History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedhuman origin debate (out-of-africa?)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: human origin debate (out-of-africa?)
    Posted: 30-Dec-2008 at 15:03
Recent, I've been browsing through this anthropological forum whose link was posted on this site:
http://www.anthroscape.co.cc/

I also had a look at some of its links, such as www.racialreality.com

The truth is, I really don't know whether to take them seriously or not.

So far, most genetists and anthropological experts have settled with the "out-of-africa" theory on the origins of Homo-Sapiens based on the testing of the mutation mark on DNA chromozones; explaining that all human beings alive descend today from a Mitocondrial Eve that lived in Eastern Africa some 150,000 years ago.

Many of the so-called "scientists" on these anthropological forums seem to challenge this view, claiming that there is ample of evidence to explain separate biological origins for the different races of man, and that distinct human races are equivalent to sub-species, only that they are not allowed to be published by the Politically-Correct pressure of today's world.

Personally speaking, I try to be objective and form my opinion with what scientific evidence comes up, and so far I trust the "out-of-africa" model more than the "multi-regional" model based on the fact that scientists from several prestigious universities all over the world have agreed with the same thing. (doubt that all of them are part of the same PC conspiracy).

What I'd like to know is, when these "multi-regional" proponents come up with their evidence to refute the "out-of-africa" theory, how do the proponents of the "out-of-africa" theory defend their model?
So far I've only come across sites that are in favour of the "out-of-africa" theory and sites that are in favour of the "multi-regional theory", but I have never seen a debate between the 2.





Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2008 at 23:29
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

  I also had a look at some of its links, such as www.racialreality.com
nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 The truth is, I really don't know whether to take them seriously or not.
I wouldn't call the multi-regional or the out-of-asia theory unserious. They are probably wrong, but not in any case not serious.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 So far, most genetists and anthropological experts have settled with the "out-of-africa" theory on the origins of Homo-Sapiens based on the testing of the mutation mark on DNA chromozones; explaining that all human beings alive descend today from a Mitocondrial Eve that lived in Eastern Africa some 150,000 years ago.
This made the multi-regionalist a bit quiet, but one single exploration can change the whole picture we have about human evolution.

Many of the so-called "scientists" on these anthropological forums seem to challenge this view, claiming that there is ample of evidence to explain separate biological origins for the different races of man, and that distinct human races are equivalent to sub-species, only that they are not allowed to be published by the Politically-Correct pressure of today's world.[/QUOTE] The problem is, are Homo erectus and Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis or Homo neanderthalensis different species or not. Nobody can really say this. They are what we had to call Palaeo-species. So it is possible that Homo was just one specie since perhaps two million years. The problem with the multi.regional theory is that e.g. in Europe the difference between the habitus of Homso s. and Homo n. is to great for saying they developed from each other. and we found Homo s. and Homo n. in Palestine in different layers and Homo n. wasn't the elder one. Of course multi-regional-theory could be right nevertheless. So just in Europe the modern Homo sapiens arrived and wiped the Homo n. out. In all other regions the populations developed without a break. But we have to doubt here too. I don't want to accuse every multi-regionalist, but this seems to be a racist view. The modern "race" developed in the Near East and Europe. All other "races" , of course "inferior races" developed from less modern forms.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 Personally speaking, I try to be objective and form my opinion with what scientific evidence comes up, and so far I trust the "out-of-africa" model more than the "multi-regional" model based on the fact that scientists from several prestigious universities all over the world have agreed with the same thing. (doubt that all of them are part of the same PC conspiracy).
The family tree of the hominids has more whit and unknown branches than it has branches with known palaeo-species. Gibbons and Orangs appear in Asia, so why Asia isn't an important area for human evolution. It was once thought that Homo erectus was the first who left Africa. This is no longer sure. Perhaps we just explored no early Hominid outside Africa till now but they came from Asia or from Miocene Europe, who knows? I hope one day the nationalism while be wiped out in science. So that e.g. Chinese can be proud of Homo pekinensis allthough he's not the Chinese ancestor.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 What I'd like to know is, when these "multi-regional" proponents come up with their evidence to refute the "out-of-africa" theory, how do the proponents of the "out-of-africa" theory defend their model?
So far I've only come across sites that are in favour of the "out-of-africa" theory and sites that are in favour of the "multi-regional theory", but I have never seen a debate between the 2.
  The out-of-africa-theory is not the older theory. There are discussion between both theories but often very personal.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 03:31
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races.

That is PC nonsense.

Our species has six or seven physically distinct divisions. These divisions are most commonly called "races". Just because the term "race" was / is used to justify crimes is no reason to deny the obvious fact that there are distinct divisions in our species. In fact, acknowledging and studying the divisions (races) gives us a better understanding of very early human migration.

Edited by Cryptic - 31-Dec-2008 at 03:47
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 07:12
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races.

That is PC nonsense.

Our species has six or seven physically distinct divisions. These divisions are most commonly called "races". Just because the term "race" was / is used to justify crimes is no reason to deny the obvious fact that there are distinct divisions in our species. In fact, acknowledging and studying the divisions (races) gives us a better understanding of very early human migration.


This all depends on the definition of the word "race", which no one seems to have a clear criteria. Often the people who argue for and against the existence of "race" believe in exactly the same facts, yet only their definition of the word differs.

Speaking about my personal definitions, if "race" were defined solely by skull shape , then there ARE several major branches (yet overlapping) of human races.
If race were defined by genetic differences, then "racial divisions" of human beings would be insignficant, because the genetic diversity among all non-Africans is only a fraction of those within a single African population (an argument in favor of the out-of-Africa theory); and that only a small fraction of human genetic differences occur "across" the boundary of the so-called Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid races (presumably those in charge of physical phenotypes).
If "race" were defined by other biological traits such as "blood type", or "ability to digest milk or meat", or even "skin colour", then another picture would be drawn....

What the multi-regionalists argue on these forums is that there is ample of evidence to support that Europeans descend (at least partly) from Neanderthals, and Asians from Homo-Pekinisis etc; and that typical "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" features have almost a million years of existence and imply much more biological distances than mere physicaly appearance; yet that all this evidence has been concealed by the "politically-correct" mafia.
I tend to regard their opinion with skeptism, because I doubt that scientists from universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Pekin, and Tokyo have all uninanymously formed part of a "politically-correct" conspiracy.



Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 10:13
Regardless of what the current theory is, I'm happy to believe the Aboriginal legends when they say they have been here forever. Humans came from Australia.

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races.

To be un-pc at the expense of accuracy. There are breeds but, just like in Cows or Dogs, and I am sure that humans could be (and have been by accident) bred in the same way. We know, for example, that some breeds are better at resisting UV rays.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 10:44
Race is certainly an outdated concept ... and that's not a political statement, it's a scientific one.

There are some broad groupings, which geneticists call "clines", but this is an entirely different concept than race. Individuals have ... and have always had ... partial membership in multiple population clusters, which pretty much negates race as a viable concept, because there are no discrete distinctions. 


Edited by edgewaters - 31-Dec-2008 at 10:47
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 11:07
You can carve up the current human population in lots of different ways and produce what you may choose to call 'races' on different criteria. There's no objective way AFAIK of determining what the 'best fit' is in any system of numerical taxonomy, and I once spent an awful lot of research time trying to establish one (not particularly to do with human classification, but the same principles and mathematical models apply).
 
However, I don't think that is relevant to the question. Personally I doubt there was ever a 'first human', because there is no strict dividing line between 'human' and 'non-human'. With any criterion there were almost certainly many individuals, even in the same generation, that it would be impossible to classify one way or the other. The question is therefore not well formulated.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 11:34
Yes, to understand the diversity of human populations  one must abandon the concept of race and embrace the concept of "partial belonging" of fuzzy logic. One must thinker a bit with genetics of population, distribution of probabilities and the concept of cline. I am afraid, most people don't understand very much at all the mathematics that go behind the concept of population and "clines". It is much easier for them to talk about the childish concept of "race".
 
And indeed, men came from Kenya around 150.000 years ago and abandoned Africa just 60.000 years ago. The people closets to the oldest men are the Khoisan people; a curious group that seem to carry in them features of all modern human groups, or "races".
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 13:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
And indeed, men came from Kenya around 150.000 years ago and abandoned Africa just 60.000 years ago. The people closets to the oldest men are the Khoisan people; a curious group that seem to carry in them features of all modern human groups, or "races".
 

I dont think the first people out of Africa were Khosians.  Instead, they were "pygmoids / negritos".  Whether these two people represent one race or two seperate races,  the earliest inhabitants of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, The Phillipines appear to have been these people.

Australoids maybe another candidate as there are very ancient remnant Australoid  populations in Pakistan Sri Lanka, India, larger groups in Melanasia and of course their Australian stronghold. Australoids may have also been the original inhabitants of Japan (Jomon / Emishi and their modern day survivors, the Ainu)

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

that typical "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" features have almost a million years of existence and imply much more biological distances than mere physicaly appearance; yet that all this evidence has been concealed by the "politically-correct" mafia.

I agree with your skeptism. Multi regionalism is not supported by genetic studies or by physical studies (physical differences between human races are relatively very small).
One of their theories is that Basques are directly descended from Neanderthals. In support of this, they cite their isolate language that the Basque area also sheltered  Europe's last Neanderthals etc. Despite the discovery of a possible Neanderthal / Homo hybrid fossil in Spain, genetic studies reveal that the amount of possible Neanderthal DNA in Europeans is so small that it could be non existant.


.


 


Edited by Cryptic - 31-Dec-2008 at 13:42
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 13:50
Well. genetics point to Khoisan people, and not to negritos or australoids
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 14:16
^
If genetics point to khoshians, then why are there no modern day Khoshian peoples outside of Africa?  Also, Khoshians are concentrated in the far south of the African continent and not the parts close to Asia etc.




 


Edited by Cryptic - 31-Dec-2008 at 14:17
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 15:18
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:



Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races.
That is PC nonsense.Our species has six or seven physically distinct divisions. These divisions are most commonly called "races". Just because the term "race" was / is used to justify crimes is no reason to deny the obvious fact that there are distinct divisions in our species. In fact, acknowledging and studying the divisions (races) gives us a better understanding of very early human migration.


Hi, Cryptic,

My understanding is that two animals belong to the same species if they can reproduce fertile offspring. As such, there is a single human species, homo sapiens. Obviously they are different physical differences between people, and these have been used to examine migration patterns already. Mitochondrial research does that, and it is this mitochondrial evidence that gives the out-of-Africa theory more weight than others. And there also has been research on how difference came to be.

If we want to talk about blond people, we can say "blond people" rather than saying the "blond race". And talking about specific differences is a lot more accurate than putting those differences together under the "race" label.


To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Dec-2008 at 20:55
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

^
If genetics point to khoshians, then why are there no modern day Khoshian peoples outside of Africa?  Also, Khoshians are concentrated in the far south of the African continent and not the parts close to Asia etc.
 
Why should go out of Africa to be the group closely related to the original humans?
Besides, the idea that Pigmeys or Australoids are "more primitive" than the rest of mankind is just a racist concept, out of fashion and not accepted by educated people of today.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 11:27
Originally posted by Penguin Penguin wrote:

And indeed, men came from Kenya around 150.000 years ago and abandoned Africa just 60.000 years ago.

Sorry, humans were already at Lake Mungo in NSW 60,000 years ago. Incidentally, I think humans left Lake Mungo then and have never gone back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1108413.stm
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 12:16
An ongoing debate regarding human origins lies with the inconsistencies between DNA mutation markers and forensic evidence.
DNA analisis shows that ALL human beings alive today share a common female ancestor around 120,000 - 150,000 years ago, and a  common male ancestor around 60,000 - 90,000 years ago, yet forensic evidence has found remains of anatomically modern humans outside of Africa as far back as 100,000 years ago.

The likely explanation is that human beings have left the east African homeland in numerous waves, yet only one wave, the wave that left 60,000 - 70,000 years ago, had contributed to the ancestry of modern humans. Descendants of the previous migration waves could have extinguished due to natural disasters (such as the Toba explosion), or their numbers simply dwarfed by newcomers and their genetic footprint gradually lost.

Anatomically modern humans had appeared from 200,000 years ago onwards, and there's no reason why they should not have left Africa and populated the rest of the world, but whether these migrants contributed to the ancestry of modern populations is another question.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 12:30
Evidence that there was a common ancestor is not evidence there was a single common ancestor.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 13:43
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Why should go out of Africa to be the group closely related to the original humans?
Besides, the idea that Pigmeys or Australoids are "more primitive" than the rest of mankind is just a racist concept, out of fashion and not accepted by educated people of today.

I never said that Pygmeys or Australoids are more "primitive". There are no "primitive" or "advanced" modern humans.  What I did say was that very early migration patterns (Africa - Indian subcontinent-S.E. Asia- Australia) supports that Australoids or pygmies were the first modern humans to leave Africa. Do you favor Khoshians as being the first to leave because they look more "advanced" and more closely resemble yourself?

Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:


My understanding is that two animals belong to the same species if they can reproduce fertile offspring. As such, there is a single human species, homo sapiens.

If we want to talk about blond people, we can say "blond people" rather than saying the "blond race". And talking about specific differences is a lot more accurate than putting those differences together under the "race" label.

I agree, all modern humans are the same species (Homo Sapians). Every human on earth is a modern human.  Even if we eliminate the term "race" due to its past misuse (blond race), there are still going to be classifications and divisions. For example, "blond people" or "mitochondrial DNA types "X" and "Y" ". These new divisions will then be subject to the same misuse as the word "race".

That is why I favor keeping the old term "race" to define the differences between Asiatics, Negroids, Caucasoids,  Australoids, Pygmoids, Khoshians etc. 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Sorry, humans were already at Lake Mungo in NSW 60,000 years ago. Incidentally, I think humans left Lake Mungo then and have never gone back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1108413.stm

More support that Australoids were the first modern humans to leave Africa. I have never been to Lake Mungo, but I am suprised that humans have not made a far more recent and similar decision about Los Angeles. 

Edited by Cryptic - 01-Jan-2009 at 14:07
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 23:41

It is difficult to say when a man is a modern one. Ngaloba, Florisbad, Omo show an early stage of modern men and it goes back more than 200.000 years.But a modern habitus doesn't mean an superiority. The first quite modern types outside are around 120000 to 100.000. So I suppose that during the Eem Homo sapiens populations spread into the near east. when a new ice age began Homo neanderthalensis moved south and pushed these populations further to the east. So they were isolated from the African populations aroud 75000 to 60000 years. In that times Homo sapiens migrated to Australia, Asia and probably to America.

I wouldn't call the first Homo sapiens Khoisanide or Australide or Pygmide, because we can't say if the people 100.000 years ago looked like these types. Perhaps the special habitus originated much later.
 
The term race is nonsense because it describes a result of breeding and controlled selection. we have this with cows, horses, sheeps, rabbits, dogs and cats but we do not have this with humans. Asiatics (Mongolids), Caucasoids (Europids), Negroids, Australids, Pygmides, Khoisanids are old terms, mostly definite by skin colour. I have been to Egypt for a while, Egyptians are belonging to the "White race" like the blond ones from Skandinavia. I've seen a lot of Egyptians that were quite dark, but without a negroid habitus. I havn't seen a lot of blond ones. Black, white? What's with people like Obama? Is he black or white? Human populations are to heterogene to be called races.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2009 at 13:46
There are no human races in biology and not only we all came from Africa, very recently there was a population bottleneck due to a supervolcano explosion, which meant that the modern population descended from a handful (few tens of thousands) of survivors some 70 thousand years ago (IIRC). Due to that we are extremely genetically homogeneous for a species as geographically wide spread as we are: in mammalian taxonomy,  there are mono-racial species which have up to three times human genetic variation. There are troupes of chimpanzees which have greater genetic variation between themselves than the whole human species...

All talk of different races, different origins, IQ tests, PC conspiracy suppressing the race reality, etc are nothing but racist dogs barking.  
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2009 at 14:21
Some multi-regionalists are against out-of-Africa because the theory can be linked to religous ideas. Most religions claim we have the same original ancestors and spread from them. 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.