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

reply to post by WatchRider

What I find interesting is that people who are typically mixed-race or are not caucasian tend to almost respond with a near-caustic venom at a theory that is, it seems, outside their comfort zone.

What sorry racist garbage this is.

There is massive support and promotion for the multiple-genesis hypothesis from Indonesia, the result of major fossil finds of H. erectus ('Java man' to you) there.

Likewise, as Kailassa says, in China, as a result of major fossil finds of H. erectus ('Peking man' to you) there.

Every corner of the world that boasts a few non-sapiens fossils wants to be the cradle of (some part of the) human race. Molecular biology proves them all wrong, along with your racist claptrap.

Your dislike of the concept of groups self-identifying as something different is a cultural bias.

Those who grow up in Western countries tend to think that identification of self as primary, and that groups and communities and citizenship is created by banding together of individuals in a self-selecting manner.

This is not the case in most of the rest of the World, where you are an individual who is a representative of a group. Your identity as an individual is at the leisure of the great group, and is often curtailed in order to maintain group cohesion.

Originally posted by Aeons
Your dislike of the concept of groups self-identifying as something different is a cultural bias.

Those who grow up in Western countries tend to think that identification of self as primary, and that groups and communities and citizenship is created by banding together of individuals in a self-selecting manner.

This is not the case in most of the rest of the World, where you are an individual who is a representative of a group. Your identity as an individual is at the leisure of the great group, and is often curtailed in order to maintain group cohesion.

You are confusing race and group here.
Take the Chinese, for example.
Traditionally, as a Chinese, one primarily self identifies as part of a family.
Next one identifies as part of a school or industry, part of a locale, and then part of China.
What one does not self identify with, as a Chinese, is Asian. (Unless Asians are being insulted.)
The Chinese are accutely aware of the differences between themselves and the residents of neighbouring Asian countries.

Westerners see the similarities first, (the "they all look the same to me" syndrome,) but to a Chinese, being catagorised as a group with all who Westerners class as yellow-skinned and slanty-eyed is highly insulting.


If we want to catagorise on race, what race are Indians? What race are Innuits? What race are Australian Aborigines? How many races are there?

By the way, many Indians dont like to be catagorised with other Indians. An Indian from northern India considers himself quite different to an Indian from Southern India.

There is nothing wrong with identifying with an ethnic group. Humans are social animals and our group identities are important to most of us. However regional groups, ethnic groups or even countries of origin are very different to the overlarge and intermingled groups some still like to catagorise as races.

reply to post by Aeons

Your dislike of the concept of groups self-identifying as something different is a cultural bias.

Oh, so you're a psychiatrist now? Or maybe a sociologist?

Those who grow up in Western countries tend to think that identification of self as primary, and that groups and communities and citizenship is created by banding together of individuals in a self-selecting manner.

Cod-sociology, long discredited, and based on Western values and prejudices rather than much in the way of actual study. Show us the sources.

Meanwhile:

Asian values and how that concept emerged from western prejudice

Amartya Sen on Asian values

This is not the case in most of the rest of the World, where you are an individual who is a representative of a group. Your identity as an individual is at the leisure of the great group, and is often curtailed in order to maintain group cohesion.

What is clearly the case is that you have travelled little and met few people from foreign countries--or that, if you have, your own prejudices have prevented you from learning anything.

I have lived and travelled in many parts of the world, and I have tended to find people the same all over. It is true that cultures vary, but individuals within those cultures vary far more. And prejudice, such as yours, is always cultivated at home.

reply to post by Astyanax

"cod sociology" - It brings to mind a picture of lots of gaping, bug-eyed fishies swimming around, trying to psychoanalyse each other.
Meaning? Derivation?
I love etymolgy, and this is a term I'm not familiar with. - And there seems to be no definition on the net.

I found a link for a pdf file of Amartya Sen's Human Rights and Asian Values.

A few paragraphs that stood out:

Among the powerful expositors and practitioners of tolerance of diversity in India must be counted the great Moghul emperor Akbar, who reigned between 1556 and 1605. Again, we are not dealing with a democrat, but with a powerful king who emphasized the acceptability of diverse forms of social and religious behavior, and who accepted human rights of various kinds, including freedom of worship and religious practice. Such rights would not have been easily tolerated in parts of Europe in Akbar’s time.

For example, as the year 1000 in the Muslim Hejira calendar was reached in 1591-92, there was excitement about it in Delhi and Agra (not unlike what is happening right now as the year 2000 in the Christian calendar approaches). Akbar issued various enactments at this juncture of history, and some of these focused on religious tolerance, including the following:

No man should be interfered with on account of religion, and anyone [is] to be allowed to go over to a religion he pleased. If a Hindu, when a child or otherwise, had been made a Muslim against his will, he is to be allowed, if he pleased, to go back to the religion of his fathers.

Few westerners have any idea of the great civilizations that once existed in India, Africa and China. Instead, we often hear about white racial superiority, and the cleverness of western (or American) civilisation, from people who have no idea that the west got rich by raping and pillaging the east, leaching their resources and destroying their cultures.

His comments on history illustrate not only India's long experience of racism, but also of great leaders from ancient times working to institute an enlightened egalitarianism.

Sen aptly pointed out that leaders can even use racism against their own citizens, by claiming they share a racial quality in order to manipulate them into the desired behaviour.


The sad thing about racial prejudice is that so few prejudiced people realise they are.
Most will believe it's proven that all of a race share certain characteristics. Many even believe that blacks are, by virtue of race, less intelligent than whites.And some of the worst are like one woman I know well, who is sure she's not prejudiced because she's always kind to "those poor black people". She's proud of the fact that she always goes out of her way to speak to dark-skinned people, because "it just makes their day if a white person talks to them"!

People wanting to believe this hypothesis of separate evolution happening in different parts of the world, but all producing modern, interfertile humans, could not believe this if they understood how closely related we ALL are to each other. So believing this is an indication that they catagorise people by race, believing there are significant differences that race explains.

The idea that the major races each descended separately from separate species of prehuman mammals would be easy to prove, if it were true. Each race would be closer, genetically, to its prehuman ancestor than they are to each other.

Originally posted by Aeons
You are very interestingly ignoring most of what I am saying so that you can argue your POLITICAL views with me.

No, I'm arguing biology with you. Race is, biologically, a meaningless social construct. There are no clear scientific distinctions between races, because people can, and do, mix genetic material freely. There are political distinctions between races - the United States president is about fourteen different races, all depending on what country he's currently visiting - but biologically it's useless.

Molecular genetics is in its infancy. There is more than one cladding system, and the concepts behind it are evolving themselves. The findings of similar changes happening independently is known already.

Yes, it's still in its infancy. You're hoping that that makes it wrong. Those new clading systems? They're being developed because molecular genetics keeps organizing them the same way, every time someone looks at them. This is the same science that tells us all humans have a single origin point.

You can't dismiss something and then use its achievements in the same argument.

Discounting archeological work because of molecular biology work is ridiculous. It isn't a competition.

No, it's not a competition; when we're talking about biology, molecular biology will always kick archaeology's ass. Similarly if I want to talk about Emperor Trajan's methods of conducting warfare, archaeology would always trump molecular biology.

It's not a competition, because we're talking about two different things. In this thread, we're looking at biology.

Very very few people on this planet have their DNA run and being used in this science. The sweeping generalizations made due to the small sample sizes are a PLACE TO START. They are not the final say on all things about human history.

Again, history and biology are different disciplines. At times they intersect, and those rare spots are very interesting. But other than those, theyr'e very different paths, to very different goals, with very different methodologies and results. Grouping them together just makes it look like you understand neither of them.

No, every person in the world hasn't had their DNA sequenced. But that's a "god of the gaps" argument. Many, many people, of many, many "races" from many, many corners of the world have had their genetics looked at. Enough variety is in the testing, that the fact we get the same result no matter what - common african origin - seems pretty damn certain.

Even numbers plus even numbers always equal even numbers.
Odd numbers plus odd numbers always equal even numbers.
Odd numbers plus even numbers always equal odd numbers.

Test it out. Every number pair you use will follow these exact rules. I can guarantee, you will never find an exception to them. Take however long it takes you, adding numbers together in any variety, to be convinced of this. Every combination of numbers you HAVEN'T tried follow these same rules.

Let me see if I can say this again, and perhaps it will be clearer to those who are hung up on the language.

No matter how you phrase it, you're still arguing from ignorance.

The word applied to indicate that people are capable of noticing physical difference between large groups of strikingly similar humans is irrelevant. Arguing that people should not notice and never dare to label what they notice is political correctness run amok.

This is not a point that I'm making. I'm making the point that because the "races" can, and do, and frequently have been jumbled together very easily (all it takes is one sperm and one egg!) the concept is biologically useless. Any value it may have had has been lost for over a hundred thousand years.

Also, you might want to reconsider that whole "strikingly similar" thing - people you label as "very similar" very often look absolutely nothing alike. Talk about a cultural bias!

I haven't discounted any science.

Actually you discounted molecular biology. Can't blame you, since it completely proves you wrong.

I am merely not discounting theories which you dislike.

You might want to look up the definition of "theory."

Apparently entire countries of scientists are horrible racists out to get you.

Nope. They're just wrong.

Further, what do YOU call the independent development of isolated Cro-Magnons into Modern Humans? Coincidence?

No, I call it a poor education on your part. Seriously if you're going to talk about anthropology, you need to learn about it first. Cro-Magnon is a cultural label, not a biological one. It's like "Inka" or "Italian." Second, the people of the Cro-magnon culture were already fully modern humans when they moved in. Just like all their contemporaries in Africa, Asia, and Australia. Who are all descended from some ancestors who lived in the eastern regions of Africa.

Seriously, you're gonna talk about how "strikingly similar" your labeled races are, then you're going to claim Cro-magnons as the root of modern humanity, and YOU'RE trying to pin the onus of cultural bias on others? Get real.

I find it very amusing that people who are scolding me about bigotry are the same people dismissing an entire country's scientists based on the fact that their Chinese.

reply to post by Aeons


I'm not scolding you about bigotry. I'm scolding you because you're using inaccurate and vague social categorizations as if they were meaningful biological classifications. However, I'm also suggesting you avoid silly statements that amount to "they all look alike to me!" Such assertions do, unfortunately come with the territory of trying to make "race" a useful term. One has to overlook the huge physical differences between a random Japanese person and a random Tibetan person in order to use the term "Asian," after all.

Nor am I dismissing the Chinese scientists because they're Chinese. I'm dismissing them because they're wrong. I make this judgment because there is a vast array of evidence to prove them wrong, evidence derived from genetics and microbiology. Simply put, humans are a single species, and share a common African origin. We're looking at the Chinese answer to Piltdown Man, is all.

reply to post by Aeons


What WalkingFox said, and then what on Earth gave you the impression that every scientist in China thinks that way?

Can I say social stereotyping, please? Even though I know it was just a slip of a phrase, I want to.

But that would be petty.

There is a significant difference between "they all look alike" and "there are groupings of persons who share similiar traits, and those groupings are and have historically been geographically clustered."

reply to post by Aeons


Be that as it may, to conclude that they evolved separately from an ancestor of different species to us would not make them a different species to us, but - as people from all known human races can freely hybridize, and have been doing so for a very long time - it would mean that the ancestral species(plural) were necessarily redefined to be the same as the current one.

Basically, humans are not separate species. If there is molecular evidence that we evolved from different ancestral species, it reflects more on the over-enthusiastic separation of homonid bones into different species than anything else.

Originally posted by Frankenchrist

I performed quite a few autopsies in my day. The one thing I did notice and an anthropologist friend of mine comfirmed that the Negroid race has a larger skull than Caucasians and the Mongoloid races. Mongoloids which includes native americans, tended to have very little body hair and a small penis. alot of the native americans had very very thick skulls. I also noticed that some Mongoloids of Chinese or Japanese decent had very thin skulls, in some cases, almost see through in some areas. .

Brain size:Mongoloids largest,Caucasoids next,Negroes last.
Skull size is not same as brain size though.
www.springerlink.com...
MENTAL ABILITY
The global literature on the distribution of intelligence test scores was
reviewed by Lynn (1991). Caucasoids of North America, Europe, and
Australasia generally obtain mean IQs of around 100. Mongoloids from
both north America and the Pacific Rim obtain slightly higher means, in
the range of 101 to 111. Africans from south of the Sahara, African-
Americans, and African-Caribbeans (including those living in Britain),
obtain mean IQs of from 70 to 90.

BRAIN SIZE
A small, but robust relation has been firmly established between mental
ability and brain size. The correlation between test scores and brain
size estimated from magnetic resonance imaging which, in effect, constructs
a three-dimensional picture of the brain in vivo, averages at about 0.40
(Andreasen et al., 1993; Raz et al., 1993; Wickett, Vernon, and Lee, 1994;
Willerman et al., 1991). This represents a substantial increment over correlations
reported since the turn of the century between head perimeter
and measures of intelligence which average about 0.20 (Broman et aL, 1987;
Rushton, 1995; Wickett et al., 1994). The head perimeter-IQ relation has
been found within samples of Orientals as well as Whites (Rushton, 1992c).
Jensen and Johnson (1994) have found that head size is significantly correlated
with IQ within-families (i.e., among same-sex full siblings, with age
partialed out), thus indicating a functional relation between brain size and
IQ.
Racial differences in brain size and IQ show up early in life. Data
from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project show that 19,000 Black
infants have a smaller head perimeter at birth, and are shorter in stature,
lighter in weight, and have an earlier age of gestation than 17,000 White
infants (Broman et al., 1987). By age seven, catch up growth favors the
Black children in body size but not in head perimeter. Head perimeter at
birth correlated with IQ at age seven in both the Black and the White
children.
Although racial differences in brain size were widely believed to exist
in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, more recently it has been
thought that differences disappear when corrections are made for body size
and other variables. Modern studies, however, have confirmed the earlier
findings. Three main procedures have been used: weighing wet brains after
Asian Achievement 377
death, filling empty skulls with lead shot and then measuring the volume
of filler, and converting external head sizes into cranial volume. Data from
all three sources converge on the conclusion that, after statistical corrections
are made for body size, mongoloids average about 17 cm 3 (1 cubic
inch) more than caucasoids and about 80 cm 3 (5 cubic inches) more than
negroids (Rushton, 1995).
Consider modern evidence on brain size differences. For weight at
autopsy, Ho et al. (1980) summarized data for 1261 Americans aged 25-80
after excluding obviously damaged brains. They reported a significant sexcombined
difference between 811 Whites with a mean of 1323 g (SD =
146) and 450 Blacks with a mean of 1223 g (SD = 144). This difference
remained after controlling for age, stature, body weight, and total body
surface area. With endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984, p. 307, Table 5)
analyzed the world database of up to 20,000 crania and found sex-combined
brain cases differed by continental area. Excluding Caucasoid areas of Asia
(e.g., India) and Africa (e.g., Egypt), 19 Asian populations averaged 1415
cm 3 (SD = 51), ten European groups averaged 1362 cm 3 (SD = 35), and
nine African groups averaged 1268 cm 3 (SD = 85).
As to external head measurements, I have conducted several studies
and have found consistent evidence of east Asian advantage after
corrections are made for body size. For example, in a stratified random
sample of 6325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets,
Asian Americans, White Americans, and Black Americans averaged cranial
capacities, respectively, of 1416, 1380, and 1359 cm 3 (Rushton, 1992b). Data
from tens of thousands of men and women aged 25 to 45, collated by the
International Labour Office in Geneva, showed that samples from the
Pacific Rim, from Europe, and from Africa, averaged cranial capacities,
respectively, of 1308, 1297, and 1241 cm 3 (Rushton, 1994).

Originally posted by RRokkyy
MENTAL ABILITY
The global literature on the distribution of intelligence test scores was
reviewed by Lynn (1991). Caucasoids of North America, Europe, and
Australasia generally obtain mean IQs of around 100. Mongoloids from
both north America and the Pacific Rim obtain slightly higher means, in
the range of 101 to 111. Africans from south of the Sahara, African-
Americans, and African-Caribbeans (including those living in Britain),
obtain mean IQs of from 70 to 90.

Because, you know, IQ tests are not at all culturally biased (!).

As for the differences between races and race-groups, yes, we know that differences exist, that can be noted visually. However, differences are even more pronounced between some groups within these "races".

Originally posted by TheWill

Because, you know, IQ tests are not at all culturally biased (!).

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

IQ tests correlate with most of the other factors.
People with high IQs earn more.
Countries with high IQ people tend to be more prosperous,etc.
Somalia and Haiti versus Sweden and Japan

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by TheWill

Because, you know, IQ tests are not at all culturally biased (!).

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

IQ tests correlate with most of the other factors.
People with high IQs earn more.
Countries with high IQ people tend to be more prosperous,etc.
Somalia and Haiti versus Sweden and Japan

But if I plunk you and an Aboriginal Australian down in the middle of a plain, you're gonna die.

reply to post by BobbinHood


Why does every discussion about race in up with hysterical shout downs of racism? Becasue white racism is the greatest thought crime possible in our new and improved culturally cleansed multi-cultural society. It is like being called a witch in the days of Salem witch burnings. Like the days of Salem, identifying a white racist based soley on the ideas in the OP involves mind reading because no one can be racist without the intention of being racist, ie rejecting people because of their race.

Multiculturalism's doctrines of racism, racist violence and discrimination are not racist thought or hate crimes if committed by anybody but whites as long as the race hate is directed at whites. It is racist for whites to be included as a group in multiculturalism. Hence, Obama can go to a black racist church for twenty years and we won't see him chased around and shouted down as the racist he is. Similiarly, he can refuse to prosecute two Black racists from the Nation of Islam involved in white voter intimidation without the kooks on their high horses riding in to smite him for his racism.

Why is this? Because after the powers that be lost their power base of white male preferences to divide and conquer the public - turning citizen against citizen - they had to come up with a new racial hate and discrimination scheme to create a new divide and conquer power base. So in the seventies, they moved to preferring Blacks and all women as a group (later adding an invented "race" - Hispanics), complete with race and sex studies that develop doctrines to explain their superiority over the new targets - white males. They turned white males into the demons society must punish for being genetically and morally unequal to the new prefered grouping. This justifyed them denying white males equality under the law and an idenity.

Targeting white males has killed two birds with on stone. First, American white males hold the history of the constitutional ideology and second they held the ethical standards and philosphy of Western culture. To get total power over Americans - to defeat the consitutional contraints and the ethical requirements of American culture, the elite had the chance to demolish it in the name of erasing white male racism.

So this is why the sheeple are taught to vomit out "racist" at anyone who dares speak outside the box of the proper multicultural race and sex superiority and hate doctrines. There is a lot Black pride wrapped up in the idea that they were the first people on earth and all races of people came out of their superior genetics. So the OP's report of research to the contrary is "racist!" To reject the doctrines of multicultural's race meaning is racist too. To say "judge a man or woman by the content of his character, not the color of his skin" is racist, too, because it challenges the eltie post-segregation race order.

The Shadow Fox has been correct in this discussion thus far.

An interesting theory which has some credibility (though not wide) is the Neanderthal admixture hypothesis. It is possible that 1-4% of modern non-Africans share genes from neanderthal man. Which could explain their extinction (bred out).

This does not make much of a difference, but it is definatly interesting.


The actual biological difference between most people is virtually nonexistent. The greatest genetic difference is with small populations of people within the African continent.

But otherwise, most Africans and non-Africans are so genetically close that the difference is null, and the only notable differences are on the African continent itself. Non-Africans left Africa from the same group.

Sorry China, you guys are just as regular as the rest of the world.


btw: IQ tests are wildly culturally biased. The only comparisons that can be made is between people in the same culture and background and that, still, could be distorted.

reply to post by RRokkyy


IQ tests do not test how well someone processes information. IQ tests process how well someone processes information relevant to the culture of the person who devised the IQ test. Word association and pattern recognition aren't exactly central to life in all situations. People who are good at IQ tests tend to have countries that are more prosperous BY THE STANDARDS OF THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Perhaps cross-breeding of the three species has resulted in a decline in the pureness of the former unadulterated races and explains the current situation human-wide? This would mean we are all mutts and jackasses. I feel qualified to make that assessment.

reply to post by Aeons

I find it very amusing that people who are scolding me about bigotry are the same people dismissing an entire country's scientists based on the fact that their Chinese.

Akhil Bakshi is of Indian, not Chinese origin.