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  <1 345
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 Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 17:24
[QUOTE=calvo]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[/QUOTE]
 
Just had another check on these sites.
They are certainly not to be taken seriously because they are essentially racist sites trying to pass themselves off as serious scientific anthropological forums.
The core members and the moderators try to use genetic evidence to prove that "Negroes are more similar to apes than humans" and the denial of the holocaust.
 
I find it rather frightening how these extremists could hide behind the masks of science.
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: 17-Mar-2009 at 08:11
The other day I saw on a documentary a theory that challenges the date at which humans left Africa.

It was about natural castastrofes, and it told the story of the Toba Volcano that exploded in Indonesia 75,000 years ago that caused major climate change and wiped out a large percentage of humans, especially those in the Indian sub-continente.

The program claims to back up its findings by studying the DNA of modern Indians, which discovered much few diversity than expected; and concluded that they underwent a population bottleneck around 75,000 years ago, coinciding with the date of the disaster.

However, according to the latest proponents of the Out-Of-Africa theory, human beings left Africa as late as 60,000 years ago; so if the Toba volcano exploded 75,000 years ago, it should not have had any effect on the genetic composition of modern Indians; because their ancestors had not even arrived there.

Does anyone have any more info?

Back to Top
PirMani View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Mar-2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PirMani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 12:07
Well if Genetics proved the out of Africa as the scientific fact like big-bang theory(yet to become fact) then please do not start to make up theories out of your feelings.
The losers in this era are: Jews, white zigzagz and all those supremacy gigs.
Recently Obama quoted from the Persian Poet of 13th Cen. Saadi
All human races have come from one origin (gem) etc.
The Persian
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 13:08
It's true that there are no races. But that's because it's called subspecies nowadays. It's just wordplay. If we don't like such narrow categorizing, it just means that "race" as a concept is rejected. That doesn't change the fact that we're different, both on a global scale, and on a personal scale.
If "human races" do not exist, then biological race does not exist, period.
And dog races don't exist either, they're just breeds.
Simply, the word has vanished, except for a term that describes when several cars are driving really fast.
 
Anyway, I sure believe we have a common descend, so it must have originated somewhere specific.
 
Ps. Calvo, I'd like to see evidence for that, that it is a "racist" site, as there are all kinds of people that write there. Maybe some individuals think that way, but it isn't representative at all.


Edited by Jams - 22-Mar-2009 at 13:11
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
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: 22-Mar-2009 at 14:30
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

It's true that there are no races. But that's because it's called subspecies nowadays. It's just wordplay. If we don't like such narrow categorizing, it just means that "race" as a concept is rejected. That doesn't change the fact that we're different, both on a global scale, and on a personal scale.
If "human races" do not exist, then biological race does not exist, period.
And dog races don't exist either, they're just breeds.
Simply, the word has vanished, except for a term that describes when several cars are driving really fast.
 
Anyway, I sure believe we have a common descend, so it must have originated somewhere specific.
 
Ps. Calvo, I'd like to see evidence for that, that it is a "racist" site, as there are all kinds of people that write there. Maybe some individuals think that way, but it isn't representative at all.
 
Biologically speaking, there is only one human species (homo-sapiens), and one sub-species (homo sapiens-sapiens) in the world. Millenia ago there was one other subspecies (homo sapiens idaltu) that had gone extinct. This fact is agreed by most scientists.
 
"race" is difficult to define. If by skull shape, then you could make the Caucasoid, Congoid,  and Mongoloid classification; if by color of skin, the classification would be different; you could also classify humans by blood type (A, B, AB, 0), ability to digest meat..... etc., and the groupings would be different according to each of the classification criteria.
The fact is, human populatons haven't been separated as long as dog breeds as to produce such large biological differences.
 
The forum is fundamentally a racist site. Although all types of people write there, the main contributors, such as the moderator, is clearly "Stomfront".
The Administrator also has a secret agenda, yet he is so subtle that you'd have to dig very deep into his posts to discover it.
 
There are certainly more open-minded individuals there, but they are in the minority; and most of them leave after a short while.
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 18:20

Only classification after relation is relevant. Maybe here are some exceptions (like polar bears, an extreme example) but generally it is relation that determines this. It's just that there was no real way to determine that in the past, which are why other methods were used, but now we have some idea, because of genetics. I'm not saying it's perfect as is, but I'm sure we're getting closer, no?

 

Anyway, if they're not subspecies, then they aren't races, but just remember one thing - some animals that are classified as subspecies don't differ any more than the biggest difference among humans.

 

That could mean that those aren't subspecies either - actually I think both subspecies and race are a fairly wobbly concepts compared to species. It is, however, sort of an extension to ethnicity for humans, a sort of biological super-ethnicity.
 
However, it is a human definition - if we decide so, if we think race is an invalid concept, well then it doesn't exist by consensus.
 
Doesn't make the difference between people any bigger or smaller, though. We still don't look the same.


Edited by Jams - 22-Mar-2009 at 18:25
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
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: 22-Mar-2009 at 19:08
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

...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.
 
We must be careful when interpreting information. The concept of race is false, because doesn't match the reality of mankind; not even the reality of races of cows or dogs either.
The valid scientific concept is called "population" instead of race. In that context, of course you can say the population of scandinavians is different from the population of kenyians. You can define in that context which genes are statistically dominant, etc.
 
The problem is that populations spread across the globe, and there aren't clear cut differences from one to the neighbours, and the differences add smoothly with the distance. So, the idea that there is just three, four or seven races is not only PC incorrect; it is just plainly ignorance.
 
Populations exist, which are different groups of genetical frequences of alleles. Races don't.
"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
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: 22-Mar-2009 at 19:11
Originally posted by PirMani PirMani wrote:

Well if Genetics proved the out of Africa as the scientific fact like big-bang theory(yet to become fact) then please do not start to make up theories out of your feelings.
The losers in this era are: Jews, white zigzagz and all those supremacy gigs.
Recently Obama quoted from the Persian Poet of 13th Cen. Saadi
All human races have come from one origin (gem) etc.
 
Well, Afrocentrists also are part of the losers, because the original men weren't Bantus,  Egyptians or Nilotics, but that very humilliated group of people (by Blacks) called the Bushmen.
"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
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: 22-Mar-2009 at 22:51
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

Doesn't make the difference between people any bigger or smaller, though. We still don't look the same.
 
It is blatantly obvious that we don't look the same, but the difference between "racialists" and those who are not is the belief that physiscal differences are more than just about external looks, but also about intelligence, primal instincts, and fundamental behaviours.
 
Basically, the agenda of many of these pseudo-anthropological websites is that there exists clear-cut biological differences between human races and that racial mixing is unnatural, hazardous to the health of the offspring, and a main cause of social urest.
 
They tend to argue the that the cultural differences between all the nationalities around today with biological explanations; going as far as to claim that Africans are not able to build civilization because of their genes.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2009 at 23:01

Anthropology is more than physical anthropology, just FYI. Anyway, maybe some people have agendas of some kind, but I'm no mind reader. Sure, there's this and that person that subscribe to something like that, but I don't think that's what the forums are about. It all depends on the people who post there in the end, and what they post.

It's just a pastime anyway.
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2009 at 04:27

[QUOTE=Jams]If "human races" do not exist, then biological race does not exist, period.

And dog races don't exist either, they're just breeds.[QUOTE]

The dog comparison is a very poor one to choose, since different types of dog have for the most part been selectively bred to conform to the various breed standards - which is why there is value in defining breed standards. Absent a similar desire to breed types of human, there is really no value in defining human racial standards.

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: 23-Mar-2009 at 10:04
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

Anthropology is more than physical anthropology, just FYI. Anyway, maybe some people have agendas of some kind, but I'm no mind reader. Sure, there's this and that person that subscribe to something like that, but I don't think that's what the forums are about. It all depends on the people who post there in the end, and what they post.

It's just a pastime anyway.


Sometimes the agenda can be rather hidden in the way it is expressed. For example, in neo-nazi sites they are more transparent, making statements like:
"Africans are unable to build civilizations due to their biological limitations".

In more subtle pseudo-scientific sites, the wording could be:
"Mutation mark X is found among European and Asian populations but abscent in Africans; probably as a result of adaptation to crowded living conditions. It could be the explanation as to why civilizations rose in Asia and Europe."

The phrasing of this second sentence could sound politically neutral, but nevertheless, it is implying exactly the same thing as the first.

What I'm most suspect about the "racial reality" site, as well as the posts of this guy on the other forum is his insistence on the existence of biological distinct races.
He founded his argument on a genetic clustering experiment performed by Noah Rosenberg; demonstrating that a portion of human genes is dependent on geographical origin. Yet the very scientist Rosenberg himself said that "this does not necessarily imply that race exists".

Basically, it is manipulation by demonstrating the facts that are relevant to his agenda, and hiding those who are not.  


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: 23-Mar-2009 at 10:08
Although Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, it contains information from a wider range of sources. Check out this page:

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




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
  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.