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

So if it's true...
You would be sleeping out side your specie's...thus that is kinda wrong in a way.
wouldn't it be?

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Sorry that the links don't work....I tested them. They just show how similiar different regions of humans are in relation to mitochondrial DNA. It seems to point to Africa as ground Zero for humanity forming.

No worries. They probably malfunction in response to getting hits from forums.

I'd love to prove the anthropologists all wrong and show the Garden of Eden was in the middle of Australia. It's probably some deep seated instinct to want to own your ancestral roots.
But, as you point out, all the indications are that I have to accept my ancestors came from far away.
A least I can continue to believe I'm half Neanderthal.

The one thing we do know is that all mankind has a common place of origin, otherwise we would never be able to interbreed and make fertile young. In fact, mixed-race kids are not only fertile, they are born with an advantage, health-wise, over "pure bloods." Just like with our pets, where the mongrels are hardier.

To see the disadvantage of keeping a group "pure," we only have to look at the English Royal Family or at the similarly disadvantaged Pakistani Moslems who tend to keep marrying their offspring off to cousins.

reply to post by spacevisitor


This could still easily fit models of evolution though right? Wouldn't it just be that whatever creature we evolved from prior to being homo sapiens may have migrated to various locations on the planet, evolving under different conditions but still difficult enough conditions, they all evolved to a different stage of evolution which resulted in a dimilar enough DNA that they could mate (like different colors of the same breed of dog?) but which also resulted in minds and bodies which were fit for certain kinds of tasks, which is clearly reflected in the skills that each nation is known for, and they are all worthy not only of those skills, but that of all humanity, and they are all worthy to be part of the world community regardless of their origins because they are our brothers, sisters, and cousins.

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
This could still easily fit models of evolution though right? Wouldn't it just be that whatever creature we evolved from prior to being homo sapiens may have migrated to various locations on the planet, evolving under different conditions but still difficult enough conditions...

That's what people used to think. The species was Homo erectus, the first fossils of which were found in Java, Indonesia, in 1891. It was believed that 'Java Man' was one of several species of human that had evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world. Slightly different erectus fossils were found about thirty years later in China and were dubbed 'Peking Man'. These were thought to substantiate the parallel evolution hypothesis. That was the state of anthropology a century or so ago.

However, we now know this did not happen. The story of human evolution is told only partly through fossils. The details are mostly filled in by molecular biology--meaning, to oversimplify things a bit, DNA analysis. Molecular biology has made stunning advances in the past few decades, and we now know beyond reasonable doubt that humans, chimpanzees and gorillas all evolved from the same ancestor about five million years ago. And although we have never found its fossil remains, we know this ancestor lived in Africa. We know this because of differences between human, chimpanzee and gorilla DNA on the one hand and the DNA of our next-closest ape relatives--orang utans, which do live in Asia--on the other. The ancestor of all orang utans and the common ancestor of all humans, chimps and gorillas were not the same, but shared a common ancestor of their own.

That common ancestor may well have lived--yes--in Asia. There is evidence that the common ancestor of all living apes (including us) evolved there, and that that the line of apes from which we come migrated back to Africa before splitting up into the various hominid species (us, chimps, gorillas and a bunch of extinct ancestral species). This has been known since 1998. More recently, palaeontologists have found evidence that the ancestor of all anthropoids (apes plus monkeys) entered North Africa from parts of Asia. You can read more about all that on this thread.

So--to sum up--the picture of primate evolution is one of migration back and forth between Africa and Asia over the past fifty million years or so. That's a long time ago--almost back to the age of the dinosaurs--and the continents themselves would have looked different back then. But there are no multiple lines of evolution stretching back from modern humans to some single ancestral species. There is only one line, and it leads back to the common ancestor of all human beings, which lived in Africa some time during the last five million years.

This Bakshi fellow is what you might call a Brown Supremacist, and his theory is racist. I'm brown myself; we have as many of these creeps among us as white people have white supremacists and black people have black ones. More evidence that humans are the same everywhere, that we all derive from a common ancestor.

I'm going to have to chime in here and say that there is absolutely no genetic evidence that the we, as human beings, are broken up into separate races; let alone species'.

The scientist making this claim is, in my own humble opinion, fanning the flames of hatred and racism.

This is absurd. Humans are actually one of the LEAST genetically diverse species on the planet. There is less genetic variation between even the most genetically disparate humans than there is between individuals of most other species, even among groups that live quite close geographically and who may look very similar. Humans went through a terrible genetic bottle-neck about 70 thousand years ago, with only as few as about 5000 individual humans remaining. Every single person on the planet has been genetically proven to be related to these very few individuals. In fact, it is this very genetic bottle-neck which created modern humans out of our precursor species.

On an evolutionary scale, 70,000 years is a minuscule amount of time and there just hasn't been enough time or genetic drift to create much variation in our genome. Yes, there are some large physical differences between racial and ethnic groups but those are pretty superficial on the genetic level and amount to very little. It's comparable to different breeds of dogs and wolves who often look incredibly different from each other, but who are still genetically dogs and who can still breed with each other, despite these vast differences.

reply to post by spacevisitor


I think it's quaint and overly simplistic to assume we all originated from Africa, kind of like maybe one day we can all return to the promised land and live in paradise on our true homeland. For all we know life could have originated in hundreds of different places all over the world (or universe, it's a stretch but a possibility nonetheless).

reply to post by filosophia

I think it's quaint and overly simplistic to assume we all originated from Africa

'Quaint and overly simplistic', eh? Can you explain why it's 'quaint and overly simplistic'?

For all we know life could have originated in hundreds of different places all over the world (or universe, it's a stretch but a possibility nonetheless).

Would you like to explain why you say this?

Thank you.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by filosophia

 

I think it's quaint and overly simplistic to assume we all originated from Africa

'Quaint and overly simplistic', eh? Can you explain why it's 'quaint and overly simplistic'?

For all we know life could have originated in hundreds of different places all over the world (or universe, it's a stretch but a possibility nonetheless).

Would you like to explain why you say this?

Thank you.

edit on 1/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)

its quaint and overly simplistic because it doesn't fit with Astyanax's point of view. :-D

Life may have originated in multiple places, but genetically we can point to a bottleneck 70k years ago that says "We all came from THAT group right there." We have genetics and multiple avenues of science to back that up.

What's your avenue to back up your theory?

Originally posted by filosophia
For all we know life could have originated in hundreds of different places all over the world (or universe, it's a stretch but a possibility nonetheless).

Hi filosophia, just want to let you know that I take your "stretch" remark (or universe, it's a stretch but a possibility nonetheless) very seriously.
I consider that as a very realistic possibility indeed.

reply to post by MagoSA

its quaint and overly simplistic because it doesn't fit with Astyanax's point of view. :-D

It is my point of view.

And--skipping nimbly from human origins to abiogenesis--well, life obviously could have, and doubtless has, originated in many different parts of the universe. It may even have originated more than once on planet Earth. But here on Earth there was a war, and when it ended there was only one ancestor standing. Everything alive today is descended from that Ancestral Replicator. How do we know this? We know this because all the Lord's children got DNA.

What was it, exactly, you are trying to tell us?

Originally posted by spacevisitor
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

Well I've never fully bought into the one-race theory from Africa. So I kinda vibe to the first scientists theory.
All the Chinese I've spoken to agree they are not from Africa remotely.
The only proof there is of the one-race theory is some human remains called 'Lucy' that the ptb elites trumpet as the 'Out of Africa' proof to accelerate the mass immigration agenda to the first world..

However I think to say they are different species is a bit OTT

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.

You know one of the reasons that race is associated with the Nazi's so much is to dismiss any thought, research or development into it.
All the useful data we have on racial characteristics and the real history of the races was buried and kept under lock and key by the ptb.
The Royalty and most elite family's are very well aware of this and this is why they are so successful at keeping their family's going after xxxx years.

A good video of the latest discovery from China...

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

This could still easily fit models of evolution though right? Wouldn't it just be that whatever creature we evolved from prior to being homo sapiens may have migrated to various locations on the planet, evolving under different conditions but still difficult enough conditions, they all evolved to a different stage of evolution which resulted in a dimilar enough DNA that they could mate (like different colors of the same breed of dog?) but which also resulted in minds and bodies which were fit for certain kinds of tasks, which is clearly reflected in the skills that each nation is known for, and they are all worthy not only of those skills, but that of all humanity, and they are all worthy to be part of the world community regardless of their origins because they are our brothers, sisters, and cousins.

Hi Seventhdoor , sorry for my late reply.

Of course they are all worthy to be a part of the world community regardless of their origins because they are our brothers, sisters, and cousins, although it is very obvious to me that we do not treat each other as such.

Just curious, but do you think that the various locations and different conditions on the planet where they all finally did stay to live back then were also responsible for the remarkable differences in especially the body lengths and typical physical shape of the faces, such as the shape of the nose, the position of the eyes and such and even in some cases the lack of facial hair growth?

Originally posted by WatchRider

Well I've never fully bought into the one-race theory from Africa. So I kinda vibe to the first scientists theory.
All the Chinese I've spoken to agree they are not from Africa remotely.
The only proof there is of the one-race theory is some human remains called 'Lucy' that the ptb elites trumpet as the 'Out of Africa' proof to accelerate the mass immigration agenda to the first world..

However I think to say they are different species is a bit OTT

Hi WatchRider, thanks for your thoughts and interesting video.
I can understand why you think that claiming that they are different species is a bit OTT, but it is not impossible in my opinion.

Regarding the video, it is no doubt a very interesting finding from as it seems around 110.000 years old.
So that seems not to fit in the Out of Africa theory as told below.

The out of Africa migration is estimated to have occurred about 70,000 years BP. Modern humans subsequently spread to all continents, replacing earlier hominids: they inhabited Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 BP, and the Americas at least 14,500 years BP

en.wikipedia.org...

The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (monogenesis) was published in Charles Darwin's Descent of Man (1871). The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.

According to genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa2525cb8384.png[/atsimg]

en.wikipedia.org...

Map of early human migrations according to mitochondrial population genetics

So I am really interested in how this investigation will continue.

reply to post by spacevisitor


hmm okay lets see, we have the same anatmoy, same bone structure/form, same placement of organs and same everything. The difference is D.N.A which is the blueprint for life on earth. I'm not entirely sure but i think that 0.2% of our D.N.A determines the colour of our skin, which is actually varying degrees of pigmentation.


meh

As the OP said, caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid are indeed the three races of man.

To satisfy the evolutionists, we can say these three races evolved from the three species of ape, chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan, respectively.

To satisfy the creationists, we can say these are descendants of Noah's three sons.

Same difference, if you ask me.

reply to post by Alxandro

As the OP said, caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid are indeed the three races of man.

Yes, and such distinctions are the province of racists. They have no basis in science.

To satisfy the evolutionists...

Ah, but what shall we do to satisfy the racists?

Your post stinks to high heaven.

Maybe you guys never knew that an O - mother can't carry (without medical intervention) the child of an RH+ father , why ? As for people being sterile --> Fertility Clinics Adoption Agencies