|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
To Nferyn, Actually, all of mankind originated in Africa,
This is no where near the truth, the possibility that all mankind originated from Africa is only 1 to 1000 000, and it was in its self a fraud coined out to support the idea of evolution which is pure nonsensical and without an iota of credibility, infact the idea of evolution is stupid and childish and was born out of the idea of white supremicy aiming at using pseudo science to colonize the mind of the people, in order to create an artificial demographic larder, is quite amazing that it worked perfectly. Am fascinated by science and science inclined but some garbage peddled as science some times leaves me wondering if science is not that smart afterall or are some scientists intentionally out to mislead people [not far from the truth], Nferyn, you said it some time ago that there was a need for people of European discent to walk about with clear conscience about all there crimes of the past knowing that we are all sort of different in a way, many areas were exploited in achieving this.
but genetically Africans aren't any closer to e.g. Australian Aborigines than they are to e.g. Siberians or Europeans. Actually, in many case, the opposite is true.
there is nothing strange about this, cause human is human, what that changes more often is the phenotype due to the effect of the environment.
It's interesting to know that the greatest human genetic diversity outside of Africa exists in the area around the north of India and Pakistan. All non African people find their origin there.
very interesting, but another account says that people of those areas are Aryan invaders from the northern hemisphere, but is very interesting that the people from the southern part of India and the northern part has almost the same facial signature, even the Srilankans, with exception of the skin color, a glaring prove that shows the slight difference between the north and the south is just as a process of adaptation [ mutation], because of the apparent difference in the whether in the north and the south, making it very pellucid that the southern Indians and the northerners would have been from the same origin, a fact scientists would chose to ignore. if the Aryan Indians are from the northerm hemisphere, how did it happen that the Europeans at the same time originated from that area, quite contradictory.
@ Nferyn I am very much aware of the ideology that all humans originated from Africa, but I really doubt it is true.
as matter of fact is not true.
It's not ideology, but pretty well established science.
The RACE question was equally a very established science, but now the same scientists are saying that race does not matter, infact that there is no race, how is that?, the same science called what is happening now Global warming and meant it, but later to down grade it to Climate Change while with holding or un aware of the fact that the earth whethere is only but swapping, a reason why the overall earth whethere has not changed a lot [the datas from the satelite proves this], while warm whether {in EUROPE} is experienced in some places and cooler whether {in Africa, south to central Africa for now to be precise} is experienced in some places parri pasu
The evidence is really conclusive as far as evidence goes. In science you'll never be able to prove anything for 100%, but 99.9% would do, wouldn't it.
My only advice is don't bet on it.
Infact there is nothing like evolution, cause is not continuous and never took place, evolution is illusion, but people can only mutate as a result of long time effect of the whether, coursed by the action the body takes in protecting or adapting it self, but no matter the changes they would still remain human only with some few peculiar features, and mutation is continuous, stroll down to the southern part of the US, you would see how the people of European discent there are fast changing, infact in the nearest future they would be the new red Indians, in 400 trillion years a monkey can never evolve into human, to believe it would happen is a flawed thought process. science in its self could use a little bit of evolution cause if scientific researches would be left only in the hands of the westerners, there is a possibility for biased people to filter through wrong scientific conclusion laced with heavy tounge in check rhetorics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dblock (m)
|
 100% Right. Evolution is bull crap. It is all rhetoric and is based on pathetic assertions. Humans today are the same as Humans a 1000 years ago. We have the same Intellectual capacity. What we have is a Race building on prior(Prerequisite) Knowledge and using that to alter the environment gradually. That is what humans are in one sentence, a race building on prior knowledge to change the environment. We don't evolve. Never have, never will. |
|
|
|
|
|
stranger12
|
@ last two quotes you can as well say DNA studies are stupid. and if the DNA result of your "supposed" child turns out to be negative, tell your cheating wife to take a chill pill, ITS ALL A LIE! The facts about the origin of man are based on DNA studies |
|
|
|
|
|
folem
|
@ NINETOFIVE
Ignorance is bliss
|
|
|
|
|
|
JustGood (m)
|
@ NINETOFIVE
Ignorance is bliss
so is an infinite willingness to accept every garbage |
|
|
|
|
|
dblock (m)
|
Let's not stray too far from the Topic. I've got an interesting statement to make; Have any of you noticed that Aboriginals look slightly Sub-Human or of an inferior complex. I don't mean to be ignorant or to discriminate, but that's the way it looks to me.  |
|
|
|
|
|
chiogo (f)
|
hmmmm@topic. All black people descended from africa. Infact, all humans came from africa. yeah, weird. But i learned that in biology. it happened about 5,000 years ago when a skull was found there, the skull of a neanderthal and we have the same traits as neanderthals. so, that is how the origin of man began. It is believed that u're african if u're dark-skinned. true! Even the europeans descended from africa but left there early to explore the word,and then landed in europe, which is the reason why they have light skin. Lol, that's what i was taught, even did a project on it. Y'all can do a research on it on google(type in neanderthal) if u don't believe.  |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
@ last two quotes you can as well say DNA studies are stupid. and if the DNA result of your "supposed" child turns out to be negative, tell your cheating wife to take a chill pill, ITS ALL A LIE! The facts about the origin of man are based on DNA studies DNA can not prove some ones origin, but it can be used to trace similarities, some times the genetic make up of two Africans might be far apart than another African and European, does it mean they are related?, wake up Africans contribute to science, take your thinking to a higher pitch, science is too pro European and this is not a coincidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
@ NINETOFIVE
Ignorance is bliss
Thinking only from inside the box is not a trait of smartness, little advice smarten up. |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
Let's not stray too far from the Topic. I've got an interesting statement to make; Have any of you noticed that Aboriginals look slightly Sub-Human or of an inferior complex. I don't mean to be ignorant or to discriminate, but that's the way it looks to me. The Australian aborigine look that way because they mutated withing a short space of time because of rapid change in whether, the whether of Australia, in not a very long past would have been like that of the Scandinavia, if you look at them you will see that they are still going through the process of mutation [ adaptation to their new whether], some of them still retain blond hair, red hair [which only a fool would think they got that from mixing with white], a trait only common with the people that live in the arctic, the possibilities that they are Africans is non existence, look at what climate change is doing in Europe, lets wait at least 5000 years if they mutate and turn darker, we would accept they are African slaves brought to Europe. |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
100% Right.
Evolution is bull crap. It is all rhetoric and is based on pathetic assertions. Humans today are the same as Humans a 1000 years ago. We have the same Intellectual capacity. true, short and simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
dblock (m)
|
Here's something to think about. The people of Papua New Guinea are obvioulsy descendant of Dark Skinned people from North/East Africa, if so then why do the Papua New Guineans that inhabit the island of Bougainville appear darker than most Negroid people. They are darker than East Africans in General, and darker than other Melanesians. The Island in which these people occupy, is indifferent from the Main Island of New Guinea, in terms of Ecology, Geography etc. Phenotype is the Characteristics of a certain organism, based on a combination of Genotype and Environmental Factors. Lets use Maths to solve this problem(Algebra to be exact). If the environment is relatively the same as that of the Mainland(New Guinea), then the Factor at varience must be the Genotype. A different Genotype might add up to a different Migration history. Simple? Not quite, the Melanesians who occupy; Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia are Habitually know to be the same people, as in they; Migrated to the Sub Region in around the same period. To add to the confusion, Melanesians on general have the same basic diet; Potatoes, Rice, Vegetables, Mangoes, Coconuts etc. If people from Mainland New Guinea Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia had relatively the same migration pattern and history, then a mutation must have being ammounted to something else like a Purine Surplus, or a defficiency. These are the most common Purines; hypoxanthine, xanthine, theobromine, caffeine, uric acid and isoguanine. Plants are low in Purine but crops like Tea, Mate, Cacao, Cola and Coffee are high in Purine. This brings us back to my earlier statement; That all Melanesians in general have and had the same diet. They also inhabit similar (Ecological and Environmental) Islands. So that rules out Depurination as the reason for a change in the Phenotype. We can also rule out conditional mutation, because the temperature on the island of Bougainville is similar to that of the Mainland. Then why the hell do the people that occupy Bougainvile and the Solomon Island differ ethnically from other Melanesians  Notice the difference in Skin Tone Bougainvillean Papuan(Aborigines of the Melanesian Sub race) While I am on the Topic of Bougainvilleans, I can strenghten NINETOFIVE's Argument, by making reference to the fact that some Bougainvilleans and people that inhabit New Ireland Province, East New Britian, West New Britain and The Solomon Islands have blonde hair. The Europeans didn't intermarry with these peoples upon arrival. Notice the two kids at the back  |
|
|
|
|
|
marlet01 (m)
|
It is true all black people originated from africa, in the early twentieth century some scientists such as Carleton S. Coon believed the different races to have evolved separately over millions of years and that racial differences were thus extremely significant. In recent decades however, evidence has suggested that the major races had split less than 70,000 years ago, making all humans far more genetically related than previously believed.
Breakthroughs in genetics and the mapping of the human genome in the late twentieth century have helped dispel many of the previous myths about race. Ninety-nine point nine percent of any one person's DNA is exactly the same as any other person regardless of ethnicity. Twins are an exception as the their DNA is a 100% match.[3] Of the remaining 0.1% variation, there is an 8% variation between ethnic groups within a race, such as between the French and the Dutch. Only 7% of all human genetic variation lies on average between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Eighty-five percent of all genetic variation lies within any local group. Thus there is more genetic variation within a race than between the various "races".[4]
Because the genetic difference between any two random individuals is roughly the same, a few traits such as skin color and appearance are arbitrary ways to classify race. There is general agreement among biologists that human racial differences are too small to qualify races as separate sub-species. However there is still much controversy regarding the interpretation of these small differences. Some scholars argue that even though there is more variation within a population than between populations, the small between population variation may have implications in medical science.[5]
Much of human genetic variation is actually found in non-functional DNA (junk DNA), which means that functional DNA has an even lower amount of variation. Scientists often use a selection of genetic markers found in the non-functional DNA to determine a person's ancestry. They can be used to determine a person's intermixture proportions.[6]
Even Scientist has descovered that so i think all Black people descended from Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
To Nferyn, Actually, all of mankind originated in Africa, This is no where near the truth, the possibility that all mankind originated from Africa is only 1 to 1000 000, and it was in its self a fraud coined out to support the idea of evolution which is pure nonsensical and without an iota of credibility, Ninetofive, you seem to be very good at making lots of assertions without any evidence to back them up. I can back up my claims with proper peer reviewed research data and will provide it whenever it is requested. Hope you can do the same, but I have my doubts. Let's look in detail at what you wrote: 1. All of mankind originated in Africa: this is nowhere near the truth. The following lines of evidence point at a recent African origin of homo sapiens and this includes all so called races: * fossil evidence and radiometric dating of the fossils * studies of mitochondrial DNA and non-coding Y-chromosome DNA, using mutation rates and statistical analyses of variability to arrive at population divergences, differences and times of splits in lineages * overall genetic variabilities within populations and across populations to arrive at inference of population sizes and bottleneck events * traces of habitation, leading (together with radiometric dating methods) to inference of lifestyles of the populations, time of arrival and duration of habitation in specific regions 2. the possibility that all mankind originated from Africa is only 1 to 1000 000: what factors do you use to calculate these odds? I cannot see any possible way you arrive at that number excepts if you just make it up. 3. it was in its self a fraud: why? What evidence do you have that there was an intentional attempt to misguide people? 4. support the idea of evolution which is pure nonsensical and without an iota of credibility: why is evolution nonsensical and without a iota of credibility? Please answer the next question first, as it would be helpful to know we're both talking about the same thing infact the idea of evolution is stupid and childish and was born out of the idea of white supremicy aiming at using pseudo science to colonize the mind of the people, in order to create an artificial demographic larder, is quite amazing that it worked perfectly. Now that's odd. Evolution may very well be stupid and childish, but what version of evolution are you talking about? When discussing with people that are sceptical about evolution, it seems that many talk about very different things and that they regularly disagree among each other about what exactly they are rejecting: some think about cosmic evolution or include abiogenesis in their discussions about evolution. Some include macro evolution but not micro evolution (and many cannot even properly demarcate these two concepts) while others have doubts about the specific mechanism or source of evolution while at the same time accepting the overall evolutionary concepts. Which version of evolution exactly are you rejecting an for what reason? Please be precise so that your concerns can be properly addressed. On the other hand, I know of no version of evolution that is borne out of the idea of white supremacy. It is clear that Darwinian thought has been abused by the pseudo-scientific reformers of social Darwinism and the idiots supporting eugenics. Ascribing all of this to the science of biological evolution is akin to comparing astrology to astronomy, because both make use of the position of the stars. Am fascinated by science and science inclined but some garbage peddled as science some times leaves me wondering if science is not that smart afterall or are some scientists intentionally out to mislead people [not far from the truth], You really need to be more specific when you voice objections, because it's nearly impossible to understand what exactly you are objecting. Concerning your general idea thet some scientists intentionally mislead people, you are spot on. Science is a human activity and as such very much influenced by human emotions, concerns and prejudices. Luckily the scientific process weeds out (even if it can take some time in some cases) the rotten apples eventually. The scientific method, by it's very nature, is a self correcting process and we are lucky for that. What I do see quite regularly though is that many social commentators tend to appropriate the scientific vocabulary and aura in order to give their opinions a higher level of credibility, but rarely do these people go through the motions and truly subject their opinions to scientific scrutiny. Nferyn, you said it some time ago that there was a need for people of European discent to walk about with clear conscience about all there crimes of the past knowing that we are all sort of different in a way, many areas were exploited in achieving this. I have mentioned before on several occasions that the overall level of awareness of people of European descent concerning their horrible role in human history is far too low and that they in general have very little right to lecture other people and cultures, but I don't see exactly how this si relevant in this discussion. Can you explain? but genetically Africans aren't any closer to e.g. Australian Aborigines than they are to e.g. Siberians or Europeans. Actually, in many case, the opposite is true. there is nothing strange about this, cause human is human, what that changes more often is the phenotype due to the effect of the environment. I don't really see your point here as I was talking about genotypical differences, not their phenotypical expression. It's interesting to know that the greatest human genetic diversity outside of Africa exists in the area around the north of India and Pakistan. All non African people find their origin there.
very interesting, but another account says that people of those areas are Aryan invaders from the northern hemisphere, Those two findings don't contradict each other, as the aryans also find their origin in that region and later came back to the Indian subcontinent; What I wanted to point out is that there was a radiation from that area that peopled the whol of the non-African world. Some even came back to Africa but is very interesting that the people from the southern part of India and the northern part has almost the same facial signature, even the Srilankans, with exception of the skin color, a glaring prove that shows the slight difference between the north and the south is just as a process of adaptation [ mutation], because of the apparent difference in the whether in the north and the south, making it very pellucid that the southern Indians and the northerners would have been from the same origin, a fact scientists would chose to ignore. if the Aryan Indians are from the northerm hemisphere, how did it happen that the Europeans at the same time originated from that area, quite contradictory. Who said that the Europeans originated from that area at the same time? @ Nferyn I am very much aware of the ideology that all humans originated from Africa, but I really doubt it is true. as matter of fact is not true. Please bring the evidence that refutes the well established scientific thesis that all of humanity has recent African origins. It's not ideology, but pretty well established science. The RACE question was equally a very established science, It never was well established science. the threshold of what currently is considered well established science has never even been approached by those 'scientic' racists. but now the same scientists are saying that race does not matter, infact that there is no race, how is that? 1. It's not the same scientists 2. Race doesn't matter only in very specific circumstances while in others it does. E.g. in the study of multi variable phenomena as intelligence, race can be excluded as relevant by fairly simple statistical analysis, while in other, phenomena with limited contributing factors (such as specific diseases), it can play a major role. It's important to note though that the sociological construct of race does not match the scientific concept of race (usually labelled population for PC reasons) and often times the two are very distinct indeed. , the same science called what is happening now Global warming and meant it, but later to down grade it to Climate Change while with holding or un aware of the fact that the earth whethere is only but swapping, a reason why the overall earth whethere has not changed a lot [the datas from the satelite proves this], while warm whether {in EUROPE} is experienced in some places and cooler whether {in Africa, south to central Africa for now to be precise} is experienced in some places parri pasu You cannot fault scientists for a skewed representation of their science by the popular media, especially when there is a basis of truth in the overall perception. THe earth is undergoing a global warming (as represented in the average temperature increases globally when based on distributed points of measurement). This has nothing to do with downgrading global warming to climate change. The evidence is really conclusive as far as evidence goes. In science you'll never be able to prove anything for 100%, but 99.9% would do, wouldn't it. My only advice is don't bet on it. What data supports your advice? Infact there is nothing like evolution, cause is not continuous and never took place, evolution is illusion, but people can only mutate as a result of long time effect of the whether, coursed by the action the body takes in protecting or adapting it self, but no matter the changes they would still remain human only with some few peculiar features, I can show you exactly where, when, how and why your assertion is wrong on all counts, But I would appreciate it if you could first defien evolution unambiguously. and mutation is continuous, stroll down to the southern part of the US, you would see how the people of European discent there are fast changing, infact in the nearest future they would be the new red Indians, in 400 trillion years a monkey can never evolve into human, to believe it would happen is a flawed thought process. science in its self could use a little bit of evolution cause if scientific researches would be left only in the hands of the westerners, there is a possibility for biased people to filter through wrong scientific conclusion laced with heavy tounge in check rhetorics.
It's seems your writing here is the one that is heavily imbued with rhetoric. It's hard to write a more dense amalgamation of poorly understood facts and justifiable concerns. It doesn't do your overall sound (the disproportionate influence on westerners on the scientific enterprise) point much good to address it in such a poor manner. edited: added arguments to first point |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
[ Posted by: nferyn
Insert Quote
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
To Nferyn,
Quote
Actually, all of mankind originated in Africa,
This is no where near the truth, the possibility that all mankind originated from Africa is only 1 to 1000 000, and it was in its self a fraud coined out to support the idea of evolution which is pure nonsensical and without an iota of credibility,
Ninetofive, you seem to be very good at making lots of assertions without any evidence to back them up. I can back up my claims with proper peer reviewed research data and will provide it whenever it is requested. Hope you can do the same, but I have my doubts. Let's look in detail at what you wrote:
1. All of mankind originated in Africa: this is nowhere near the truth.
The following lines of evidence point at a recent African origin of homo sapiens and this includes all so called races:
* fossil evidence and radiometric dating of the fossils
* studies of mitochondrial DNA and non-coding Y-chromosome DNA, using mutation rates and statistical analyses of variability to arrive at population divergences, differences and times of splits in lineages
* overall genetic variabilities within populations and across populations to arrive at inference of population sizes and bottleneck events
* traces of habitation, leading (together with radiometric dating methods) to inference of lifestyles of the populations, time of arrival and duration of habitation in specific regions
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
infact the idea of evolution is stupid and childish and was born out of the idea of white supremicy aiming at using pseudo science to colonize the mind of the people, in order to create an artificial demographic larder, is quite amazing that it worked perfectly.
Now that's odd. Evolution may very well be stupid and childish, but what version of evolution are you talking about? When discussing with people that are sceptical about evolution, it seems that many talk about very different things and that they regularly disagree among each other about what exactly they are rejecting: some think about cosmic evolution or include abiogenesis in their discussions about evolution. Some include macro evolution but not micro evolution (and many cannot even properly demarcate these two concepts) while others have doubts about the specific mechanism or source of evolution while at the same time accepting the overall evolutionary concepts. Which version of evolution exactly are you rejecting an for what reason? Please be precise so that your concerns can be properly addressed.
On the other hand, I know of no version of evolution that is borne out of the idea of white supremacy. It is clear that Darwinian thought has been abused by the pseudo-scientific reformers of social Darwinism and the idiots supporting eugenics. Ascribing all of this to the science of biological evolution is akin to comparing astrology to astronomy, because both make use of the position of the stars.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
Am fascinated by science and science inclined but some garbage peddled as science some times leaves me wondering if science is not that smart afterall or are some scientists intentionally out to mislead people [not far from the truth],
You really need to be more specific when you voice objections, because it's nearly impossible to understand what exactly you are objecting. Concerning your general idea thet some scientists intentionally mislead people, you are spot on. Science is a human activity and as such very much influenced by human emotions, concerns and prejudices. Luckily the scientific process weeds out (even if it can take some time in some cases) the rotten apples eventually. The scientific method, by it's very nature, is a self correcting process and we are lucky for that.
What I do see quite regularly though is that many social commentators tend to appropriate the scientific vocabulary and aura in order to give their opinions a higher level of credibility, but rarely do these people go through the motions and truly subject their opinions to scientific scrutiny.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
Nferyn, you said it some time ago that there was a need for people of European discent to walk about with clear conscience about all there crimes of the past knowing that we are all sort of different in a way, many areas were exploited in achieving this.
I have mentioned before on several occasions that the overall level of awareness of people of European descent concerning their horrible role in human history is far too low and that they in general have very little right to lecture other people and cultures, but I don't see exactly how this si relevant in this discussion. Can you explain?
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
Quote
but genetically Africans aren't any closer to e.g. Australian Aborigines than they are to e.g. Siberians or Europeans. Actually, in many case, the opposite is true.
there is nothing strange about this, cause human is human, what that changes more often is the phenotype due to the effect of the environment.
I don't really see your point here as I was talking about genotypical differences, not their phenotypical expression.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
It's interesting to know that the greatest human genetic diversity outside of Africa exists in the area around the north of India and Pakistan. All non African people find their origin there.
very interesting, but another account says that people of those areas are Aryan invaders from the northern hemisphere,
Those two findings don't contradict each other, as the aryans also find their origin in that region and later came back to the Indian subcontinent; What I wanted to point out is that there was a radiation from that area that peopled the whol of the non-African world. Some even came back to Africa
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
but is very interesting that the people from the southern part of India and the northern part has almost the same facial signature, even the Srilankans, with exception of the skin color, a glaring prove that shows the slight difference between the north and the south is just as a process of adaptation [ mutation], because of the apparent difference in the whether in the north and the south, making it very pellucid that the southern Indians and the northerners would have been from the same origin, a fact scientists would chose to ignore. if the Aryan Indians are from the northerm hemisphere, how did it happen that the Europeans at the same time originated from that area, quite contradictory.
Who said that the Europeans originated from that area at the same time?
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
Quote
@ Nferyn I am very much aware of the ideology that all humans originated from Africa, but I really doubt it is true.
as matter of fact is not true.
Please bring the evidence that refutes the well established scientific thesis that all of humanity has recent African origins.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
Quote
It's not ideology, but pretty well established science.
The RACE question was equally a very established science,
It never was well established science. the threshold of what currently is considered well established science has never even been approached by those 'scientic' racists.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
but now the same scientists are saying that race does not matter, infact that there is no race, how is that?
1. It's not the same scientists
2. Race doesn't matter only in very specific circumstances while in others it does. E.g. in the study of multi variable phenomena as intelligence, race can be excluded as relevant by fairly simple statistical analysis, while in other, phenomena with limited contributing factors (such as specific diseases), it can play a major role. It's important to note though that the sociological construct of race does not match the scientific concept of race (usually labelled population for PC reasons) and often times the two are very distinct indeed.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
, the same science called what is happening now Global warming and meant it, but later to down grade it to Climate Change while with holding or un aware of the fact that the earth whethere is only but swapping, a reason why the overall earth whethere has not changed a lot [the datas from the satelite proves this], while warm whether {in EUROPE} is experienced in some places and cooler whether {in Africa, south to central Africa for now to be precise} is experienced in some places parri pasu
You cannot fault scientists for a skewed representation of their science by the popular media, especially when there is a basis of truth in the overall perception. THe earth is undergoing a global warming (as represented in the average temperature increases globally when based on distributed points of measurement). This has nothing to do with downgrading global warming to climate change.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
Quote
The evidence is really conclusive as far as evidence goes. In science you'll never be able to prove anything for 100%, but 99.9% would do, wouldn't it.
My only advice is don't bet on it.
What data supports your advice?
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
Infact there is nothing like evolution, cause is not continuous and never took place, evolution is illusion, but people can only mutate as a result of long time effect of the whether, coursed by the action the body takes in protecting or adapting it self, but no matter the changes they would still remain human only with some few peculiar features,
I can show you exactly where, when, how and why your assertion is wrong on all counts, But I would appreciate it if you could first defien evolution unambiguously.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on May 18, 2007, 02:42 AM
and mutation is continuous, stroll down to the southern part of the US, you would see how the people of European discent there are fast changing, infact in the nearest future they would be the new red Indians, in 400 trillion years a monkey can never evolve into human, to believe it would happen is a flawed thought process. science in its self could use a little bit of evolution cause if scientific researches would be left only in the hands of the westerners, there is a possibility for biased people to filter through wrong scientific conclusion laced with heavy tounge in check rhetorics.
It's seems your writing here is the one that is heavily imbued with rhetoric. It's hard to write a more dense amalgamation of poorly understood facts and justifiable concerns. It doesn't do your overall sound (the disproportionate influence on westerners on the scientific enterprise) point much good to address it in such a poor manner.
Would come back to deal with this, busy tonight. |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
100% Right. Evolution is bull crap. It is all rhetoric and is based on pathetic assertions. Humans today are the same as Humans a 1000 years ago. We have the same Intellectual capacity. dblock, This is really getting tired. You keep on repeating the same nonsense and refuse to debate the specifics of your position. You still voice your skewed misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution, even after it has been shown to you that your caricature has little to do with the real TOE. Do you really think that you can find even one evolutionary biologist who would be surprised with the fact that humans are nearly the same today as they were 1000 years ago? Given the human generational span, this is exactly what is predicted by the TOE. In fact if it weren't the case, that would be a falsification of the TOE, because it would undermine the supporting science. What we have is a Race building on prior(Prerequisite) Knowledge and using that to alter the environment gradually. That is what humans are in one sentence, a race building on prior knowledge to change the environment. We don't evolve. Never have, never will.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, and, concerning your statement we don't evolve, never have, never will, what exactly do you define as evolve? It's rather difficult to critique an amorphous concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
@ dblock & ninetofive,
If you do not accept evolution as an explanatory mechanism in the variation in phenotypical expression among humans, would you then be so kind to explain how exactly the non-evolved human race is capable of having all those different phenotypes from a basically unmodified genotype. From you position, you can infer two possible explanations:
* either there are seperate unevolved subspecies among humans, each with a distinct range op possible phenotypical expressions (which would mean that the races were created separately)
* or there is one basic genotype that is capable of expressing all phenotypes. Of course, then you need to explain the mechanism by which that expression can lead to this variation and show how that expression does not lead to any deterioration in the potential of the genotype.
|
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
Phase I Ninetofive, you seem to be very good at making lots of assertions without any evidence to back them up. I can back up my claims with proper peer reviewed research data and will provide it whenever it is requested. Hope you can do the same, but I have my doubts.
The problem here is not with me but your never ending urge to want me to back my assertions up with the conventional well publicized views one is trying to counter, people are so fund of cut and paste, what about people that do researches on their own, I know what you mean by proper peer reviewed research and therein the problems lyes, I could as well accept every thing you are saying.
Let's look in detail at what you wrote:
1. All of mankind originated in Africa: this is nowhere near the truth.
This is because there are other people around the world other than Africans that possess almost the same phenotypical characteristics, but seems to have been analyzed with premeditated false historical account that evinced from the fact that the people of European discent believe that Africans are at the raw stage of humanity, and this qualifies every thing all these researchers are doing in context with the views scientist holds about African's as mere extrapolation and an old wine in a new bottle, while in the real sense is visible that the people of African discent tanned out while the people of European discent bleached out, and this lives a space for a middle ground. The Australian aborigines has gone through more mutation [process of change] than the people of European discent and the people of African discent, it would take only a very extremely smart person to know that from their phenotypical expresions, they have mutated from Negroid to blond Caucasian and they are now back to negroid .
For this to be understood there is a need to understand the distribution of ice ages around the planet earth, how it happens simultaneously, the swapping of the magnetic poles and the geographycal poles, [which has happened many times] and how it causes the outburst of radiation that causes mutation, ices ages has happened many times in different parts of the earth, ices ages comes in pairs [north and south], the poles are the ice ages, where ever it swaps to faces ice age, the people living in the current ice age that is about to swap includes the Chukchi of Russia [ Siberia ], please go and tell them they are not living in the ice age.
almost all the African ethnic groups migration account, and lingual distribution has always indicated a movement from North to the south and not south to the north, for example the Igbos believe they are Jews, the Yoruba's equally claims they are from Egypt, and the Benin's also, that you are quite aware of, the Hausa's and the Fulani's, is quite evident and concrete they were Arabs, and their language is equally close to Arabic, most of the language of the southern Nigeria has their source from Benue, and Benue is more north than is south, the south Africans migrated from south eastern Nigeria and there equally is their language source, you see is all the way north to the south, and this can not be ignored.
The following lines of evidence point at a recent African origin of homo sapiens and this includes all so called races:
* fossil evidence and radiometric dating of the fossils
Fossil evidences are not very conclusive and there is an element of some land not being able to retain fossils, is not like every land in the world has been dug up, tomorrow some fossils retrieved from some other part of the world could date far more earlier than that found in Africa, then what do we do, I would have said the whole thing is a guess work if not for the fact that most of these researchers has made up their minds before the researches and are trying to look for only evidences that marches what ever they believe, hence their obsession with Africa, who could blame them, they are influence by the Victorians era race racist rhetorics called research, don't tell me this has changed only in the scientific circle while the whole western views on African remains unchanged.
the rest would be dealt with. |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
Phase2
* studies of mitochondrial DNA and non-coding Y-chromosome DNA, using mutation rates and statistical analyses of variability to arrive at population divergences, differences and times of splits in lineages
The fact that researchers might not know that people mutate clock wise and anti clock depending on their environment and the wheather they were experiencing at that particular time which determines their phenotypical expresions is a big set back at getting at any conclusive result, people think more on shorter time basis and concentrate on things they could see hence a lot of emphasis on people who appear to look far appart in flash in the pan physical sense [ the Europeans and Africans], while the aborigines has mutated clock wise and anti clock wise, and if you check the 23 chromosomes from the begining is like man was much bigger and taller in the past, which unrealistic.
British filmmakers were working on a documentary in 1997 about the skeleton of a prehistoric man found in a cave in Cheddar Gorge in southwest Britain. Researchers at Oxford University were asked to conduct genetic tests to compare DNA from this Stone Age human with that of modern residents of the area. Cheek swabs for DNA samples were taken from one classroom of students and their teacher at the school in a community near where the skeleton was found. Incredibly, when testing was complete, they had found a familial match between the 9,000-year-old skeleton and the history teacher, Adrian Targett.1
Many papers misreported the connection, describing the prehistoric man as a direct ancestor to the modern day teacher. However, the tests compared mitochondrial DNA, which is passed to children from mothers, not fathers. Thus, what the test actually indicated was that the prehistoric man and the modern schoolteacher descended from the same female ancestor. In kinship terms, they are some degree of cousin approximately 315 times removed!, and what if they tested the mitochondrial DNA which is passed to children From father and it points to somebody in germany, then what happens, is all still about match, I've never doubted the fact that people are from the same ancestor, but to say that the ancestor of man lived in Africa is only a non authoritative probability.
[img][/img]
* overall genetic variabilities within populations and across populations to arrive at inference of population sizes and bottleneck events
you have to agree with me that researches are not evenly distributed, for example the genetic variations that exist in the area of northern India and Pakistan is equally available in the areas of Kavkaz in the former Soviet union [ Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Uzbekistan]
* traces of habitation, leading (together with radiometric dating methods) to inference of lifestyles of the populations, time of arrival and duration of habitation in specific regions
To get an accurate data here is impossible.
2. the possibility that all mankind originated from Africa is only 1 to 1000 000: what factors do you use to calculate these odds? I cannot see any possible way you arrive at that number excepts if you just make it up.
am sure this explains the above question:
This is because there are other people around the world other than Africans that possess almost the same phenotypical characteristics, but seems to have been analyzed with premeditated false historical account that evinced from the fact that the people of European discent believe that Africans are at the raw stage of humanity, and this qualifies every thing all these researchers are doing as mere extrapoation and an old wine in a new bottle, while in the real sense is visible that the people of African discent tanned out while the people of European discent bleached out, and this lives a space for a middle ground. The Australian aborigines has gone though more mutation [process of change] than the people of European discent and the people of African discent, it would take only a very extremely smart person to know that from their phenotypical expresions, they have mutated from Negroid to blond Caucasian and they are now back to negroid .
For this to be understood there is a need to understand the distribution of ice ages around the planet earth, how it happens simultaneously, the swapping of the magnetic poles and the geographycal poles, [which has happened many times] and how it causes the outburst of radiation that causes mutation, ices ages has happened many times in different parts of the earth, ices ages comes in pairs [north and south], the poles are the ice ages, where ever it swaps to faces ice age, the people living in the current ice age that is about to swap includes the Chukchi of Russia [ Siberia ], please go and tell them they are not living in the ice age.
almost all the African ethnic groups migration account, and lingual distribution has always indicated a movement from North to the south and not south to the north, for example the Igbos believe they are Jews, the Yoruba's equally claims they are from Egypt, and the Benin's also, that you are quite aware of, the Hausa's and the Fulani's, is quite evident and concrete they were Arabs, and their language is equally close to Arabic, most of the language of the southern Nigeria has their source from Benue, and Benue is more north than is south, the south Africans migrated from south eastern Nigeria and there equally is their language source, you see is all the way north to the south, and this can not be ignored.
3. it was in its self a fraud: why? What evidence do you have that there was an intentional attempt to misguide people?
Nferyn, unless you are just saying this for fun, you can't be serious, look at all the negative propaganda unleashed on Africa and Africans which race pseudo science was one of the greatest weapon used at the incipience of most of the stereotypes against African, I can accept your not knowing any of these things if you live in the outerspace
4. support the idea of evolution which is pure nonsensical and without an iota of credibility: why is evolution nonsensical and without a iota of credibility? Please answer the next question first, as it would be helpful to know we're both talking about the same thing
First of all the definition of evolution which is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form is in its self quite conniving and patronizing judging by the fact that Africans are relegated by scientists who are mostly infact all the time of European discent to the bottom of the larder of evolution, any wonder why White supremacist are intransgently using evolution to perpetually back and legitimize their actions.
Now that's odd. Evolution may very well be stupid and childish, but what version of evolution are you talking about?
You know it that when people think of evolution the main thing their mind goes to is macro evolution which is where the main problems lyes, particularly with the issue of addition of new traits or transition to a new species. , , for example the issue of how monkey evolved into man, which is impossible in 800 Zillion years, one could as well say that a rat evolved into a cow The rest would be dealt with. |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
Ninetofive, you seem to be very good at making lots of assertions without any evidence to back them up. I can back up my claims with proper peer reviewed research data and will provide it whenever it is requested. Hope you can do the same, but I have my doubts. The problem here is not with me but your never ending urge to want me to back my assertions up with the conventional well publicized views one is trying to counter, people are so fund of cut and paste, what about people that do researches on their own, I know what you mean by proper peer reviewed research and therein the problems lyes, I could as well accept every thing you are saying. You haven't shown much evidence of really doing your own research. You have a knack of amalgamating unrelated concepts and using them in an inappropriate context without being very explicit about their precise meaning. If that's doing one's research, feel free to call it that way. What you seem to be doing here, is discredit my arguments solely on the basis of them coming from established scientific research. You didn't even start addressing the arguments themselves. This kind of logical phalacy is called a negative appeal from misleading authority (it goes under many different names, but the concept remains the same) Now, under the assumption you have a case, I would kindly ask you to make an explicit argument with all necessary supporting data to make your case. It really doesn't need to come from 'reputable' sources, but it must be explicit and clear; it is rather difficult to examine a vague argument. Let's look in detail at what you wrote:
1. All of mankind originated in Africa: this is nowhere near the truth. This is because there are other people around the world other than Africans that possess almost the same phenotypical characteristics, but seems to have been analyzed with premeditated false historical account that evinced from the fact that the people of European discent believe that Africans are at the raw stage of humanity, and this qualifies every thing all these researchers are doing in context with the views scientist holds about African's as mere extrapolation and an old wine in a new bottle, while in the real sense is visible that the people of African discent tanned out while the people of European discent bleached out, and this lives a space for a middle ground. When I talk about an amalgamation of concepts in an inappropriate context, this is once more a prime example. 1. because other people around the world possess similar phenotypical characteristics, they don't originate in Africa? 2. characteristics have been analysed with a premeditated false historical account? What could that historical account be and where does that invalidate the recent African origin thesis for all humans? 3. People of European descent believe that Africans are at a raw stage of humanity? * Who exactly holds those beliefs? * What does that tell you about the overall beliefs of people of European descent (proportionally)? * How does that belief relate to the recent African origin thesis and how do you detect a causal relation? 3. and this qualifies every thing all these researchers are doing in context with the views scientist holds about African's as mere extrapolation and an old wine in a new bottle. How so? 4. while in the real sense is visible that the people of African discent tanned out while the people of European discent bleached out. What do you actually want to say with this.? I don't know what bleached out and tanned out mean. By the way, what is real sense and qualifies in what context exactly? 5. What do you mean by middle ground? Middle ground between what exactly?
The Australian aborigines has gone through more mutation [process of change] than the people of European discent and the people of African discent, Have they now? And you base that assertion on what data or research exactly? Please also be so kind to explain the concept of mutation as I have the vague impression that your understanding of mutation is different from mine.
it would take only a very extremely smart person to know that from their phenotypical expresions, they have mutated from Negroid to blond Caucasian and they are now back to negroid . 1. What evidence do you have forthe claim that those people 'mutated' from negroid to blond caucasoid and then back to negroid? 2. Who would make such claims based on phenotype? No scientist that I'm aware of.
For this to be understood there is a need to understand the distribution of ice ages around the planet earth, how it happens simultaneously, the swapping of the magnetic poles and the geographycal poles, [which has happened many times] and how it causes the outburst of radiation that causes mutation, ices ages has happened many times in different parts of the earth, ices ages comes in pairs [north and south], the poles are the ice ages, where ever it swaps to faces ice age, the people living in the current ice age that is about to swap includes the Chukchi of Russia [ Siberia ], please go and tell them they are not living in the ice age. I really don't see what this has to do with anything? Are you saying that mutation is mainly caused by magnetic pole reversals? Are mutation rates higher during these events? Is only radiation causing mutation? Is only mutation responsible for changes in phenotypical expression? Are we currently living in an ice age and what brings you to that conclusion? This is more like a disconnected stream of consciousness than a coherent scientific hypothesis. almost all the African ethnic groups migration account, and lingual distribution has always indicated a movement from North to the south and not south to the north, for example the Igbos believe they are Jews, the Yoruba's equally claims they are from Egypt, and the Benin's also, 1. the historicity of the origin accounts and related cosmologies of the Nigerian peoples is in no way established as an accurate historical account. What historiography has shown is that ther was a distinct cultural influence coming from Egypt, Nubia and the Sahelian civilisations (which were, according to some data, even predating Egyptian civilisation). There is no evidence though of large scale migrations. A History of African Societies to 1870 by Elizabeth Isichei gives a very good introduction on these continent wide patterns in prehistory. 2. The migratory pattern of African peoples you're referring to is most likely the Bantu expansion. This expansion started with the rise of tropical agriculture and was indeed directed to the south from the Bantu homeland 3. Yet both elements have absolutely nothing to do with the human migration out of Africa that started several tens of thousands years before the onset of agriculture.
that you are quite aware of, the Hausa's and the Fulani's, is quite evident and concrete they were Arabs, and their language is equally close to Arabic, most of the language of the southern Nigeria has their source from Benue, and Benue is more north than is south, the south Africans migrated from south eastern Nigeria and there equally is their language source, you see is all the way north to the south, and this can not be ignored. And it shouldn't be, but it has nothing to do with the migration of homo sapiens out of Africa. These two things are unrelated. The following lines of evidence point at a recent African origin of homo sapiens and this includes all so called races:
* fossil evidence and radiometric dating of the fossils Fossil evidences are not very conclusive and there is an element of some land not being able to retain fossils, is not like every land in the world has been dug up, tomorrow some fossils retrieved from some other part of the world could date far more earlier than that found in Africa, then what do we do, Fact is that not a single fossil has been found that goes against the out Africa thesis and that all fossils that have been found do support it. You're using a hypothetical scenario that is in itself very unlikely to discredit concrete evidence.
I would have said the whole thing is a guess work if not for the fact that most of these researchers has made up their minds before the researches and are trying to look for only evidences that marches what ever they believe, Tell me exactly who you are talking about and what makes you come to that conclusion. As it stands, this is nothing more than innuendo.
hence their obsession with Africa, who could blame them, Conclusion from unevidenced premisses.
they are influence by the Victorians era race racist rhetorics called research, How so? Be precise. How is current population genetics research influenced by Victorian racist "science"?
don't tell me this has changed only in the scientific circle while the whole western views on African remains unchanged.
Obviously you have an insight in the mind of the whole western world and there cannot be any divergences in opinions among westerners and it is quite clear that the thought processes in scientific circles exactly mimick those of the general population. Or are you claiming something else? |
|
|
|
|
|
naijaway (m)
|
this is a good development and sorta waste of talents am really impressed at the level of analysis, intrest, and knowledge. Men 9to5 and nferyn, u guys are the best archelogist, biologist, and scientologist in the making. I will be impressed to know that u guys are Nigerians. Come to the Centre for science and technology in Abuja and Enugu to pratice and do research anytime u'r in Nigeria and I believe that u guys will be grabbed. Also help naija document some form of DNA for referals and verification purposes. So that we would really have an insight to our history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sista (f)
|
@Najaway
925 is Nigerian and Nferyn is white or European which ever he prefers.
@Topic
There is some clues in Egyptian mythology that they were cloning and gene grafting. I am inclined to believe that the first humans did come from Africa because 75% of the world is black or brown while only 25% is White or Pink. From African to Asia and Australia, one can see black people who display the worlds know facial types while white people don't have anything the black and brown people didn't already originally have. It is my believe that white people were grafted from the already existing black people, they were some kind of experiment. It is no different than white scientist playing God by artificially inseminating, test babies, Cloning etc. White people are the most interested in those kinds of things, could it be because they are the result of such things?
@925
Why do we tend to forget about the African albinos who happen to be a genetic defect? They come out white or yellow with yellow or Blondie hair, they are not the result of climate or a change in the environment. African Albinos are Gods proof that all colors, shades and textures come from black people/African people. White people can not produce a black off spring nor can they produce a brown off spring.
Africans laid the foundation but something went wrong and now Africans suffer, why is this? History shows that people came into Africa to get their learning. African people as well as their land are the contributors, always has been. This is why Africa suffers and people refer to Africa as the mother land. The mother gives, to her children, she doesn't take. Through out history, people take from Africa like a baby feeding off of it's mother nutrients. What happens if the mother has no time to recuperate before she has another child? She can become anemic loose her teeth and look tired although she is not.
Could all of the exploiting of Africa be due to the fact that the possibility is, they always know they can count on Africa? They, meaning non black people. Subconsciously, do they know that if not for Africa, it would not be a them? Look at all the places around the world where black people live, they don't do anything but suffer at the hands of non black people and their exploitation towards them.
My point is, I do not believe that African people gave birth to white babies but i do believe that white people are the result of some ancient African scientist, most likely from North Africa. That ancient African played around with manipulating already existing gens coming from African people and white people are the result.
I might add that even in certain parts of Asia, the white skinned Asians, they exploit and degrade the brown skin Asians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
folem
|
This is a picture of an albino child among the Kuna Indians of Panama. |
|
|
|
|
|
stranger12
|
@ sista There is some clues in Egyptian mythology that they were cloning and gene grafting. I am inclined to believe that the first humans did come from Africa because 75% of the world is black or brown while only 25% is White or Pink. From African to Asia and Australia, one can see black people who display the worlds know facial types while white people don't have anything the black and brown people didn't already originally have. It is my believe that white people were grafted from the already existing black people, they were some kind of experiment. It is no different than white scientist playing God by artificially inseminating, test babies, Cloning etc. White people are the most interested in those kinds of things, could it be because they are the result of such things?
LOL, you can't be serious. artificial insermination perhaps, but cloning? I really doubt that. and where did you get your statistics regarding 25% of the global population being white? To an african, a chinese man might be regarded as "white". @ folem I think the link for the albino is here http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1055322077033121848lKKBKP |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
* studies of mitochondrial DNA and non-coding Y-chromosome DNA, using mutation rates and statistical analyses of variability to arrive at population divergences, differences and times of splits in lineages The fact that researchers might not know that people mutate clock wise and anti clock I have no idea what mutating clock wise means. Can you explain? depending on their environment and the wheather they were experiencing at that particular time which determines their phenotypical expresions is a big set back at getting at any conclusive result, people think more on shorter time basis and concentrate on things they could see hence a lot of emphasis on people who appear to look far appart in flash in the pan physical sense [ the Europeans and Africans], while the aborigines has mutated clock wise and anti clock wise, and if you check the 23 chromosomes from the begining is like man was much bigger and taller in the past, which unrealistic. How exactly do you arrive at all this? Can you expand and explain your basic concepts (such as clock wise mutation) and the reasoning that leads to the conclusions you draw from those concepts (man was much bigger and taller in the past), because I really have trouble following your reasoning. British filmmakers were working on a documentary in 1997 about the skeleton of a prehistoric man found in a cave in Cheddar Gorge in southwest Britain. Researchers at Oxford University were asked to conduct genetic tests to compare DNA from this Stone Age human with that of modern residents of the area. Cheek swabs for DNA samples were taken from one classroom of students and their teacher at the school in a community near where the skeleton was found. Incredibly, when testing was complete, they had found a familial match between the 9,000-year-old skeleton and the history teacher, Adrian Targett.1 That's not unexpected. You just need to do the math over those generations involved. When looking at these kind of large numbers, you arrive at results that are counter intuitive. You know you have several molecules of water that were once part of Julius Caesar's body in your body right now, don't you? Many papers misreported the connection, describing the prehistoric man as a direct ancestor to the modern day teacher. However, the tests compared mitochondrial DNA, which is passed to children from mothers, not fathers. Thus, what the test actually indicated was that the prehistoric man and the modern schoolteacher descended from the same female ancestor. In kinship terms, they are some degree of cousin approximately 315 times removed!, They indeed share a common ancestor and through the application the principle of a constant rate of mutation, they arrive at relatively precise estimates at to when exactly that common ancestor lived. It's even possible to determine whether or not the teacher was a direct descendent of the owner of that skeleton. The fact that many papers (I guess you mean newspapers by that) misreport the findings does by itself tell us | | |
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
k-male.gif (30.74 KB, 480x280 )