mount expeditions - the British, the Germans, the Americans and so on. Certainly everyone but the Egyptians. Grave robbing expeditions, under the guise of 'scientific' expeditions have robbed Egypt of much of its heritage.

SOMEBODY has to be the gatekeeper and that gatekeeper MUST err on the side of conservatism. Swarms of would be Howard Carters are not on - studies must be well thought out and planned. Dr. Hawass is like the American 'Surgeon General' in that he needs to be familiar with the 'leading edge' of thought in his field, and be able to advise his government on the best way to preserve that heritage and where to concentrate resources to protect it and yes, to exploit it.

Dr. Hawass does not, to my knowledge, tell people what to think, but if you want to deny that some cartouche says 'Omar built this' when it plainly does so, then Dr. Hawass is not going to be likely to give your research proposal much consideration beyond the best way to file it in the Cairo land fill so it doesn't pollute the river.




posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier



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


Where what isn't true?

Of course new stuff takes awhile to be accepted. I discussed Einsteins work. You know he got the Nobel Prize for his work on Brownian Motion, not for Relativity? That work led directly to Quantum Mechanics, and Einstein had a strong dislike for Quantum Mechanics ("God doesn't play dice with the Universe").

Darwin didn't 'withhold' his ideas for fear of persecution from the scientific community. He withheld it for fear of misunderstanding by the religious community and the public at large - and events proved him justified. Furthermore, he didn't actually 'withhold' his ideas, certainly not from the scientific community, he was in correspondence with other researchers both in the field (for example in Indonesia) and in academia. The reason it took him so long to publish his work was because he wanted to have overwhelming evidence. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence. As a matter of fact, as a whole, scientists embraced Darwin's ideas fairly quickly. There were several competing theories for diversity at the time, only one of which was religious, and Darwin's was recognized very quickly to be the best. There was stuff that Darwin couldn't answer at the time, and other people thought they could, and it took maybe 50 years after Darwin for the MES outline to take shape. But it had been developing for 50 years before Darwin too.

By the way, you do understand that Darwin's contribution was not Evolution (which was already widely accepted - even by some of the religious practitioners), but the mechanism by which Evolution works: 'natural selection', right?

It probably took Wegener's ideas about the same time as Darwin to gain widespread and final acceptance. Science is fundamentally a skeptical discipline. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence. Both Darwin and Wegener were cutting new ground, they were working on problems in a vacuum, the only 'passed down knowledge' in their fields was religious dogma, not scientific. Einstein had the advantage over both of them.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

You're making the claims, the onus lies with you to support them, not on me to research your claim for you. I've done the research, for over 20 years professionally. I'm am Anthropologist not an armchair quarterback like you.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

hombre, i dont play those sports where hombres jump up and down or fall over each other. but i told you wt i had read on the net years ago. but talk to a few police forensic labs and you will learn something new



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

So the translation of all that is "No, I can't actually support my position but I'm pretty sure I remember reading something like it years ago on the internet so go look it up because I have no clue where I read it". Well done.

I don't need to talk to any forensic labs. I've dealt with professionals in Anthropology and genetics and well versed in the Science. It doesn't support your BS racist slant. There is ONE race, Homo sapiens sapiens.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

You haven't made any arguments because you give no references or reasons. Anybody can literally say anything on the internet. Peer review wins.

news.discovery.com...

This references scientific research on gene comparisons that anybody with the time and the means can duplicate. If we have been misled, why is there direct tangible evidence of the inverse? You think they all just made it up and hoped that no legitimate scientist would ever review their work?

www.nature.com...

Here's another interesting study about genes and race.

In the conclusion:


Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities. Furthermore, by offering the means to assess disease-related variation at the individual level, new genetic technologies may eventually render race largely irrelevant in the clinical setting. Thus, genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.


Basically, your genome is almost the same as an African when analyzing the entire thing. You only look at differences, but ignore all of the similarities.



edit on 2 28 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Lol cant see why your intelligence is lacking. its not that hard to speak to a police forensic lab



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

If race was irrelevant, the Bible would not have said 'each shall marry after his own kind'
Praise the Lord



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

If race was irrelevant, the Bible would not have said 'each shall marry after his own kind'

Unless racism and ignorance were rampant during the bronze age. Which they were.




edit on 2/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: peter vlar

Lol cant see why your intelligence is lacking. its not that hard to speak to a police forensic lab


ohhhhh... that's cute. A bible thumping racist is calling my intelligence into question when they fail to grasp the simple fact that the onus lies solely with YOU to support YOUR statements.

With that said, and I hate to go down the road of 'argument from authority' but in this case it is clearly apropos. This is what I went to school for. It's what I've studied for 2 decades in an academic setting and for several years prior to that. Prior to going public, I had unfettered access to the HGP and its data.

Dr. Collins, a world renowned geneticist and devout Christian, does not agree with your premise any more than I do. Unless you are willing to support your own statements with appropriate citations I will be left with only one viable option, coming to the realization that you are in fact a troll.

Are you a troll? Or will you support your own assertions like a big boy?



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Barcs

If race was irrelevant, the Bible would not have said 'each shall marry after his own kind'
Praise the Lord


The bible is not a scientific source and there is no such breakdown of "kind" in biology. Taxonomy is much more in depth than that type of concept. Edit: and accordingly, the concept of race is no different than separating blondes from red-heads.

Your references to forensics is called forensic anthropology and they look at morphology to determice age/sex/geneology. They don't use race as a scientific classification. The idea of race is strictly a social classification. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei



Lol cant see why your intelligence is lacking. its not that hard to speak to a police forensic lab


Forensic labs don't determine 'race' from DNA - they use bone structure and skull shape to decide on a probable physical description as an aid to identification.

There are exactly ZERO markers for 'race' in the DNA code. ZERO, NIL, NADA, NONE. There is absolutely NO biological basis for 'race'.



If race was irrelevant, the Bible would not have said 'each shall marry after his own kind'


The Bible is referring to Tribal Groups. The Hebrews were in the process of distinguishing themselves from all the other Tribes with regards to their religion, customs. and internal loyalties. There was and is no 'racial' differences between the Hebrews and their Canaanite neighbors or any of the other Palestinian tribes.



Praise the Lord


By all means.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Who would benefit and why?

Have you seen how much college text books cost lately?

It's a racket.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

So there's a worldwide conspiracy perpetuated by every branch and discipline of science just to keep prices high on textbooks in America? All based on the misrepresentation of one cranium? That's certainly an interesting take on the topic!



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Did I say that?

Or did I say there's an awful lot of money being made ... and imply the way that money is continuously funneled is worthy of conspiratorial challenge?




posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was simply seeking clarification. Usually, I prefer to deny ignorance. In this instance I was attempting to avoid such. No woo, just clarity.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Barcs

If race was irrelevant, the Bible would not have said 'each shall marry after his own kind'
Praise the Lord


How does a post like this get a star? It's seriously like folks are just going through and starring all posts by theists and anti science heads regardless of substance. I refer to genetic verified studies in a lab and you refer to the bible. That is LOLworthy. Please find a religious thread to troll in. This is about science.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: peter vlar

Lol cant see why your intelligence is lacking. its not that hard to speak to a police forensic lab


Shame on whoever starred this post. It is a personal insult and this guy has done nothing but evade the questions and post rhetoric.
edit on 2 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Nochzwei



Lol cant see why your intelligence is lacking. its not that hard to speak to a police forensic lab


Forensic labs don't determine 'race' from DNA - they use bone structure and skull shape to decide on a probable physical description as an aid to identification.

There are exactly ZERO markers for 'race' in the DNA code. ZERO, NIL, NADA, NONE. There is absolutely NO biological basis for 'race'.

On the contrary the forensic labs do figure out races from dna samples
The french perfume makers, make and test perfumes according to race, as each race smells different
edit on 1-3-2016 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
On the contrary the forensic labs do figure out races from dna samples
The french perfume makers, make and test perfumes according to race, as each race smells different


Nobody's saying that every race of human is identical. But they have far more in common in their DNA, than they do differently, so to suggest that you don't have any common genes with Africans is dead wrong. Plus you STILL haven't backed anything up. If you really believe this, you should volunteer to be included in the genome research instead of posting overly simplistic generalizing racial statements on the internet that have no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.
edit on 3 1 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Nochzwei



Lol cant see why your intelligence is lacking. its not that hard to speak to a police forensic lab


Forensic labs don't determine 'race' from DNA - they use bone structure and skull shape to decide on a probable physical description as an aid to identification.

There are exactly ZERO markers for 'race' in the DNA code. ZERO, NIL, NADA, NONE. There is absolutely NO biological basis for 'race'.

On the contrary the forensic labs do figure out races from dna samples
The french perfume makers, make and test perfumes according to race, as each race smells different


Race is a social construct based on phenotypes and our own need to form an ancestral identity. Separating by perceived race is the same as separating based on hair style. Race is not a scientific breakdown. It is no different than a black colored grey squirrel and a grey colored grey squirrel. They are the same aside from their hair color, in this case a mutation giving rise to the black fur phenotype. They are same species. Once again you have no clue what you are talking about.

Forensic labs can look at genetic and phyisical markers to determine hereditary traits as well as age and sex. Those traits can be used to identify an individual; however, evolutionary biology does not talk about individuals but rather populations. Genetically, there is no differences that separate races aside from superficial phenotypes.




top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join