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

reply to post by Aeons

Africans don't look alike because the two groups were separted by a gigantic desert for a long time.

Unless I'm mistaken, most of the tribal groups that WalkingFox suggested you look at were sub-saharan. As in not seperated from one another by a large desert for a very long time.

Please, please, PLEASE don't tell me that you think that a Chewa skeleton looks the same as a Masaai skeleton, or a Tonga skeleton, or even a Lozi skeleton. Furthermore, please note that Somali and Ethiopian tribal groups are extraordinarily visually distinct from most of the tribes from further south, and they are NOT separated by a huge desert.

Are you telling me you can't look at Africans from Africa and SEE which group their ancestry is from????

Also, many of the people whom you are saying don't look alike do. Their skeletons look simliar to each other.

Um, yes you can often see which groups their ancestry is from. And it's often a lot more specific than "Bantu" (which, for the record, means PERSON, much as Muntu does, and it was just extended, in SA originally, I believe, to mean "black person", as Muntu is used in Zambia. It would be no more valid for me to start talking about the Mzungu ethnic group - all of the various pale-skinned (especially european) peoples in one generalised word that actually initially referred to a root vegetable).

...neanderthal admixture proves the point.

Groups in different areas have mixtures of other isolated groups of closely related hominids.

Genetic studies have led to the suggestion that in early homonids the continued breeding with the ancestors of chimpanzees continued for sometime. This exact same phenomena would have happened with other closely related homonids or even isolated human groups.

Except, of course, that by the definition of a species, if two groups could freely interbreed (i.e. no barriers either biological or geographical), they WERE THE SAME SPECIES. So if two different groups were carrying on with one another and yet referred to as Australopitheces and Pan, with their offspring surviving and breeding as well, then they should not have been separated as species, let alone as genera.

As such, if Homo sapiens was our ancestors spent different amounts of time interbreeding with now extinct species, it only proves that the origin of H. sapiens was further back in evolutionary history than we thought, and if they interbred with extant species after that date, it just suggests that Pan is more closely related to us than previously suggested, and probably belongs in the same genus.

The two pan sub-species ...

So far as I am aware, Pan paniscus and P. troglodytes are considered separate species (It doesn't add anything to the discussion, I know, but I'm a pedant. I'm sorry but I can't help it). If you're discussing the subspecies, wikipedia (yes, I know that a website that can list an Emu as a herbivorous mammal is not entirely trustworthy) lists 4 subspecies for P. troglodytes.

The differences between the two pan are very interestingly the same types of differences you see in HUMANS who were geographically separated. Differences that OTHER homonids were also showing. Such a the neanderthal.

Scientists keep coming up with some ridiculous reasons for Europeans. When I can point out THREE other simians in existence today with the same variations, and where those varations occur in one species with geographic isolation those variations are SUB-SPECIES.

My issue with this is that human populations have not, for any significant portion of our evolutionary history, been completely geographically (or reproductively) isolated from one another - invading, raping and pillaging has been a part of human history for as long as we've been recording it, and it seems only logical that it was going on just as much beforehand. Other ape species, once the Pleistoecene forests declined, suffered fragmented habitats, but since humans occupy just about every terrestrial habitat so long as they can find water (a lot like the brown rat that way), this would have made our habitat less fragmented.

It isn't a MORAL difference. It's a discription of a genetic sub-set.

A family (as in the Smiths, the Joneses or the Phiris) is a genetic subset. A maternal line is a genetic subset. A township is a genetic subset, and island nations are particularly sub-set. British people have different genetics to Europeans, largely because of founder effects, and the Isle of Wight also hosts people with a different range of alleles to the population on Great Britain. Would you call them a different subspecies? What about Scottish people compared to English people? Their hair colour is, after all, typically different.

My complaint about dividing humans into races based on genetic subsets and morphological differences isn't about morals, it's about the impossibility of accurately dividing a reproductively uninterrupted super-population into discrete groups.

reply to post by Aeons


Aeons, where are you?

You've been asked a bunch of questions, and you've been posting solidly on ATS since then.

Is cut'n run your way of admitting defeat?

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
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

Good point and if it cant check the idea that we have different ancestors then it certainly points to creation of humans by higher powers. That is if the races do have different ancestors and yet there is no zygote barrier then it represents something much less random than current science will allow.

But, But,.... what about evolution?

personally this is where I think earth has always been a alien ant farm.
they have been adjusting DNA for quite some time.
Some would even speculate the races were from different solar systems,
I am more inclined to believe some races resemble certain mammal traits.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
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

Good point and if it cant check the idea that we have different ancestors then it certainly points to creation of humans by higher powers. That is if the races do have different ancestors and yet there is no zygote barrier then it represents something much less random than current science will allow.

TheOneElectric's final point was that there is nothing scientific in the opening post or the link it referred to.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you believing God did it anyway. Plenty of reasonable people combine an acceptance of scientific research with faith that it all comes from god.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
But, But,.... what about evolution?

personally this is where I think earth has always been a alien ant farm.
they have been adjusting DNA for quite some time.
Some would even speculate the races were from different solar systems,
I am more inclined to believe some races resemble certain mammal traits.

Really?

What makes a "race"?

Exactly which "Race" resembles which animal?

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
But, But,.... what about evolution?

personally this is where I think earth has always been a alien ant farm.
they have been adjusting DNA for quite some time.
Some would even speculate the races were from different solar systems,
I am more inclined to believe some races resemble certain mammal traits.

Really?

What makes a "race"?

Exactly which "Race" resembles which animal?

Though I would like to discuss that I feel some would take it outta context
and personal,.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
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

Good point and if it cant check the idea that we have different ancestors then it certainly points to creation of humans by higher powers. That is if the races do have different ancestors and yet there is no zygote barrier then it represents something much less random than current science will allow.

TheOneElectric's final point was that there is nothing scientific in the opening post or the link it referred to.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you believing God did it anyway. Plenty of reasonable people combine an acceptance of scientific research with faith that it all comes from god.

Yes I am one of those. Science and God really cant be separated whatever the conclusion. And no i wasnt buying into the idea in op but havent rejected it or that something very interesting has happened in our past to give birth to so many races of humans.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Africans don't look alike because the two groups were separted by a gigantic desert for a long time.

Geography fail; With the exception of the Moorish guy, all of those people are sub-Saharan. Further, the Sahara hasn't been as big a barrier as you may think - there have been well-established trade routes, coastal travel, and of course back-and-forths on the Nile and Niger.

Are you telling me you can't look at Africans from Africa and SEE which group their ancestry is from????

I could guess, but I could stand a good chance of being wrong - And there are a lot of people who "look African" but actually are not - Many people in Indoneisia, India, Australia, and minority groups in the Philippines, for instance.

Also, many of the people whom you are saying don't look alike do. Their skeletons look similar to each other.

Not especially. You're confusing Africans with African-Americans. The later group is primarily descended from a cluster of regions in West Africa, and so share stronger genetic similarities with each other than they do with the rest of Africa.

The areas you are referencing are also in zones where groups are clearly intermingling. If you moved to away from those zones and into the center of those areas, the contributing sources become more apparent in their differences.

Of course people are intermingling. This has been my entire argument from the start; that mingling is what makes the notion of "race" useless. And no, things don't get any more "pure" if you go towards the center. Maybe if the mingling were a new thing, that would be true; But it's not.

Differences are defining. They need not be used for comparisons of superiority. This doesn't make those differences unimportant.

I'm not saying anything about superiority or inferiority. I'm simply stating that "race" is a social construct that is biologically useless.

Again, Neanderthal admixture proves the point.

Except said "mixture" could very easily be contamination. I wouldn't bank on it. Neat if true, but still seems a little shaky. Especially as it's a single study against many others saying the opposite. I don't find it especially improbable, but I'll wait to see how it pans out.

Groups in different areas have mixtures of other isolated groups of closely related hominids.

Followed by tens of thousands of years of mixture with other Homo sapiens.

Genetic studies have led to the suggestion that in early hominids the continued breeding with the ancestors of chimpanzees continued for sometime. These exact same phenomena would have happened with other closely related hominids or even isolated human groups.

Which is something you can point out next time a creationist asks you for the missing link. However, even if H. Sapiens immigrants interbred with the "locals", they were still H. sapiens, an African species that had migrated out through the horn of Africa.

And again, you shouldn't lean on some genetic studies while dismissing others out of hand. You know, the oens I opened with, the ones that tell us modern humans are of African origin, and that the genetic differences between us are so very, very slight that the odds of having a strong ancestral population outside our species is effectively nil? Okay, maybe the H. sapiens who migrated into Asia interbred with some of the H. erectus out there - if so, the event was rare, and any such lineages died out before the modern era. because they left no genetic evidence.

The two pan sub-species show some pretty important differences mainly created by geographic isolation. One group is coloured differently than the other. One is larger than the other. But they can cross breed, and many of the captive chimpanzees ARE cross breeds.

The differences between the two pan are very interestingly the same types of differences you see in HUMANS who were geographically separated - Differences that OTHER hominids were also showing. For example, the Neanderthal.

Well, the neanderthal had several tens of thousands of years of separation from the rest of humanity - literal separation, other humans couldn't reach the guys to swap genes. So they went their way and other humans went theirs. Same with hte chimps - they are separated by a large and rather dangerous river, and chimpanzees can't swim. They've been separated for hundreds of thousands of years.

The rest of humanity has no such isolation. I imagine if our species never discovered reliable navigation techniques, then Australians and two continents worth of Americans would have continued on their separate ways - but Eurasia-Africa has few total barriers to travel. The humans here would probably not have speciated.

Scientists keep coming up with some ridiculous reasons for Europeans. When I can point out THREE other simians in existence today with the same variations, and where those variations occur in one species with geographic isolation those variations are SUB-SPECIES.

Yes? Which scientists are coming up with "ridiculous reasons for Europeans"? Is that even a complete sentence?

It isn't a MORAL difference. It's a description of a genetic sub-set showing notable differentiation.

Except that due to all that intermingling, the notable differentiation is on an individual, rather than a group level. There are no races, nor are there "typical" specimens of a given race. Can you show me a black guy, or an Asian guy, who is the definition of that category?

As to the people with the "whites are superior" or the "whites are all oppressive meanies" thing going on - the idea that the Irish (arguably the whitest people on the planet) would have been considered superior to ANYONE before 1930 is ludicrious. Seriously, you have to have no knowledge of history of the peoples you are talking about if you think that.

edit on 2010/12/9 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Aaaaand history fail to go with the geography fail. First off, only the British really gave a damn if the Irish were Irish - and even then they only cared while they were in Ireland. In America, they were just another pack of immigrants, and discrimination passed away by the first generation born in America - because the Irish were white (very white, as you noted) and thus had absolutely no issues blending in and joining with the dominant caste in the country.

The immigrant Irish experience was probably not very nice; but it's certainly not comparable to the abuse given to other groups of non-whites in the United States.

Be some of that as it may.
There are different peoples, different races and the 'scientific' artsy types are just gonna have to get used to it.
Ever since WW2 there's been advances, but the 'forced railroading' of the Out Of Africa Theory has been used as a political and social engineering tool by the ptb.
Thankfully people are starting to wake up and say
'hang on a minute, you mean there's other theory's than this one?'
To that we can say
'Yes there are!'

reply to post by spacevisitor


because we come from the annunaki, duh! it makes so so so much sence, logically we are not alone in this GALAXY. peace

reply to post by TheWill


I'm not telling you. You go ahead and look at the science about the population constriction 70,000 years ago.

Those two main groups were separated for a long time, developing in isolation.

And yes, African skeletons have distinctive features. Though you are correct that there are some which show some greater morphological differences. The two distinct groups of Somalians are a great example. And one set of them is from a different area than the other. One set is descended from the great roaming tribes. And yes, their skeletons are different.

Thank you for proving my point. The people in the one area have similar skeletons to each other regardless of variation in skin tone. Somalia has two groups who are obviously distinct, and have skeletons that you can SEE are different from each other.

While you think you're attacking me, you're really showing that you too see it.

Skeletal morphology shows some unique features which have cultural and demographic correlation.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
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.

By whom?

He's just throwing a theory out there with little to back it up. Nothing to panic about.
The one argument I saw in the linked article was rational and made perfect sense.

“His is a highly confused argument which jumps enormous levels, which are quite impossible to link,” Tobias said.

However this poorly crafted article doesn't say WHO "Tobias" even is.

Then I read...

However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist —

...and I was like...

- Lee

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm sorry, but I can see the difference between the tribes of Africa. And the lighter skinned Somalians came from the Northern part of Africa and have been pushed, or moved down.

I can see their skeletons. And I can see the different tribes. I'm sorry you are so indoctrinated that you can't see distinct peoples. That doesn't make my point less true.

I'm sure you'll question that I can. But I can. Quite a few Africans have been quite surprised that I can pick out their country by looking at them. And those migrated Northern Africans can throw you off. They know that their ancestors are from further North, even if you don't.

And yes, I can see the difference between Melanisians, and Negritos, and Australian. That you think that Native Australians look like Africans blows me away.

Further - Neanderthals and humans did intermix. So did the newly discovered Denisovian (sp?). And likely several others. Humans have been isolated from each other, by the advancing ice, by culture, by the virtue that our ancestors wandered after the herds. Neanderthals didn't maintain their difference due to GEOGRAPHIC isolation. They lived in Israel for God's sake. Every tribe wandering after the herds into Asia tromped right by them.

reply to post by TheWill


I'm not arguing sub speciation. I would suggest that some of the differences seen are indicative of isolation events that could have become sub speciation.

I'm suggesting that you can indeed see true differences between peoples, and those differences do happen in a way which can seen and be categorized. The extremes can be found in isolation, in cultural groupings, in mappable extremes, or in moving towards a central area.

Pretense that variation doesn't happen and doesn't matter is ridiculous. Those differences have MEANING. Meaning which can be important in understanding humanity and our ability to adapt and survive. Being so politically correct as to avoid noticing and pretending that those real differences aren't there is a disservice.

Regardless of the name you give it, it is there. Unless you poke out everyone's eyeballs, they'll inconveniently keep seeing it. Their natural ability to categorize will categorize those differences, and their natural human language skills will label it.

That isn't going to go away. Those differences are factors that effect a person. They are stamps of survival, and have meaning. Meaning that persons can and have used to determine traits they may or may not want to combine with. Literal meaning. Those differences are the most basic form of communication possible about one of the most basic drives in a living entity.

reply to post by DoGBiTe


This could be verified by studying White people who've lived in Tropical regions for a number of generations to see if there's any change in pigmentation aside from natural exposure.

Two other existing hominids have red hair. One other existing hominid has members with white skin. Those hominids live in hot regions.

At least one other hominid of antiquity is known to have had members with red hair and white skin. Not all of them lived in Europe by any means.

Light skin is not unique to the modern Homo Sapiens, and considering where the other hominids who have light skin live, I believe that there is not a good basis to assume that this mutation is anything that is currently being claimed.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Man you need to read European history, and the history of the diaspora. Because, you have no idea what you are talking about.

reply to post by Kailassa


? I wasn't aware that I was required to maintain a non-stop action on something regardless of any other interests, or events happening.

I still find it interesting that people are claiming that this view is "anti-science" when the people putting it forward are in this case.....scientists. In this field of study. And the reason that their claims about Asians' ancestor (or one of them) having been in Asia for a much longer period of time is being discounted is because.....they're Asian.

So people are discounting scientists on the basis that they don't like those scientist's conclusions because those scientists are....from a different race. Or for the more politically correct - they have features which are distinct.

And that by claiming that their difference might be because they have a genetic ancestral contributor which has been in Asia for longer than is currently claimed is considered .... racist.

How DARE you claim to have a unique isolated genetic contributor. Evil Chinese.

The irony in this thread is just AWESOME. But there is really only so much of it I can put up with at a time.

reply to post by Aeons


It's anti-science because the claims aren't scientifically backed. Scientists can make all sorts of unscientific claims. Hell, Linus Pauling, one of two people in history two win two Nobel prizes in different fields, ended up living out the end of his career in shame due to his support for demonstrably unscientific claims.

These claims aren't backed by the evidence. They also don't make sense in accordance with everything we know about human genetics. If the claims don't fit the evidence and are continued to be argued in spite of the evidence, then the claims are not scientific, they are dogmatic.

Unless genetic evidence arises to support this claim it will continue to be unscientific.