Originally posted by Aeons
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.
Nobody is requiring you to do anything, Aeons, dear.
You are free to answer or ignore questions all you like. However other people are free to come to their own conclusions when you do so.
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.
As you say, "this view", without clarification, it appears you mean the view referenced in the opening post, which is the photographer Akhil
Bakshi's hypothesis that primates evolved in three separate locations 100-200 million years ago, and that primates evolved separately in each
location from these early mammals, and that three races of humans evolved separately from primates in each location.
Are you really supporting this hypothesis, Aeons?
Do you know of any actual scientist supporting this theory?
Can you point to any post in which I've discounted this man's hypothesis on the basis of his being Asian?
On the contrary, I would never call Bakshi Asian. This man comes from an area which has had such a mixed ethnic background, it would be impossible to
classify him on the basis of race.
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.
Again, are you referring to Bakshi?
Bakshi is not a scientist and has made no claims to being one.
Bakshi is not from a classifiable race. His features are distinctive of an ethnic group in a region of India, not of any race.
Bakshi is discredited for presenting an easily disproven argument which has no scientific basis, not for being "Asian".
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.
This makes me wonder if you even know what his thread is about.
It is not about the theory that there are genes from Peking Man circulating in Asia. it's about the notion that humanity consists of three completely
separate species, Asians, Negroes and Caucasians, which evolved completely separately 100-200 million years ago in geographically unconnected
locations from separate species of early mammals.
Are you supporting this rubbish, or are you using this thread to argue for a version of the out of Africa theory?
If you are supporting Bakshi's ideas, can you answer the questions I asked you last October:
Originally posted by Kailassa
Do you agree that a fusion event occurred which created chromosome 2?
Do you agree that this event occurred in our ancestors after they became human?
Do you agree that this fusion would have initially made reproduction difficult, and thus the survival of this trait was unlikely?
How do you explain all humans today having this trait if we evolved from separate ancestors?
How do you explain all human mitochondria pointing back to one distant human female ancestor?
How do you explain human genes all pointing back to one human male ancestor?
How do you explain the fact that human "races" are closer to each other genetically than they are to any simian ancestor?
And lastly, do you have any reason to believe the Out Of Africa theory is not possible?
Just one more thing, Aeons, don't bother playing the race card. Evading reasonable questions with cries of "racism" is not a particularly admirable
way of conducting an argument.