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

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
I didnt know different species could cross breed. SMH and these are scientist who have been educated to share their knowledge.

horses and donkeys will breed a mule.

Mules are infertile, so that hardly counts as crossbreeding when you are talking about differentiation between species.

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by pavil

 

What a bunch of rubbish what are the chances they dig up our first human ancestor? Astronomical I say.... They find some old bones and make crazy claims.... What happens tomorrow when they dig up human bones that are 200,001 years old?

There's no need to dig up "Eve" to work out we descended from a single female. As the mitochondria are passed down direct from the mother, scientists have been able to trace back mitochondrial branches through various mutations to see the changes all point back to the same place, genetically.

This is one way we know humanity all comes from the same rootstock.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
I didnt know different species could cross breed. SMH and these are scientist who have been educated to share their knowledge.

horses and donkeys will breed a mule.

Mules are infertile, so that hardly counts as crossbreeding when you are talking about differentiation between species.

Neanderthals did it !

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by Titen-SxullThe genetic evidence showing our migration out of Africa is pretty strong.

And nothing is set in stone. Science is constantly evolving and previously held beliefs have to make way for new evidence.

Also, just because someone points out that we are in fact, different... Doesn't make that person a racist or a Nazi. So please, get over it.

In regards to fossil evidence, is anyone aware of the destruction of the fossil evidence being found currently that DOES not go with the current theory of evolution or Darwin? Has anyone looked thoroughly into the migratory patterns of the phoenicans? What about the giants of pre-history, where did they go, and why did they stop existence, did they die out, or just breed in? What about the Tasmanian women who COULD NOT breed with the british who were founding a penal colony, and in so doing committed genocide of the entire race, believing to be abominations since they COULD NOT reproduce with them. Has anyone looked into any of this?
Mbwun Scalding

Originally posted by xuenchen
This is MY opinion learned from many informed people:

Negroid – Mongolian - Neanderthal (Caucasian)
Millions of years to evolve from other “sub-human” groups
Began during Triassic Period

I would contend you aren't informed enough......

The Triassic is a geologic period that extended from about 250 to 200 Mya (million years ago).

en.wikipedia.org...

There weren't even any mammals around then.......... I stand corrected..There weren't any placental mammals nor primates.

EOZOSTRONDON Eozostrodon was one of the first true mammals; it lived during the late Triassic period and early Jurassic period, about 210 million years ago. This small, primitive, egg-laying mammal fed the young with mother's milk. Eozostrodon was a quadruped with short legs, a long, pointed snout, five-toed feet with claws, and a long, hairy tail (it looked like a modern-day shrew). Eozostrodon was about 42 inches (107 cm) long. It was a triconodont that belonged to the family Morganucodontidae, which had true mammalian teeth (the cheek teeth were differentiated into simple premolars plus more complex molars, and the teeth were replaced only once, and the molars had triangular cusps).

Cool article about early mammals......they mostly all look like variations of a weasel.



dinosaurs.about.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">dinosaurs.about.com... m

reply to post by Kailassa


But you said a skeleton is a skeleton, this is true. A fruit is a fruit as well, but there are noticeable physical differences. And btw, evidently you didn't do your home work because SPELT is a kind of wheat. The word you were looking for is SPELLED Stop being a racist.

Notice the political correctness in this, also, open your mind...
www.wadsworth.com...
A quote from the above link In case you failed to see it.
"Forensic physical anthropologists, however, would be derelict in their duty if they ignored the morphological differences which can help to identify an individual. When an anthropologist is asked to assist in the identification of a parcel of bones, part of that identification must include a statement as to probable ancestry or "race," because this feature is included in the social identity of that person."

reply to post by xuenchen


I Posted something similar earlier in the thread. Evidently some people are narrow minded and want to stick to their beliefs without reviewing any possibilities that would discredit their beliefs.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Kailassa

 

But you said a skeleton is a skeleton, this is true. A fruit is a fruit as well, but there are noticeable physical differences. And btw, evidently you didn't do your home work because SPELT is a kind of wheat. The word you were looking for is SPELLED. You're too much of a racists.

I guess you weren't listening the day they taught about some words having more than one meaning.
But what can you expect of a poster who types: "You're too much of a racists."?

spell verb
(spelled or UK and Australian English also spelt)
to form a word or words with the letters in the correct order
dictionary.cambridge.org...

spell -
1 [transitive] to know the letters of a word in the correct order
Can you spell the word ‘beautiful’?
a. [transitive] to say or write the letters of a word in the correct order
You’ve spelt my name wrong.
www.macmillandictionary.com...

Spelt
imp. & p. p. of Spell. Spelled.
onlinedictionary.datasegment.com...

spell
v. spelled or spelt, spelling, spells
v.tr.
1. To name or write in order the letters constituting (a word or part of a word).
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Verb: spell (spelt, also spelled)
1. Specify or name the letters that comprise the conventionally accepted form of (a word or part of a word)
www.wordwebonline.com...

The sad thing about a lack of education is that it leads to people wasting their time by promoting ridiculous theories, and making up "facts" because they are incapable of understanding scientific research.

It's a waste of time trying to explain the facts to someone whose best argument is na-na-nana-na about grammar they are too ignorant to understand.

Quite probably the "scientist" referenced by the OP is just one more ignoramus who bought an online degree.

reply to post by Frontkjemper

And nothing is set in stone.

Did I say it was? I'm well aware how science works. Numerous times in this post I admitted that if they had enough evidence supporting the idea in the OP I'd believe it. The fact that there isn't evidence supporting the idea and that there is strong evidence that the opposite is true, is primarily why I reject the idea.

Also I never accused anyone of being a Nazi, I just made a comparison to the racial pseudoscience the Nazi's cooked up to prove their superiority as a race. I do, however, think there IS racism in the idea that races evolved from different species. Seeing as how there is no solid scientific evidence to support such a notion it takes either a mind completely naive of our origins or a racist mind to come up with such an idea. I think it is more likely the latter.

reply to post by Kailassa


Take the source that was provided and read how much of it is hogwash.... They make the claim their were thousands of other people at the time, only way to refute she was the first, how do they even know how many people were alive 200,000 years ago??? Secondly her DNA isn't even all their and they plainly admit it, they have a tiny piece of the puzzle and they are putting all their theories together to make it fit.... If this was scientific fact it would not be called a HYPOTHESIS!

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Take the source that was provided and read how much of it is hogwash.... They make the claim their were thousands of other people at the time, only way to refute she was the first, how do they even know how many people were alive 200,000 years ago??? Secondly her DNA isn't even all their and they plainly admit it, they have a tiny piece of the puzzle and they are putting all their theories together to make it fit.... If this was scientific fact it would not be called a HYPOTHESIS!

Ok, lets take a look at the sources in Pavil's post to which I was replying -

Originally posted by pavil
Don't know about that theory, especially with the African "Eve".
en.wikipedia.org...

Further calculations came to the startling conclusion that all modern people have the same origin—a relatively small population of humans who lived in Africa 200,000-150,000 years ago. Scholars sometimes referred to this finding as the “African Eve” or “Mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis. All anatomically modern people—Homo sapiens sapiens, including ourselves and groups like the Cro-Magnons—can trace their history back to this time.

barclay1720.tripod.com...

Two links lead to "image not found" sites, and one leads to a Wiki page which supports the mitochondrial theory.

The estimate in Wiki of, "between 1,500 and 16,000 effectively interbreeding individuals (census 4,500 to 48,000 individuals) within Tanzania and proximal regions" is not a refutation that "Eve" was our latest common female ancestor, which is the position anthropologists take.

Some people, confusing the evolutionary Eve with the Biblical Eve, imagining scientists are talking about our first human ancestor. But science acknowledges a distant ancestry leading up to E Eve. She just happened to be the mother of the only children whose descendants survived to become modern mankind.


In science, any explanation which can be further researched and refined is called a theory, no matter how overwhelming the evidence accumulated may be.

The first nations of North America believe in the 13 star nations of humanity.

Suggesting there may be 13 different races of human beings in our solar system.

Perhaps earth is a mixing bowl of the star nations in an effort to live and grow peacefully as one group.

Perhaps the secret to our development is in the mixing of the genetic codes of the different races.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Kailassa

 

But you said a skeleton is a skeleton, this is true. A fruit is a fruit as well, but there are noticeable physical differences. And btw, evidently you didn't do your home work because SPELT is a kind of wheat. The word you were looking for is SPELLED. You're too much of a racists.

I guess you weren't listening the day they taught about some words having more than one meaning.
But what can you expect of a poster who types: "You're too much of a racists."?

spell verb
(spelled or UK and Australian English also spelt)
to form a word or words with the letters in the correct order
dictionary.cambridge.org...

spell -
1 [transitive] to know the letters of a word in the correct order
Can you spell the word ‘beautiful’?
a. [transitive] to say or write the letters of a word in the correct order
You’ve spelt my name wrong.
www.macmillandictionary.com...

Spelt
imp. & p. p. of Spell. Spelled.
onlinedictionary.datasegment.com...

spell
v. spelled or spelt, spelling, spells
v.tr.
1. To name or write in order the letters constituting (a word or part of a word).
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Verb: spell (spelt, also spelled)
1. Specify or name the letters that comprise the conventionally accepted form of (a word or part of a word)
www.wordwebonline.com...

The sad thing about a lack of education is that it leads to people wasting their time by promoting ridiculous theories, and making up "facts" because they are incapable of understanding scientific research.

It's a waste of time trying to explain the facts to someone whose best argument is na-na-nana-na about grammar they are too ignorant to understand.

Quite probably the "scientist" referenced by the OP is just one more ignoramus who bought an online degree.

Ok, I will stand corrected on the spelling of spelled vs. spelt in the context it was used. In the U.S., they only teach us the American English way to spell things. Our color is your colour for example, so I do know that there are differences but I do not know ALL of the differences. They do teach us in school that there are more than one way to spell certain words but they are words in American English, thank you. And, I'm assuming you didn't notice I edited my post to correct my wording.. I was quick to jump to the reply. You amuse me and, for this I thank you.

I don't believe I stated anything as fact, I am not stupid, American but, not stupid. My thoughts are only theories shared by educated scientists, many of which have their (that word has different ways to spell it too!) doctorate degrees, in other words, unless you yourself have a doctorate degree in the field of the topic of discussion, they are much smarter and more educated than both you and I. And the scientist in the OP probably got his degree before the internet was even invented.

Quick question, why do you take such serious offense to the theory that I and many others believe? Do YOU feel inferior? Because evidently I have touched a sensitive nerve in you.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by xuenchen
This is MY opinion learned from many informed people:

Negroid – Mongolian - Neanderthal (Caucasian)
Millions of years to evolve from other “sub-human” groups
Began during Triassic Period

I would contend you aren't informed enough......

The Triassic is a geologic period that extended from about 250 to 200 Mya (million years ago).

en.wikipedia.org...

There weren't even any mammals around then.......... I stand corrected..There weren't any placental mammals nor primates.

EOZOSTRONDON Eozostrodon was one of the first true mammals; it lived during the late Triassic period and early Jurassic period, about 210 million years ago. This small, primitive, egg-laying mammal fed the young with mother's milk. Eozostrodon was a quadruped with short legs, a long, pointed snout, five-toed feet with claws, and a long, hairy tail (it looked like a modern-day shrew). Eozostrodon was about 42 inches (107 cm) long. It was a triconodont that belonged to the family Morganucodontidae, which had true mammalian teeth (the cheek teeth were differentiated into simple premolars plus more complex molars, and the teeth were replaced only once, and the molars had triangular cusps).

edit on 23-10-2010 by pavil because: (no reason given)

Cool article about early mammals......they mostly all look like variations of a weasel.



dinosaurs.about.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">dinosaurs.about.com... m

edit on 23-10-2010 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2010 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2010 by pavil because: (no reason given)

YES, like I said, MY OPINION IS it started in the Triassic Period

Prehistoric Primates - The Story of Primate Evolution

The first primate ancestors appeared on earth around the time the dinosaurs went extinct--and diversified, over the next 65 million years, into monkeys, lemurs, great apes and (a relatively recent development) human beings. Here's everything you need to know about primate evolution, along with a list of important species.

AND, I still ask WHY is it only HUMANS can talk, write, etc. no other species ?
that's one reason why I believe Humans are much older than the scolars think!

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...



MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
The first nations of North America believe in the 13 star nations of humanity.

Suggesting there may be 13 different races of human beings in our solar system.

Perhaps earth is a mixing bowl of the star nations in an effort to live and grow peacefully as one group.

Perhaps the secret to our development is in the mixing of the genetic codes of the different races.

could this be WHY only Humans have language, speech, etc. ??

maybe this IS the answer!

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.

Mitochondrial Eve is generally estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens were developing as a species separate from other human species.

Mitochondrial Eve lived much earlier than the out of Africa migration that is thought to have occurred between 95,000 to 45,000 BP.[4] The dating for 'Eve' was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis, and a boost to the hypothesis that modern humans originated relatively recently in Africa and spread from there, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, the latter hypothesis is now the dominant one.

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

You have proved you can copy/paste a post without attribution. This is commonly known as plaguiarism.

I have no argument with the article you copied from.

I've looked at the last sentence, "As a result, the latter hypothesis is now the dominant one."
What of it?

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.

Originally posted by xuenchen


AND, I still ask WHY is it only HUMANS can talk, write, etc. no other species ?
that's one reason why I believe Humans are much older than the scolars think!

Chimps and Gorillas can "talk" with humans via sign language and even invent "words" to describe new things. They will even "teach" their young to sign, quite impressive if you ask me. Our thumb is what makes man special. It has allowed us to make more sophisticated tools than any other animal. And yes, other animals make and use tools.