plaetton:

Again, there is absolutely no dispute, no ambiguity that the first human species were Negroid.

In addition, we have scientific DNA evidence of the first human female (Mitocondrial EVE) as having emerge from along the Tanzania Area.
There human settlements in the areas of Zimbabwe that date back as far as more than 35,000yrs. There are ancient gold mines in South Africa that date back to approximately 27,000yrs ago.
This is the problem with those who deny the theory of evolution, because if you understood it, then you would know that only Negroid skin with Negroid features could biologically evolve from Africa from Africa.

Don't get it twisted. The issue here is RACE not geographical origin. Life originated in Africa is not equal to our progenitors being negroid. The theory of evolution does not teach that the progenitors of mankind were negroid. If I am mistaken please post here a link to that specific information.

Fulaman198:

Well said, the video that i linked earlier created by a brilliant non-racist white man speaks of this too.

What is the geneticist's name I can't watch the video.

LordReed:

Don't get it twisted. The issue here is RACE not geographical origin. Life originated in Africa is not equal to our progenitors being negroid. The theory of evolution does not teach that the progenitors of mankind were negroid. If I am mistaken please post here a link to that specific information.

I wish you would watch the video I linked earlier, then you would understand that what you are saying is completely incorrect.

DNA samples were taking from all over the world, and it was found that people who tend to be darker (parts of the Arab World, India, and the Melanisians in the pacific islands like Papua New Guinea or the Aborigine peoples) are older than people who have less amounts of melanin. Africans obviously had the oldest DNA. I don't know why some Africans deny the obvious.

Fulaman198:

Well said, the video that i linked earlier created by a brilliant non-racist white man speaks of this too.

what is your take of a God? or how do you defined your God.

Are we humans not God? We created the things found on the earth. Build the earth properly. Control the earth, control the things found on the earth, build jet and houses, build weapons and electronic devices.

we can destroy the earth if we want to.

Are we not God?

LordReed:

What is the geneticist's name I can't watch the video.

Spencer Wells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Wells

Was there any adam and eve self? mtcheww

Joel3: what is your take of a God? or how do you defined your God.

Are we humans not God? We created the things found on the earth. Build the earth properly. Control the earth, control the things found on the earth, build jet and houses, build weapons and electronic devices.

we can destroy the earth if we want to.

Are we not God?

Interesting questions throughout.

I believe that God exists, but this will offend Muslims (which I don't care). I don't really associate myself with any religion so to say (yes I was born a Muslim).

I see human beings as the greatest creation of God, they are able to adapt, create and form things that no other animals/species can create. As generations pass by, newer and newer technological and scientific innovations come into play. It is amazing how human beings instead of remaining static are a very dynamic people. Lions have always been the same since the beginning of time, Human beings have continued to evolve. All creatures except humans have remained the same since their inception. That is why I consider us the greatest creation of God.

We are not Gods because we are not immortal, we can be physically injured by just about any animal in existence (if we do not have weapons). We are prone to disease (some of which do not have vaccines yet). I could go on and on. Human beings are amazing creatures, but we are definitely not God.

diamondpaul: Was there any adam and eve self? mtcheww

Another excellent question

Fulaman198:

You are comparing Apples and oranges.

You mentioned Cats, A Lion for example can not breed or produce with a common house cat or even a cheetah.

Technically speaking human beings (homo-sapiens) are exactly the same from a genetic perspective. Yes, we speak different languages, we have different physical features, however, the human brain is all one in the same. We have the same kinds of bones, same kinds of limbs etc. Please kindly stay on topic.

I mean the house cat itself are of different breed. Like rat we have small rat medium rat and big rat.

they all have the same shape, brain, DNA, everything but of different type. We have spanish apple, we have africa apple, we have red apple, we have green apple and white apple.

Joel3:

I mean the house cat itself are of different breed. Like rat we have small rat medium rat and big rat.

they are have same shape, brain, DNA, everything but of different type. We have spanish apple, we have africa apple, we have red apple, we have green apple and white apple.

That's very true, but they are still vastly different and considered a subspecies.

What you are implying here are different species. Human beings are of one species with different ethnicities and ethnic groups. An example is the African Elephant and Asian Elephant, they are both elephants, but they are different species of Elephant.

Fulaman198:

I wish you would watch the video I linked earlier, then you would understand that what you are saying is completely incorrect.

DNA samples were taking from all over the world, and it was found that people who tend to be darker (parts of the Arab World, India, and the Melanisians in the pacific islands like Papua New Guinea or the Aborigine peoples) are older than people who have less amounts of melanin. Africans obviously had the oldest DNA. I don't know why some Africans deny the obvious.

Understand my point very well. Our progenitors started in Africa does not mean they are what we would call negroid now. That is not denying anything except to tell you that the concept of race is a more recent distinction than the origins of man.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page of Spencer's book
It is believed, on the basis of genetic
evidence, that all human beings in existence
now descend from one single man who lived
in Africa about 60,000 years ago. [2] The
earliest groups of humans are believed to
find their present-day descendants among
the San people, a group that is now found
in western southern Africa . The San are
smaller than the Bantu. They have lighter
skins, more tightly curled hair, and they share
the epicanthal fold with the people of Central
Asian SouthEast Asia, such as the white
people and black people .

These are the closest linked descendants have non-standard negroid features.

LordReed:

Understand my point very well. Our progenitors started in Africa does not mean they are what we would call negroid now. That is not denying anything except to tell you that the concept of race is a more recent distinction than the origins of man.

Then why do the 'negroids' or those close to the complexion of Negroid tend to have more in common with the ancient African ancestor. According to Spencer Wells, Ph.D. Geneticist the oldest people currently living are the Khoisan group of people. They still live the original/traditional way human beings did tens of thousands of years ago as hunter gatherers.

Fulaman198:

Then why do the 'negroids' or those close to the complexion of Negroid tend to have more in common with the ancient African ancestor. According to Spencer Wells, Ph.D. Geneticist the oldest people currently living are the Khoisan group of people. They still live the original/traditional way human beings did tens of thousands of years ago as hunter gatherers.

Sorry look at my previous answer. I edited it.

LordReed:

Understand my point very well. Our progenitors started in Africa does not mean they are what we would call negroid now. That is not denying anything except to tell you that the concept of race is a more recent distinction than the origins of man.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page of Spencer's book
It is believed, on the basis of genetic
evidence, that all human beings in existence
now descend from one single man who lived
in Africa about 60,000 years ago. [2] The
earliest groups of humans are believed to
find their present-day descendants among
the San people, a group that is now found
in western southern Africa . The San are
smaller than the Bantu. They have lighter
skins, more tightly curled hair, and they share
the epicanthal fold with the people of Central
Asian SouthEast Asia, such as the white
people and black people .

These are the closest linked descendants have non-standard negroid features.

There is no such thing as negroid features. Most San people resemble Nelson Mandela (who I'm sure has a lot of San/Khoisan DNA). Fyi, San and Khoisan are one in the same. I stay away from terminology like "negroid features" because such a thing does not truly exist. In Nigeria alone, there are many ethnic groups with all different sorts of features, yet we are all black, right?

The same goes for Senegalese, Malians, Ghanaian people, Beninese, etc.

Black people are not a monolith, I know some people on Nairaland do not understand this (not talking about you). But no one will say that the Khoisan are not black despite some of them having "Asiatic" eyes resembling those of Chinese people and curly hair resembling those of "Africans/Blacks"

Fulaman198:

There is no such thing as negroid features. Most San people resemble Nelson Mandela (who I'm sure has a lot of San/Khoisan DNA). Fyi, San and Khoisan are one in the same. I stay away from terminology like "negroid features" because such a thing does not truly exist. In Nigeria alone, there are many ethnic groups with all different sorts of features, yet we are all black, right?

The same goes for Senegalese, Malians, Ghanaian people, Beninese, etc.

Black people are not a monolith, I know some people on Nairaland do not understand this (not talking about you). But no one will say that the Khoisan are not black despite some of them having "Asiatic" eyes resembling those of Chinese people and curly hair resembling those of "Africans/Blacks"

Very good. If the progenitors have features like the Chinese and Europeans on what basis are they negroid/black then? The genetic trail reveals that the differentiation is a result of possible mutations in DNA. So the progenitors could not have been "negroid" simply because such a distinction could not have existed then. Again here is what the Wikipedia page on Spencer's book says:

The African diaspora is believed to have
begun some 50,000 years ago, long enough
for many changes to have occurred in
humans remaining in Africa.

LordReed:

Don't get it twisted. The issue here is RACE not geographical origin. Life originated in Africa is not equal to our progenitors being negroid. The theory of evolution does not teach that the progenitors of mankind were negroid. If I am mistaken please post here a link to that specific information.

Well, pardon me sir!
Are you disputing or questioning the fact that the first humans were Negroid?
On what iota of historical, archeological or scientific basis are you disputing or questioning this fact?

plaetton:

Well, pardon me sir!
Are you disputing or questioning the fact that the first humans were Negroid?
On what iota of historical, archeological or scientific basis are you disputing or questioning this fact?

Is there any where anyone teaching human evolution says our progenitors were negroid (as distinct from originating in Africa)? If there is I want a link.

LordReed:

Is there any where anyone teaching human evolution says our progenitors were negroid (as distinct from originating in Africa)? If there is I want a link.

Huh?

plaetton:

Huh?

What is unclear about my question? Post a link that says that human progenitors were negroid as opposed to merely saying they originated in Africa.

My submission is you won't find such a link because such racial distinctions as Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid did not exist at that time.

LordReed:

What is unclear about my question? Post a link that says that human progenitors were negroid as opposed to merely saying they originated in Africa.

My submission is you won't find such a link because such racial distinctions as Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid did not exist at that time.

I'm derailing. Forgive me in advance. Big brother I think you know it's not fair ko? I will tell for you

HFOG:
I'm derailing. Forgive me in advance. Big brother I think you know it's not fair ko? I will tell for you

Hey sis no vex for me na. Which thread you wan make we yarn on top?

LordReed:

Hey sis no vex for me na. Which thread you wan make we yarn on top?

You decide sir.

LordReed:

What is unclear about my question? Post a link that says that human progenitors were negroid as opposed to merely saying they originated in Africa.

My submission is you won't find such a link because such racial distinctions as Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid did not exist at that time

Huh!!
Get off that cheap Weed, LordReed!

plaetton:

Huh!!
Get off that cheap Weed, LordReed!

Here we go again....

Can you or can you not provide a link? We can talk economics of weed after you answer this simple question.

genetic mutation, I think ...... or did the whites originate from the blacks
Op, who told you that Adam and Eve were white? It's the white man that depicts them as such sha

LordReed:

Here we go again....

Can you or can you not provide a link? We can talk economics of weed after you answer this simple question.

With all due respect sir, it's kinda hard to answer a question that doesn't make any sense.
That's the hint I that have been politely trying to get across.

plaetton:

With all due respect sir, it's kinda hard to answer a question that doesn't make any sense.
That's the hint I that have been politely trying to get across.

How doesn't it make sense? I clearly stated that what we call negroid did not exist at the dawn of man, refute me with a link. How is this senseless please?

LordReed:

How doesn't it make sense? I clearly stated that what we call negroid did not exist at the dawn of man, refute me with a link. How is this senseless please?

What did exist at the dawn of man?.
We both agree that humankind first walked the Earth in Africa, the Continent of Negroid people. Commonsense would imply that the first humans originating from Africa would have had what we call Negroid physical features.

Now, if you disagree with this proposition, as you have been doing so far, then it is up to you to say or show what existed as opposed to Negroid humans at the dawn of human civilization.

In other words, if you say that the first humans were not Negroids, then what else could they have been or were they?

The term "Negroid" are characteristic physical features.

To say that Negroid features were not present in Africa at the beginning of human civilization is a statement that makes absolutely no sense, unless of course, you have evidence, or something more than just your incongruent and contradictory statements.

plaetton:

What did exist at the dawn of man?.
We both agree that humankind first walked the Earth in Africa, the Continent of Negroid people. Commonsense would imply that the first humans originating from Africa would have had what we call Negroid physical features.

Now, if you disagree with this proposition, as you have been doing so far, then it is up to you to say or show what existed as opposed to Negroid humans at the dawn of human civilization.

In other words, if you say that the first humans were not Negroids, then what else could they have been or were they?

The term "Negroid" are characteristic physical features.

To say that Negroid features were not present in Africa at the beginning of human civilization is a statement that makes absolutely no sense, unless of course, you have evidence, or something more than just your incongruent and contradictory statements.

Dear plaetton I suppose you know more about human evolutionary theory than me so it won't be hard for you to shut me up with a scientific article stating that our progenitors were negroid. I humbly submit that I have searched and did not find it stated by scientists. Even the man who popularized the Caucasoid/Negroid classification proposed that the branches all developed independently so please provide me more reading material.

*edited*

The basic fact is, most humans now believe civilization started in Africa after discovering the oldest remains or fossils. The ancient text or the ancient African Egyptian text which is way older than the history of the bible explain the theories that man came from space as a form of transport. The European is an hybrid, a genetic modification or gene splicing of human and animal specie. So tell me, who am i suppose to believe? The ancient Africans or some bunch of white supremacist called Charles Darwin, whom stated that, human came from apes but he can't prove black people came from apes. There's no history of the European that's above 6000 years and that's the beginning of the bible. Since Adam and Eve were the only human on earth and they gave birth to Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and flew to a city. My question to Christian fanatics or perhaps ask your pastors.., How come there's another city where he chooses his wife and besides you can't have a city without people in it. Where they hell did those people come from?

Is there a need to insult people just because you prefer to be linked with apes?