posted
^I agree that the first civilized people were Brown. But also I believe the first pre-human ancestors to walk upright looked like what we would call today "Black."
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Chinese and their stupidly vain chauvinism will say anything. Don't take them seriously. I mean pumping out cheap goods with slave labour does not mean that you are an authority on anything.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Oh yea, sure, they must be down with the World Wide White supremacy cause [/insert sarcasm here/].
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean what else do you expect from people who believe that tiger balls and rhino horn dust will solve that kind of problem. And who knows maybe they believe that dragon meat is good for colds. Just silly upstarts.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mau-ze-Dumb: Excellent video, sooner or later the truth will come out and many of these "House Negros" will have to go out and get real jobs!
I still think the first original humans were "Brown People", neither Black nor White.
Yet what you think is irrelevant to what IS.
Stephen Oppenheimer's
&
Spencer Wells'
I would suggest that you read these books by these two valid geneticists, but I doubt you will since they (accurately) feature black people as the first humans which goes against your 'thinking'. LOL
skin expert Nina Jablonsk who was consulted by both Oppenheimer and Wells on the skin color of the first humans says this: "The first humans originated in the high intensity UV areas of tropical Africa, so black skin would be needed to protect them from the harmful effects of excessive UV radiation."
So you guys, Exposed Liar and Mau-ze-Dumb can ignore the mainstream experts supported by decades of research and instead rely on some unknown researcher in China who is as racist and black-phobic as you are. Posts: 26321 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LMAO @ the idea of a jaw bone trumping decades of genetic and archaeological research confirming the OOA hypothesis. These trolls will jump at anything, lol..
Edit: LOL! Anybody else notice the weird sh1t posted on that youtube channel? Nonsense about caucasian mummies, Niburu/planet X, human/alien hybrids, etc.. That channel is full of pseudo-scientific garbage, I'm not surprised Afronut posted this.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, they will easily jump at false hope to escape from their "black" nightmare, even if they jump out of a window of a ten story building in the process. Posts: 26321 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afrocentric Liars Exposed: [QB] OOA theory will become a thing of the past soon.
Not so fast there kid, what you (citing a peer reviewed study) need to do is show modern humans alive today whose genetic makeup does not trace back to Africa, until then OOA is permanent. Plain and simple.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afrocentric Liars Exposed: ^I agree that the first civilized people were Brown. But also I believe the first pre-human ancestors to walk upright looked like what we would call today "Black."
you mean brown like these guys?
Posts: 42947 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The jackasses posting above in favour of the Chinese pseudo-scientific finding don't have a clue about how population genetics works.
A quick litmus test of the earliest humans is the "genetic diversity hypothesis". The earliest humans would be those with the greatest genetic diversity in their areas.
If the Multiregional hypothesis were correct then the genetic diversity in China or East Asia for that matter would match that found in Southern and Eastern Africa. QED.
The crackpots will keep posting though. After all there are people who believe that the earth is flat(flat-earth theorists) and others who believe that humankind began 6,000 YA(creationists), or that "God made man in his own image" and therefore refuse to accept evolutionary genetics.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rachel Kaufman for National Geographic News Published October 25, 2010
A fossil human jawbone discovered in southern China is upsetting conventional notions of when our ancestors migrated out of Africa.
The mandible, unearthed by paleontologists in China's Zhiren Cave in 2007, sports a distinctly modern feature: a prominent chin. But the bone is undeniably 60,000 years older than the next oldest Homo sapiens remains in China, scientists say.
In fact, at about a hundred thousand years old, the Chinese fossil is "the oldest modern human outside of Africa," said study co-author Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
(Also see "Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found.")
Popular theory states that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, at which point modern humans quickly replaced early human species such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis across the world.
Finding such an ancient example of a modern human in China would drastically alter the time line of human migration. The find may also mean that modern humans in China were mingling—and possibly even interbreeding—with other human species for 50,000 or 60,000 years.
(Related: "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence.")
What's more, the find seems to suggest that anatomically modern humans had arrived in China long before the species began acting human.
For example, symbolic thought is a distinctly human trait that involves using things such as beads and drawings to represent objects, people, and events. The first strong evidence for this trait doesn't appear in the archaeological record in China until 30,000 years ago, Trinkaus said.
(Related: "Oldest Jewelry Found in Morocco Cave.")
Hoping for DNA Evidence
So far, genetic evidence largely supports the traditional timing of the "out of Africa" theory. But the newly described China jawbone presents a strong challenge, said anthropologist Christopher Bae of the University of Hawaii, who was not associated with the find.
"They actually have solid dates and evidence of, basically, a modern human," he said.
Still, the jaw and three molars were the only human remains retrieved from the Chinese cave, and the jaw is "within the range" of Neanderthal chins as well as those of modern humans, added paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
(Related: "Oldest Human Footprints With Modern Anatomy Found.")
"If this holds up, we have to reevaluate" the human migration time line, he said.
"Basically, I think they're right, [but] I want to see more evidence," Hawks added. "I really, really hope that there can be some sort of genetic extraction from this [fossil]."
The oldest human jawbone from China is described in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
__________________________________________________ New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa Replacement theory 'demolished' February 2, 2006
A new, more robust analysis of recently derived human gene trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, shows three distinct major waves of human migration out of Africa instead of just two, and statistically refutes — strongly — the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory.
That theory holds that populations of Homo sapiens left Africa 100,000 years ago and wiped out existing populations of humans. Templeton has shown that the African populations interbred with the Eurasian populations — thus, making love, not war. *Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
*Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Templeton published his results in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2005.
A trellis, not a tree
He used a computer program called GEODIS, which he created in 1995 and later modified with the help of David Posada, Ph.D., and Keith Crandall, Ph.D. at Brigham Young University, to determine genetic relationships among and within populations based on an examination of specific haplotypes, clusters of genes that are inherited as a unit.
In 2002, Templeton analyzed ten different haplotype trees and performed phylogeographic analyses that reconstructed the history of the species through space and time.
Three years later, he had 25 regions to analyze and the data provided molecular evidence of a third migration, this one the oldest, back to 1.9 million years ago.
"This time frame corresponds extremely well with the fossil record, which shows Homo erectus expanding out of Africa then," Templeton said.
Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred. Alan Templeton
Alan Templeton
The new data confirm an expansion out of Africa to 700,000 years ago that was detected in the 2002 analysis.
"Both (the 1.9 million and 700,000 year) expansions coincide with recent paleoclimatic data that indicate periods of very high rainfall in eastern Africa, making what is now the Sahara Desert a savannah," Templeton said. "That makes the timing very amenable for movements of large populations through the area."
Templeton said that the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia.
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
Posts: 42947 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Still, the jaw and three molars were the only human remains retrieved from the Chinese cave, and the jaw is "within the range" of Neanderthal chins as well as those of modern humans, added paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
^Also, the Templeton study has little to do with multi-regionalism, it's just a precursor to the Neanderthal DNA study (as it claims early OOA Africans interbred with other archaic homo).. Besides, Templeton's method has been debunked by statisticians.
quote:Templeton (2010, PNAS) makes a broad attack on the foundations of Bayesian statistical methods—rather than on the purely numerical technique called Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC)—using incorrect arguments and selective references taken out of context. The most significant example is the argument ``The probability of the nested special case must be less than or equal to the probability of the general model within which the special case is nested. Any statistic that assigns greater probability to the special case is incoherent. An example of incoherence is shown for the ABC (sic!) method.” This opposes both the basis and the practice of Bayesian testing.
The confusion seems to arise from misunderstanding the difference between scientific hypotheses and their mathematical representation. Consider vaccine testing, where in what follows we use VE to represent the vaccine efficacy measured on a scale from to 100. Exploratory vaccines may be efficacious or not. Thus a real biological model corresponds to the hypothesis “VE=0″, that the vaccine is not efficacious. The alternative biological possibility, that the vaccine has an effect, is often stated mathematically as the alternative model “any allowed value of VE is possible,” making it appear that it contains “VE=0.” But Bayesian analysis assigns each model prior distributions arising from the background science; a point mass (e.g. probability 1/2) is assigned to “VE=0″ and the remaining probability mass (e.g. 1/2) is distributed continuously over values of VE in the alternative model. Elementary use of Bayes’ theorem (see, e.g., Berger, 1985, Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis) then shows that the simpler model can indeed have a much higher posterior probability. Mathematically, this is explained by the probability distributions residing in different dimensional spaces, and is elementary probability theory for which use of Templeton’s “Venn diagram argument” is simply incorrect.
posted
Let's face the facts: physical anthropological findings are not as theoretically robust as genomic data. Example: Kennewick man was found in North America and many became excited because Kenniwick man supposedly showed so-called "caucasoid" traits. Well that's one fossil only. The genomic data shows that pre-Columbian Native Americans were all of East Asian origins.
Matters are compounded by the fact that fossils may just show the presence of a possible lineage but we don't know whether that line just went extinct or otherwise. Point is that 100% of modern Chinese DNA support the OOA hypotheis.
Like most whites these upstarts just can't accept the fact that they were the product of Africans.
They don't seem to understand that you cannot really choose your ancestors.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic