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

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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

Wow?!!!?

Really?

Are those comments worthy of a moderator?


"Too Dumb"?

Do you actually know any academics or is this one of those prescribed thoughts?

Originally posted by worlds_away
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....

If the isolated groups had remained in isolation, eventually this would have happened.

The Grizzly to Polar bear thing is amazing. Polar bear babies are born SOOOOO small. They are almost more like marsupial babies. The two interbreeding fasincates me. I assume it happens only one way - male Polar, female grizzly.

reply to post by aorAki


Polar bears live in the Arctic. Feed on seals and whales. Use ice flows as their hunting grounds.

Grizzlies love to eat fruit. Are found in warmer climates.

VS.

Polar bears are better than grizzlies because they live in the Arctic. Polar bears should be given special treatment.

...................

How do you not see the difference?

Originally posted by Aeons

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.

Is this sarcasm?
It's 1% - 4%, and Neanderthal are not a "completely different species".
Neanderthals, as members of the homo genus, were also human.
Proof of interbreeding shows they were closely related to other humans.
- So close, in fact, that it's questionable whether they should have been classified as a seperate species at all. Many scientists now believe Neanderthals should be classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

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.

Naturally. Evolution doesn't stop.

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.

Are you supporting the OP's hypothesis that different human "races" developed separately from different pre-human primates? You seem to be just reiterating what we already know of the evolution of man.

Originally posted by Aeons
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.

Is that the last shot in your locker, then? A character attack?

Do you think a moral aspersion from the likes of you has even a tuppen'orth of value? You've already proved that the perceived but fictitious differences between 'races' are important enough to you for you to argue passionately in their favour. That puts you on very shaky ground.

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

We are all the same species. (Human). We all experience the same surroundings but ate different foods.

I believe the Caucasian people were from the age of the dawning of the pyramids. (5760 years ago) They had knowledge of time and space.

The Negroid population were already here on Earth and practiced witchcraft and magic through fire and the stars. They continued to operate as a pack or tribe of people to support each other. They were left behind in the creation prior to the last cycle of the Caucasian people's system.

The Asian or Mongoloid population were similar to the Negroid population but lived on a seperate continent with different food sources and climate. They practiced spiritual enlightment through knowing one's self.

reply to post by Kailassa


No. The most recent genetic studies have confirmed that everyone who lived outside of Africa are about 4% Neanderthal.

Currently Neanderthal is NOT classified as sapiens. They are clasified as being another descendent of Antecessor. A different species, not a sub-species.

This finding shows exactly what I am suggesting. That humans have the main genetic story of one group - but that Antecessor groups were spread out over the migratory area of the herds this group was following. Those groups became isolated by the advancing ice, and when the ice receeded and the early human groups came out of Africa again these groups found and mated with the groups that had been isolated. Groups that had begun the process of differentiation and had adapted to their new clime in smaller numbers.

Mating with these groups would produce offspring which took on the traits of the isolated-acclimatized group. This would be a good survival technique to accumulate necessary traits for a successful group, and would account for many aspects of human migration which do not make sense currently, and human variance which people associate with race traits.

If an early and modern human could interbreed with a different species descended from antessesor, then early human could also interbreed with antecessor.

I really don't give a carp if people see these differences and label those as race. But the differences in groups MATTER in understanding humanity. Pretending they are worthless because people cannot love another group of people if they aren't close enough family is a mental defect which probably also has a genetic basis for promotion of one's own genetic type in competition with others.

Parallell evolution is not impossible. Indeed, I would sugest that neanderthal, florenesis, and the parallell sapiens development from cro-magnon to modern sapiens without a single source replacement demonstrates that parallell development into similiar forms from groups with common ancestor-species is the norm for our genetic line.

So basically we've got a guy who's not an anthropologist who's making a wild claim, unsupported by any evidence, directly contradicting well over a century (several hundred work-centuries) of research by literally thousands of other people, who all brought their evidence to be reviewed by their peers.

And lots of ATS'ers are buying this... why? Does it just "sound cool" or something?

Frankly this makes as much sense as saying we're descended from kzinti. Which is also nonsensical, and also kind of cool.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Race is hotly contested amoung those in science fields as well. And the concept of parallell evolution has been being bandied about amoungst scientists for quite some time now. The original poster makes a good point in showing that there is a LANGUAGE AND CULTURE bias here, where we assume that because we hear and see mostly science from english scientists who have cultural biases themselves, that their concensus is the most important as it is the main set we see.

Which is not the case. To assume that other scientists from other cultures are wrong because they have a different cultural bias and you don't hear about them as much, and to discount their work as being unpalatable to you is the opposite of being rigourous.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So basically we've got a guy who's not an anthropologist who's making a wild claim, unsupported by any evidence, directly contradicting well over a century (several hundred work-centuries) of research by literally thousands of other people, who all brought their evidence to be reviewed by their peers.

And lots of ATS'ers are buying this... why? Does it just "sound cool" or something?

Frankly this makes as much sense as saying we're descended from kzinti. Which is also nonsensical, and also kind of cool.

No it sounds just “interesting and even possible”.
I could be that you missed this information, so therefore I post it again, perhaps you will find it interesting.

Backed by solid proof, almost all of China's palaeoanthropologists support the theory of "regional evolution" of the origin of man.

The origin of man is admittedly a matter of dispute in the field of modern natural science.

In recent years, foreign scientists have come to the position after making use of molecular biological method in their research that the earliest ancestor of the modern man was born in Africa 200,000 years ago.

From the molecular biological point of view, since people could mate among different ethnic groups, they came from the same distant ancestor.

Some scientists believe that the origin of modern man was an African woman who lived 200,000 years ago, and that some of her descendants arrived in the Middle East some 100,000 years ago.

After that, another group arrived in East Asia and Europe about 60,000 years ago.

Wherever they stopped, they wiped out the "aboriginals". Neanderthal Man in Europe and the Peking Man in China were collateral branches which became extinguished during man's evolutionary process.

Most of the palaeoanthropologists of China do not agree with this.

The large amount of palaeoanthropological fossils found in China suggest that Yuanmou Man of 1.7 million years ago,

New Cave Man of 100,000 years ago, Upper Cave Man of 18,000 years ago and Jalai Nur Man of 10,000 years ago all had high cheekbones, flat nose bridges and spade-shaped upper front teeth, which are all characteristics of modern man in China, indicating genetic stability and evolutionary continuity.

In particular, the span of 330,000 years from Peking Man, to New Cave Man and Upper Cave Man, who all made their home in the Zhoukoudian area, effectively testifies to the fact that the yellow race evolved from a local ape.

Backed by solid proof, almost all of China's palaeoanthropologists support the theory of "regional evolution" of the origin of man.

Professor and palaeontologist Daniel L. Gebo of Northern Illinois University has said that most scientists believed that the ancestor of advanced primate animals came from Africa, but the importance of the regions where the Shu Ape was found suggests the unusual aspects of Asian fossil sites.

Chinese palaeontologist Qi Tao believes that the discovery of the Shu Ape fossils solved two issues: One was that it pushed back the time of origin of advanced primates by 10 million years, and the other was that it moved the place of origin of advanced primates from Africa to East Asia.

The discovery's great significance poses a strong challenge to the important position the African continent has so far held in theories of man's evolution.

www.china.org.cn...

Look also to this video posted earlier by WatchRider



Perhaps new and more discoveries will shine even some more light on it all.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Race is hotly contested amoung those in science fields as well.

"Race" is actually a 100% useless concept. Here's why.

I'm descended from my parents. On my mother's side is a collection of Irish and French. On my father's side, Choctaw. What's my race?

Most of the women I've been with were what Americans would call "black." If I were to have had a child with one of these ladies, what race would that child then be? What if that kid grew up and married a person who's of mixed Burmese / Indian ancestry?

In three generations, we've just easily destroyed any coherent concept of "race." Want to estimate how many generations of humans there have been since year 1 of our existence? I guarantee you it's more than four, and involves more than six people.

"Race" hinges on the notion that there can be "racial purity" - that is, that there is somewhere a population that is strictly to type for each of the "races." Of course there are no such populations. If there were, what would set the type? For instance, "Asians" - Asia's awfully big and diverse. Who would be the typical population for Asia? Jordanians? Samoyeds? Indians? Tamils? Indonesians? Han Chinese? Miao-Yao? Japanese? Chuckchi? Mongols? Turks? If it's Han Chinese will it be the Han Chinese of north China? South China? Singapore? West China? California?

And the concept of parallell evolution has been being bandied about amoungst scientists for quite some time now.

And yet there has never been any actual evidence. Not paleontological, not archaeological, not even genetic.

The original poster makes a good point in showing that there is a LANGUAGE AND CULTURE bias here, where we assume that because we hear and see mostly science from english scientists who have cultural biases themselves, that their concensus is the most important as it is the main set we see.

There is opinion, and there is fact. They are different things. The OP is of the opinion that the opinion of Euro-American scientists is biased.

The facts, however, show that the premise that humans evolved in parallel populations and are different species is completely false. Molecular biology doesn't give a good goddamn if you're from Mumbai, Bondon, Beunos Aries, or Pyongyang.

Which is not the case. To assume that other scientists from other cultures are wrong because they have a different cultural bias and you don't hear about them as much, and to discount their work as being unpalatable to you is the opposite of being rigourous.

I'm not saying they're wrong because they're from a different culture. I'm saying they're wrong because the facts run counter to their claims.

Intriguingly, you, the OP, and the non-scientists in question happen to be the ones dismissing reams and reams of scientific work on hte premise that since it's not from a certain culture, it must be wrong.

As a crude cousin of mine says in reference to farts, "the smeller's the feller!"

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

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.

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

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.


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

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.

I haven't discounted any science. I am merely not discounting theories which you dislike. Apparently entire countries of scientists are horrible racists out to get you.

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

www-personal.une.edu.au...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
anthropology.net...
en.scientificcommons.org...

One of the prongs of support for the OOA theory is based on mtDNA in Africa showing more variance; therefore it is assumed to have had longer to incubate those changes.

There are problems with this idea. The recent Neanderthal nDNA without modern mtDNA contribution is a great example of how this might not be the full story. Further, it assumes that the other areas did not just LOSE mtDNA lineages - entirely possible when you consider the harsh climatic pressures put on more migratory groups.

A metabolic selective advantage to certain metabolic types in wandering migrators is not exactly unlikely.

It also assumes climatic and lifestyle differences might not account for a much shorter breeding cycle for African tribes for significant periods of time. Or diseases in African populations have not had a significant impact on the cumulative foreshortening on generations over the same time period. Or that there are no factors that can lead to increased mitochondrial variation in a founding group.

An example of how increased generations in an area can make cumulative differences.

These are just numbers, but I'm using them to demonstrate an idea.

Let us assign one group's (group A) average age of first gestation as 20. Another (group B) as 13.

Over 100 years the group A has 5 generations. Group B has 7.7 generations.

Now let us extend this over 60,000 years. Then we'll take the general number of 28 generations for mtDNA mutations.

Group A: (60,000 years x 5 generations) / 100 years = 3000 generations. 3000 generations / 28 generations = 107 mutations

Group B: (60,000 years x 7.7 generations) / 100 years = 4620 generations. 4620 generations / 28 generations = 165 mutations.

Assuming single point mutations. So a 65% increase in mutations over the same period of time?

Grade 8 math.

Originally posted by Aeons
One of the prongs of support for the OOA theory is based on mtDNA in Africa showing more variance; therefore it is assumed to have had longer to incubate those changes.

There are problems with this idea. The recent Neanderthal nDNA without modern mtDNA contribution is a great example of how this might not be the full story. Further, it assumes that the other areas did not just LOSE mtDNA lineages - entirely possible when you consider the harsh climatic pressures put on more migratory groups.

No, the OOA theory makes no assumption about the female lines that died out along the way except to assume there were some.

Humanity being descended from mitochondrial Eve does not imply there was only one breeding female left alive at that time. Of course there were likely to be many others. However, as you point out, there were harsh pressures on migratory groups. Most would have died out along the way, with eventually the only surviving group being the descendants of women who were descendants of M.E.

reply to post by Kailassa


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.

I'm caucasian and I've weighed up the OOA theory and said 'Ok, there's some weight to it.'

I've also weighed up the alternative theory's being the ancient astronaught / Intelligent Design and that has weight to it as well.
So now some new evidence has come to light casting doubt on the OOA theory I actually can look to the desperate responses and 'Noooooooooo! It can't be true.' mentality I'm seeing and that, in itself is revealing something.

People on here are ignorant and scared of the truth and only the brave seem able to answer this question as
'You know, the multiple race theory might be an inconvenient truth to some out there.'

Originally posted by WatchRider
reply to post by Kailassa

 

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.

You're saying that Caucasians are more likely to feel free to question the OOA theory, and non Caucasians are more likely to respond with a near-caustic venom to this questioning?

Could you point to some examples of near-caustic venom in this thread?
How do you explain the fact that the OOA theory is being questioned in China?

People on here are ignorant and scared of the truth and only the brave seem able to answer this question as
'You know, the multiple race theory might be an inconvenient truth to some out there.'

Not to the Chinese, apparently. They want to believe they are descended from Peking Man.

This may seem a little off topic, but...

the concept of a species is based primarily on Linnaeas' classification of a diversity of lifeforms, which was intended primarily as cataloguing what he saw as the works of a creator. "species" as finite, seperate groups, while still used for convenience sake in biology, are an artefact of the work of a creationist who saw life-forms as distinct and NOT sharing common ancestry.

We (I speak for those of us who accept evolution as highly likely) now know differently.

The Biological species concept, proposed by Ernst Meyr, attempts to define a species so that it can be applied to organisms sharing common ancestry: 2 populations that are reproductively isolated from one another, under Meyr's definition, would constitute different species. Meyr's definition, like all definitions accepting the common ancestry of organisms, is necessarily vague, because the divergence of two populations into subspecies into species into seperate genera, into seperate tribes, into seperate subfamilies, into seperate families, into seperate superfamilies, into seperate infraorders etc. is NOT discrete.

Under Meyr's definition, two populations of (say) mice are considered seperate species if they are unable to reproduce because of: a) genetic barriers (combination of genes from sep. populations are incompatible, offspring either dies, is infertile, or is reproductively handicapped); b) physiological barriers (e.g. hemoglobin of one population has higher affinity for O2 than the haemoglobin of the other, and so crossbreed fetus developing in the wombs of females of the first population will be incapable of obtaining sufficient oxygen through the placenta and will die/be malformed); c) morphological barriers (e.g. imagine mating a great dane and a chihuahua - not pretty); d) behavioural barriers (e.g. males of one population court in a manner to which the females of the other population are unresponsive) ecological barriers (e.g. one has adaptations for chasing down prey, the other one has adaptations for lying in wait for prey, and mixing the two produces offspring of lower fitness who starve and die); or f) geographic barriers (such as an uncrossed ocean or desert, and g) temporal barriers, where populations are never at the same place (or never reproductively available) at the same time, so cannot make babies.

Coming - slowly - to the point, different races of humans can be described as different species in the (distant) past based on f) at the very least, however, these geographical barriers having declined in significance, they are no longer seperate species under Meyr's biological species concept. They could again be described as seperate species at various points in their history for the discrimination which limited reproduction between different races, but again this barrier has largely dissipated.

Basically, as much as Meyr's definition is (probably the most) appropriate provided that conditions do not change, the concept of a species as an absolute is biologically unsound, and so defining human races as separate species is biologically unsound by association.

Personally, I think that we interbreed far too easily and are far too genetically similar to be entirely different species.