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

Originally posted by TLomon
[sarcasm]
I guess all the research about Mitochondrial Eve and other genetic studies is wrong.
[/sarcasm]

Too bad I can't read the original articles. They are blocked at work for "Questionable". However, I did find some mirrors elsewhere.

I have to agree with one of the above posters - there is no science in that "scientific" article.

We all have a common genetic ancestor. That is fact. Genetic drift has been studied quite extensively in the human genome project - once again, fact.

What those articles talk about is an untrained individual making guesses based on his one beliefs. None of that is fact.

To summarize, those articles are garbage.

This doesn't refute mitochondrial eve. Admixture with local women is THE model of human reproductive interaction. Founding mothers remain. Studies on mtDNA and YDNA in South America should be used as a basis for how this process happens.

It isn't racist to consider that people might be descended from multiple variations on an ancestor species. That's ridiculous.

Could and would people use this information in a bigoted manner? Certainly.

It doesn't make the premise racist.

Frankly, it makes human FASCINATING. In isolation even, we are developing along the same lines. Upon convergence, traits are being mixed to find the most useful ones to keep.

Truly amazing. What we are was going to happen. In so many possible ways, there we are and have been, developing into a niche which was not filled anywhere. CREATING a niche that didn't exist before us. Over and over.

We've maintained the ability to cross with other branches for significant periods of time. Even after significant changes. I don't mean Black and White - those changes are almost trivial. I mean, us and the other branches all together.

By accident, by plan, by necessity - it doesn't matter. That humans could become "the same" from isolated lines of ancestor lines is awe-inspiring.

The herd-migrating simian. That groups of it might have ended in up isolated in different spots isn't exactly unlikely. That they may have been isolated by the advancing ice, and adapted in-situ is far from impossible.

Originally posted by Astyanax
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.

WTF?
Why is it racist to discuss race?

You're too emotional to even be involved in this discussion.

reply to post by LifeInDeath


This theory isn't mutually exclusive from there being isolated groups left behind in the migrations prior to the bottle-neck.

The way modern humans "leave" people everywhere there is a niche should be suggestive of this very tendency.

That our model of O-O-A moves in the opposite direction of the other animal migrations is also suggestive of this. Groups left behind and then amalgamated later again would solve the problem with human migration not following the directionality of the herds that humans were following out of Africa.

Where is Buzz Aldrin when you need him?

Same Ancestors, different environments:

A, B, C...

Nite all...

Originally posted by iamAccnrh
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

We do not have all the same anatomy and the same everything in my opinion, there are remarkable differences in especially the body lengths and more, the physical shape of the faces, such as prominent cheekbones, the shape of the nose, the position of the eyes and such and even in some cases the lack of facial hair growth and the hair growth itself.
And I do not believe that those differences are caused due eventually stay or going living for a long time on the various locations and different conditions on this planet alone, not even the colour of our skin, which is as you said actually varying degrees of pigmentation.

Originally posted by Aeons
It isn't racist to consider that people might be descended from multiple variations on an ancestor species. That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by Astyanax
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.

WTF?
Why is it racist to discuss race?

I agree with you here Aeons and Alxandro, I really do not understand what racism has to do with this.

This has nothing to do with racism, I can see the point trying to be made, even if I don't fully agree with it.

A dog is a dog, a primate is a primate, a human is a human.

Blacks evolved dark skin as they lived in hot countries, Asians developed their eyes because of prolonged sunlight (I think), whites are more accustomed to colder darker climates.

Not one of them is superior to the other, it's not racism, it's evolution, the adaption over thousands of years to the climate they have lived in, for thousands of years people stuck together in the same places.

Despite the colour of skin or development of body features each one is capable of doing what the next is.

reply to post by woogleuk


Maybe so, but if Darwinist proudly claim we came from apes, then which ape was it?

You can't dispute the facts, features and similarities:
* baby chimps have light skin underneath all that fur
* baby gorillas are bigger, live in Africa, have dark skin and wider nostrils
* baby orangutans have the almond shaped eyes, primarily live in Asia and red hair kinda like the Genghis Khan

Three species of ape ==> three races of Man ~~ three sons of Noah?
Might also explain why there were Three Wise Men, each one represeting each race, at The Birth.

It's all in the symbolism, just need to read between the lines

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by woogleuk

 

Maybe so, but if Darwinist proudly claim we came from apes, then which ape was it?

Evolution makes no such claims. Referring to people who believe in evolution as Darwinists only shows that you're about 150 years out of date with your understanding of the science.

reply to post by Alxandro


Thats just confusing apes with ape like creatures, if we evolved from them three, then why do they still exist, did evolution just favour us? Also their features could probably be put down to location, just like humans, plus there is the breeding thing, if it could be done, i'm sure someone would have made a human // ape hybrid.

No, its easier to think we evolved from the same line as apes, but humans are definatley a species all of their own, whos location deined their features, i suppose humans and apes are kind of like the dolphin to the whale, similar creatures, but different evolutionary path, and ones definatley smarter than the other (but which one, hmm, lol)

reply to post by iterationzero


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

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.

reply to post by Alxandro


All science is evolving, I bet there is alot of stuff now which in 150 years time will make people go "oops, got that one slightly wrong", it's like I heard somewhere, for the most part, science is just best guess, but i suppose thats more theoretical and not fundamental, which is still subject to flaws.

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.

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.

Yes, that is indeed how an evolving understanding works.

Unless you happen to be God, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming you understand everything perfectly. Or suggesting that God only does things simple enough for you to understand. It's kinda blasphemous.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by Alxandro

 

Thats just confusing apes with ape like creatures, if we evolved from them three, then why do they still exist, did evolution just favour us? Also their features could probably be put down to location, just like humans, plus there is the breeding thing, if it could be done, i'm sure someone would have made a human // ape hybrid.

That's the mystery, aka the Missing Link.
Yes, they still exist because but they too have evolved, only not as rapidly.

Maybe the missing link element was applied to all three apes, the end result being Man as we know it now?
Maybe it was an experiment, which might explain why it appears that "evolution just favour(ed) us"?
Maybe the missing link is the blonde haired/blue eyed gene?

Without that genetic boost, we might still be looking like modern apes.

Remember, after Cain killed his bro and was banished, he was afraid of getting killed himself.
Most likely by the wild apes or pre-historic man of that time.

Symbols.

reply to post by Aeons


I think you are missing the points, which are:

A - Science still does not have all the answers. They're out there, just haven't been found.
B - If and when we do find all the answers, Science will realize it wasn't as complicated as originally thought.
C - Man will someday become God-like himself thanks to Science.

Remember, the serpent told Adam he can become like God if he ate from the Tree of Knowledge (aka Science).
Is Man not on the verge of creating life himself?

Question: Will our future genetic life creations believe in us?

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by Kailassa

 

In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor from whom all living humans are descended. Passed down from mother to offspring, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.

en.wikipedia.org...

Directly from the source look at the very last sentence and that's all I'll have to say for now...

In the field of science, how soon will this information and research become obsolete?

Scientists are discovering now, that not all mitochondria comes from the maternal side.

We now know that the two key assumptions behind the data used to establish the existence of “mitochondrial Eve” are not just flawed, but wrong. The assumption that mitochondrial DNA is passed down only by the mother is completely incorrect (it also can be passed on by the father). And, the mutation rates used so calibrate the so-called “molecular clock” are now known to have been in error. (To use the words of Rodriguez-Trelles and his coworkers, the method contains a “fundamental flaw.”)

Originally posted by Onboard2
Scientists are discovering now, that not all mitochondria comes from the maternal side.

We now know that the two key assumptions behind the data used to establish the existence of “mitochondrial Eve” are not just flawed, but wrong. The assumption that mitochondrial DNA is passed down only by the mother is completely incorrect (it also can be passed on by the father). And, the mutation rates used so calibrate the so-called “molecular clock” are now known to have been in error. (To use the words of Rodriguez-Trelles and his coworkers, the method contains a “fundamental flaw.”)

Mitochondria in sperm are quickly broken down. When they do manage to enter the mamalian egg they are tagged and quickly destroyed. When they manage to incorporate into mamalian cells they inhibit spermatogenesis. To date, paternal mitochondria are only know to have passed down in one case, and that case resulted in severe chronic illness, making fatherhood unlikely.

However the irrelevance of this incident to maternal mitochondria tracing is ignored by creationist sites, who like to blow this one case up as though it's a big deal.


Want to prove me wrong?
Show me a case of a human with inherited paternal mitochondria who manages to pass it on to the next generation.

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by woogleuk

 

Maybe so, but if Darwinist proudly claim we came from apes, then which ape was it?

You can't dispute the facts, features and similarities:
* baby chimps have light skin underneath all that fur
* baby gorillas are bigger, live in Africa, have dark skin and wider nostrils
* baby orangutans have the almond shaped eyes, primarily live in Asia and red hair kinda like the Genghis Khan

Three species of ape ==> three races of Man ~~ three sons of Noah?
Might also explain why there were Three Wise Men, each one represeting each race, at The Birth.

It's all in the symbolism, just need to read between the lines

Chimps, gorillas and orangutans cannot interbreed, as they are genetically too different to each other.

Creatures which evolved from these 3 primates would be even further genetically from each other. Therefore the three resultant groups would not be able to interbreed.

All groups of humans are genetically capable of interbreeding.

Therefore humans cannot have evolved as separate groups from separate primates.

Originally posted by Frankenchrist
I cant say that we are different species, But I do know the races are definatly not the same.
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. Negroids tended to look younger than they were. Body odors were different between the 3. This could be to ethnic foods and diet. Im not sure. Caucasians on the other hand had the most variety as far as bone structure goes. And BTW, the word "hispanic" was used for "hispanic" people of latin american decent when they arrived at the Examiners office. But it changed about 4 years ago and they were re classified as Caucasians. So yeah, I seen quite a few dark brown Caucasians.

But in the end, we all look the same inside.

I don't see why people keep saying that Native Americans are Asian. We're a separate race. I'm not an Asian. As for small penis, I'd say that's wrong, too.