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

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Oh I'm sorry, looks like I struck a nerve referencing the father of evolution himself.

Not at all, it just shows your lack of understanding of where the science has gone since then. Yes, Darwin proposed common ancestry and natural selection, and both continue to be key tenets of the modern theory of evolution. But the theory of evolution doesn’t begin and end with Darwin. You’d sound just as ridiculous as calling proponents of atomic theory Daltonists or proponents of germ theory Leeuwenhoekists. You either haven’t educated yourself enough to understand why it’s wrong, which is profoundly sad, or you’re doing it to try and be malicious, which is amusingly petty.

So are you saying the modern day version of evolution will once again be out of date 150 years from now?
..or does that mean the theory itself will continue to evolve?

Come on man, at least have a back bone about it.

And therein lies the difference between science and… whatever it is you’re espousing. Science adapts and changes as it new evidence is presented and it learns new things. Dogma is blind and deaf to anything that doesn’t agree with it.

It seems that none of you are aware that much of what you are posting as evidence for evolution is false.

"Lucy" was a fraud.
www.omniology.com...

Piltdown man was a fraud.
www.answersingenesis.org...

And then there is the story of Peking man and the 10 skelietons that were found in that cave in Peking.
www.talkorigins.org...

Here's a whole page of archaelolgical frauds.
www.nwcreation.net...

reply to post by Kailassa


There is at least one known and studied case of a child inheriting its father's mtDNA.

Makes sense that it can happen, when you consider that you can have chimeric nuclear DNA too.

Originally posted by OhZone
It seems that none of you are aware that much of what you are posting as evidence for evolution is false.

"Lucy" was a fraud.
www.omniology.com...

Yes... a hoax. And they definitely haven't found any more of them.

Piltdown man was a fraud.
www.answersingenesis.org...

Yes, a fraud. One that was exposed by scientists. And keep in mind that it's validity was questioned from the outset.

And then there is the story of Peking man and the 10 skelietons that were found in that cave in Peking.
www.talkorigins.org...

Not sure how this show perpetration of a fraud.

Here's a whole page of archaelolgical frauds.
www.nwcreation.net...

If these are of the same quality as the three previous examples, I'm going to grab some popcorn and enjoy the comedy that's about to ensue.

reply to post by Skid Mark


Native Americans share some common ancestors with certain groups in Asia.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Kailassa

 

There is at least one known and studied case of a child inheriting its father's mtDNA.

Makes sense that it can happen, when you consider that you can have chimeric nuclear DNA too.

Link please?

One of my sons has tetragametic chimerism, btw.

edit: No need to bother with the link, I know the case.

www.nejm.org...

To be relevant the paternal mitochondria need to keep being passed in. This is unlikely, A mechanism withing the sperm cause the mitochonria to break down before reaching the egg. In the extremely rare cases where paternal mitochonria enter the egg, they are targeted and destroyed by defense mechanisms.

When a mammal does gain paternal mitochondria, these inhibit spermatagenesis, causing sterility, and in humans they cause handicaps.

So these paternal mitochondria are not getting into the human community to any significant extent.

In the even rarer cases where that defense mechanism doesn't work,

reply to post by Alxandro

What is the purpose of discussing a distinction that doesn't actually exist, unless it suits one's book to keep it alive? Race is only of interest to racists.

It is not the only artificial categorization that divides human beings. We also have nationality, religion and others. The people who celebrate and make much of these categories are those who have an interest in maintaining them. The same is true of race.

What is your interest in preserving the artificial perception of racial difference? What do you fear or hope to gain by it?

Differences are not unimportant.

However, they need not be the sole important defining characteristic.

People like to be different from each other. It's part of how we psychologically individuate in the herd.

Some people like race. Some people like to be smart. Some people like to play basketball. And some people prefer to have pretend friends, or think that their aura colour is important.

Your dislike of categorization based on notable physiological differences isn't going to make this human trait go away. And if you did manage to take away all the things that people use to individuate themselves from each other, I promise that by tomorrow 100 new ones will have developed.

We are close enough to be a hive mind as it is. Hating differentiation is just another of individuation, only in group enforcement.

reply to post by Aeons

Fiddlesticks. Intelligence and a talent for basketball are real distinctions. Race is not.

Why this interest in preserving artificial distinctions--even at the cost of embracing pseudoscience, as you appear to have done, in order to do so?

What do you fear, or hope to gain from it?

Being smart or playing basketball is real.....but skin colour, skeletal differences, bone density are not???

So - differences are only important if you can't SEE them??

reply to post by Aeons

Being smart or playing basketball is real.....but skin colour, skeletal differences, bone density are not???

All members of the same 'race' have the same skin colour or range of colours, do they?

All members of the same 'race' have the same skeletal features or range of features, do they?

All members of the same 'race' have the same bone density or range of densities, do they?

That is a racist fantasy.

Shall we put all the people with IQs under 80 in one category, then, and call them a 'race'?

How about a race of basketball players?

A race of nose-pickers?

The average frequency of genes or characters is higher among certain populations. Such features are never universal, however--there are, for example, many albinos among the native populations of sub-Saharan Africa. So what, then, do members of a 'race' share--what do they all have in common? A big fat zero, that's what.

How do you define 'race'? Everybody who shares a set of characteristics? Good luck with finding an invariable set of characteristics that fit the bill. Or do you mean a certain set of genes, a sub-genotype? Good luck with that, too.

Why are you so keen on race? If it has any meaning, the meaning lies in difference. And such differences are only useful for making judgements of utility or value. If you are concerned with race, it can only be that you believe some 'races' are better than others. You cannot help but betray your true feelings, however innocuous you try to make your posts on ATS.

I trust I don't have to spell things out for you any more clearly than that.

reply to post by Astyanax

Beautifully put.

An interesting fact about racial stereotyping:

Imagine there's an empty house on each side of yours.
Imagine a random person of your own racial type moves in on your right.
Imagine a random person from a completely different ethnicity moves in on your left.

Who are you going to have more in common with, genetically?

- There is a ~1 in 3 chance that you will be closer to the neighbour on your left, genetically, than the neighbour on your right.


I hope nobody seriously believes, (as was suggested earlier,) it's possible that our species, all so close genetically, is composed of three different species, which separarately descended from chimps, gorillas and orangatangs.

reply to post by Astyanax


Your need to refuse differentiation is fascinating. You may not be able to encompass loving people who are different from you in notable ways, so refuse to account for those differences at all.

I really don't care if you refer to it as race. People isoloated from each other were beginning the process of differentiation. This is evident. It matters because noticing it allows you to look at it and understand humanity.

You don't like that? I don't really care. You feel free to continue doing so.

reply to post by Kailassa


No - more like the two types of chimpanzees. some of the antessor groups may have been showing divergence like Pan. Some of this divergence is still encompassed in their modern descendents.

reply to post by Aeons

Humans are too close to each other genetically for different groups of humans to have descended from different pre-human ancestors.

Originally posted by spacevisitor


But suppose this man’s theory could once be proven to be true, that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are indeed not only separate races but separate species, than I do not see in any way what could be “dangerous” and “wrong” about that?

One word: INTERBREEDING

...... with viable offspring. Nope, not separate species.

Academia is afraid of looking at different races because they are too dumb to tell the difference between looking at differences and looking down at others because of their differences. Merely seeing different ethnicities is not "Racism", but they dont get it. Interesting Stuff Spacevisitor

New theories pop up every year. The last one I heard is that ALL races came from China. The can do some impressive work with DNA to track our ancestry. I like the idea that our planet was seeded by aliens. My cousin thinks that blacks were the indiginous race on earth.

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by Aeons

 

Humans are too close to each other genetically for different groups of humans to have descended from different pre-human ancestors.

edit on 1/12/10 by Kailassa because: (no reason given)

Which would totally explain why all of us out of Africa have nuclear DNA from a completely different species.

4% Neanderthal.

All that it demonstrates is that the largest contributors to modern humans come from a few groups that underwent founder effect. And that human genetics have been "mutating" in similar fashion even when separated.

Some of the mtDNA research shows exactly this - common mutations happen in similar lines even after a more deep-seated cladding. Someone in South America with no common ancestor from well before a mutation, and someone in Europe can both be of a common line, and both have a common mutation - but happened independently.

Examples of this parallel changes can even be demonstrated with facts we know. Early Humans have specific skeletal differences compared to modern humans. People in different places developed from Early human into Modern human WITHOUT REPLACEMENT. Without admixture from a single source.

Extreme founder effect does not mean that there are no other genetic contributors. It merely indicates a porportionally larger contribution from one group.

I have logged back onto ATS just for this thread. It’s been a while...

I know that human races are not classified as different subspecies. I can understand why. Slippery slope and all.

Can we try using bears as an example instead of humans?

Polar bears and grizzlies have bred with viable offspring. They are both sub-species of bears, no one will deny that. Would anyone argue that polar bears and grizzlies are the same? Have they not evolved in separate regions over many many years, with different diets, and so on? No value statement attached

I know I am not a racist. I cannot be in charge of anyone’s opinion of me.

I don’t really know if I have a point, but feedback would be appreciated....