^^^^^^^^^^^^^[size=25pt]ALIENSSS[/size]^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Based on Human Evolution, human beings are growing bigger stronger faster, taller and more athletic then we were hundreds, and thousands of years ago...

You take a look at the Average Heights of Humans. from lets say...even 80 years ago...you will see progression.

So based on this ^...it would seem backwards to assume East Asians some how came from Black Africans...

Why would we evolve and become smaller....If history and science shows us..man is continuing to grow bigger

There are many holes in the "Everyone is from Africa" Theory.....

Be careful when you are told you are "the original"...the "first man"....the "first human"...

It's a BackHanded Compliment...that supports Racial Superiority by "Lack of Evolution".

Be careful when you preach what you believe is black pride...when in truth it is scientific fallacy.

Evolution Goes Fowards Not Backwards....

Once again though, nobody knows for certain..this is all theory.

Adam was a federal head of the human race. May be God actually made people from different clay at the beginning you never can tell.

.

Why is this still being argued?? The first 'race' would have been people who would have looked like people who we call today black. But one thing we cant deny is that they carried African admixture and African Haplogroup L3.

Here is a reconstruction of the Qafzeh 9, which were the OLDEST remains found in Israel 125,000 years ago. Their population is considered a 'dead end' because they were unable to spread any further when the great desertification occurred about 90,000 years ago due to the Ice Age climate. The modern non-Africans of today are said to descend from a later emigration from Africa that occurred 90-85 thousand years ago.



So by that yes...The Earliest humans were black. The earliest humans certainly were not white, because:
The people who built Stonehenge 5000 years ago probably had the same pallid complexion of many modern inhabitants of the UK. Now it seems that the humans occupying Britain and mainland Europe only lost the darker skins of their African ancestors perhaps just 6000 years earlier, long after Neanderthals had died out. The finding confirms that modern Europeans didn't gain their pale skin from Neanderthals – adding to evidence suggesting that European Homo sapiens and Neanderthals generally kept their relationships strictly platonic.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-europeans-did-not-inherit-pale-skins-from-neanderthals.html#.UqZCsPRDsZ0

ezeagu: If you follow race, then Africans are not of one race. Yes, even the dark ones. The out of Africa theory suggests that everyone, including West Africans, descend from the San or "Capoid" people, these people:

Wrong...The San people were not the early people and West Africans and other Africans do NOT descend from them. They just carry some of the oldest clades like Y-DNA haplogroup A in high frequencies. But even so there are other Africans that carry much other clades. San/Khoisans just share a common ancestor with other Africans. But the earliest Africans lived in East Africa and were not San/Khoisan.

The early Africans most likely did not look like modern Khoisans, because they didnt live in dry heated/Arid climates like Khoisans but humid where darker skin is needed.

PhysicsQED:


They didn't. Modern black Africans didn't exist many tens of thousands of years ago.

Actually they did...Based off of physical remains/genetic remains.

KidStranglehold:

Actually they did...Based off of physical remains/genetic remains.

Could you explain what you're saying here? The "the Qafzeh 9" fossils you referenced above are definitely not the same as modern Africans' skeletons, so that's obviously not what you're referring to. So could you refer to the fossils from "many tens of thousands of years ago" that are the same as those of modern black Africans and enlighten me?

PhysicsQED:

Could you explain what you're saying here? The "the Qafzeh 9" fossils you referenced above are definitely not the same as modern Africans' skeletons, so that's obviously not what you're referring to. So could you refer to the fossils from "many tens of thousands of years ago" that are the same as those of modern black Africans and enlighten me?

Where the heck did I state the Qafzeh remains were exactly the same as modern day Africans?? I said the earliest humans would have looked like what we call black. Also Africans are extremely diverse and come in different shapes, i.e there are elongated Africans, while there are non elongated Africans. Those reconstructions obviously look what you would call black..Not only that the early humans carried many Ancient African lineages which is still found in African populations and is rarely if ever found outside of Africa. One example being haplogroup Y-DNA 'A' which is the oldest Y-DNA so far and is exclusive to African populations such as Khoisans, Dinkas, Ethiopians, Nama, Tupuri,etc. Also an African American man was said to carry a very old sub clade of Haplogroup A.

But back to the early humans. Again I am talking about the early MODERN humans(Homo Sapiens) and not archaic Humans. The early humans would have obviously looked like what we call black, due to the environment they lived in.

Then you have this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzAsXRq0XcQ

I think you should try and understand what I'm saying next time so there's no confusion. If you're confused about something I wrote, you could ask what I meant next time. I didn't say that you said the Qafzeh 9 were the same as modern day Africans. In fact, I stated that I knew that that couldn't be what you were referring to (as a relevant piece of evidence against what I stated) when you were disagreeing with me. So I asked for a reference to some actual fossil evidence you were aware of that made you think my original comment was incorrect.

But then you replied with stuff like this, showing that you didn't even understand what I was saying in my original post that you quoted:

KidStranglehold:

Where the heck did I state the Qafzeh remains were exactly the same as modern day Africans?? I said the earliest humans would have looked like what we call black.

The early humans would have obviously looked like what we call black, due to the environment they lived in.

My post was completely unambiguous, but you misinterpreted it to make an irrelevant statement. There was nothing in that quote from me about "what the early humans would have looked like." It's about what those people were many tens of thousands ago. They were not modern black Africans - unless you have some actual fossil and genetic evidence otherwise.

My post was not about whether there were some people who might have "looked like" some modern people today that are called black. My post was about there not being modern black Africans many tens of thousands of years ago.

Nice try, but I never even mentioned modern African. I said they would have looked like what we call black and those reconstructions obviously do look black in phenotype, unless one does not have good eye sight. I'm correlating black with phenotype negroid, since the term black is often a very loose term.

Who said I was even correcting anyone? And no I am not confused. No one is playing semantics. All my post was about, was that the early humans(homo sapiens) looked like what we would call black. I obviously KNOW, modern day Africans didn't exist that many years ago since they clades they carry(i.e E1B1A) didn't even arose yet. And I always stated on hear that the ancestors of modern day West Africans never lived in West Africa. I also stated that San/Khoisan people were not the early humans, but do carry some of the oldest clades. But that is why I brought up Y-DNA 'A', because that one of the oldest Y-DNA found so far and is STILL found in many African groups and not non Africans. So yeah genetically speaking modern day Africans are more closely related to those early Africans and the early humans(homo sapiens) did look like what we call black.

West Africans carry E1B1A in high freqencies, but that does not mean West Africans were the same as those original E1B1A carries who orginated from East Africa(where E1B1A originated in the first place).

Another thing one should note is that L3 mtDNA(which is associated with the Out of Africa) is actually highest in West Africa than anywhere else on the planet according to this study.

Mitochondrial DNA/mtDNA (page 5)
http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Modern day Africans are obviously descendants of those early Africans than anyone else.
[img]http://forwhattheywereweare.files./2012/01/fig-3.png[/img]

Which is also why Africans are the most diverse humans.

If the early Africans were not closely related to modern day Africans, then modern Africans wouldn't carry clades like Haplogroup A, B, L3 not only in high frequencies but exclusively in Africa.

Kidstranglehold,

Obviously at least one of us is having a difficulty with interpretation here (or maybe both of us). I'll keep it simple because I don't want to drag this out. It seems like some very trivial disagreement over something vague is occurring and I wouldn't want to stretch such a potentially tedious discussion out just to seem "right" or come across as besting someone (this isn't a competition, just a disagreement of some sort).

My post that you quoted was about whether there were or were not modern Africans many tens of thousands of years ago - that is very clear in my post and I don't see how anyone could not get that.

You, however, disagreed with the content of my post. But now you're saying that your comment somehow wasn't about "modern Africans" because you "never even mentioned modern African." If it wasn't, then why were you disagreeing with me, and what relevance could anything you're saying have to my post?

I didn't comment on what they "looked like" and don't see what the significance of that is in the context of my statement to Royal. I think it's beyond obvious that ancestral populations of modern humans had a significant physical resemblance to modern humans, so that issue doesn't even merit debate, and I don't recall that anybody in this thread disputed that idea.

Could you state, simply and clearly what it is that you disagree with about my original comment? And please avoid the word "looked like" or any variations of that phrase in your response (since that's not relevant to what I originally wrote). Thanks.

KidStranglehold: If the early Africans were not closely related to modern day Africans, then modern Africans wouldn't carry clades like Haplogroup A, B, L3 not only in high frequencies but exclusively in Africa.

So, could you explain to me where you got the idea that I suggested that "early Africans were not closely related to modern day Africans"?

I sometimes misstate or incorrectly type some things I write, so I may have written something incorrectly unintentionally. If I stated something that made you think I believe that "early Africans were not closely related to modern day Africans," then point it out to me and I will correct my mistake.

^^^^
To the ignorance on display in this thread.
@kidstranglehold thank you for beating back the ignorance I have not the patience...and the spam bot rides me for every 3rd post I make


@PhysicsQED I don't think you're making a fair call. If you're not talking about looks you indeed made a rather ambiguous statement.

Could you explain what you're saying here? The "the Qafzeh 9" fossils you referenced above are definitely not the same as modern Africans' skeletons , so that's obviously not what you're referring to. So could you refer to the fossils from "many tens of thousands of years ago" that are the same as those of modern black Africans and enlighten me?

Now if your not referencing morphology I.E what they look like
What are you referencing there weight

Morphology
[s]linguistics : the study and description of how words are formed in language[/s]

biology : the study of the form and structure of animals and plants

: the form and structure of a plant or animal or any of its parts

RandomAfricanAm:
@PhysicsQED I don't think you're making a fair call. If you're not talking about looks you indeed made a rather ambiguous statement.


Now if your not referencing morphology I.E what they look like
What are you referencing there weight

I am referencing morphology (skeletal morphology). What is ambiguous about my statement?

Kidstranglehold disagreed with my statement about "modern black Africans." Therefore, I inferred that he is aware of evidence (such as morphological evidence from a skeleton) contradicting my statement and asked him to provide it. The inference may have been wrong on my part or he may have misinterpreted my post and actually agrees with me completely (which one of his most recent posts makes me think is the case).

BTW @PhysicsQED I don't see anything wrong wit your line of questioning(not that it's my place to ok conversations) I'm talking about the rest of this thread.

You two just seem to have a case of miscommunication going on but the rest of this thread is .....................

PhysicsQED: Kidstranglehold,

Obviously at least one of us is having a difficulty with interpretation here (or maybe both of us). I'll keep it simple because I don't want to drag this out. It seems like some very trivial disagreement over something vague is occurring and I wouldn't want to stretch such a potentially tedious discussion out just to seem "right" or come across as besting someone (this isn't a competition, just a disagreement of some sort).

Maybe it is the both of us.

PhysicsQED:
My post that you quoted was about whether there were or were not modern Africans many tens of thousands of years ago - that is very clear in my post and I don't see how anyone could not get that.

Yeah and I stated this. Because(again) I never mentioned modern day Africans.

I also stated that San/Khoisan people were not the early humans, but do carry some of the oldest clades. But that is why I brought up Y-DNA 'A', because that one of the oldest Y-DNA found so far and is STILL found in many African groups and not non Africans. So yeah genetically speaking modern day Africans are more closely related to those early Africans and the early humans(homo sapiens) did look like what we call black.

West Africans carry E1B1A in high freqencies, but that does not mean West Africans were the same as those original E1B1A carries who orginated from East Africa(where E1B1A originated in the first place).

In a nut shall, I'm basically only stating that modern day Africans are the OLDEST people on Earth since they obviously carry the OLDEST clades.

My argument was only that the early humans(homo sapiens) looked like what we call black and that modern Africans are their closest descendants.

PhysicsQED:
You, however, disagreed with the content of my post. But now you're saying that your comment somehow wasn't about "modern Africans" because you "never even mentioned modern African." If it wasn't, then why were you disagreeing with me, and what relevance could anything you're saying have to my post?

No...I am disagreeing, because I assume you are implying that I am saying that modern day Africans are exactly the same as the early humans. When I said no such thing. I only said the early humans would have looked black due to environmental adaptation and anthropologist agrees with that. And also since the gene for lighter skin arose much later.

PhysicsQED:
I didn't comment on what they "looked like" and don't see what the significance of that is in the context of my statement to Royal. I think it's beyond obvious that ancestral populations of modern humans had a significant physical resemblance to modern humans, so that issue doesn't even merit debate, and I don't recall that anybody in this thread disputed that idea.

So what were you trying to imply?? Because myp post were strictly only about the physical characteristics of those early humans(homo sapiens) and that they would have looked like what we call black.

PhysicsQED:
Could you state, simply and clearly what it is that you disagree with about my original comment? And please avoid the word "looked like" or any variations of that phrase in your response (since that's not relevant to what I originally wrote). Thanks.

I already did.

See my second post^^

PhysicsQED:

So, could you explain to me where you got the idea that I suggested that "early Africans were not closely related to modern day Africans"?

I sometimes misstate or incorrectly type some things I write, so I may have written something incorrectly unintentionally. If I stated something that made you think I believe that "early Africans were not closely related to modern day Africans," then point it out to me and I will correct my mistake.

That wasn't for you. That was a general statement.

@RandomAfricanAm

You welcome.

Kidstranglehold: My argument was only that the early humans(homo sapiens) looked like what we call black and that modern Africans are their closest descendants.

And, you do realize that isn't relevant to what I originally wrote? Or what are you disagreeing with?

In a nut shall, I'm basically only stating that modern day Africans are the OLDEST people on Earth since they obviously carry the OLDEST clades.

So, if new clades suddenly emerge among a group of modern day Africans in, say central Africa, would that suddenly make such a group go from being one of the "oldest" people on Earth to being one of the "youngest" people on Earth?

Perhaps it might be appropriate just to say that non-Africans who lack those oldest clades just lack those oldest clades.

No...I am disagreeing, because I assume you are implying that I am saying that modern day Africans are exactly the same as the early humans. When I said no such thing. I only said the early humans would have looked black due to environmental adaptation and anthropologist agrees with that. And also since the gene for lighter skin arose much later.

You used the phrase "looked black" again. You do realize that my original comment was not about skin color, right? Is that what this is all about?

So what were you trying to imply?? Because myp post were strictly only about the physical characteristics of those early humans(homo sapiens) and that they would have looked like what we call black.

And my post was not about what they would have "looked like." It was about what they were - do you get the difference? I don't think your comment had any relevance to my original comment, and I think you just misinterpreted me.

KidStranglehold:

That wasn't for you. That was a general statement.

Ok, got it.

PhysicsQED:

I am referencing morphology (skeletal morphology). What is ambiguous about my statement?

Kidstranglehold disagreed with my statement about "modern black Africans." Therefore, I inferred that he is aware of evidence (such as morphological evidence from a skeleton) contradicting my statement and asked him to provide it. The inference may have been wrong on my part or he may have misinterpreted my post and actually agrees with me completely (which one of his most recent posts makes me think is the case).

KidStranglehold:

So what were you trying to imply?? Because my post were strictly only about the physical characteristics of those early humans(homo sapiens) and that they would have looked like what we call black.

So someone tell me again how we are not talking about looks ...but are talking about looks?

RandomAfricanAm: BTW @PhysicsQED I don't see anything wrong wit your line of questioning(not that it's my place to ok conversations) I'm talking about the rest of this thread.

You two just seem to have a case of miscommunication going on but the rest of this thread is.....................

RandomAfricanAm:
So someone tell me again how we are not talking about looks ...but are talking about looks?

RandomAfricanAm, the point of my post is that modern black Africans are not the same (in terms of skeletal morphology, for example) as humans from many tens of thousands of years ago - unless someone has evidence to the contrary. If/when I see such evidence to the contrary, then I'll retract my earlier statements. The issue of whether they "would have looked like what we call black" is not the point of my post. The issue is whether they were actually the same. I believe that Kidstranglehold agrees with me that they were not the same, so his disagreement with my original comment that he quoted was a bit surprising, but it could be explained if it turns out that my original statement was just misinterpreted.

PhysicsQED:

And, you do realize that isn't relevant to what I originally wrote? Or what are you disagreeing with?

No that was what my post was SOLELY about, so I do not get what you were trying to imply. Again I already told you what I disagreed with.

PhysicsQED:
So, if new clades somehow suddenly emerge among a group of modern day Africans in, say central Africa, would that suddenly make such a group go from being one of the "oldest" people on Earth to being one of the "youngest" people on Earth?

Perhaps it might be appropriate just to say that non-Africans who lack those oldest clades just lack those oldest clades.

No it doesn't work like that. NO non African carry those clades. Africans are not one monolithic group, but what I said is that modern day Africans as a whole are the oldest people. Clades just dont form, mutations happen and even so that clade is still descendant of that larger clade. For instance. Male Africans carry sub clades of Haplogroup E. Some subclades are younger than one another, but those sub clades are still direct descendants of that major E haplogroup which arose in Africa, so that wouldnt just make an African group the youngest group just like that. Sorry if I am wording everything incorrectly.

PhysicsQED:
You used the phrase "looked black" again. You do realize that my original comment was not about skin color, right? Is that what this is all about?

What?? Who said I was just speaking about skin color?? I said I was correlating black with negroid(not genetically like almost everyone does but physically) since black is a loose term.

PhysicsQED:
And my post was not about what they would have "looked like." It was about what they were - do you get the difference? I don't think your comment had any relevance to my original comment, and I think you just misinterpreted me.

Yes. And I repeatedly told you a million times that they were NOT the same as modern day Africans because MOST of the lineages associated with modern day Africans did not arose yet...

I think you misinterpreted me.

PhysicsQED:

RandomAfricanAm, the point of my post is that modern black Africans are not the same (in terms of skeletal morphology, for example) as humans from many tens of thousands of years ago - unless someone has evidence to the contrary. If/when I see such evidence to the contrary, then I'll retract my earlier statements. The issue of whether they "would have looked like what we call black" is not the point of my post. The issue is whether they were actually the same. I believe that Kidstranglehold agrees with me that they were not the same, so his disagreement with my original comment that he quoted was a bit surprising, but it could be explained if it turns out that my original statement was just misinterpreted.

Much better! Now that is a much more coherent statement.

Questions:
1. In what way(s) are you suggesting that "modern black Africans are not the same (in terms of skeletal morphology, for example) as humans from many tens of thousands of years ago"?

delineators
a. Erect posture
b. Skull morphology
c. Limb ratio
d. Height
e. Other

2. Are you saying that Qafzeh 9 fits the above limitations?

3. Are you saying that the humans we are referring to do not fit into what is commonly referred to as "modern man"?

4. If such early people are deemed modern man, What use are such limitations when Modern Africans have no uniform skeletal morphology short of a tropical adapted morphology?

KidStranglehold:

Yes. And I repeatedly told you a million times that they were NOT the same as modern day Africans because MOST of the lineages associated with modern day Africans did not arose yet...

I think you misinterpreted me.

Bingo!! Now that I like

PhysicsQED:

RandomAfricanAm, the point of my post is that modern black Africans are not the same (in terms of skeletal morphology, for example) as humans from many tens of thousands of years ago - unless someone has evidence to the contrary. If/when I see such evidence to the contrary, then I'll retract my earlier statements. The issue of whether they "would have looked like what we call black" is not the point of my post. The issue is whether they were actually the same. I believe that Kidstranglehold agrees with me that they were not the same, so his disagreement with my original comment that he quoted was a bit surprising, but it could be explained if it turns out that my original statement was just misinterpreted.

I hope you know Africans are morphology diverse, so you have to be specific.


“Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan
Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation consistent with
many genetic studies.“
[-- Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in
Craniometric Diversity .” Hum Bio v73, n5, -629-636])




"Africa today has the greatest internal genetic variation of any inhabited
continent and its skull shapes show the highest variation. This is usually
attributed to its greater size, larger ancient populations and deepest
timelines for humanity."
----Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only
human on earth p260

"Prehistoric human crania from
Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia
Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities
in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are
reassessed using measurements and a
multivariate statistical approach.
Materials available for comparison
include series of Bushman and Hottentot
crania. South and East African Negroes,
and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial
measurements taken on these series are
utilized to construct three multiple
discriminant frameworks, each of which
can assign modern individuals to a
correct group with considerable
accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are
classified with the help of these
discriminants, results indicate that several
of the skulls are best grouped with
modern Negroes. This is especially clear
in the case of individuals from
Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and
Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests
post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift
and surrounding territory by
"Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been
claimed. Recent linguistic and
archaeological findings are also
reviewed, and these seem to support
application of the term Nilotic Negro to
the early Rift populations." (Rightmire
GP. New studies of post-Pleistocene
human skeletal remains from the Rift
Valley, Kenya. Am J Phys Anthropol.
1975 May;42(3):351-69. )

If you're talking about tropically adapted then the early humans would have resembled modern Africans a bit since the early humans like modern day Africans lived in the tropics...

IGBO Pre-construction of Lil-waynes skull morphology/facial characteristics


Since we are talking about morphology and all ...I thought I'd lighten the mood

KidStranglehold:
No that was what my post was SOLELY about, so I do not get what you were trying to imply. Again I already told you what I disagreed with.

So, you do understand that whether those people from many tens of thousands of years ago "looked like what we call black" is not relevant to my original comment? I still don't know why you brought that up to explain why you disagreed with my original comment.

No it doesn't work like that. NO non African carry those clades.

Did I say that any non-Africans carry those clades?

Africans are not one monolithic group, but what I said is that modern day Africans as a whole are the oldest people.

And you're using "oldest people" here to mean what exactly? I'm sorry but this sounds like mere semantics. It seems like what you really want to say is "have the oldest clades", but for some reason keep saying "oldest people."

Clades just dont form, mutations happen and even so that clade is still descendant of that larger clade.

lol, yes clades don't just "form", so where did the first clades come from? But anyway, imagine that a new one emerged among a population - does that make that group suddenly a "younger people" than another group even though they share the same ultimate ancestry and origin with that other group? I'm not getting this "older people" stuff, and I'd appreciate it if you could state what you mean by it clearly.

I don't get how non-Africans are "less old" so please break it down to me.

What?? Who said I was just speaking about skin color?? I said I was correlating black with negroid(not genetically like almost everyone does but physically) since black is a loose term.

You brought up skin color, but my point is that it has no relevance whatsoever to my original comment. I don't know why you even brought it up. As far as being "negroid" physically, I would avoid that term unless you can define it exactly and precisely and show how peoples from many tens of thousands of years ago would have been "negroid" physically (since you're apparently not talking about skin color).

Yes. And I repeatedly told you a million times that they were NOT the same as modern day Africans because MOST of the lineages associated with modern day Africans did not arose yet...

lol, how could you have been telling me a "million times" that they were not the same as modern day Africans, when that was the very point of my initial comment, which for some reason you said was wrong but now are saying you've been telling me over and over again

I think you misinterpreted me.

lol, I think I understood you just fine. I don't think you've been understanding what I've been saying.