Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is slowly shifting to the Ex-Theory Circular File.
It is wrong to presume that the first humans had dark skin color simply because those living in Africa now have dark skin color. That would be a non-sequitur. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite to be true. It is equally wrong to presume that just because those who now live in the area of the Caucus Mountains have light colored skin that they always did. Currently, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that.
The "Out-of-Africa" Theory has also been debunked. The data was skewed and framed to intentionally to achieve an "Out-of-Africa" result. As I always say, with the highest standards in academics in mind, he did not do that; it was his assistants who skewed the data and they did it without his knowledge.
He erred by placing way too much trust and faith in his assistants, and by not more closely reviewing their methodology and data entry.
I am pleased to report that my theory, which I have held for 20+ years now is gaining credibility day-by-day and evidence is starting to weigh heavily in support of it.
My theory is that there really are races. Races are not just artificial constructs; they are biological and physiological. And humans have multiple points of origin, at least four. Yes, humans did originate in Africa, in fact two different groups originated in Africa, but they also arose independently in Asia and Europe.
And ever since the academic pukes broke down and admitted that Homo Sapiens is not merely just an advanced form of Homo Neanderthalis, rather they are two distinct lines, I've been riding high on the crest of a wave and each new piece of evidence proves multiple origins.
Also, the evidence is now starting to overwhelmingly support an exodus from Africa far earlier than 50,000 years ago for at least one branch of modern humans.
What evidence is there of multiple origins? I have looked and found none...Perhaps you can point me to some....I seem to have been wrong about the time, as it appears that the first group left Africa about 80,000 years ago according to scientists at the Smithsonian. The Great Human Migration | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine
That is slowly shifting to the Ex-Theory Circular File.
It is wrong to presume that the first humans had dark skin color simply because those living in Africa now have dark skin color. That would be a non-sequitur. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite to be true. It is equally wrong to presume that just because those who now live in the area of the Caucus Mountains have light colored skin that they always did. Currently, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that.
The "Out-of-Africa" Theory has also been debunked. The data was skewed and framed to intentionally to achieve an "Out-of-Africa" result. As I always say, with the highest standards in academics in mind, he did not do that; it was his assistants who skewed the data and they did it without his knowledge.
He erred by placing way too much trust and faith in his assistants, and by not more closely reviewing their methodology and data entry.
I am pleased to report that my theory, which I have held for 20+ years now is gaining credibility day-by-day and evidence is starting to weigh heavily in support of it.
My theory is that there really are races. Races are not just artificial constructs; they are biological and physiological. And humans have multiple points of origin, at least four. Yes, humans did originate in Africa, in fact two different groups originated in Africa, but they also arose independently in Asia and Europe.
And ever since the academic pukes broke down and admitted that Homo Sapiens is not merely just an advanced form of Homo Neanderthalis, rather they are two distinct lines, I've been riding high on the crest of a wave and each new piece of evidence proves multiple origins.
Also, the evidence is now starting to overwhelmingly support an exodus from Africa far earlier than 50,000 years ago for at least one branch of modern humans.
Genetically...
Mircea
Mircea
Its good to see a serious entry. I deleted the second half only because
of a seemingly un-explained lack, in bridging themes. I did not know this bit of unique research was in motion. Appreciated. Also, I don't think prophecy suggested that the higher power in question came for lunch and outlined a word for word exact mapping of Christianity in regards to recording the bible
(Continuing and on topic
You know those stones in the foothills from 5000 thousand years ago and so on..? A scientist this week has made an interesting comment.
His extensive research is suggesting that the order and placement of the stones was determined by ...sound-gaps, caused by the nature of sound waves.
The theory has it that the placement of the rocks with the described consequencial openings from placement, are, areas in which sound from the middle are obstructed in audible discernment due to the behaviour of sound waves.
He holds that the people were paying tribute to the behaviour of sound waves
and attributing a potencial "connection" to a higher source idea.
In short....they built a church.
Man I think strives to understand what the dilly this whole thing is all about. Communication comes in many forms. Early man as we see, was intelligent enough to keenly recognize that a higher power would not, communicate as they themselves do.
The communication of Christianity is not a translation of dates, times, ect. It is the communication of peace. The same peace the 5000 yr old very respectful, positive,intuitive ancestors would have in obedience to healthy order I might add...allowed themselves.
( this is not copied in any way...simply remembering a flash news deal when opening internet../note,if interested in perfect authenticity of detail
Last edited by stargazzer; 02-18-2012 at 03:37 PM..
Oh, do you have blue eyes?...Blue eyes are an evolutionary adaption that came after humans left Africa, as did lighter colored skin, so basically you and I are physically the same except for some minor mutations...
I disagree, the first humans God created with consciousness were black in my view, but they were mid brown in pigment ( or light skinned blacks) from that combination we can achieve all other colors on the planet. Mitrochondrinal DNA shows that.
Your view is again contrary to the facts. Humans evolved in the heart of Africa, and were black.
I'd like to see your mitochondrial DNA evidence.
[Mickiel] I disagree. I personally believe humans evolved in the heart of Scandinavia, and were blonde with blue eyes.
My evidence? God. Can't you see how beautiful those Scandinavian women are? [/Mickiel]
Sorry, couldn't resist I'm looking forward to hearing Mickiel's explanation of mitochondrial DNA evidence too. I think we've been quite respectful so he can't use that as an excuse. But Mickiel, if I offended you in any way, shape or form, I sincerely apologise (Just trying to be safe).
Your view is again contrary to the facts. Humans evolved in the heart of Africa, and were black.
I'd like to see your mitochondrial DNA evidence.
I really don't see a disagreement in this; I too believe that the first humans with consciousness were in the heart of Africa and were black. I just believe they were lighskinned, because from two lightskinned blacks mating, we could result in any melonin, or color, thats on earth. Not from two darkskinned blacks, or any other mixture from other races.
And I have listed my reference list 3 times this week.
Anyhow, si.edu has one of my references on this subject; the Smithsonian. Just look for mitochondrial DNA. And I don't totally agree with them. Or anyonelse on my reference list.
[Mickiel] I disagree. I personally believe humans evolved in the heart of Scandinavia, and were blonde with blue eyes.
My evidence? God. Can't you see how beautiful those Scandinavian women are? [/Mickiel]
Sorry, couldn't resist I'm looking forward to hearing Mickiel's explanation of mitochondrial DNA evidence too. I think we've been quite respectful so he can't use that as an excuse. But Mickiel, if I offended you in any way, shape or form, I sincerely apologise (Just trying to be safe).
No offense taken. I gave Sanspeur one site I research on this subject, I'll give you this one; ship.edu. Look under race, by Dr. C. George Boeree.
No offense taken. I gave Sanspeur one site I research on this subject, I'll give you this one; ship.edu. Look under race, by Dr. C. George Boeree.
No, I would like to hear your personal understanding of this topic. Please explain how two light-skinned blacks could produce a white child with blonde hair and blue eyes without any genetic mutation taking place (if that's what you're claiming, it's not very clear to me) and the role mitochondrial DNA plays in this process. I'm not interested in a c/p piece of a scientific publication, I want to know your own interpretation on this. Someone who makes such bold claims about our evolution process must have a great understanding of this topic so I'm just curious I personally wouldn't dare to make statements like that 'cause the specifics of evolutionary biology is way out of my league but I guess you are more educated than me on this topic, so please enlighten me
I really don't see a disagreement in this; I too believe that the first humans with consciousness were in the heart of Africa and were black. I just believe they were lighskinned, because from two lightskinned blacks mating, we could result in any melonin, or color, thats on earth. Not from two darkskinned blacks, or any other mixture from other races.
And I have listed my reference list 3 times this week.
Anyhow, si.edu has one of my references on this subject; the Smithsonian. Just look for mitochondrial DNA. And I don't totally agree with them. Or anyonelse on my reference list.
What don't you agree with?
Edit: I looked for mitochondrial DNA and I got 122 results. Can you be a little more specific or post a direct link to the study you're referring to?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm looking forward to hearing Mickiel's explanation of mitochondrial DNA evidence too. I think we've been quite respectful so he can't use that as an excuse. But Mickiel, if I offended you in any way, shape or form, I sincerely apologise 
(Just trying to be safe).
I personally wouldn't dare to make statements like that 'cause the specifics of evolutionary biology is way out of my league but I guess you are more educated than me on this topic, so please enlighten me 