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.
Africans don't look alike because the two groups were separted by a gigantic desert for a long time.
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.
...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.
The two pan sub-species ...
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.
It isn't a MORAL difference. It's a discription of a genetic sub-set.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 similar to each other.
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.
Differences are defining. They need not be used for comparisons of superiority. This doesn't make those differences unimportant.
Again, 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 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.
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.
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.
It isn't a MORAL difference. It's a description of a genetic sub-set showing notable differentiation.
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)
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.
“His is a highly confused argument which jumps enormous levels, which are quite impossible to link,” Tobias said.
However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist —