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

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Do yourself a favor and look up the physiological differences as well as the differences in sex hormone levels as well as cranium capacity and IQ and than say we are all the same. And than call the FACTS racist. You, as well as many others, use the term racist too loosely. Just MHO
edit on 19-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


Did I say we were all the SAME? I said we were the same SPECIES.

Of course there is genetic variation amongst people. As we left Africa our species scattered and began to evolve to survive in varying climates. One thing that changed was skin colors. There are numerous other genetic variations caused by the isolation of a group from other groups of humans. While we did go through some changes those changes were never great enough to cause a divergence of our species into separate species. Had we remained isolated for many thousands of years more it is possible that we would have developed into separate species.

However the idea in the OP, that the races themselves developed separately from different species, is patently false and sounds an awful lot like racist propaganda.
edit on 19-10-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


What is racist about it? I don't believe one race was considered superior over another in the OP, if it was please point it out and I stand corrected and appologize. Again, the term "racist" being used too loosely.

Granted, certain races ARE better at certain things than other races. Is that racist, stating a fact?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 




What is racist about it?


The implication if other races evolved from a different species is that other races are not the same species and therefore are not HUMAN. This would lead to the dehumanization of certain races since they wouldn't actually be homo sapiens. Treating other human beings like "animals" was (and is) a big part of racism.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by kimish
 




What is racist about it?


The implication if other races evolved from a different species is that other races are not the same species and therefore are not HUMAN. This would lead to the dehumanization of certain races since they wouldn't actually be homo sapiens. Treating other human beings like "animals" was (and is) a big part of racism.


Yes, treating humans like animals IS racist, agreed. But merely the implication that different species evolved into different races of humans is in NO WAY racist, and no way says that one race is not human, it just merely states that a different road of evolution took place for the different races. How is it racist? It in no way, shape or form states that one race is better than another, it simply states that we evolved from a different species. It is merely an implication, and if later on down the road proven, it has no relevance to racism, in any way, at all.

So you have not shown anything that was stated as pure racist as defined in the dictionary.
edit on 19-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 




So you have not shown anything that was stated as pure racist as defined in the dictionary.


Fair enough.

But given the unproven nature of the ideas I think its safe to say that some form of racism is driving the hypothesis. I could fully understand and accept the conclusion if it had some solid scientific evidence backing it up and didn't have a lot of evidence contradicting it. But again this sounds an awful lot like what the Nazis tried to do to prove the superiority of their race over others, they masked their racism by hiding it behind pseudoscience. Maybe that ISN'T what this is but it just reminds me of it is all. If some more evidence was found in support of it I would feel differently.

Also, if the races did evolve from different species than they cannot be, by definition, all human. Different species DO NOT come together to evolve into the same species...



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Barack Obama. Mariah Carey.

Debunked.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


You bring up some very good points
. And, I never thought of it that way but, yeah, it does sound like some sort of nazi propaganda started this theory. But i've always believed that we have evolved from a different species, even since I was a child due to the fact that there are more differences that just skin color and facial features (science tells us that these are the only differences). But what is beyond me, due to what I believe, is the fact that different races interbreeding produce fertile offspring... it makes me think... But than again, us humans are a unique species of animal and anything is possible.
edit on 19-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by xiphias
 


Very good point but, I don't think that necessarily debunks the theory. Us humans are a very unique creature and evolution could have played a role after many decades to allow the different species to produce fertile offspring, or maybe sometime in the past there were different species that were ABLE to produce fertile offspring. This is a very deep subject.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Horses and donkeys which are different species can interbreed,but the offspring,called mules are always infertile.I'm unaware of any other interbreeding between species.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Nineteen
 


Many other species also interbreed wether in the wild or in captivity and the offspring are always infertile. This is the main argument against the different races of peoples coming from and or being a different species. But, Humans are a unique species in the animal kingdom... I suppose anything is possible.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Different species can't crossbreed....well, they can't produce viable offspring. So, I call this debunked from the onset.

I imagine this "scientist" has an underlying agenda.

My 2-cents



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I believe it's possible these two different species had viable offspring.
cogweb.ucla.edu...

My 2 cents.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Every individual on the planet is their own species.
I hereby declare individuality as the superior race. Roar.
edit on 20-10-2010 by xiphias because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Where is the peer-reviewed study for this? And why do I get the eerie feeling that this Indian dude doesn't understand molecular biology.
edit on 20-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


You bring up some very good points
. And, I never thought of it that way but, yeah, it does sound like some sort of nazi propaganda started this theory. But i've always believed that we have evolved from a different species, even since I was a child due to the fact that there are more differences that just skin color and facial features (science tells us that these are the only differences). But what is beyond me, due to what I believe, is the fact that different races interbreeding produce fertile offspring... it makes me think... But than again, us humans are a unique species of animal and anything is possible.
edit on 19-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)


Domestic dogs are all of the same species. You wouldn't think so if you compared a chihuahua to a great dane. The physical differences between humans pales in comparison to those between domestic dogs.
edit on 20-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


But given the unproven nature of the ideas I think its safe to say that some form of racism is driving the hypothesis.

You're quite right, Titen-Sxull.

1. South Asian societies are among the most divided and prejudiced in the world. In addition to the usual schisms of race and religion, they also have caste. I am South Asian myself, and can personally vouch for it; a cursory glance at South Asian history will bear me out.

2. There is a specific strain of Hindu ethnocentrism that shares the Aryan race-myth of Nazism--indeed, originated it. The fellow who came up with this rubbish we're discussing probably subscribes to it. Things to google: 'Savitri Devi', 'Subhas Chandra Bose', 'Bal Thackeray', 'Shiv Sena', 'Indian soldiers Wehrmacht', 'Indian regiment Waffen-SS'. I'd hunt up the links myself but I'm busy this morning.

Perhaps I should add that I am South Asian myself.


This sounds an awful lot like what the Nazis tried to do to prove the superiority of their race over others, they masked their racism by hiding it behind pseudoscience.

That is exactly what it is.

*


reply to post by kimish
 


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
If the races did evolve from different species than they cannot be, by definition, all human. Different species DO NOT come together to evolve into the same species.

Absolutely right. The very definition of 'species' excludes this possibility. Kimish, there's your answer.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Where is the peer-reviewed study for this? And why do I get the eerie feeling that this Indian dude doesn't understand molecular biology.
edit on 20-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


You bring up some very good points
. And, I never thought of it that way but, yeah, it does sound like some sort of nazi propaganda started this theory. But i've always believed that we have evolved from a different species, even since I was a child due to the fact that there are more differences that just skin color and facial features (science tells us that these are the only differences). But what is beyond me, due to what I believe, is the fact that different races interbreeding produce fertile offspring... it makes me think... But than again, us humans are a unique species of animal and anything is possible.
edit on 19-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)


Domestic dogs are all of the same species. You wouldn't think so if you compared a chihuahua to a great dane. The physical differences between humans pales in comparison to those between domestic dogs.
edit on 20-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)


But in dogs the inside physical features are the same with all breeds, except for the skulls, which is different in the different races of humans as well. But, some races have different hip structure (not found in dogs) just to give and example. Also, Negroids have more fast twitch muscle fibers than Caucasoid s and Mongoloids.

If there were only Negroids on the planet and Caucasoids existed centuries before without any knowledge of them having existed before and a Caucasoid skeleton was found, scientist would classify them as a new species. That is how much of a difference there is in the physiological features. Dogs on the other hand mainly differ in size, not make up, of structure and facial features, so much more with the races of humans.

Science tells us that race is only a social construct but given the many differences, whether we are a different species or not, the many differences would suggest otherwise. Does anyone have any theories on why science feeds us this BS?
edit on 21-10-2010 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 

Being a racist, kimish, is a bit like being a genius.

You don't get to decide whether you are one or not. Other people observe your words and deeds, and decide whether you qualify for the title or not.

Your insistence on believing biological impossibilities after their impossibility has been clearly explained to you so that you can cling to this Indian racist's thesis has been observed, and... guess what?




posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I'm an no way a racist, but a race realist. There IS a difference (meaning I understand and acknowledge the differences in the different races). Please show me what I stated that made me sound racist... I in no way said or insinuated that one race is superior to another. I merely stated that the differences in races means a very good possibility that that we did not evolve from the same species, which is a POSSIBILITY, not fact but merely a possibility... Here again we have the term racist being thrown around too loosely.

on a side note, did you know that there is a species of fish that can turn into male or female depending on which gender is most needed? My point is that anything in the animal kingdom IS possible.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
All of the blood groups both rhesus positive and negative did not all originate from Africa.

When blood lines were pure, there was a distinct dispersal of a certain blood group from a certain region.
If my ancestors came from Africa, I wouldn't be O negative. That much I do know for a fact.
Because O negative wasn't a specified blood group from that region ever.
We can only inherit the blood group of either our mother or father, unlike DNA where all sorts of stuff can mutate and deviate. And DNA is what they use to prove stupid theories like the out of africa one. The blood theory screws it up which is why you never hear about it. Besides, dead million year old half man half ape bones don't have blood for them to test anyway.





top topics
 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join