|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 17, 2015 9:18:47 GMT -5
Or you could say that it's a step up. Depends on your perspective. Taking into consideration though that Africans are not a monolith, but are incredibly diverse, I don't think one can make such blanket statements. I don't think we're going to see any Batwa winning the 100m dash any time soon for instance. A muscular Wolof may win the 100m dash, but they wouldn't take first place in a marathon. A Kenyan or Ethiopian may look like a grasshopper, but they can go the distance. An Andean person or a Nepalese or Tibetan can endure great exertion at high altitudes with very low oxygen contents, but the strongest West African would pass out. I think we really need to move beyond these concepts of racial superiority. For the most part, these are social constructs that were designed to protect the egos of people looking to justify their narrow minded greed and insecurity. I see no reason why we need to take up that mantle. I celebrate life on this planet. In fact, it is the very heart of the African spiritual philosophy that I strive to live by. All life is sacred and interconnected. One is neither superior or inferior to the other. We are all necessary. Just look at nature. No two plants are just the same, no two trees are just the same. Whatever force created this existence, it revels in diversity and everything it created has it's own purpose. Therefore, if that force designed us in such a way so that we can reproduce, there must be a reason. When a reproduction happens that is not beneficial, nature puts a mechanism in place to prevent it from going further. We already mentioned the example of cross species reproductions which cannot continue pass the first generation. We do not see such a pattern in humans. We can combine and recombine in a multiplicity of ways and so it must be part of our survival mechanism. Going back to the topic of the program this thread is discussing, it was shown that it was because of the mixing of humans with close relatives that we were able to inherit biological agents that increased our immunity to certain diseases ensuring our survival in environments outside of Africa. Therefore, nature is the truth and all the other stuff is emotional propaganda created by certain people to protect or validate their egos. No, a step DOWN. I'm an African, hence my perspective is African. Other peoples perspective do not matter. I'm not a "we're all one" kumbaya bla-bla-bla "negro". A Kenyan/Ethiopian can do the same things, and they are more rugged too. All other ethnicities are subsets/subspecies of African people. Period. That person in your picture is a hybrid, an amerindian+european & possibly some African. In other words, a completely artificial construct, just like the "coloreds" in Southern Africa etc. I don't have time to "celebrate life", especially when African people are DYING left & right all over the world. I only care about the well being of African people, ONLY. This kumbaya thinking has got to go. That's the reason why we're in this predicament in the first place, we expected that everybody else had the same outlook on life as us. We were wrong & childishly naïve. That is your opinion, but it it is not based on any scientific data. It is strictly an emotional point of view. Granted, Africans have been through a lot, but at the same time, we have to take responsibility for the fact that more often than not, we are our own worst enemies. Had Africans stood together, united, in the face of Arab, Persian and Europeans, who sought to plunder the continent, rather than having a tribal mentality, there would have been no such thing as a slave trade. Africans sold other Africans because they didn't view each other as brothers. Africans are dying left and right because they are killing each other and for what? Because this ethnic group doesn't like that ethnic group. This one doesn't like that one's religion. This one can't get over the memory of what that one did when the Europeans put one group in power over the other. This one only cares about lining their own pockets and to hell with everyone else. If Africans as a whole, loved themselves the way they should, then they would also love their neighbors and would not have allowed, nor continue to allow divisions, greed and strife to separate them. We wouldn't have people dying trying to get to Europe. Yes. We have to speak up against the atrocities that are perpetrated against Africans, but at the same time we need to take responsibility for what we did to make us vulnerable in the first place. The same holds true for Africans in the diaspora. As for hybrids, well, you have to accept the fact that the majority of the African diaspora is made up of hybrid populations. Have you stopped to consider the fact that a significant percentage of the members in this community are hybrids? Now why are we here? We're here because as people of African descent, we are discriminated against because of our African ancestry. No matter how mixed we may or may not be, we live in societies that reject us because of linage and even here in a community, probably created by hybrids, considering the language of communication is English, we can't find any love and acceptance. That just boggles the mind. Whether you're talking about Afro Americans, Afro Caribeans, or Afro Latinos, you are talking about populations that are mixed. And here you are looking at us with a side eyes, or down your nose at us as being less than you. My friend, this only contributes to the cycle of hatred that helps to contribute to the debasement of Africans as a whole. We have to love and accept ourselves and each other, because until then, we will continue to be vulnerable to divide and conquer politics of the European, the Arabs and now, quite possibly the Chinese who are making a grab for Africa's resources. This conceit is a luxury that we as people of African descent, whether we are 100% or not, can afford. . You speak of South African coloreds, yet in South Africa, it's the blacks, not the coloreds who are killing African immigrants from other countries. If we loved each other and ourselves the way we should, then there would be no need for this. The Immigrants would say, how can I help my brother, the South African would say what can I learn from my brother and together they would all flourish. But selfishness, greed and envy keep us from doing this. By no means do I let the exploiters off the hook. But to look at them as the only source of evil in the world is a lie. We have to take responsibility for ourselves and acknowledge the fact that within our hearts there is also evil. This is not childish naivete, it's a fact. When we learn to love ourselves and each other, instead of tearing each other and killing each other, then Africa as a whole will begin to flourish. Till then, don't kid yourself. The defects were already there for the Europeans and Arabs to exploit when they got there. It may not be pleasant to face the truth, but the alternative turns us into helpless victims. If we are are own worst enemies, that means that we also have the potential to be our best saviors as well. Take responsibility, learn from our mistakes, and do better.
|
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 20, 2015 22:48:12 GMT -5
Are you quite sure about that? This is exactly why I prefer having these conversations in a public setting. The problem with forums like this is that they provide to much security and comfort, giving pseudo-intellectuals the freedom to spew utter nonsense because ultimately, they know they will suffer no consequences! Do you realize you just contradicted yourself within the same paragraph? Excellent job referring to God being the author of diversity by the way, then assuming he(God) would want those differences blurred together by miscegenation! Just admit you have no appreciation for anything God has created because you secretly wish to destroy it, working that which is unseemly, practicing abominations! No I didn't. If the ability to mix were not part of the creators intent, or nature, or whatever you want to call it, it would not exist. The fact that it does exist proves that it's there for a reason. So if the design is flawed, don't blame me, you need to take your objections to the architect and that ain't me.I never stated one race was either superior or inferior to another, what I stated was that miscegenation produces offspring who do have observable defects in physiology which are important biological factors, and a particular races relationship with their geographical environment. And yet we live in a world where the norm is that we are no longer limited to the constrictions of geography. If miscegenation is a crime, then so too must be travel. Tropical Africans should remain confined to the tropics, Europeans to their latitudes etc, etc. That simply isn't the case. The differences we observe are due to adaptations to environment, but we are traveling at such an accelerated rate now. Miscegenation may be a way that nature creates a life form that can survive in multiple environments successfully instead of being restricted. It all depends on how you look at it. The difference between you and I is you feel threatened by it and I don't. Whether you like it or not, this sort of thing has been happening for a very, very, very long time. It's nothing new or recent. In fact, going back to the program, the conclusion reached is that Neanderthals didn't go extinct, they were absorbed by modern humans. Once again, if it wasn't part of the creators plan, why would he create the mechanisms to allow it to happen?All you people are doing is spewing propaganda you got from a white mans text book! Heck If it were not for those peer reviewed studies whites typed up for you, I wonder what exactly you have to go off of right now?? Typical Negroes believing whatever whites say, just because a white person wrote it! Pathetic! Give Negroes a piece of white poop, and you'd swear they thought it was gold! And what exactly is a negro but an idea created and conceived by the so called white man that you rail against. Your very self perception is his creation. How pathetic is that that you lack a reflection of your very self independent of the mirror he created for you, then fight to the death to defend it?If race was a social construction, which it is not, then why even spend your time arguing that Egypt was a African civilization? You might as well say Egypt was a cosmopolitan civilization and stop trying to over emphasis the fact that blacks had anything and everything to with Egypt(After all, what is black but a social construction, and who qualifies as black?)! First of all, know who you are talking to and what they are about. You're new here and you don't know me or what I think in this respect. Others who have been here a while do. I do not claim that Egyptians were black. In fact, I never use the term black to describe anyone, not even myself, let alone any African population. I say that the civilization was created by native Africans, however, there is no one skin tone or set of features that represents all Africans. While a great percentage of them were and still are to this day, dark skinned, (chocolate colored), there were and are many who were not as can be proven by looking at the skin of the Badarian mummies like ginger. They have pale skin. Does this mean they were all pale? No, just some. Why? Because Egypt lies both within and without of the tropical zone. It is tropical and sub tropical. Therefore, those who remained in the tropics had tropically adapted sin tones. Those who were in the sub tropical zone had paler skins, just like the San who live in the sub tropical zone often have light brown or yellowish skin. They are all Africans. Further more, the same process that made the Sahara green allowing tropical Africans to migrate into the region from the south also made it possible for non Africans to migrate back into the Delta region and over the course of it's 3,000 yr history that is exactly what happened. Therefore, when taken as a whole, from the very beginning, Egypt was a region that was diverse. There was no skin tone or facial feature that represented the entire population and the absorption of non Africans added to that diversity. That's just a fact. Ignoring it is when you run into all kind of stupidity like mummification bleaching or darkening skin and straightening hair. The base population was a native African one that was diverse in skin tone, facial structure, and hair type from day one and the waves of migration over it's history added to it. Again, according to you so called scholars, race dose not exist, so how could you prove the Egyptians were black one way or the other? Please answer this very basic question! If race does not exist, then why do black lives matter? All lives matter, if their is no such thing as race? Why do blacks get special educational opportunities if race does not exist? Why is slavery still a hot button issue if race does not exist? In reality those were just people enslaved by other people not black or white, just people! It matters because it's the people who are of African descent who are on the bottom of the social structure. Not because they are biologically predisposed to be there, but because the society constructed a system that was depended on a servile class and we have not worked our way beyond it yet. Therefore, it is those individuals who are of obvious African ancestry who are discriminated against the most and seen as a threat resulting in the loss of life, exclusion from participation in the benefits of society etc. Therefore, in an attempt to rectify the disadvantages melted out to that population, programs and institutions have been created to allow those who are eligible to have access. No one is giving black people who can't read collage scholarships or jobs. But they are trying to rectify the almost automatic rejection of such people based on their ancestral background and appearance alone. We haven't grown beyond the perception that one group of people are a threat to the social order and one is to be given a status of privilege. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate any program based on "race based" initiatives and institute a policy of human rights across the board in which every citizen is entitled to a living wage, adequate education from elementary to university, adequate hosing and access to medical care and equality in the justice system. When all is said and done, the problem is one of class and racism is just one of many tools that was created by the ruling elite to maintain a class system that was created in Europe against the masses of Europeans. If you want to understand racism, you have to examine the history of the European class system because everything that was done to and said about "blacks" was first done to and said about the lower classes in Europe. Before the English ever dreamt about doing the job on Africans, they were doing it to the Irish and that's why to this day Northern Ireland is still a mess.Everything you typed above is nothing but liberal nonsense, which is the result of something called cognitive dissonance! Yep... Just lie to yourself pretending that there is no such thing as racial differences, make the words race and population interchangeable with one another, so we do not have to acknowledge that race does actually exist and matter! Bring up South Americans who themselves are a product of miscegenation, and comment on their robustness because, that is science! Sounds like somebody's feelings are hurt. Awww! You know you could just sign up for a gym membership if you feel yourself lacking.... Just saying...Truthspeaker? Really? More like "compulsive liar"! More like someone who can not handle dealing with an inconvenient truth! Oh yeah daddy, is this the part where you spank me with a rolled up news paper and call me a bad doggie?Show me one example that Darwinian evolution occurred even though the fossil recorded disproves it! Didn't you watch the program? This has already been done time and again. Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By the way, you do know that soft tissue evidence like skin color, eye color and hair type doesn't fossilize don't you? Just thought I'd.... oh whatever....Show me one example that proves black people were the first people, which all peoples originate from! You don't read much do you? The science is already there that humanity originated in tropical Africa. Therefore, the first people who migrated out of tropical Africa had to have been, stick with me now, ya ready? Phew, breath in, breath out, breath in breath out.... tropically adapted, RUUUUUUUUNNNNN!Show me one example where this and this, produce this, but actual produce this? This And can you absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man doesn't have any European ancestors in his linage? & This Produce this??!!!!!! Can you prove that any of these individuals do not have any darker skinned individuals in their linage? No, you are making an assumption. Superficial features are inherited. The more individuals with pale skin and red hair, the more likely you will produce an offspring with those features.But in reality produce this?!(Hybrid) Well first of all, I doubt very strongly this is their kid. Secondly, did you study dominant and recessive genes in school? Every hybrid doesn't look the same. A child may look like either one parent or the other or somewhere in-between. It's not a given that a mixed child will have any one look. Have you taken a good look at Lenny Kravits or Tyson Beckford?Do you see the fallacy in what you are arguing? Race is a reality kid! Two blacks only produce a black offspring! Two whites only produce a white offspring! Otherwise show me an example that is not rooted in pseudo-scientific wishful thinking, where people of one particular race produce an offspring that is completely racially different from them? Show me an example of a bi-racial couple producing a child that is only one of two races he would be mixed between? Since you clearly have trouble understanding racial differences! I will help you! And can you tell me for certain that the dark skinned girl with the cute afro puffs is not a hybrid? My nephew is darker than her, his hair is kinkier than hers and guess what? His great grand mother is half German ,(She use to make a wicked arroz con pollo), sooo.... .Now are you going to argue me that the above are exactly alike? That they are both equal in terms of racial character, strength, and weakness?! My brother is very dark skinned with curly hair and I'm 5 shades lighter with kinky hair. Are we different races? My father has whit skin and blue eyes, his brother has dark brown skin and brown eyes.... are they different races? Africa is made of diverse tropical environments and climates, which demand certain superficial traits that give one race an advantage over another. I'm shocked! I had no idea!Now tell me truthteacher, if the black hair of purebred blacks acts as a heat shield protecting the scalp from the sun, and bi-racial offspring get a mix textured hair type, which often comes out more stringy and loose rather than tight and coarse, who is at a disadvantage here in Africa, the bi-racial girl or the purebred African girl? Well first of all, you're making the assumption that all bi racial children have loose textured hair. A lot of mixed kids like myself have that nappy stuff.... Just... thought you should know...Whose hair type is the right texture for all the heat she will be exposed to in the African continent? This is a simple yes or no question, do not dodge it by giving long winded speeches that have nothing to do with what I am asking you. You know what I find fascinating? The way you ignore things right in plain view. Your avatar is an Aboriginal from Australia. Look at his hair. Ever been to India, southern India? What do these two places have in common? "I don't know TT, what do they have in common"? I'm glad you asked. These are both regions that are hotter than Satan's nut sack. What type of hair do they have to deal with all that heat? Well... The aboriginals living in the desert of the outback have hair that looks just like those biracial kids or even straighter for one thing and Tamils in India have pin straight hair and both these people been living in all that heat a long, long, long time....
You also contradict yourself because you just pointed out, (which was a shock to me, honest to Betsy, be till my heart, it was), that Africa is made up of diverse climates. Therefore, you do know that significant percentages of Africa lies in non tropical zones. Further more, you do know that we've made technological breakthroughs in the last several hundred thousand years and have invented these things called, what is it now? Hats, yes, that's it, hats. When the sun is eating down on your head you can put on a hat. I've even seen Africans wearing them. They also use turbans... Furthermore, we're not living back in the stone age any more. We have planes, trains and automobiles and can travel all over the world and even in the stone age, we had feet, and those damn things can take you anywhere if you're willing to invest the time it takes. So I would say, if you're ass is being fried in tropical Africa, buy a ticket and move to sub tropical Africa. Further more, if they choose to stay in tropical Africa, the likely hood is that they will reproduce with the rest of the population who do have features adapted to the environment. Therefore, after 2 or three generations, the traces of European ancestry will not be visible and they'll look like every body else, at least on the surface. Just like the descendants of tropical Africans who mated with Europeans in recent history now look totally European, sooooo..... It's only when you get large waves of migrations, or artificial laws preventing marriages between peoples of varying traits that you find pockets of "mixed looking people". Therefore, unless you are now living in tropical Africa, I'd suggest that you A: move back, or B: mix it up so that after a few generations your descendants can blend in and be correct. Where do you live by the way if you don't mind me asking?What purpose does a broader nasal aperture serve verse a thinner nasal aperture, something that is usually racially specified? Do not going arguing Ethiopians either because the vast majority of, e.g., Oromo, Afar, Gallas, Danakali have indices that range anywhere from Mesorrhine to Playtrrhine in most cases. And once again, the variability of Africans even in the tropics. You don't need to go to East Africa to find narrow noses, You could stay in Congo, or Ivory coast and find plenty of individuals with narrow noses. Once again, the assumption that all Africans have specific features and the assumption that all Europeans have narrow noses. Ever seen a picture of Babe Ruth? There are plenty Europeans with noses that look like 2 door garages so.....What you're trying to argue to is simply ludicrous! Not a shred of scientific evidence backs you, whether it be physical anthro/bioanthropology, and Darwinian evolution I dismissed in one single post! You can not prove it because the evidence is not there! All you have is pipe dreams and a cult like fixation on evolution, I might as well be arguing with scientologist your rebuts are so wack! This is the desperation of not only evolutionist and their sheepish followers, but the desperation of new world Negroes trying to have some sort of relevance in history. First of all, who told you I was a negro, how do we define this concept any way and I just shot holes in every one of your presumptions, presumptions based not in scientific facts, but eyeball science, cherry picking and personal bias and insecurity. You argue for scientific proofs while presenting none of your own. Fascinating.If you believe this is your ancestor... Well.... Some of them might have looked like that. Not all of them though..... And so what if they did. Doesn't really matter one way or another. What matters is that I'm here, now and what I do with this life and what I do with this life has absolutely nothing to do with what I look like, what my ancestors looked likeThen fine, but real Hamitic peoples will have no part in this foolish belief, I am going to make absolutely sure of that. And what prey tell is a Hamite other than an outdated theory created by colonialist Europeans to validate their theories of the superiority of the "white race".Sounds like everyone in this forum needs to be dragged off to the reeducation camps immediately! Sound's to me like you'd be better off using that ticket for yourself. Well, it's been fun. See ya round some time."No I didn't. If the ability to mix were not part of the creators intent, or nature, or whatever you want to call it, it would not exist. The fact that it does exist proves that it's there for a reason. So if the design is flawed, don't blame me, you need to take your objections to the architect and that ain't me." 1.) Just because you can dose not mean you should, miscegenation reduces genetic diversity, and if you were smart you would realize that. This is what happens when people do not do independent research, or think independently. "And yet we live in a world where the norm is that we are no longer limited to the constrictions of geography. If miscegenation is a crime, then so too must be travel. Tropical Africans should remain confined to the tropics, Europeans to their latitudes etc, etc. That simply isn't the case. The differences we observe are due to adaptations to environment, but we are traveling at such an accelerated rate now. Miscegenation may be a way that nature creates a life form that can survive in multiple environments successfully instead of being restricted. It all depends on how you look at it. The difference between you and I is you feel threatened by it and I don't. Whether you like it or not, this sort of thing has been happening for a very, very, very long time. It's nothing new or recent. In fact, going back to the program, the conclusion reached is that Neanderthals didn't go extinct, they were absorbed by modern humans. Once again, if it wasn't part of the creators plan, why would he create the mechanisms to allow it to happen?" 2.)Why would traveling be a crime? Lack of self control, and the respect for peoples heritage is the crime. If I visit Japan, do I have take a Japanese wife? Absolutely not! Sorry, once again you applying wishful thinking to reality. Interracial mixing does not create and individual who can survive in multiple environments I already demonstrated that by providing visual examples of the weaknesses of bi-racial/tri-racial offspring, which must strike a nerve considering you're one of them. I feel threatened because I know what the heck it is actually doing to the races, you do not because you're a product of miscegenation clearly. But If a race war is what you want then fine, just remember you pulled the trigger, not me half-caste. Humans can interbreed but it does not produce the an offspring of significant pedigree. Again, humans are born into breeds like dogs, race is a reality and people like yourself simple want the world to be one ugly brown mesh. YICK!! First of all, know who you are talking to and what they are about. You're new here and you don't know me or what I think in this respect. Others who have been here a while do. I do not claim that Egyptians were black. In fact, I never use the term black to describe anyone, not even myself, let alone any African population. I say that the civilization was created by native Africans, however, there is no one skin tone or set of features that represents all Africans. While a great percentage of them were and still are to this day, dark skinned, (chocolate colored), there were and are many who were not as can be proven by looking at the skin of the Badarian mummies like ginger. They have pale skin. Does this mean they were all pale? No, just some. Why? Because Egypt lies both within and without of the tropical zone. It is tropical and sub tropical. Therefore, those who remained in the tropics had tropically adapted sin tones. Those who were in the sub tropical zone had paler skins, just like the San who live in the sub tropical zone often have light brown or yellowish skin. They are all Africans. Further more, the same process that made the Sahara green allowing tropical Africans to migrate into the region from the south also made it possible for non Africans to migrate back into the Delta region and over the course of it's 3,000 yr history that is exactly what happened. Therefore, when taken as a whole, from the very beginning, Egypt was a region that was diverse. There was no skin tone or facial feature that represented the entire population and the absorption of non Africans added to that diversity. That's just a fact. Ignoring it is when you run into all kind of stupidity like mummification bleaching or darkening skin and straightening hair. The base population was a native African one that was diverse in skin tone, facial structure, and hair type from day one and the waves of migration over it's history added to it. 3.)Then what your saying essentially is meaningless, what exactly is a native African? Are you talking about the Indigenous inhabitant, and then who qualifies as Indigenous or Aboriginal? They were dark skinned chocolate colored? Well according to whites that could be dark but also Caucasian since their is physical overlap with the peoples of Europe and Asia morphologically. The artistic representations of Badarian art can not be taken as literally depiction for how pre-dynastic Egyptians looked. I fail to see how these ideas of yours correlate with actual scientific data, the most of the physical anthropological evidence reveals that Egyptians racial makeup was continual, meaning the shape of their skulls displayed continual morphological characteristics, so saying Egypt had all this diversity, yet physical anthropology states otherwise is telling. This goes back all the way to Samuel Morton's time when he first began analyzing Egyptian crania, concluded they had retained certain characteristics throughout several dynasties. That is pretty homogeneous gene pool if you ask me. It matters because it's the people who are of African descent who are on the bottom of the social structure. Not because they are biologically predisposed to be there, but because the society constructed a system that was depended on a servile class and we have not worked our way beyond it yet. Therefore, it is those individuals who are of obvious African ancestry who are discriminated against the most and seen as a threat resulting in the loss of life, exclusion from participation in the benefits of society etc. Therefore, in an attempt to rectify the disadvantages melted out to that population, programs and institutions have been created to allow those who are eligible to have access. No one is giving black people who can't read collage scholarships or jobs. But they are trying to rectify the almost automatic rejection of such people based on their ancestral background and appearance alone. We haven't grown beyond the perception that one group of people are a threat to the social order and one is to be given a status of privilege. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate any program based on "race based" initiatives and institute a policy of human rights across the board in which every citizen is entitled to a living wage, adequate education from elementary to university, adequate hosing and access to medical care and equality in the justice system. When all is said and done, the problem is one of class and racism is just one of many tools that was created by the ruling elite to maintain a class system that was created in Europe against the masses of Europeans. If you want to understand racism, you have to examine the history of the European class system because everything that was done to and said about "blacks" was first done to and said about the lower classes in Europe. Before the English ever dreamt about doing the job on Africans, they were doing it to the Irish and that's why to this day Northern Ireland is still a mess. 4.) But that is also why the British thrive, in order for some to by at the top, others remain at the bottom. However, the circumstances of Negroid peoples today are fairly recent. Africa's golden age has come and gone and even then Egypt was basically a dictatorship, that is why I say democracy as a concept will never work with Africans because their to used to living under Monarchs. "Sounds like somebody's feelings are hurt. Awww! You know you could just sign up for a gym membership if you feel yourself lacking.... Just saying... " 5.)HAHA XD My feelings are not hurt kiddo, your simple denial of race is merely reflection of your education. Biological Anthropology and Molecular Biology proves distinct races exist, yes their is some overlap in phenotype because of a common ancestor Adam,Even, Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. This is also a fact that bible has stated for more than two thousand years. "Didn't you watch the program? This has already been done time and again. Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By the way, you do know that soft tissue evidence like skin color, eye color and hair type doesn't fossilize don't you? Just thought I'd.... oh whatever...." 6.)I realize your slow, so this is the last time I will dismiss evolution! The geological fossil record has never and will never, show fossil that go through and kind of gradual transition whether it be micro/macro evolution process. If evolution and OOA theory happened then just simply provide proof, show me some dang transitional fossils! If you can at least provide that you might have a case, otherwise just acknowledge that Darwin and all his cosigners are full of crap! Show me a fossil that shows transitions from one species to another! YOU WONT! I realize that all of the parts of the body that are made up somatic cells, the exception being bones, do not leave a fossilized imprint. "You don't read much do you? The science is already there that humanity originated in tropical Africa. Therefore, the first people who migrated out of tropical Africa had to have been, stick with me now, ya ready? Phew, breath in, breath out, breath in breath out.... tropically adapted, RUUUUUUUUNNNNN!" 7.) So what is your evidence for this so called OOA expansion, I already know about it, and it still a load of crock. Again, the fossil record does not support OOA theory either. The skeleton of Lucy is so incomplete it is a plaster of Paris, I believe Richard Leaky stated something similar to that. "And can you absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man doesn't have any European ancestors in his linage?" Can you prove he does? That is the better question, and why is him having European ancestry important? It does not show obviously because of his dominant sub-Saharan African ancestry. "Can you prove that any of these individuals do not have any darker skinned individuals in their linage? No, you are making an assumption. Superficial features are inherited. The more individuals with pale skin and red hair, the more likely you will produce an offspring with those features." 8.) Clearly you do not realize that race is continuum. Whether or that they had a darker individual in their family is irrelevant that his nothing do with race, that blood has been essentially stamped out after generations marring into a certain gene pool, thus reversing the damage done by miscegenation. The problem you're having is believe that so called "Superficial features" are just merely superficial, they serve a purpose numskull! That is exactly what I have been trying to point out this entire time, hence, why I stated interbreeding messing with fixed phenotypic variation! This not disproves that a Caucasoid or a Mongoloid could spring from magical mutated Negroids. "Well first of all, I doubt very strongly this is their kid. Secondly, did you study dominant and recessive genes in school? Every hybrid doesn't look the same. A child may look like either one parent or the other or somewhere in-between. It's not a given that a mixed child will have any one look. Have you taken a good look at Lenny Kravits or Tyson Beckford?" In the case of Metis peoples, they never look like either parent, they always look mixed race. I have seen many a half-caste and they look to mixed up, to like either parent that is really only one race. They never look like exactly like their parents. As where with individuals purer in race they usually resemble one parent or both. The parents of mixed race children are usually only made up of one race genetically speaking, and they children are made up of two distinct racial groups. I am going to let that sink in before answering further.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 21, 2015 23:56:24 GMT -5
Sound's to me like you'd be better off using that ticket for yourself. Well, it's been fun. See ya round some time. "No I didn't. If the ability to mix were not part of the creators intent, or nature, or whatever you want to call it, it would not exist. The fact that it does exist proves that it's there for a reason. So if the design is flawed, don't blame me, you need to take your objections to the architect and that ain't me." 1.) Just because you can dose not mean you should, miscegenation reduces genetic diversity, and if you were smart you would realize that. This is what happens when people do not do independent research, or think independently. "And yet we live in a world where the norm is that we are no longer limited to the constrictions of geography. If miscegenation is a crime, then so too must be travel. Tropical Africans should remain confined to the tropics, Europeans to their latitudes etc, etc. That simply isn't the case. The differences we observe are due to adaptations to environment, but we are traveling at such an accelerated rate now. Miscegenation may be a way that nature creates a life form that can survive in multiple environments successfully instead of being restricted. It all depends on how you look at it. The difference between you and I is you feel threatened by it and I don't. Whether you like it or not, this sort of thing has been happening for a very, very, very long time. It's nothing new or recent. In fact, going back to the program, the conclusion reached is that Neanderthals didn't go extinct, they were absorbed by modern humans. Once again, if it wasn't part of the creators plan, why would he create the mechanisms to allow it to happen?" 2.)Why would traveling be a crime? Lack of self control, and the respect for peoples heritage is the crime. If I visit Japan, do I have take a Japanese wife? Absolutely not! Sorry, once again you applying wishful thinking to reality. Interracial mixing does not create and individual who can survive in multiple environments I already demonstrated that by providing visual examples of the weaknesses of bi-racial/tri-racial offspring, which must strike a nerve considering you're one of them. I feel threatened because I know what the heck it is actually doing to the races, you do not because you're a product of miscegenation clearly. But If a race war is what you want then fine, just remember you pulled the trigger, not me half-caste. Humans can interbreed but it does not produce the an offspring of significant pedigree. Again, humans are born into breeds like dogs, race is a reality and people like yourself simple want the world to be one ugly brown mesh. YICK!! First of all, know who you are talking to and what they are about. You're new here and you don't know me or what I think in this respect. Others who have been here a while do. I do not claim that Egyptians were black. In fact, I never use the term black to describe anyone, not even myself, let alone any African population. I say that the civilization was created by native Africans, however, there is no one skin tone or set of features that represents all Africans. While a great percentage of them were and still are to this day, dark skinned, (chocolate colored), there were and are many who were not as can be proven by looking at the skin of the Badarian mummies like ginger. They have pale skin. Does this mean they were all pale? No, just some. Why? Because Egypt lies both within and without of the tropical zone. It is tropical and sub tropical. Therefore, those who remained in the tropics had tropically adapted sin tones. Those who were in the sub tropical zone had paler skins, just like the San who live in the sub tropical zone often have light brown or yellowish skin. They are all Africans. Further more, the same process that made the Sahara green allowing tropical Africans to migrate into the region from the south also made it possible for non Africans to migrate back into the Delta region and over the course of it's 3,000 yr history that is exactly what happened. Therefore, when taken as a whole, from the very beginning, Egypt was a region that was diverse. There was no skin tone or facial feature that represented the entire population and the absorption of non Africans added to that diversity. That's just a fact. Ignoring it is when you run into all kind of stupidity like mummification bleaching or darkening skin and straightening hair. The base population was a native African one that was diverse in skin tone, facial structure, and hair type from day one and the waves of migration over it's history added to it. 3.)Then what your saying essentially is meaningless, what exactly is a native African? Are you talking about the Indigenous inhabitant, and then who qualifies as Indigenous or Aboriginal? They were dark skinned chocolate colored? Well according to whites that could be dark but also Caucasian since their is physical overlap with the peoples of Europe and Asia morphologically. The artistic representations of Badarian art can not be taken as literally depiction for how pre-dynastic Egyptians looked. I fail to see how these ideas of yours correlate with actual scientific data, the most of the physical anthropological evidence reveals that Egyptians racial makeup was continual, meaning the shape of their skulls displayed continual morphological characteristics, so saying Egypt had all this diversity, yet physical anthropology states otherwise is telling. This goes back all the way to Samuel Morton's time when he first began analyzing Egyptian crania, concluded they had retained certain characteristics throughout several dynasties. That is pretty homogeneous gene pool if you ask me. It matters because it's the people who are of African descent who are on the bottom of the social structure. Not because they are biologically predisposed to be there, but because the society constructed a system that was depended on a servile class and we have not worked our way beyond it yet. Therefore, it is those individuals who are of obvious African ancestry who are discriminated against the most and seen as a threat resulting in the loss of life, exclusion from participation in the benefits of society etc. Therefore, in an attempt to rectify the disadvantages melted out to that population, programs and institutions have been created to allow those who are eligible to have access. No one is giving black people who can't read collage scholarships or jobs. But they are trying to rectify the almost automatic rejection of such people based on their ancestral background and appearance alone. We haven't grown beyond the perception that one group of people are a threat to the social order and one is to be given a status of privilege. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate any program based on "race based" initiatives and institute a policy of human rights across the board in which every citizen is entitled to a living wage, adequate education from elementary to university, adequate hosing and access to medical care and equality in the justice system. When all is said and done, the problem is one of class and racism is just one of many tools that was created by the ruling elite to maintain a class system that was created in Europe against the masses of Europeans. If you want to understand racism, you have to examine the history of the European class system because everything that was done to and said about "blacks" was first done to and said about the lower classes in Europe. Before the English ever dreamt about doing the job on Africans, they were doing it to the Irish and that's why to this day Northern Ireland is still a mess. 4.) But that is also why the British thrive, in order for some to by at the top, others remain at the bottom. However, the circumstances of Negroid peoples today are fairly recent. Africa's golden age has come and gone and even then Egypt was basically a dictatorship, that is why I say democracy as a concept will never work with Africans because their to used to living under Monarchs. "Sounds like somebody's feelings are hurt. Awww! You know you could just sign up for a gym membership if you feel yourself lacking.... Just saying... " 5.)HAHA XD My feelings are not hurt kiddo, your simple denial of race is merely reflection of your education. Biological Anthropology and Molecular Biology proves distinct races exist, yes their is some overlap in phenotype because of a common ancestor Adam,Even, Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. This is also a fact that bible has stated for more than two thousand years. "Didn't you watch the program? This has already been done time and again. Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By the way, you do know that soft tissue evidence like skin color, eye color and hair type doesn't fossilize don't you? Just thought I'd.... oh whatever...." 6.)I realize your slow, so this is the last time I will dismiss evolution! The geological fossil record has never and will never, show fossil that go through and kind of gradual transition whether it be micro/macro evolution process. If evolution and OOA theory happened then just simply provide proof, show me some dang transitional fossils! If you can at least provide that you might have a case, otherwise just acknowledge that Darwin and all his cosigners are full of crap! Show me a fossil that shows transitions from one species to another! YOU WONT! I realize that all of the parts of the body that are made up somatic cells, the exception being bones, do not leave a fossilized imprint. "You don't read much do you? The science is already there that humanity originated in tropical Africa. Therefore, the first people who migrated out of tropical Africa had to have been, stick with me now, ya ready? Phew, breath in, breath out, breath in breath out.... tropically adapted, RUUUUUUUUNNNNN!" 7.) So what is your evidence for this so called OOA expansion, I already know about it, and it still a load of crock. Again, the fossil record does not support OOA theory either. The skeleton of Lucy is so incomplete it is a plaster of Paris, I believe Richard Leaky stated something similar to that. "And can you absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man doesn't have any European ancestors in his linage?" Can you prove he does? That is the better question, and why is him having European ancestry important? It does not show obviously because of his dominant sub-Saharan African ancestry. "Can you prove that any of these individuals do not have any darker skinned individuals in their linage? No, you are making an assumption. Superficial features are inherited. The more individuals with pale skin and red hair, the more likely you will produce an offspring with those features." 8.) Clearly you do not realize that race is continuum. Whether or that they had a darker individual in their family is irrelevant that his nothing do with race, that blood has been essentially stamped out after generations marring into a certain gene pool, thus reversing the damage done by miscegenation. The problem you're having is believe that so called "Superficial features" are just merely superficial, they serve a purpose numskull! That is exactly what I have been trying to point out this entire time, hence, why I stated interbreeding messing with fixed phenotypic variation! This not disproves that a Caucasoid or a Mongoloid could spring from magical mutated Negroids. "Well first of all, I doubt very strongly this is their kid. Secondly, did you study dominant and recessive genes in school? Every hybrid doesn't look the same. A child may look like either one parent or the other or somewhere in-between. It's not a given that a mixed child will have any one look. Have you taken a good look at Lenny Kravits or Tyson Beckford?" In the case of Metis peoples, they never look like either parent, they always look mixed race. I have seen many a half-caste and they look to mixed up, to like either parent that is really only one race. They never look like exactly like their parents. As where with individuals purer in race they usually resemble one parent or both. The parents of mixed race children are usually only made up of one race genetically speaking, and they children are made up of two distinct racial groups. I am going to let that sink in before answering further. Oh For Fk Sake! Really?! You can't possibly be this stupid. Actually, I guess you can be since you're the one saying these things. You want, science, here's science, real flesh and blood people. Yes, a bi racial child can look totally white and on the flip side, they can also look totally black. Please, I know my own family, my aunts, uncles and brothers and sisters. Anansi can confirm this because where we come from, this is nothing out of the ordinary. I'm doing what I always do in this forum when confronted by an idiot, leaving to hopefully have a conversation with someone else who actually has a brain. For all your talk of black superiority, you're the perfect poster child for the KKK's theory of black mental inferiority. Do us all a favor and go back to school. This time, sit up front and pay attention instead of sitting in the back of the room playing with your nuts. This discussion is pointless. It's not based on any type of scientific data whatsoever and is totally off topic by the way. It's so easy to poke holes in your rhetoric. All it takes is a few key strokes on youtube and google search. You suffer from a deep inferiority complex and you've obviously got more issues than the New York Times. Personally, I do not tolerate fools well, so you'll have to continue this conversation with someone else. Back on topic now.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 22, 2015 0:08:55 GMT -5
So this is nothing that we didn't already know. I was expecting to see it mentioned when they covered the Americas and said Kennewick man looked more Polynesian than Asiatic, but they didn't. They just proved that he was indeed genetically related to Native Americans. However, quite a few years ago there was a documentary that mentioned the fact that South Americans had Pacific Islander roots as well. In fact, the first wave of migration most likely came from the Pacific. This they concluded because the earliest skull they found in Brazil had features that looked more like Papuan or Australians. Now recent DNA is providing more evidence along these lines. www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.htmlTo me this isn't a surprise considering the fact that Pacific Islanders reached Easter Island which is not that far off the western coast of South America. By the way, did anyone catch the episode on Australia?
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 22, 2015 1:55:12 GMT -5
So this is nothing that we didn't already know. I was expecting to see it mentioned when they covered the Americas and said Kennewick man looked more Polynesian than Asiatic, but they didn't. They just proved that he was indeed genetically related to Native Americans. However, quite a few years ago there was a documentary that mentioned the fact that South Americans had Pacific Islander roots as well. In fact, the first wave of migration most likely came from the Pacific. This they concluded because the earliest skull they found in Brazil had features that looked more like Papuan or Australians. Now recent DNA is providing more evidence along these lines. www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.htmlTo me this isn't a surprise considering the fact that Pacific Islanders reached Easter Island which is not that far off the western coast of South America. By the way, did anyone catch the episode on Australia? Yes, i did !
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 22, 2015 11:55:46 GMT -5
So this is nothing that we didn't already know. I was expecting to see it mentioned when they covered the Americas and said Kennewick man looked more Polynesian than Asiatic, but they didn't. They just proved that he was indeed genetically related to Native Americans. However, quite a few years ago there was a documentary that mentioned the fact that South Americans had Pacific Islander roots as well. In fact, the first wave of migration most likely came from the Pacific. This they concluded because the earliest skull they found in Brazil had features that looked more like Papuan or Australians. Now recent DNA is providing more evidence along these lines. www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.htmlTo me this isn't a surprise considering the fact that Pacific Islanders reached Easter Island which is not that far off the western coast of South America. By the way, did anyone catch the episode on Australia? Thanks for posting that article truthteacher, interesting stuff. I read the 2 studies mentioned in the article but they don't support polynesian or papuan origin for native americans. Skull morphology is sometimes liable to give faulty assignments of people being related; ex: kennewick man's genes showed he's not polynesian although some scholars said his skull morphology suggested he was related to polynesian, or how one can deceitfully use cranio-facial measurements to show that ethiopians and somalis are closely related to europeans and not africans when their body skeleton and genetics say otherwise. The study done in Science explicitly argues against the notion that papuans or polynesians went directly to the americas to create native americans. What it argues is that a few native americans (some in alaska/n canada region and some in the amazon) share a common ancestor with australo-melanesians that earlier lived on mainland asia. The australo-melanesians went further south to their present areas and the ancestors of some native americans went northeast and eventually got to the americas via alaska. Further, the studies authors tried to replicate the findings of ancient native american skulls being more morphologically related to australo-melanesians and weren't able to do so. They found the skulls more related to certain native americans and even certain japanese. The authors then highlighted the problems inherent in using skull morphology to show relatedness. The study done in Nature also found that some amazonians were distantly related to papuans, australians and even andaman islanders (the onge of andaman island were even more closely related than the papuans, interesting). The nature study didn't sample native americans outside of south and central america unfortunately. But, the study argued that the admixture of the papuan/australian/andaman group and other pre-native american ancestors occurred many thousands of years ago before all native americans even reached s america. The study then says the likely origin of the migrations is from a "Beringian or Northeast Asian source", which ties in with the other study in Science. So the DNA actually don't support what was argued by some scholars who had done skull morphology studies. The DNA do support the argument that it was more than 1 wave of migration into the americas that created native americans though. And all these waves came through the same general area around Alaska. On separate note, pacific islanders reached easter island less than 2,000 yrs ago based on linguistic and archaeological evidence so they are too late to account for the ancient skulls that were supposedly polynesian.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 22, 2015 14:35:53 GMT -5
So this is nothing that we didn't already know. I was expecting to see it mentioned when they covered the Americas and said Kennewick man looked more Polynesian than Asiatic, but they didn't. They just proved that he was indeed genetically related to Native Americans. However, quite a few years ago there was a documentary that mentioned the fact that South Americans had Pacific Islander roots as well. In fact, the first wave of migration most likely came from the Pacific. This they concluded because the earliest skull they found in Brazil had features that looked more like Papuan or Australians. Now recent DNA is providing more evidence along these lines. www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.htmlTo me this isn't a surprise considering the fact that Pacific Islanders reached Easter Island which is not that far off the western coast of South America. By the way, did anyone catch the episode on Australia? Thanks for posting that article truthteacher, interesting stuff. I read the 2 studies mentioned in the article but they don't support polynesian or papuan origin for native americans. Skull morphology is sometimes liable to give faulty assignments of people being related; ex: kennewick man's genes showed he's not polynesian although some scholars said his skull morphology suggested he was related to polynesian, or how one can deceitfully use cranio-facial measurements to show that ethiopians and somalis are closely related to europeans and not africans when their body skeleton and genetics say otherwise. The study done in Science explicitly argues against the notion that papuans or polynesians went directly to the americas to create native americans. What it argues is that a few native americans (some in alaska/n canada region and some in the amazon) share a common ancestor with australo-melanesians that earlier lived on mainland asia. The australo-melanesians went further south to their present areas and the ancestors of some native americans went northeast and eventually got to the americas via alaska. Further, the studies authors tried to replicate the findings of ancient native american skulls being more morphologically related to australo-melanesians and weren't able to do so. They found the skulls more related to certain native americans and even certain japanese. The authors then highlighted the problems inherent in using skull morphology to show relatedness. The study done in Nature also found that some amazonians were distantly related to papuans, australians and even andaman islanders (the onge of andaman island were even more closely related than the papuans, interesting). The nature study didn't sample native americans outside of south and central america unfortunately. But, the study argued that the admixture of the papuan/australian/andaman group and other pre-native american ancestors occurred many thousands of years ago before all native americans even reached s america. The study then says the likely origin of the migrations is from a "Beringian or Northeast Asian source", which ties in with the other study in Science. So the DNA actually don't support what was argued by some scholars who had done skull morphology studies. The DNA do support the argument that it was more than 1 wave of migration into the americas that created native americans though. And all these waves came through the same general area around Alaska. On separate note, pacific islanders reached easter island less than 2,000 yrs ago based on linguistic and archaeological evidence so they are too late to account for the ancient skulls that were supposedly polynesian. It was very late when I wrote this so I didn't have time to go into detail. When they did facial reconstruction on the skull found in Brazil, the face looked Papuan or Australian, not what they would expect an Amerindian to look like. The recreation looked very different from the one in this Nature program. Personally, I don't see where Japanese Ainu look Polynesian, but that was their perception. The skull found in Brazil though looked straight up Melanisian, no ifs ands buts about it. Considering the fact that similar remains have not been found anywhere else and that they were older than those found in North America, I don't rule out a sea crossing. The opinion of that documentary was that the earlier Melanesian populations were over ran and absorbed by the incoming Asiatic migrants in much the same way they speculate that Neanderthals were absorbed by in coming Modern Humans. Good info on the Easter Island population. However, I'd keep an open mind. We don't know what we may learn in the future. The information we have is what has been uncovered thus far. It isn't totally out of the realm of possibility that the Americas were reached from both directions. Even with the late date of the Easter Island settlement, whose to say that others didn't push further and reach the mainland? Of course, they wouldn't have been founders, they most likely would have been absorbed into the population. I find it all fascinating nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 22, 2015 19:02:30 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that article truthteacher, interesting stuff. I read the 2 studies mentioned in the article but they don't support polynesian or papuan origin for native americans. Skull morphology is sometimes liable to give faulty assignments of people being related; ex: kennewick man's genes showed he's not polynesian although some scholars said his skull morphology suggested he was related to polynesian, or how one can deceitfully use cranio-facial measurements to show that ethiopians and somalis are closely related to europeans and not africans when their body skeleton and genetics say otherwise. The study done in Science explicitly argues against the notion that papuans or polynesians went directly to the americas to create native americans. What it argues is that a few native americans (some in alaska/n canada region and some in the amazon) share a common ancestor with australo-melanesians that earlier lived on mainland asia. The australo-melanesians went further south to their present areas and the ancestors of some native americans went northeast and eventually got to the americas via alaska. Further, the studies authors tried to replicate the findings of ancient native american skulls being more morphologically related to australo-melanesians and weren't able to do so. They found the skulls more related to certain native americans and even certain japanese. The authors then highlighted the problems inherent in using skull morphology to show relatedness. The study done in Nature also found that some amazonians were distantly related to papuans, australians and even andaman islanders (the onge of andaman island were even more closely related than the papuans, interesting). The nature study didn't sample native americans outside of south and central america unfortunately. But, the study argued that the admixture of the papuan/australian/andaman group and other pre-native american ancestors occurred many thousands of years ago before all native americans even reached s america. The study then says the likely origin of the migrations is from a "Beringian or Northeast Asian source", which ties in with the other study in Science. So the DNA actually don't support what was argued by some scholars who had done skull morphology studies. The DNA do support the argument that it was more than 1 wave of migration into the americas that created native americans though. And all these waves came through the same general area around Alaska. On separate note, pacific islanders reached easter island less than 2,000 yrs ago based on linguistic and archaeological evidence so they are too late to account for the ancient skulls that were supposedly polynesian. It was very late when I wrote this so I didn't have time to go into detail. When they did facial reconstruction on the skull found in Brazil, the face looked Papuan or Australian, not what they would expect an Amerindian to look like. The recreation looked very different from the one in this Nature program. Personally, I don't see where Japanese Ainu look Polynesian, but that was their perception. The skull found in Brazil though looked straight up Melanisian, no ifs ands buts about it. Considering the fact that similar remains have not been found anywhere else and that they were older than those found in North America, I don't rule out a sea crossing. The opinion of that documentary was that the earlier Melanesian populations were over ran and absorbed by the incoming Asiatic migrants in much the same way they speculate that Neanderthals were absorbed by in coming Modern Humans. Good info on the Easter Island population. However, I'd keep an open mind. We don't know what we may learn in the future. The information we have is what has been uncovered thus far. It isn't totally out of the realm of possibility that the Americas were reached from both directions. Even with the late date of the Easter Island settlement, whose to say that others didn't push further and reach the mainland? Of course, they wouldn't have been founders, they most likely would have been absorbed into the population. I find it all fascinating nonetheless. Facial reconstruction is used to sell periodicals and gain interest for tv documentaries but it's not used to show relatedness of peoples by scholars. When scholars say skulls are similar they are talking about several specific skull metrics being of similar measurement. Eye-balling skulls alone can't show relatedness--you need metrics. When facial reconstruction is done, the reconstructor uses averages of measurements of soft tissue of the face of a group of currently living population along with some imagination. So the reconstructed face is an educated guess highly based on who the reconstructor decided to use as the population to base his recontruction. Hence, when they reconstructed Tut, each of the 3 diff teams had a diff reconstruction of Tut and 1 of the teams decided to make his skin white which according to them was based on the average north african. So using facial reconstruction to tell who's related just doesn't work because it lacks any precision. I wouldn't be surprised if the recreators of the skulls you mentioned used soft tissue measurements of the "average polynesian" to recreate the face in order to highlight the point of the skull looking polynesian because it makes for more dramatic tv. In any case, DNA from ancient remains with these polynesian-like skulls were already tested and they showed no close relation to polynesia: Kennewick Man had a polynesian-like skull but his DNA showed him to be closely related to native americans in the region where his remains were found; and, the Science study in the article you posted tested autosomal DNA from ancient S. American remains of populations that were said to have polynesian-like skulls and they too turned out to not show any close relation to any population from Oceania. If these people got their skull shapes because of polynesian ancestors then its impossible to not carry the DNA of said ancestors. So these skulls look like those of polynesians but they aren't from polynesians. The things you have to keep in mind are: 1.skulls change over time (native americans started coming to americas around 24k years ago which is way more than enough time for substantial change in skull shape) 2.populations who aren't closely related can have similar looking skulls due to convergent evolution i.e. they just happen to evolve a similar look. A whole lotta people in asia (andamanese, aeta, papuans, etc) look like africans but DNA shows they are more closely related to other asians. Phenotypes often play tricks on us.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 24, 2015 9:36:11 GMT -5
It was very late when I wrote this so I didn't have time to go into detail. When they did facial reconstruction on the skull found in Brazil, the face looked Papuan or Australian, not what they would expect an Amerindian to look like. The recreation looked very different from the one in this Nature program. Personally, I don't see where Japanese Ainu look Polynesian, but that was their perception. The skull found in Brazil though looked straight up Melanisian, no ifs ands buts about it. Considering the fact that similar remains have not been found anywhere else and that they were older than those found in North America, I don't rule out a sea crossing. The opinion of that documentary was that the earlier Melanesian populations were over ran and absorbed by the incoming Asiatic migrants in much the same way they speculate that Neanderthals were absorbed by in coming Modern Humans. Good info on the Easter Island population. However, I'd keep an open mind. We don't know what we may learn in the future. The information we have is what has been uncovered thus far. It isn't totally out of the realm of possibility that the Americas were reached from both directions. Even with the late date of the Easter Island settlement, whose to say that others didn't push further and reach the mainland? Of course, they wouldn't have been founders, they most likely would have been absorbed into the population. I find it all fascinating nonetheless. Facial reconstruction is used to sell periodicals and gain interest for tv documentaries but it's not used to show relatedness of peoples by scholars. When scholars say skulls are similar they are talking about several specific skull metrics being of similar measurement. Eye-balling skulls alone can't show relatedness--you need metrics. When facial reconstruction is done, the reconstructor uses averages of measurements of soft tissue of the face of a group of currently living population along with some imagination. So the reconstructed face is an educated guess highly based on who the reconstructor decided to use as the population to base his recontruction. Hence, when they reconstructed Tut, each of the 3 diff teams had a diff reconstruction of Tut and 1 of the teams decided to make his skin white which according to them was based on the average north african. So using facial reconstruction to tell who's related just doesn't work because it lacks any precision. I wouldn't be surprised if the recreators of the skulls you mentioned used soft tissue measurements of the "average polynesian" to recreate the face in order to highlight the point of the skull looking polynesian because it makes for more dramatic tv. In any case, DNA from ancient remains with these polynesian-like skulls were already tested and they showed no close relation to polynesia: Kennewick Man had a polynesian-like skull but his DNA showed him to be closely related to native americans in the region where his remains were found; and, the Science study in the article you posted tested autosomal DNA from ancient S. American remains of populations that were said to have polynesian-like skulls and they too turned out to not show any close relation to any population from Oceania. If these people got their skull shapes because of polynesian ancestors then its impossible to not carry the DNA of said ancestors. So these skulls look like those of polynesians but they aren't from polynesians. The things you have to keep in mind are: 1.skulls change over time (native americans started coming to americas around 24k years ago which is way more than enough time for substantial change in skull shape) 2.populations who aren't closely related can have similar looking skulls due to convergent evolution i.e. they just happen to evolve a similar look. A whole lotta people in asia (andamanese, aeta, papuans, etc) look like africans but DNA shows they are more closely related to other asians. Phenotypes often play tricks on us. The link to the article that I posted says that they have indeed found traces of Oceanic DNA in some South American remains, it states it very clearly in the first paragraph. The researchers in this article did not rely on any sort of anthropological analysis of physical remains, only the DNA. This is what they said: This week, two teams of scientists released reports detailing the origins of Native American peoples. Both groups looked at ancient and modern DNA to attempt to learn more about the movements of populations from Asia into the New World, and about how groups mixed once they got here. Both discovered a hint that some Native Americans in South America share ancestry with native peoples in Australia and Melanesia.
But the two groups came to different conclusions when it came to how that DNA with ties to Oceania made its way into the Native American genome.
In a wide-ranging paper in the journal Science, University of Copenhagen Centre for GeoGenetics Director Eske Willerslev and coauthors studied genomes from ancient and modern people in the Americas and Asia. They concluded that migrations into the New World had to have occurred in a single wave from Siberia, timed no earlier than 23,000 years ago. They also calculated that any genes shared with Australo-Melanesian peoples must have been contributed through relatively recent population mixing.
In the meantime, Harvard Medical School geneticist David Reich and colleagues, focusing more closely on the Australo-Melanesian genes in a study published in Nature, came to a different conclusion: that the DNA had to have arrived in the Americas very long ago and that founding migrations occurred in more than one wave.So both groups agree there is a genetic link, they only disagree as to how and when those genes made it into the population. It was the PBS program that said the Keniwik man's skull looked Polynesian, however the DNA said otherwise. The program that I'm talking about was done many years ago, so we have three different things here. Now with regards to reconstructions, you're right, it is not an exact science. However, the skull found in the Brazilian cave was very different. Can shapes change over time? Sure. In any case, I'll provide the link to the program and you can see it yourself. I just think it's interesting that this article is supporting what the anthropologist in that program were saying, especially since, if I remember correctly, they didn't do any DNA analysis. I'm not sure if the technology existed at that time, nor am I aware of any DNA studies were done of those Brazilian remains. If you have access to any sources you could link to I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 24, 2015 14:26:04 GMT -5
Facial reconstruction is used to sell periodicals and gain interest for tv documentaries but it's not used to show relatedness of peoples by scholars. When scholars say skulls are similar they are talking about several specific skull metrics being of similar measurement. Eye-balling skulls alone can't show relatedness--you need metrics. When facial reconstruction is done, the reconstructor uses averages of measurements of soft tissue of the face of a group of currently living population along with some imagination. So the reconstructed face is an educated guess highly based on who the reconstructor decided to use as the population to base his recontruction. Hence, when they reconstructed Tut, each of the 3 diff teams had a diff reconstruction of Tut and 1 of the teams decided to make his skin white which according to them was based on the average north african. So using facial reconstruction to tell who's related just doesn't work because it lacks any precision. I wouldn't be surprised if the recreators of the skulls you mentioned used soft tissue measurements of the "average polynesian" to recreate the face in order to highlight the point of the skull looking polynesian because it makes for more dramatic tv. In any case, DNA from ancient remains with these polynesian-like skulls were already tested and they showed no close relation to polynesia: Kennewick Man had a polynesian-like skull but his DNA showed him to be closely related to native americans in the region where his remains were found; and, the Science study in the article you posted tested autosomal DNA from ancient S. American remains of populations that were said to have polynesian-like skulls and they too turned out to not show any close relation to any population from Oceania. If these people got their skull shapes because of polynesian ancestors then its impossible to not carry the DNA of said ancestors. So these skulls look like those of polynesians but they aren't from polynesians. The things you have to keep in mind are: 1.skulls change over time (native americans started coming to americas around 24k years ago which is way more than enough time for substantial change in skull shape) 2.populations who aren't closely related can have similar looking skulls due to convergent evolution i.e. they just happen to evolve a similar look. A whole lotta people in asia (andamanese, aeta, papuans, etc) look like africans but DNA shows they are more closely related to other asians. Phenotypes often play tricks on us. The link to the article that I posted says that they have indeed found traces of Oceanic DNA in some South American remains, it states it very clearly in the first paragraph. The researchers in this article did not rely on any sort of anthropological analysis of physical remains, only the DNA. This is what they said: This week, two teams of scientists released reports detailing the origins of Native American peoples. Both groups looked at ancient and modern DNA to attempt to learn more about the movements of populations from Asia into the New World, and about how groups mixed once they got here. Both discovered a hint that some Native Americans in South America share ancestry with native peoples in Australia and Melanesia.
But the two groups came to different conclusions when it came to how that DNA with ties to Oceania made its way into the Native American genome.
In a wide-ranging paper in the journal Science, University of Copenhagen Centre for GeoGenetics Director Eske Willerslev and coauthors studied genomes from ancient and modern people in the Americas and Asia. They concluded that migrations into the New World had to have occurred in a single wave from Siberia, timed no earlier than 23,000 years ago. They also calculated that any genes shared with Australo-Melanesian peoples must have been contributed through relatively recent population mixing.
In the meantime, Harvard Medical School geneticist David Reich and colleagues, focusing more closely on the Australo-Melanesian genes in a study published in Nature, came to a different conclusion: that the DNA had to have arrived in the Americas very long ago and that founding migrations occurred in more than one wave.So both groups agree there is a genetic link, they only disagree as to how and when those genes made it into the population. It was the PBS program that said the Keniwik man's skull looked Polynesian, however the DNA said otherwise. The program that I'm talking about was done many years ago, so we have three different things here. Now with regards to reconstructions, you're right, it is not an exact science. However, the skull found in the Brazilian cave was very different. Can shapes change over time? Sure. In any case, I'll provide the link to the program and you can see it yourself. I just think it's interesting that this article is supporting what the anthropologist in that program were saying, especially since, if I remember correctly, they didn't do any DNA analysis. I'm not sure if the technology existed at that time, nor am I aware of any DNA studies were done of those Brazilian remains. If you have access to any sources you could link to I'd appreciate it. Thanks for the video. I watched the 1st few mins of it and may try watching the rest another time. I acknowledged in an earlier post that the 2 studies said there's a genetic link between native americans and australasians. However, you misinterpret what the article is saying. Per your quote above: So the studies both say they share ancestry which is quite different from what you are saying, which is that australasians are direct ancestors of native americans. In fact, the same article clarifies this: Australasians and some native americans have a genetic link because they both have the same ancestor, called “Population Y” by Reich et al of the study in Nature. Population Y did not arrive to the Americas in S. America via the sea. They came through Alaska via the bearing straits. Here’s what the Reich et al study says: The ice sheets referred to did not extend very far south of Canada so the study makes clear these genes did not come via the sea to S. America and clarifies that the genes came via the far North where they mixed in either Beringia or NE Asia. The study goes on: So the study makes clear that these genes that link Australasians and some Native Americans are from mainland Eurasia before Population Y split, with some going south to found Australasians and others going north to mix with other people and create native americans. The 2 setbacks of the Reich et al study was that they didn’t dna test native americans in N America nor did they dna test any remains of long gone populations who have these Australasian-like skulls. Fortunately the other study in your article did so. The second study in Science found that N American natives also have these same genes that are distantly related to Australasians and that ancient remains with the Australasian-like skulls don’t carry genes showing direct descent from Australasians: The Paleoamerican Model is what you and that video you posted have been referring to but this 2nd study explicitly says that theory is discredited by genetic evidence as shown above. More on the Paleoamerican Model from the study: So it’s clear that both studies say Australasians are not the ancestors of Native Americans. These studies’ findings aren’t exactly new either. As shown in the 2nd study, since 2004 dna studies have been showing that australasian-like skulls don't mean australasian ancestors. Still, these 2 latest studies go further in slamming the door shut on the Australasian ancestors/Paleoamerican theory because they are more comprehensive in both their geographic dna sampling and the actual dna they tested i.e. autosomal dna.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 24, 2015 15:00:56 GMT -5
Btw, I hope you noticed that I embedded the links to the studies in my post so you can check them out if you'd like. None of the studies I know of have tested ancient brazilian remains as you asked about. Though, this doesn't matter since these australasian-like skulls are found all over the americas. It's just that the largest portion have been found in brazil. Also, the 2nd study from Science tried to replicate earlier cranial studies on ancient brazilians with supposedly australasian-like skulls but found these skulls looked closest to "Arctic and East Asian populations" which again highlights the problem with using cranial metrics alone to show relatedness. Further, the study by Reich tested several currently living native american populations in brazil that are likely to be descendants of these ancient australasian skull brazilians. These people had the Population Y genes, showing they share a distant ancestor in common with australasians but don't descend from australasians.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jul 24, 2015 19:19:22 GMT -5
Hay guys check this out below
klik link above for more.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 25, 2015 13:12:47 GMT -5
The author of that article didn't pay close enough attention to what Willerslev was saying or what he and other authors of the study wrote, or didn't read the study or just doesn't understand the nuance of how what they wrote is misleading about the study. This often happens in articles that cover scientific studies cuz I've seen it many times.
The study mentioned in the article is the very same one I refer to as "the 2nd study" in Science in previous posts. The study explicitly says Native didn't get any genes from Australo-Melanesians but rather a population that was ancestral to Australo-Melanesians:
Confusing "sharing ancestry" with "admixture from" (as the article seems to do) is similar to saying that your cousins are your parents because you share ancestry or that you have admixture from your cousins. Obviously, your parents are your biological mother and father and those genes you share with your cousins are inheritances from the grandparents you have in common, not from admixture.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 26, 2015 0:36:05 GMT -5
The author of that article didn't pay close enough attention to what Willerslev was saying or what he and other authors of the study wrote, or didn't read the study or just doesn't understand the nuance of how what they wrote is misleading about the study. This often happens in articles that cover scientific studies cuz I've seen it many times. The study mentioned in the article is the very same one I refer to as "the 2nd study" in Science in previous posts. The study explicitly says Native didn't get any genes from Australo-Melanesians but rather a population that was ancestral to Australo-Melanesians:Confusing "sharing ancestry" with "admixture from" (as the article seems to do) is similar to saying that your cousins are your parents because you share ancestry or that you have admixture from your cousins. Obviously, your parents are your biological mother and father and those genes you share with your cousins are inheritances from the grandparents you have in common, not from admixture. So in other words, both populations descended from a common parent before they settled in their present locations. In other words, the ancestors of the Melanesians and some of the people who would later reach the Americas belonged to the same family before one branch split of to settle the Pacific islands. They would have had a common homeland in Asia before splitting of into their respective locations. This makes sense. Even if the skulls found in Brazil had an Oceanic appearance, all it would mean is that those features were already in place before these people settled in the Pacific. That would account for the similarities shared by the populations in both locations. Over time, due to diet, micro climate and waves of new comers with different features, there would have been a shift in physical appearance. I think it should be mentioned that all Natives do not resemble each other. While there is less diversity than African populations, there are regional differences between Andean, Amazonian and North American Plains populations, not only in facial features, but body structure as well. Fascinating stuff. I still wouldn't rule out the possibility of later oceanic explorers making it to the Americas. If they could reach Hawaii practically in the Middle of the Pacific and Easter Island, then it is possible. However, this would have been a very small group of people and unless the right population was tested, those genes may not be detected. Who knows what they may find in the future.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 26, 2015 13:53:12 GMT -5
Yup. However, the crucial pt is that the ancient native americans with these oceanic-like skulls didn't get those skulls based on those shared ancestors with oceanic ppl that are discussed in the 2 studies. Both studies show that those oceanic-like skulls are independent of this new found distant relation to Oceanics (older genetic studies since 2004 had already pointed to this too). Also, scholars who had said these ancient skulls looked polynesian were basing them on recent polynesian populations cuz humans only arrived in polynesia around 3k yrs ago. It's just not smart to assume current polynesians and their ancestors of 12k yrs ago (the age of earliest oceanic-like skulls in the americas) had the same shaped skulls given that populations evolve and the time frame in question is so large, 12k yrs.
I agree that its possible oceanic people made it to the americas. It's a very good chance they did actually given that they made it all the way to the easter islands which less than 1k miles from s america. Like you said they would've been very small in # given the small population of the easter islands. But import too they would've arrived quite late, no more than a few 100 yrs before the spanish.
|
|