|
|
Post by nebsen on Jun 25, 2015 3:05:34 GMT -5
www.pbs.org/first-peoples/home/This is a new series on PBS with the latest in genetics & the human family. It is excellent & I highly recommend all interested in our family tree to watch this series. The first 2 segments aired Wednesday night; one, on the oldest humans in North American, the second hour on the oldest humans in Africa, with a lots of new data to expand our understanding beyond what we thought we knew .
|
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 2, 2015 16:40:36 GMT -5
You know I had to go over to Egyptsearch about this PBS program" First Peoples" & they are burning it up ! Even if some of the commits are kind of suspect , but at least they have lively dialogue going on, but not here on E.S.R. What is the problem ? The only way we can all learn, is by participating, debating, encouraging each other. I have to say I'm very, disappointed, with the level of involvement with the folks here, who are members . Come on people, wake up !
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 2, 2015 19:06:09 GMT -5
You know I had to go over to Egyptsearch about this PBS program" First Peoples" & they are burning it up ! Even if some of the commits are kind of suspect , but at least they have lively dialogue going on, but not here on E.S.R. What is the problem ? The only way we can all learn, is by participating, debating, encouraging each other. I have to say I'm very, disappointed, with the level of involvement with the folks here, who are members . Come on people, wake up ! Seems like most people want the insulting and flaming that goes on at ES instead of having respectful intelligent discussions. Personally I watched the two episodes so far Africa and America. I found the information that Africans were mixed with archaic human very interesting. The fact that these two branches were able to reproduce though leads me to ask what does it mean to be human, or "Modern Human"? Could it be that the concept of "Modern Human" is simply a notion based on our flawed perceptions? Could it be that we are placing too much emphasis on the external characteristics? We don't have any people from these groups today. How do we know what they were like? We assume that they were "primitive", and assume they were intellectually inferior, but couldn't this just be another example of the notion of racial superiority that our society is still struggling to get past? How do we know that these people didn't have speech, the ability to contemplate themselves, the meaning of their existence etc just as we did? There really isn't any evidence to support this at all. Might it be that what we have labeled "archaic", is simply other examples of environmental adaptations? |
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 2, 2015 20:50:45 GMT -5
You know I had to go over to Egyptsearch about this PBS program" First Peoples" & they are burning it up ! Even if some of the commits are kind of suspect , but at least they have lively dialogue going on, but not here on E.S.R. What is the problem ? The only way we can all learn, is by participating, debating, encouraging each other. I have to say I'm very, disappointed, with the level of involvement with the folks here, who are members . Come on people, wake up ! Seems like most people want the insulting and flaming that goes on at ES instead of having respectful intelligent discussions. Personally I watched the two episodes so far Africa and America. I found the information that Africans were mixed with archaic human very interesting. The fact that these two branches were able to reproduce though leads me to ask what does it mean to be human, or "Modern Human"? Could it be that the concept of "Modern Human" is simply a notion based on our flawed perceptions? Could it be that we are placing too much emphasis on the external characteristics? We don't have any people from these groups today. How do we know what they were like? We assume that they were "primitive", and assume they were intellectually inferior, but couldn't this just be another example of the notion of racial superiority that our society is still struggling to get past? How do we know that these people didn't have speech, the ability to contemplate themselves, the meaning of their existence etc just as we did? There really isn't any evidence to support this at all. Might it be that what we have labeled "archaic", is simply other examples of environmental adaptations? Their might be some flaming going on, but within the comments you get those who are about serious discussions on the given topics . That,s better than nothing at all, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I also found the information about Africans( Modern Humans) mixing within Africa with older Homo-erectus , than later outside Africa with Neanderthals very fascinating. In this series I'm not getting the impression that they are labeling earlier archaic types as" primitive" but as, different, but not so different that they could not see within each other, a shared humanity enough for them, to have & form all kind of relationships. I also found the information about mixing with Neanderthals & Denisovans that ended up giving them better immunity against many pathogens that they would later encounter informative as well as fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jul 6, 2015 7:26:43 GMT -5
Been busy haven't got around to view the vid just yet soon as i get some downtime will comment.
|
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38 
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 6, 2015 18:58:39 GMT -5
Darwinian evolutionary theory is flawed entirely. There is absolutely no proof for OOA theory or micro/macro evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. The better question is why are peoples of African descent so quick to support this theory rather than debunk it?? The fossil record simple does not support the OOA theory at all, which is directly linked to the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin had a major problem when it came to irreducible complexity, with some organisms and even elements, there is absolutely no way to reduce their complexity. Secondly, it would be more correct to say Ernst Haeckel was more accurate for purposing that mankind's origin began in Asia rather than Africa. Asia is the largest landmass on planet earth, literally a crossroad of the world, and where are racial types exist. Again, I am not for the progressive leftist ideas that race is a "social construction", and has absolutely no genetic validity, this thinking stems from cultural Marxism, i.e., the politically correct nonsense which is fostered by the American Anthropological Association/so called scientific community. In the united states advertisements of miscegenation are everywhere, can not even turn on the television without seeing some add, promoting interracial this and that! The idea that any racial group proceeded another is faulty. The ridiculous arrangement of primitive ape skulls, placed next to human skulls with more robust features, claiming that they are archaic humans is laughable, no such thing as evolution has ever occurred. The term "African" which Paleoanthropologist/Physical anthropologist use is also unreliable because it does not necessarily mean these first peoples who left Africa were black(stereotypical Africans). Albeit outdated now, Carleton.S.Coon classified Aborigines as proto-Caucasiods which is nonsense. I tend to think that OOA theory is suggesting the exact same thing, under the guise it suggesting something else, once again giving Africa the wrong kind of historical importance, when the geological evidence does not support evolution or OOA theory period. False  True  |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jul 6, 2015 20:07:27 GMT -5
So you reject evidence out of hand simply because you don't like it? genetics is not enough it's a Marxist ploy?that Asia is a larger land mass than Africa and could make a better point of origin for the birth place of man,that could be true but it's not!, that's not where we find early primates and their branches to become human. The multi genesis theory on "races" that's the myth it has nothing to do with liberal progressive or conservative. And how would you know what the OOA's looked like or don't,seemed to me again you are in favor the now debunked multi genesis theory and giving Africa the wrong kind of historical importance so you are saying that Africa as geographical area and a political construct is being given historical importance because???..look man it took decade to unmasked the lie that Eurasia is the birth place of mankind simply because race based loons couldn't accept the fact that Africa could be their original homeland or cradle and they are in anyway related to those who remained on that land mass, remember the pathic attempt of Pelt Down Man.  Piltdown gang' painting by John Cooke, 1915, showing a famous gathering of men who studied the Piltdown skull. © Geological Society of LondonlinkSee that's what scientist had to go back and correct, that^^ was the fraud and others that followed in it's wake for 40yrs. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 6, 2015 22:41:51 GMT -5
The fact that all humans can mate with each other is proof that we all come from a common origin. If there were multiple origins this would not be possible. Gorillas can't mate with chimps and chimps can't mate with orangatangs yet they are all primates. Nature never violates its rules, so why would it make an exception for humans. If anyone has watched the series thus far they would see that it's the genetic record not the fossil record that is showing the true age of humanity and the fact that the origin of the species is indeed in Africa. A few years ago there was an anthropologist in China that was trying to argue that the Chinese were a distinct species and that they were unrelated to any other population and certainly not Africa. Well his argument got shot down when it was shown that Chinese did in fact have African markers.
|
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 6, 2015 23:34:17 GMT -5
The fact that all humans can mate with each other is proof that we all come from a common origin. If there were multiple origins this would not be possible. Gorillas can't mate with chimps and chimps can't mate with orangatangs yet they are all primates. Nature never violates its rules, so why would it make an exception for humans. If anyone has watched the series thus far they would see that it's the genetic record not the fossil record that is showing the true age of humanity and the fact that the origin of the species is indeed in Africa. A few years ago there was an anthropologist in China that was trying to argue that the Chinese were a distinct species and that they were unrelated to any other population and certainly not Africa. Well his argument got shot down when it was shown that Chinese did in fact have African markers. here is that video, I saved it for it was so important, that their is prof, to all that might have the same line of reasoning ! |
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 7, 2015 11:03:32 GMT -5
Anansi, you might be wasting your time kicking knowledge to this hamiticpress dude. He's suspect. He criticizes the OOA origin of humans with polemics and nothing scientific. But on top of that his avatar is that uncle tom character from the movie Django, lol. I knew he was up to something from the moment I saw that avatar.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 7, 2015 12:21:04 GMT -5
Anansi, you might be wasting your time kicking knowledge to this hamiticpress dude. He's suspect. He criticizes the OOA origin of humans with polemics and nothing scientific. But on top of that his avatar is that uncle tom character from the movie Django, lol. I knew he was up to something from the moment I saw that avatar. You peeped that too hugh? Just don't get some people. Back to topic, has it occurred to anyone else that all those ancient legends of overs and trolls were based on ancient memories of these "archaic" humans like Neanderthals? They say most myths are based on a kernel of fact. |
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 8, 2015 14:17:25 GMT -5
So you reject evidence out of hand simply because you don't like it? genetics is not enough it's a Marxist ploy?that Asia is a larger land mass than Africa and could make a better point of origin for the birth place of man,that could be true but it's not!, that's not where we find early primates and their branches to become human. The multi genesis theory on "races" that's the myth it has nothing to do with liberal progressive or conservative. And how would you know what the OOA's looked like or don't,seemed to me again you are in favor the now debunked multi genesis theory and giving Africa the wrong kind of historical importance so you are saying that Africa as geographical area and a political construct is being given historical importance because???..look man it took decade to unmasked the lie that Eurasia is the birth place of mankind simply because race based loons couldn't accept the fact that Africa could be their original homeland or cradle and they are in anyway related to those who remained on that land mass, remember the pathic attempt of Pelt Down Man. Piltdown gang' painting by John Cooke, 1915, showing a famous gathering of men who studied the Piltdown skull. © Geological Society of LondonlinkSee that's what scientist had to go back and correct, that^^ was the fraud and others that followed in it's wake for 40yrs. 1.)Whether the origins of man is polygenic or monogenic, do you have absolute irrefutable proof separate biologically distinct races do not exist? Allow me to bring you up to speed! Nicholas Wade, and author of the book titled "A troublesome inheritance", has put the old trendy leftist myth, that biologically distinct races do not exist back on the table for discussion. I see you're one of the many who still hold this Medieval understanding about race. My question then being, do you know anything about race, or racial differences at all? I am certain if you did, you would not make so many silly statements. The idea that race is a social construction, and is not biological, rather it is something cultural determined is a breathtaking lie. Anthropology has been overrun with nutjobs and liberals, the same people who say gender is a social construction. "that Asia is a larger land mass than Africa and could make a better point of origin for the birth place of man,that could be true but it's not!, that's not where we find early primates and their branches to become human." Realize the OOA theory has undergone metamorphism in the last one hundred years, and theory itself has only been widely expected within the last few decades. Darwin was the joke of his age! Asia is actually the birth place of mankind, not Africa. Secondly, there is the another alternative theory called the Multiregional Theory, which is basically Polygenism. I repeat there is no proof that micro/macro evolution ever took place! The entire OOA theory is collapsed by the geological fossil record, which does not show transitions or slight modifications in various species ever occurring, and evolutionist continue to present the most childish arguments to suggest otherwise. Early primates? You mean those in complete skeletons which could be interrupted as anything? Richard Leaky(highest paid anthropologist in the world) who was critical of his discovery of the famous Lucy fragments, said that even Lucy was to incomplete to be considered the poster child of OOA theory. Also pay attention please! If the fossil record yields no evidence that humans, or, any other species had ever undergone gradual transition from one kind to another, then what makes you believe in this theory so strongly? Thirdly, you skipped right over the problem of irreducible complexity, the 1 & 2 law of Thermodynamics, and the law of entropy. When you're able to debunk all of that, then I may become a proselyte. What? Oh I see... Because the experts told you so. This is not scholarship, rather you are just blindly following the dogma of science. Again, simply provide evidence that the fossil record supports evolution, and I will believe you. If you can not provide, than you have nothing to substantiate your viewpoint. 2.) In response to your second statement, the OOA theory is merely popular, show me specifically something stating that MLTREG theory is debunked? Africa is given the wrong kind of historical importance because of OOA theory. Mainstream scholarship still denies Africa its actual historical importance, i.e., that historical importance being Khamitic or Hamitic civilizations being of Negroid origin. If Eurasia was the birth place of mankind, would that be a problem for you? Eurasia does not mean white, just like any Eurocentric could argue that OOA theory, and those who migrated out 150,000 ya were not black, merely dark skinned but not Negroid. The Luhya people of east Africa say they came from a land called Misri, that being Egypt, which sits in the north eastern corner of the continent. Meaning their oral traditions say nothing about coming from sub-Saharan Africa(including Ethiopia), which they migrated to later, rather they came from the north suggesting a likely origin in Eurasia. Now before you start calling me suspect, and perhaps think I am trying to claim Negroids as Caucasoids, that is absolutely not what I am doing. I am merely pointing out that OOA theory is as real as the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, and ol'Saint Nick. There is no fossil evidence that supports OOA theory, and incomplete skeletal remains are not sufficient enough proof. TRY HARDER! |
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 8, 2015 15:04:16 GMT -5
The fact that all humans can mate with each other is proof that we all come from a common origin. If there were multiple origins this would not be possible. Gorillas can't mate with chimps and chimps can't mate with orangatangs yet they are all primates. Nature never violates its rules, so why would it make an exception for humans. If anyone has watched the series thus far they would see that it's the genetic record not the fossil record that is showing the true age of humanity and the fact that the origin of the species is indeed in Africa. A few years ago there was an anthropologist in China that was trying to argue that the Chinese were a distinct species and that they were unrelated to any other population and certainly not Africa. Well his argument got shot down when it was shown that Chinese did in fact have African markers. Laughable! Simply laughable! Certain species of animals have been able to produce an offspring. However, that offspring usually suffers from defects because of its mixture. This is no less true with racially hybrid human beings, the child always inherits both of the weakness, not the strengths of each race their made up. Sorry to shatter your interracial dreams! Caucasoid's, Mongoloid's, and Negroid's all have phenotypic traits which correspond with environment in which they inhabit. Genetic evidence is proving the exact opposite of you what you said. The distance in human populations is proven in their physical diversity, not necessarily they genetic closeness, and their physical diversity or phenotypic expression is passed on heredity. Simply demonstrate that humans are not categorized/ born into differing breeds(races). This proves that albeit different races by interbreeding can reproduce, those offspring are genetically and physically weaker. Again, simply prove me wrong! Race is continuum, human races are breeds, and they only produce their own breed. |
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 8, 2015 15:15:22 GMT -5
Anansi, you might be wasting your time kicking knowledge to this hamiticpress dude. He's suspect. He criticizes the OOA origin of humans with polemics and nothing scientific. But on top of that his avatar is that uncle tom character from the movie Django, lol. I knew he was up to something from the moment I saw that avatar. Pathetic! Stop trying to draw attention to yourself. Why rely on someone else to "kick knowledge" toward me? Try kicking some knowledge yourself there buddy. My avatar is irrelevant, stop making excuses because of your failure to refute hard evidence. Secondly, your use of the term "uncle tom" is incorrect. The story "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is based off the story of Nat Turner. Find out who Nat Turner was, and realize why using the term "Uncle Tom" is completely ignorant. You knew I was up to something? Ah Ah.. You assume I am up something. |
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 8, 2015 18:03:02 GMT -5
Charles Murray commentary skip 20:00 min.
|
|
