Blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientis

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Perhaps interesting for some here, if this really could be true, which I personally think it could, than that will definitly change some major views on our history.
Remarkable is that it is immediately been dismissed by world experts as “dangerous”, “wrong” and “racist”.
But that always happens to such earthshaking new views.



A public claim by a fellow of the prestigious Royal Geographic Society that humans did not all come from Africa — and that blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors — has been dismissed by world experts as “dangerous”, “wrong” and “racist”.



In a paper widely trumpeted and due for release in book form, Akhil Bakshi, the leader of a recent major scientific expedition supported by India’s prime minister, claims that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are not only separate races but separate species, having evolved on different continents.


www.articlesafari.com...

Here is Mr. Bakshi’s view on it.

A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi

www.articlesafari.com...

My personal view on this moment is that it is very well possible that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are not only separate races but separate species.
edit on 19/10/10 by spacevisitor because: Add some text




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
What about me? I'm a descended from Sephardi Jews. Which people originated from North Africa, Middle East. and the Mediterranean.


+12 more 
posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 




But that always happens to such earthshaking new views.


There's nothing new about such views. Racism is very old and such claims are very similar to those made by Nazis who went so far as to trudge up an entire branch of pseudoscience to prove their claim to a Master Race. If human beings had evolved from separate species in separate parts of the world we would be separate species probably unable to interbreed and our genetics would not be as similar. The genetic evidence showing our migration out of Africa is pretty strong.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Not sure if that is correct. It's merely an assertion. There are numerous studies pointing to the contradictory.
There is no zygote barrier in the reproduction. Reproduction does not create sterile offspring. All offspring are viable.

EDIT:
I actually read the link, and there is nothing scientific there.
edit on 19-10-2010 by TheOneElectric because: Reading and Understanding Nonsense When I See It



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by spacevisitor
 




But that always happens to such earthshaking new views.


There's nothing new about such views. Racism is very old and such claims are very similar to those made by Nazis who went so far as to trudge up an entire branch of pseudoscience to prove their claim to a Master Race. If human beings had evolved from separate species in separate parts of the world we would be separate species probably unable to interbreed and our genetics would not be as similar. The genetic evidence showing our migration out of Africa is pretty strong.


I find personally that basically racism [which is too bad a disgusting reality] has absolutely nothing to do with this view and that the choice of words for it is used only by those world experts with the purpose to ridicule this theory/view as much as possible.

It is so far nothing more than a theory, which I really find quite interesting.

But suppose this man’s theory could once be proven to be true, that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are indeed not only separate races but separate species, than I do not see in any way what could be “dangerous” and “wrong” about that?

edit on 19/10/10 by spacevisitor because: Add some text and made some corrections.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
According to what I was taught at school,we are all the same species because we can not only interbreed,but also produce fertile offspring. On the other hand,however Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't make a lot of sense on a macro scale re-mutations leading to such massive group changes such as predominant skin tones,unless of course these types of evolutionary changes are produced en masse from outside cyclical forces of which we remain ignorant.By this I mean that they could be produced by rare,but regularly occurring events as magnetic pole flips on either the earth or sun,certain positions in space,major climatic shifts and so forth.If Darwin's theory had much credence then given the current,massive world human population,then we would expect to have seen some beneficial genetic mutations in the last hundred years or so since science and Darwin's theory have become so predominating in our world.

Unfortunately of late scientific method has been seriously damaged by politicization of issues by powerful elites seeking to manipulate the world's people into believing what is in effect false so that they can gain ever more power and wealth over more and more people and resources.I look forward to the time when their evil comes back to bite them,as I fully expect it to.

One has to conclude,given that we are of the same species,that we have all evolved from common ancestors,however there is no conclusive evidence indicating we began our ascent in Africa. For example,there has been many different places claimed for the geographic place of the Garden of Eden,apart from Africa, including the sunken continents of Lemuria in the Pacific and Atlantis which was claimed to have existed in the Atlantic and spread from Bimini to the Azores (the Azores being the only remnant remaining above sea level).A few days ago I read of a claim that Sri Lanka was the place of the Garden,and then there has been claims from different places around the Euphrates.........so which do you choose and why?

And at what point in ancient times would we even start to call our forebears "human".What is evident is that change will always occur in any species,but the science behind this is at present simply not known,so I think it is excellent that this debate has been stimulated by new ideas once again.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


God made man in his own image? Is this the same as in all faiths? If so it would mean that theres a possibility that the gods we all follow do infact exist and the origins of that particular god will branch out universally linking everyone to ancestors that are elsewhere in the universe?
Just saying.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I cant say that we are different species, But I do know the races are definatly not the same.
I performed quite a few autopsies in my day. The one thing I did notice and an anthropologist friend of mine comfirmed that the Negroid race has a larger skull than Caucasians and the Mongoloid races. Mongoloids which includes native americans, tended to have very little body hair and a small penis. alot of the native americans had very very thick skulls. I also noticed that some Mongoloids of Chinese or Japanese decent had very thin skulls, in some cases, almost see through in some areas. Negroids tended to look younger than they were. Body odors were different between the 3. This could be to ethnic foods and diet. Im not sure. Caucasians on the other hand had the most variety as far as bone structure goes. And BTW, the word "hispanic" was used for "hispanic" people of latin american decent when they arrived at the Examiners office. But it changed about 4 years ago and they were re classified as Caucasians. So yeah, I seen quite a few dark brown Caucasians.

But in the end, we all look the same inside.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Seeing as this topic is fresh in my mind i feel i am able to provide you with a clear answer.Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution and Natural Selection is where one would start to begin to answer this question.

I will provide a species variation example and then compare it with the Race issue that you are talking about.
Charles Darwin studied the the different types of Finch Species found on different parts of the Galapagos Islands.
The Finch's beaks had evolved to suit their environment and for survival. There are two different types of speciation (the evolution of a biological species) One is Allopatric Speciation and the other is Sympatric Speciation.Allopatric Speciation deals with the biological changes that a species undergoes.

This is where your issue comes into play.Sympatric Speciation is when a species evolution occurs by some natural barrier or any climate change. Eg. a land barrier. Continental drift was present during the time of the origin of man.So the theory that we all originated from Africa could be true because many fossils were found here. We were in fact one species.But certain populations within this species explored and traveled. As they were traveling the earth was slowly drifting appart. This obviously didn't happen fast. Im talking over generations and countless years. Because evolution is slow process. so the Humans that traveled North moved to the cooler regions. Thus they slowly changed in skin colour. to the cool conditions.The Humans that stayed in Africa were faced with scorching temperatures seeing as they were very near to the Equator.Over the generations their skin began to turn into a black colour.

It was the physical barriers or Sympatric speciation that caused the different races we have today.
Evolution. a very interesting subject in Biology



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
So if the Out of Africa theory is true then why do some abductees report alien races being caucasian, asian, or otherwise very similar in physical appearance?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nineteen
If Darwin's theory had much credence then given the current,massive world human population,then we would expect to have seen some beneficial genetic mutations in the last hundred years or so since science and Darwin's theory have become so predominating in our world.

We have...

There's a common mutation that yields better lipoprotein profiles and reduces the risk of coronary artery disease. (Galston et al; Z Gastroenterol 1996 Jun;34 Suppl 3:56-8)

There's a common mutation that enhances immune cell function in humans. (Virchow et al; FEBS Lett 1998 Oct 2;436(2):155-8)

There's a common mutation the lowers the risk of myocardial infarction by reducing the presence of one of the factors in the blood coagulation cascade. (Iacoviello et al; N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85)

Darwin's theory, as originally laid out by Darwin, provides the framework. It's been refined and changed and built upon by countless other scientists to make it what it is today. Think of it like Newton's Principia Mathematica - as invaluable as it is, you can't take it as being complete and definitive and just ignore the work of men like Einstein.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Great, that's one more person to make fun of in my presentation on pseudoscientific racism. Where do these people come up with these things in 2010



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Newsflash: People are different

Why is it that every time something like this comes up, its called racist? If there's evidence to support it, it should be looked at. The only people that would let a technicality like this affect their views on races are likely ignorant bigots already.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I didnt know different species could cross breed. SMH and these are scientist who have been educated to share their knowledge.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Let me add a quote from your story sorce too...

However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist


well that's like me saying all humans are descended from alien visitors, we evolved from the trash they left behind



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
[sarcasm]
I guess all the research about Mitochondrial Eve and other genetic studies is wrong.
[/sarcasm]

Too bad I can't read the original articles. They are blocked at work for "Questionable". However, I did find some mirrors elsewhere.

I have to agree with one of the above posters - there is no science in that "scientific" article.

We all have a common genetic ancestor. That is fact. Genetic drift has been studied quite extensively in the human genome project - once again, fact.

What those articles talk about is an untrained individual making guesses based on his one beliefs. None of that is fact.

To summarize, those articles are garbage.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


And who supports and funds the labs that come up with these results of one genetic ancestor? That point was mentioned before in another thread, you can't trust all these labs that give data to the public on their closed door findings.

There is a huge conspiracy behind the races, as was mentioned before if we are all different species (which I believe, too many differences between races) one race would be superior? Well it's true to an extant, some races are better at some things than others, that would in fact make one race superior to another in that area. This is why everything is soo PC nowadays and scientists tell us we are all the same. If scientist would just tell the truth there would be massive revolts and cries of racism from all kinds of groups and organizations. Disgusting. We ARE different and we should embrace that, not keep it from the people. IMHO, speaking the truth and explaing/pointing out differences is not racism. The people who cry racism at such are the TRUE racists.
edit on 19-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TLomon
[sarcasm]
I guess all the research about Mitochondrial Eve and other genetic studies is wrong.
[/sarcasm]

Too bad I can't read the original articles. They are blocked at work for "Questionable". However, I did find some mirrors elsewhere.

I have to agree with one of the above posters - there is no science in that "scientific" article.

We all have a common genetic ancestor. That is fact. Genetic drift has been studied quite extensively in the human genome project - once again, fact.

What those articles talk about is an untrained individual making guesses based on his one beliefs. None of that is fact.

To summarize, those articles are garbage.


If you find those articles are garbage, I wonder what your opinion is of this.


Backed by solid proof, almost all of China's palaeoanthropologists support the theory of "regional evolution" of the origin of man.



The origin of man is admittedly a matter of dispute in the field of modern natural science.

In recent years, foreign scientists have come to the position after making use of molecular biological method in their research that the earliest ancestor of the modern man was born in Africa 200,000 years ago.

From the molecular biological point of view, since people could mate among different ethnic groups, they came from the same distant ancestor.

Some scientists believe that the origin of modern man was an African woman who lived 200,000 years ago, and that some of her descendants arrived in the Middle East some 100,000 years ago.

After that, another group arrived in East Asia and Europe about 60,000 years ago.

Wherever they stopped, they wiped out the "aboriginals". Neanderthal Man in Europe and the Peking Man in China were collateral branches which became extinguished during man's evolutionary process.



Most of the palaeoanthropologists of China do not agree with this.

The large amount of palaeoanthropological fossils found in China suggest that Yuanmou Man of 1.7 million years ago,

New Cave Man of 100,000 years ago, Upper Cave Man of 18,000 years ago and Jalai Nur Man of 10,000 years ago all had high cheekbones, flat nose bridges and spade-shaped upper front teeth, which are all characteristics of modern man in China, indicating genetic stability and evolutionary continuity.

In particular, the span of 330,000 years from Peking Man, to New Cave Man and Upper Cave Man, who all made their home in the Zhoukoudian area, effectively testifies to the fact that the yellow race evolved from a local ape.



Backed by solid proof, almost all of China's palaeoanthropologists support the theory of "regional evolution" of the origin of man.



Professor and palaeontologist Daniel L. Gebo of Northern Illinois University has said that most scientists believed that the ancestor of advanced primate animals came from Africa, but the importance of the regions where the Shu Ape was found suggests the unusual aspects of Asian fossil sites.

Chinese palaeontologist Qi Tao believes that the discovery of the Shu Ape fossils solved two issues: One was that it pushed back the time of origin of advanced primates by 10 million years, and the other was that it moved the place of origin of advanced primates from Africa to East Asia.

The discovery's great significance poses a strong challenge to the important position the African continent has so far held in theories of man's evolution.


www.china.org.cn...



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Well I have been arguing for many years that the chinese are the most racist of all nationalitites. All other racists nationalities at least grudgingly acknowledge that the So called "inferior races" can do something good or have something unique about them. Not the chinese . The are truly the inheritors of Nazi ideology.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 




has absolutely nothing to do with this view


So racism has nothing to do with the view that different RACES had different origins?



But suppose this man’s theory could once be proven to be true, that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are indeed not only separate races but separate species, than I do not see in any way what could be “dangerous” and “wrong” about that?


Right, there would be nothing wrong with it if it WERE true but it isn't. Different races can interbreed and young of mixed race are not sterile. Furthermore the genetic evidence proves we are the same species and, together with archeological evidence, points toward Africa as our place of origin. The idea that we are separate species with separate origins wouldn't be racist IF it had even a shred of evidence in support and didn't have a mountain of evidence directly contradicting it.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join