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.

 

We are all African?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
www.humanistperspectives.org...


I found this Philosopher quite revolutionary and as a matter of fact, right in his thought and has convinced me as well.




It's all about tone.




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I liked the article. Too bad he is having such problems but that is probably what makes him a good candidate for the teaching position. He can probably do better elsewhere though. I wonder what he would do if someone really did bring solid evidence to refute his theory, what would he do?

The diffusionist theory is quite popular, and so far the only one that seems to have enough solid evidence to convince me. But then I don't really know much about DNA studies and how they are progressing in understanding how the population of humans on the earth developed.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
he is a philosopher not a scientist so there is a very big chance that there is some evidence that will refute this IDEA. we will never know the real answer until we die, not to be too morbid.




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Were still not quite sure where the first humans came from, although most evidence points to Africa. Some scientists think it may have been Asia.

What hes doing is great, its good for the anti-racism movement. But he must also take into account that if he did turn out wrong, it would be quite bad for him. Thats why I always think its best to wait until you have all the facts before believing in something.

[edit on 15-1-2006 by Kacen]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
and how you could be convinced by that small article i'll never know. it provides no proofs at all. go read michael cremo's HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE for an real eyeopener. (can email a copy if you like).



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Evolution theories are not "a crock",
evolution is how we came to be what we our today.
There is scientific proof behind it, and we can see an extremely fast versio of it in microbial life.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I think he's on the right track and should be supported. The only area where i differ with him is in his proclamation. I think it should go like this:

"There is only one race. The human race, and were all in it together whether you like that or not." Me


This is a threat to all those that feel the tyranny of history and want to be the martyrs of the new age. They should leave such thinking behind, for truly it will be swept into the dust bin of history.

Eventually.

I hope.

Wupy



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I month ago or so or this month I was reading a news item about proof found that we might rather came from asia instead of africa.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
This process is critical. For someone to make their point, and for it to be countered, or accepted. This is at least what ATS is about. People who don't intend on going through this process shouldn't enroll in a critical thinking course. Unfortunately the process usually ends up with someone who can't think critically, so instead keeps going higher and higher on the totem until you find someone who agrees with them to eliminate the dissenter.

We've seen this happen before. As a matter of fact, we've seen this happen involving the whole ID issue. This is critical to the process however, but only if the dissenter is willing to fight back. The more public these things become, the more it forces people think about it.


Originally posted by fishmaster
posted on 12-1-2006 at 02:34 PM

he is a philosopher not a scientist so there is a very big chance that there is some evidence that will refute this IDEA. we will never know the real answer until we die, not to be too morbid.


There are a lot of things we've learned to be absolutely, which were previously thought to be unknowable, or have done which were undoable. If we simply accept that type of thinking, then why bother learning more? If you truly believe we will learn everything we currently don't know after we die, then I guess we can just waste this time away. BTW, he has a PhD in the philosophy of medicine, which is no simple task, and requires a very specific understanding of many scientific concepts.


[edit on 16-1-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I saw a program on the NGC, and it was basically saying that after loads and loads of random dna tests, they were able to point out the similarities in the male y chromosome, and date it back to one man about 40.000 years ago (in Africa).

this makes sense, because that is ABOUT the time of awakening, when humans started to migrate and think and build better tools, not to mention art!

So basically, that guy was the real cognitive being around, porked a bunch of women and had smart kids. His kids eventually ended up killing all the other families (probably took thousands of years, and probably unviolently...through the hunting tactics and being able to think abstractly and find better food, clothing, and shelter than the rest of the population).

blogs.nationalgeographic.com...

see what you guys think.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
In the early stages of the 1990 a startling discovery was found - Mitochondrial Eve. In Africa, the genetic evidence of a woman was found with enough there to pull out the Mitochondrial DNA, which passes from mother to mother and this is why Eve was so special. Her Mitochondrial DNA is still around today, 150,000 to 200,000 years after she lived.

Mitochondrial DNA
Mitochondrial Eve


Source
Of all the women who have ever lived, there was one woman who was special. She was the common maternal ancestor of all women currently alive. She was "Mitochondrial Eve".

Consider the set of all women who have ever lived. Each had exactly one mother. Now shrink the set of all women to contain only mothers. Each of them had exactly one mother. Shrink the set again to contain only mothers of mothers. Again, each of these women had exactly one mother. Again, shrink the set to contain only mothers of mothers of mothers. Continue doing this until you have a set with exactly one woman. She is the maternal ancestor of all living women; she is Mitochondrial Eve.


Below is a Map of Human Migration, based around evidence of Mitochondrial DNA.


Eve is the Basis of the "Out of Africa Theory", which I will now outline.


Source
Several alternative models for the origin of anatomically modern humans are currently proposed by paleoanthropologists. The Regional Continuity or Multiregional Evolution models are generally based on interpretations of fossil evidence. Three recent African origin models, Replacement, Weak Garden of Eden and Multiple Dispersals, are based on combinations of evidence from fossils, archaeology and, especially, genetic studies.


The Out of Africa Theory, has two basic ideas:
One is that Homo erectus left Africa and then people developed/evolved in homo-sapians independently in the World. This is known as the multiregional origin hypothesis .
The other is that Homo sapains left Africa, after Homo erectus and survived while homo erectus died off. This is the single-origin hypothesis .


Source
A study comparing the DNA of people around the world has yielded what could be the best evidence yet that modern man first evolved in Africa and scattered to populate the planet as recently as 50,000 years ago.

Such a view suggests that the first Homo sapiens held such dramatic evolutionary advantages -- perhaps stronger powers of reasoning -- that they replaced other early humans with virtually no interbreeding.

This is not the first time DNA technology has been applied to the question of when and where modern humans emerged. But the researchers said they analyzed the longest strand of DNA ever examined for a human lineage study.



Source
An exquisitely preserved skull of a tiny-brained human ancestor has been recovered from excavations beneath the ruins of a medieval castle in the republic of Georgia. The skull is about 1.8 million years old and belongs to the first group of humans to migrate out of Africa, reports an international team of archaeologists.

The find calls into question a widely held hypothesis that the evolution of big brains propelled the exodus of early humans out of Africa.

The fossil evidence from Dmanisi now includes three skulls, several jaw fragments, and hundreds of stone tools and animal remains. All of the material has been recovered from the same layer of sediment. It is forcing scientists to come up with alternative explanations for why humans were able to leave Africa.



Source
A new analysis of DNA evidence offers a new twist on the popular "Out of Africa" theory of human origins: Modern humans interbred with other populations around the world for hundreds of thousands of years rather than replacing them.

Among the study's implications: the genes of people today carry vestiges of genes of Neanderthals and other extinct branches of the human family.

According to the original Out of Africa theory, ancestors to today's human population migrated from Africa 100,000 years ago, and they replaced less modern populations in Europe and Asia.


It is an interesting Theory, one which has a lot of evidence to back it up unlike so many others. I suggest you go over the links I post and read over them. The Theory he writes about has existed for a long time.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I don't know if we all come from Africa, but there are humanoids older than Eve:

www.britannica.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
MasterP, odd h ow I can't find anything to do with that aside from one article - to me, that sounds heavily suspect. Got any other sources to refute what I posted?



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I have some questions for you all, hope someone can help me out here.

If we were such world travelers, and inter-breeders, apparently breeding out our differences? Then how is it that we ended up looking different based on geography. Did we suddenly get territorial and then mutated?
Does this co-incide with the introduction of farming over nomadic behavior?

This may sound weird, but what is the biological advantage of our distinct differences? How did they occur and so broadly and completey?
Why haven't we bred out our differences by now?

[edit on 17-1-2006 by KDX175DUEX]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Here you go:


Source
Human skin color can range from almost black to pinkish white in different people. In general, people with ancestors from sunny regions have darker skin than people with ancestors from regions with less sunlight. (However, this is complicated by the fact that there are people whose ancestors come from both sunny and less-sunny regions; and these people may have skin colors across the spectrum). On average, women have slightly lighter skin than men. On a cultural level, color metaphors for race have evolved based upon genetic variations in human skin color.



Source
ONE of the most distinctive evolutionary changes as humans parted company from their fellow apes was their loss of body hair. But why and when human body hair disappeared, together with the matter of when people first started to wear clothes, are questions that have long lain beyond the reach of archaeology and paleontology.

Ingenious solutions to both issues have now been proposed, independently, by two research groups analyzing changes in DNA. The result, if the dates are accurate, is something of an embarrassment. It implies we were naked for more than a million years before we started wearing clothes.


Horses are interesting and can show links to possibly how we have different skin complection....under the "coat" they have different skin colours, which also seems to relate to where the horse evolved.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
EDIT: Deleted post, Odium beat me to it.

[edit on 1/17/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
MasterP, odd h ow I can't find anything to do with that aside from one article - to me, that sounds heavily suspect. Got any other sources to refute what I posted?


search for 'petralona man' in google for more information.


[edit on 18-1-2006 by masterp]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
search for 'petralona man' in google for more information.
[edit on 18-1-2006 by masterp]


Had a feeling you were talking about that. You need to fully read over what I was saying, and everyone else. I don't think I said "Eve" was the oldest, but rather she has survivng DNA still today...



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
the human race is many millions of years old not 4 thousand or even 40 thousand. creation isn't a theory it is a blindman banging his head on a wall. evolotion schmevolution i did not evolve from a edited rat , did you?

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by exsmokingman
the human race is many millions of years old not 4 thousand or even 40 thousand. creation isn't a theory it is a blindman banging his head on a wall. evolotion schmevolution i did not evolve from a edited rat , did you?


Thanks for clearing that up!


Any more dissertations professor?


[edit on 19-1-2006 by Thomas Crowne]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join