Did any one watch "Human Family Tree" on Natgeo

[Gh0strider]

Incredible television show that went into the genetic make up of humans and showed how we are all related.

1) We are all Africans...doesnt matter your skin tone, you go back far enough you are from Africa

2) Adam and Eve both were Africans

3) Your ancestry is more jumbled than you can possible imagine

4) RACE is a made up notion it is meant only to divide and conquer. It is fallacy and belief in it is abhorrent.

Must see television for everyone...

[bte]

I wanted to watch it but I forgot what day it was coming on. I have it set to record on my DVR though.

[giovanni_hotel]

When you say African, that's like saying European. It's really a non-descript general statement in terms of race.

Northern Africans look very different than people from Western or sub-saharan Africa.

If the cradle of humanity is in Africa, then of course we are all 'African', but there are obvious, multiple cultural and physical deviations from that original group of homo sapiens.

[Gh0strider]

When you say African, that's like saying European. It's really a non-descript general statement in terms of race.

Northern Africans look very different than people from Western or sub-saharan Africa.

If the cradle of humanity is in Africa, then of course we are all 'African', but there are obvious, multiple cultural and physical deviations from that original group of homo sapiens.

Thats just it there is no such thing as race...its a made up term. We are all descendants of a single couple from Africa. There is no difference genetically between those ancestors and us only natural and cultural selection. There is no such thing as race it is for all purpose a made up term.

Its clear you didnt watch the special.

There has been no evolution of the humane genome in the last 60,000 years all you have is climate effects that forced migration and selection choices (ie pale skin is an advantage in colder climates, so is straight hair but genetically the differences are beyond miniscule)

[Alyssa87]

When you say African, that's like saying European. It's really a non-descript general statement in terms of race.

Northern Africans look very different than people from Western or sub-saharan Africa.

If the cradle of humanity is in Africa, then of course we are all 'African', but there are obvious, multiple cultural and physical deviations from that original group of homo sapiens.



Its clear you didnt watch the special.



lol

[Justawannabe]

Not that I'm a fan of the concept of 'race' as a political football, but saying it doesn't exist at all is false.

Race does indicate a collection of traits that you won't get from a person not descended from another person with those traits. Two white European folks with blue eyes and blond hair are not going to spontaneously give birth a dark skinned, dark eyed, dark haired Asian type. It is a valid way to group traits within a species.

The problem with the term is it is often used to group traits such as moral character and reasoning ability when there is no objective evidence to suggest it. It may not be a scientific term, but it is a useful one depending on what you are trying to say.

[hippifried]

It's all just cocker spaniels & chihuahuas.

[rameses2]

I knew that us Black people had cream in our coffee, but not that 32% of all us have European ancestors! Also that Asians and Latinos are not that far apart, genetically.

[DC]

The theory that we all originate from Africa is flawed, explain the different races and ethnic groups and how everyone in the world speaks a different language, science is so far off the mark with its theory of evolution its not even funny.. How did man go from primitive caveman to a pyramid builder overnight,it cannot be explained... Do you research... Darwin was a fraud and even denounced his own theory of evolution on his death bed...

[JPJP]

The theory that we all originate from Africa is flawed, explain the different races and ethnic groups and how everyone in the world speaks a different language, science is so far off the mark with its theory of evolution its not even funny.. How did man go from primitive caveman to a pyramid builder overnight,it cannot be explained... Do you research... Darwin was a fraud and even denounced his own theory of evolution on his death bed...

:lol: :lol: :banghead

[Alyssa87]

The theory that we all originate from Africa is flawed, explain the different races and ethnic groups and how everyone in the world speaks a different language, science is so far off the mark with its theory of evolution its not even funny.. How did man go from primitive caveman to a pyramid builder overnight,it cannot be explained... Do you research... Darwin was a fraud and even denounced his own theory of evolution on his death bed...


W O W


Is that you Dubya?

http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/dubya-bananas.JPG

[DC]

Lol @ Dubya, I would not support that psycho bible bashing murderer. Ok in regards to Adam and Eve coming from Africa its just a theory, not fact. If you want to read other Scientific archeological writings look for books by Zecharia Sitchin..

[JPJP]

Zecharia Sitchin? Surely you jest.

[giovanni_hotel]

Not that I'm a fan of the concept of 'race' as a political football, but saying it doesn't exist at all is false.

Race does indicate a collection of traits that you won't get from a person not descended from another person with those traits. Two white European folks with blue eyes and blond hair are not going to spontaneously give birth a dark skinned, dark eyed, dark haired Asian type. It is a valid way to group traits within a species.

The problem with the term is it is often used to group traits such as moral character and reasoning ability when there is no objective evidence to suggest it. It may not be a scientific term, but it is a useful one depending on what you are trying to say.

Alyssa and Ghostrider, you may now remove the face-palm. :wink:

[Gh0strider]

Not that I'm a fan of the concept of 'race' as a political football, but saying it doesn't exist at all is false.

Race does indicate a collection of traits that you won't get from a person not descended from another person with those traits. Two white European folks with blue eyes and blond hair are not going to spontaneously give birth a dark skinned, dark eyed, dark haired Asian type. It is a valid way to group traits within a species.

The problem with the term is it is often used to group traits such as moral character and reasoning ability when there is no objective evidence to suggest it. It may not be a scientific term, but it is a useful one depending on what you are trying to say.

Alyssa and Ghostrider, you may now remove the face-palm. :wink:

actually its clear he didnt watch the special either and he too should get a palm to the face

you are right two white europeans wouldnt spontaneously have a child with dark skin but if you removed every living human being from earth but those two white europeans and moved them to africa within 10000 years you would have a "race" of dark skinned human beings. That was the point of the special our differences are beyond small and are due more to climate, migration and cultural choices.

You definitely should watch the special.... :wink:

[worldbro]

Two white European folks with blue eyes and blond hair are not going to spontaneously give birth a dark skinned, dark eyed, dark haired Asian type.

Well two Dark skinned African folks can give birth to a red headed white baby with freckles.


...WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!!????

[trish]

Don't be too hard on DC. Every family has a mentally defective idiot. We love him anyway.

[Falrune]

Incredible television show that went into the genetic make up of humans and showed how we are all related.

1) We are all Africans...doesnt matter your skin tone, you go back far enough you are from Africa

2) Adam and Eve both were Africans

3) Your ancestry is more jumbled than you can possible imagine

4) RACE is a made up notion it is meant only to divide and conquer. It is fallacy and belief in it is abhorrent.

Must see television for everyone...

Excellent conclusions. Hopefully, more folks will appreciate how obsolete the notion of race is, in the face of genetic analysis.

[Kramer]

whoa, wait a minute.....

Millions of years ago wasnt all the continents all together, and then separated over time? I think I seen that on TV somewhere. Therefore Africa and Europe was 1 land mass, together with north and south america even. If im not mistaken.

Thats BS that were all frickin african! Sounds fishy to me. I had better call Obama and report it! :roll: :lol:

[Kramer]

whoa, wait a minute.....

Millions of years ago wasnt all the continents all together, and then separated over time? I think I seen that on TV somewhere. Therefore Africa and Europe was 1 land mass, together with north and south america even. If im not mistaken.

Thats BS that were all frickin african! Sounds fishy to me. I had better call Obama and report it! :roll: :lol:

[DC]

Lol @ Trish, I love people who think mainstream science has all the answers, fucking sheep...

[DC]

Lol @ Trish, you believe what you want too, but mainstream science doesn't have all the answers, but they love people like you who blindly believe all there lies.. Your just a sheep.. Bah

[Falrune]

whoa, wait a minute.....

Millions of years ago wasnt all the continents all together, and then separated over time? I think I seen that on TV somewhere. Therefore Africa and Europe was 1 land mass, together with north and south america even. If im not mistaken.

Thats BS that were all frickin african! Sounds fishy to me. I had better call Obama and report it! :roll: :lol:

The continents were well-divided by the time the first hominid arrived -- (Homo habilis) over 2 million years ago. Notice the continents are dividing quite a bit at about the time of dinosaur extinctions, 65 million years ago. The first Homo sapiens came around 300,000 years ago. Homo sapiens neanderthalis was about 120,000 years ago.

[Justawannabe]

Sigh...

I've seen several specials with similar messages.

Yes genetically we're all the same species, yes, race is a made up term used for political and social evil throughout time. That doesn't change the information content of the terms at all.

You say that all there is is environmental and cultural factors, not races, but just like breeds of dogs alluded to by an earlier poster, each of the 'races' of man has different medical and social challenges now. Race is just a way of collecting those environmental and cultural changes into broad groups. Is it always accurate and useful, no, but neither is family history of disease and we track that because it sometimes is.

Just because a term has a bad history doesn't mean that it doesn't say something useful now.

Anyway...

[Rogers]

The theory that we all originate from Africa is flawed, explain the different races and ethnic groups and how everyone in the world speaks a different language, science is so far off the mark with its theory of evolution its not even funny.. How did man go from primitive caveman to a pyramid builder overnight,it cannot be explained... Do you research... Darwin was a fraud and even denounced his own theory of evolution on his death bed...

The "Out of Africa" hypothesis is strongly based on the fossil record, i.e. hard evidence. Of course, God could have placed all those hominid fossils in Africa just to test our faith, or got his angels to do it. :lol: Our different races and languages is the result of natural variation over time caused by geographical spread, the same reason you get African elephants and Indian ones. Darwin and Wallace pretty much explained this 150 years ago, but the idea has been strengthened by the theory of "Island Biogeography". And man didn't go from primitive caveman to pyramid builder overnight. The first pyramid was built less than 5 thousand years ago. The evolution of pyramid building is scattered all over the world with so many failed attempts at it that that alone pretty much destroys any "Ancient Astronaut" hypothesis. Do your research, you retarded fish frog... :wink:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155359

"1.The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

[phobun]

Lol @ Trish, I love people who think mainstream science has all the answers, fucking sheep...
If there were more grammar and spelling errors in your writing, I might mistake you for addicted (worthy2)...

[DC]

Go fuck yourself Phobun you cock sucking fag....

[phobun]

Go fuck yourself Phobun you cock sucking fag....
addicted, is that really you!?!

start shrieking about hiv... we need another laugh

[Teydyn]

I might mistake you for addicted (worthy2)...


Go fuck yourself Phobun you cock sucking fag....
That answer shows Phobuns guess was quite right? :)

[jcinva]

Its clear you didnt watch the special.

I feel ya, brother. I hate people who don't watch TV to get ejicated, or worse, watch TV and don't believe all of it.

I totally get everything you're talking about.

I once saw this show where Dennis Hopper was giving a lecture on genetics and world history. His hypothesis was that all Sicilians are Africans. And then he developed the history and science to support the proposition.

And then, if I recall correctly, Christopher Walken killed him.

[Alyssa87]

its on tonite @ 9est

[Gh0strider]

Its clear you didnt watch the special.

I feel ya, brother. I hate people who don't watch TV to get ejicated, or worse, watch TV and don't believe all of it.

I totally get everything you're talking about.

I once saw this show where Dennis Hopper was giving a lecture on genetics and world history. His hypothesis was that all Sicilians are Africans. And then he developed the history and science to support the proposition.

And then, if I recall correctly, Christopher Walken killed him.

your sarcasm aside. I am not saying television or the internet or books should be your sole source for knowledge but to make an uniformed comment is just that uninformed.

If he refrenced a book or paper to back up his claims I would have researched the information and made an informed response.

[Silcc69]

THERE IS ONLY 1 TRUE EVOLUTION!

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll220/darkeviltwisted/WWE/evolution.jpg

[Coroner]

Its clear you didnt watch the special.

I feel ya, brother. I hate people who don't watch TV to get ejicated, or worse, watch TV and don't believe all of it.

I totally get everything you're talking about.

I once saw this show where Dennis Hopper was giving a lecture on genetics and world history. His hypothesis was that all Sicilians are Africans. And then he developed the history and science to support the proposition.

And then, if I recall correctly, Christopher Walken killed him.

I guess you mean "True Romance"? :)

Jokes aside. Just 100.000 years ago, humans were dark pigmented. Life on earth has come a long way. We´re all descendants of a single proto-cell that was able to reproduce itself about 3,8 billion years ago. 99% of all life forms died out during the long process of evolution and every life form today is related. Yes, we´re related to apes, other mammals, plants etc. because we all have the same origin. Talking about race within the human population is nonsense. Our variability is a product of geographical isolation, genetic recombination and for example mutation. Most of you should know that the term "race" has been replaced by "ethnicity". The "Out of Africa" - theory is the most accepted by paleontologists and other scientists. I´d like to quote a song title by Ornette Coleman: "Africa is the mirror of all colors".

[Kramer]

Its BS!

If I came from African decent then where's my hoodie?? And I dont have a rap sheet either....................so there. :D 8)

[Alyssa87]

...or a large penis

[Kramer]

...or a large penis


LOL.................that too!!! :lol:

[rick_932]

on right now...nat geo channel

[trish]

Sad but true. We all share a common ancestor with Glenn Beck :(

[trish]

Kramer and DC may in fact be exceptional cases. The only two people on the planet not to have African ancestry. It's entirely possible they evolved just decades ago from puddle scum in a Tennessee trailer park and never had time to build the pyramids.

[SarahG]

2) Adam and Eve both were Africans


Wouldn't Adam and Eve have to have existed for them to have been African? Just because "everyone" is related to a single couple # generations back doesn't mean that there were a couple created by some diety to be the first pair of humans.... or that this particular african couple were that specific couple (they could have been # generations removed from that couple for all we know).

In fact doesn't most scientific evidence on the subject theorize that men developed from women, not vice versa? To say that some god created a man, in Africa (for argument's shake) and then removed a rib to create a woman to go with him doesn't seem to be supported.



There has been no evolution of the humane genome in the last 60,000 years all you have is climate effects that forced migration and selection choices (ie pale skin is an advantage in colder climates, so is straight hair but genetically the differences are beyond miniscule)

I am not sure if that's true actually. I could see the argument that some of the autism spectrum disorders are, in fact, evolutionary changes.


It's all just cocker spaniels & chihuahuas.

Actually we are all more alike than the variety of dog breeds are to each other- as there are some dog breeds that can not be successfully cross bred to create fertile, healthy offspring (at least, that's what I remember us being taught, I have never tried to fact check it).

[rockabilly]

Well Lilith was the first female and was equal , Adam booted her for wanting to be on top , so Eve was made from him to be submissive. Lilith went her own way ...

[rockabilly]

Lilith was then made out to be a monster who came out at night and fed on infants ... the first Vampire, or the opposite of a nurturing mother what the ideal woman was supposed to be. But this all off topic .

[DC]

Trish, Like I said before its a Theory (Not Fact), so you can believe whatever you want. I believe its more important to keep an open mind then have blind faith in Science or Religion.

[rameses2]

If Eve was made from Adam's rib, then a) she would be a clone and or b) she would be Adam's sister? So it's a choice between incest or genetic engineering. Good, ole Bible! Ya gotta love it... or else!!! :roll:

[SarahG]

If Eve was made from Adam's rib, then a) she would be a clone and or b) she would be Adam's sister? So it's a choice between incest or genetic engineering. Good, ole Bible! Ya gotta love it... or else!!! :roll:

Hmm, wouldn't a clone mean we're here because someone literally fucked them self?

[muhmuh]

Our variability is a product of geographical isolation, genetic recombination and for example mutation.

which is exactly what makes as race a race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)


Most of you should know that the term "race" has been replaced by "ethnicity".

thats just some pc bs which has nothing at all to do with the biological facts and wording
although the german article on rasse claims that its apparently been replaced with "subspecies"... might be a german only biology terminology thing thanks to a certain austrian


I am not sure if that's true actually. I could see the argument that some of the autism spectrum disorders are, in fact, evolutionary changes.

isnt there pretty well established evidence that the average iq is continously rising with each new generation?


as there are some dog breeds that can not be successfully cross bred to create fertile, healthy offspring (at least, that's what I remember us being taught, I have never tried to fact check it).

im pretty sure that would make them another species than dogs
there are however quite a few dog breeds/races (actually race is the word for breed as in dog in quite a few languages) where producing offspring is a bit of a geometric impossibility


Hmm, wouldn't a clone mean we're here because someone literally fucked them self?

if we imagine that there was more than one adam and eve each eg 20 adams and 20 eves we could call it the big bang theory make a video about it and all make some money

[JohnDoe82]

i saw that in the season finale of Battlestar Galactica, they landed
in Africa, all 39406 of them. Hera is the Mitochondrial Eve. she
is a human-cylon hybrid. :shock:

[BellaBellucci]

[quote=Gh0strider]
I once saw this show where Dennis Hopper was giving a lecture on genetics and world history. His hypothesis was that all Sicilians are Africans. And then he developed the history and science to support the proposition.


I'm 1/2 Sicilian and I've been saying this for years but it's only been a theory of mine based on geographic convenience (close proximity). You're telling me there's evidence that I'm right? Links please. lol ;)

~BB~

[bte]

Just got through watching it on my DVR. It was very interesting.

[trish]

Trish, Like I said before its a Theory (Not Fact), so you can believe whatever you want. I believe its more important to keep an open mind then have blind faith in Science or Religion.Theory is the analytical development of a set of hypothesis. For the theory to be substantial it has to have testable consequences. The atomic theory of matter has been so well tested most people regard it as a fact that matter consists of atoms bonded by electrostatic forces in compliance with quantum theory into molecules which in turn account for chemical species of matter. Roger’s has provided links that explain in some detail how the predictions of an “out of Africa” origin for all modern humans is borne out by the fossil record. It’s not mere argument by authority. As you say, you can do the research yourself. A very nice explanation of the genetic evidence for human evolution and our mutual relation to a common ancestor can be found in Sean B. Carroll’s, “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution.” Science is never something you take on faith. You have to read, think, examine and analyze the data. If you’re a scientist you have to also draw consequences, suggest experiments and collect the data. Anyone, including a biologist, is free to believe whatever they want. Science doesn’t tell you what to believe. It shows you how facts and hypothesis can be organized into an interlocking logical and empirical framework of sufficient reliability as to provide a secure basis for decision making; e.g. in engineering or public policy. Perhaps DC, you can show us the “facts” that refute the claim of African origins and develop it into a solid organized body knowledge as well substantiated and as useful and productive as the modern synthesis.

[Gh0strider]

2) Adam and Eve both were Africans


Wouldn't Adam and Eve have to have existed for them to have been African? Just because "everyone" is related to a single couple # generations back doesn't mean that there were a couple created by some diety to be the first pair of humans.... or that this particular african couple were that specific couple (they could have been # generations removed from that couple for all we know).

In fact doesn't most scientific evidence on the subject theorize that men developed from women, not vice versa? To say that some god created a man, in Africa (for argument's shake) and then removed a rib to create a woman to go with him doesn't seem to be supported.



There has been no evolution of the humane genome in the last 60,000 years all you have is climate effects that forced migration and selection choices (ie pale skin is an advantage in colder climates, so is straight hair but genetically the differences are beyond miniscule)

I am not sure if that's true actually. I could see the argument that some of the autism spectrum disorders are, in fact, evolutionary changes.


It's all just cocker spaniels & chihuahuas.

Actually we are all more alike than the variety of dog breeds are to each other- as there are some dog breeds that can not be successfully cross bred to create fertile, healthy offspring (at least, that's what I remember us being taught, I have never tried to fact check it).

I wasnt refering to a literal Adam and Eve (just the understanding we are descendants from a single couple)

Second I didnt say there hasnt been mutation of the human genome over that time but there has not been a significant evolutionary change to the human genome...ie feathers, gills, etc.

[tommymageeshemales2]

Just referring to race, Chuck Norris was widely predicted to be the first black US president. If you’re thinking to yourself, “But Chuck Norris isn’t black”, then you are dead wrong. And stop being a racist.

[SarahG]

Second I didnt say there hasnt been mutation of the human genome over that time but there has not been a significant evolutionary change to the human genome...ie feathers, gills, etc.

Has science shown any species to suddenly sprout feathers, gills, or so on in a 60,000 year time span?

[gotchagood]

Mohammad Ali:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieiAzIJjggdi3_0YlJXkV0uFqC4QD9AEOPT00

There are only two types of people. People who have more "melanin" in their skin and people who have less.


Have a great day all.

[Kramer]

Mohammad Ali:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieiAzIJjggdi3_0YlJXkV0uFqC4QD9AEOPT00

There are only two types of people. People who have more "melanin" in their skin and people who have less.


Have a great day all.

Sorry that melenin theory is bs.

[natina]

the creation of whiteness or THAT DIRTY TRICK


http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip

Tim Wise on the "Dominant Historical Narrative"

http://www.redroom.com/media/tim-wise

[Rogers]

Most of you should know that the term "race" has been replaced by "ethnicity".

thats just some pc bs which has nothing at all to do with the biological facts and wording
although the german article on rasse claims that its apparently been replaced with "subspecies"... might be a german only biology terminology thing thanks to a certain austrian

Agree completely, muhmuh. Doesn't Austria send Holocaust deniers to prison because of that infamous Austrian too?



I am not sure if that's true actually. I could see the argument that some of the autism spectrum disorders are, in fact, evolutionary changes.

isnt there pretty well established evidence that the average iq is continously rising with each new generation?

Autism seems to be a multi-system problem linked to early exposure to toxic chemicals and or infection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12197782?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.immed.org/GulfWarIllness/CMIGWVC%20AutismPatients.pdf

I.Q. on the rise can be much more readily explained by kids simply being more challenged.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ605828&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ605828

There is nothing to suggest we have changed significantly genetically in many, many thousands of years. Basically the same shit, just different day.

[Rogers]

Second I didnt say there hasnt been mutation of the human genome over that time but there has not been a significant evolutionary change to the human genome...ie feathers, gills, etc.

Has science shown any species to suddenly sprout feathers, gills, or so on in a 60,000 year time span?

It's often difficult to see the evolutionary changes in species because we haven't found every fossil there is to be found, so there are often large gaps in time. 6OK years is quite literally nothing in the fossil record. But it's generally accepted that "fast" evolution has and will happen. How fast it can happen I can't say, but I strongly suspect that big changes in morphology like the ones you've suggested takes millions of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

[Rogers]

Rate of evolution in the Lungfish:
http://books.google.com/books?id=b-HGB9PqXCUC&pg=PA607&dq=evolution+rate+lungfish#v=onepage&q=evolution%20rate%20lungfish&f=false

Timeline in Hominids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Hominini

[plankton]

Read about the multi-regional theory.

[jcinva]

Read about the multi-regional theory.


Huh? You mean in like DVDs?

[Nicole Dupre]

I'm 1/2 Sicilian and I've been saying this for years but it's only been a theory of mine based on geographic convenience (close proximity). You're telling me there's evidence that I'm right? Links please. lol ;)

~BB~

As you know, I am also half Sicilian. But it should be noted that Sicily is a cultural and biological melting pot. True, the Moors who invaded and once ruled Sicily were Arabs. But Sicily has a huge amount Greek heritage as well. Then of course, there were countless northern Europeans mixing into the gene pool also. Case in point; my Sicilian grandmother had light brown hair, fine features, and blue eyes.

Native Americans, it is theorized, are genetically connected to the Mongolians who descended from the north. It has also been speculated that an Asian people crossed the Atlantic centuries before Columbus arrived. Therefore northern, central, and southern Americans have Asian blood in their gene pool. This would explain some of the seemingly coincidental parallels running between both Native American and Asian cultures.

Much of the American south was populated by Irish indentured servants. And, therefore, even the Mayflower can't be seen as the prediominant influx of northern Euopean ancestry into North America. This is why so many many southerners still have red hair and freckes, and New Englanders don't; they're of Scots-Irish and Irish ancestry.

The bottom line is, it's almost impossible to assign racial "purity" to anyone living today in western civilization.

[natina]

White skin appeared just 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, as dark-skinned humans migrated to colder climes and lost much of their melanin pigment.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/20-things-skin


White skin appeared just 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, as dark-skinned humans migrated to colder climes and lost much of their melanin pigment.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/20-things-skin


see there is no biological basis for the idea of a white or black or asian

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/20-things-skin


Race is an old concept that should probably be discarded. It was

created by people who had a very limited knowledge of their world. If you

look at any genetic map (mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA), you can

see there is no biological basis for the idea of a white or black or asian

race.

Here's a nice map THAT IS ON POINT
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

[natina]

famous Caucasian people find out there PART BLACK


will this change there attitude?

this is work done by the famous professor GATES RECENTLY IN THE NEWS


your DNA REVEALED

http://www.theroot.com/id/44256?videoId=1386375784

http://www.theroot.com/id/44162

Bliss Broyard

Bliss Broyard is the author of My Father, Dancing (1999), a New York Times notable book of the year, and One Drop: My Father's Hidden Life -- A Story of Race & Family Secrets (2007). Her work has been anthologized in Best American Short Stories, The Pushcart Prize Anthology and The Art of the Essay, and she is a frequent contributor to Elle Magazine and The New York Times Book Review. Broyard lives in Brooklyn, New York, with her husband and daughter.


1753 Etienne Broyard, Bliss Broyard's fourth great grandfather, arrives in New Orleans from La Rochelle, France, a white soldier in the French Royal Army. Approximately half of the 3,000 people living in New Orleans at this time are slaves.

1855 Henry Antoine Broyard and Marie Pauline Bonnet, Bliss Broyard's great, great grandparents, marry in 1855. Pauline is a free person of color, and because marriage between blacks and whites is prohibited, Henry lists himself as "FPC," a free person of color, on the marriage license. Marie Pauline's family is among the 10,000 refugees from Saint Domingue, later renamed Haiti, who came to New Orleans after the colony's fight for independence.

1862 Henry Broyard's regiment, the First Louisiana Native Guard Infantry, is the first black regiment in the Union Army to enter the Civil War in September, 1862.

1920 Anatole Broyard is born in 1920. In 1927, Paul and Edna Broyard abandon New Orleans for Brooklyn, N.Y., bringing Anatole and his two sisters with them.

1990 New York Times critic and essayist Anatole Broyard dies of cancer. His wife, Alexandra, tells his daughter Bliss and son Todd that their father is part black, descended from Creoles in New Orleans.
Put Bliss Broyard's life and ancestry in historical context with the Interactive Historical Timeline.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/profiles/broyard.html


http://www.colourlovers.com/uploads/2008/08/04-skin-color-map_cl.png

[natina]

" real white people" AND THE DOMINATE NARRATIVE

http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip.




THE DOMINATE NARRATIVE

http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-dominant-historical-narrative

[natina]

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html


Your Family May Once Have Been A Different Color

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100057939

[muhmuh]

Agree completely, muhmuh. Doesn't Austria send Holocaust deniers to prison because of that infamous Austrian too?

no idea frankly


There is nothing to suggest we have changed significantly genetically in many, many thousands of years. Basically the same shit, just different day.

isnt that entirely missing the point? im pretty sure there have been changes in human genes over those years but more importantly evolutionary 60k years is nothing
also i vaguely remember reading that theres some evidence to suggest that the (information theoretically rather impressive) error correction fo gene replication and gene interpretation ensures that some rather significant changes in the genes dont have any visible effect until a certain point often tiggered by some drastic changes in the animals habitat

[jcinva]

...rather significant changes in the genes dont have any visible effect until a certain point often tiggered by some drastic changes in the animals habitat

The so-called "A. A. Milne effect."

[trish]

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1859/out-africa-human-odyssey-traced-detail

[natina]

Out of Africa: Human odyssey traced in detail

Thursday, 21 February 2008Agence France-Presse

Rainbow of variation: A schematic of worldwide human genetic variation, with colors representing different genetic types. The figure illustrates the great amount of genetic variation in Africa.

Credit: Illustration by Martin Soave/University of Michigan


PARIS: Diving deep into the human genome, scientists have drawn up the most detailed maps to date of our evolutionary past. Their findings are detailed in two studies published this week in the British journal Nature.

One paper reveals that human genetic diversity decreases the further one gets from Africa, the cradle of humanity.

People of African descent are more varied genetically than people of the Middle East, who are in turn more diverse than either Asians or Europeans, the study found. By the time Homo sapiens migrated to the Americas across the Bering Straits, diversity had dwindled even further.

Damaging mutations

The other investigation shows that Americans of European descent have more potentially damaging mutations in their DNA than African-Americans, a finding that settles a long-standing debate.

It is now clear, the researchers say, that all persons of European descent, and not just isolated geographic groups, experienced a "genetic bottleneck" – probably between 30,000 and 100,000 years ago – as a small, founding population moved into present-day Europe.

As a result, the gene pool in Europe was restricted, and possibly harmful mutations in DNA were handed down over the generations instead of being flushed out of the genome through the evolutionary process of natural selection.
Both papers have important implications for understanding the genetic origin of disease and why some populations – associated with ethnic groups, geographic locations or both – seem more at risk from certain disorders than others.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1859/out-africa-human-odyssey-traced-detail


http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/news/files/20080221_map.jpg

[TommyFoxtrot]

Incredible television show that went into the genetic make up of humans and showed how we are all related.

1) We are all Africans...doesnt matter your skin tone, you go back far enough you are from Africa

2) Adam and Eve both were Africans

3) Your ancestry is more jumbled than you can possible imagine

4) RACE is a made up notion it is meant only to divide and conquer. It is fallacy and belief in it is abhorrent.

Must see television for everyone...


I have to suspect bullshit on a show that asserts 2 and 4. Adam and Eve didn't exist and race is becoming more and more apparent to researchers. Social Scientists try to tell you that race doesn't exist, then actual researchers find that it very much exists when they are learning to treat disease. Dosages and Treatments for east asian women might have bad effects on African American women, etc. etc.


Heck, tell a forensics technician that race doesn't exist, and he'll tell you that he can identify a skeleton based on subtle differences in bone structure. Race does exist, people trying to manipulate you will say otherwise.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Out of Africa: Human odyssey traced in detail

Thursday, 21 February 2008Agence France-Presse

Rainbow of variation: A schematic of worldwide human genetic variation, with colors representing different genetic types. The figure illustrates the great amount of genetic variation in Africa.

Credit: Illustration by Martin Soave/University of Michigan


PARIS: Diving deep into the human genome, scientists have drawn up the most detailed maps to date of our evolutionary past. Their findings are detailed in two studies published this week in the British journal Nature.

One paper reveals that human genetic diversity decreases the further one gets from Africa, the cradle of humanity.

People of African descent are more varied genetically than people of the Middle East, who are in turn more diverse than either Asians or Europeans, the study found. By the time Homo sapiens migrated to the Americas across the Bering Straits, diversity had dwindled even further.

Damaging mutations

The other investigation shows that Americans of European descent have more potentially damaging mutations in their DNA than African-Americans, a finding that settles a long-standing debate.

It is now clear, the researchers say, that all persons of European descent, and not just isolated geographic groups, experienced a "genetic bottleneck" – probably between 30,000 and 100,000 years ago – as a small, founding population moved into present-day Europe.

As a result, the gene pool in Europe was restricted, and possibly harmful mutations in DNA were handed down over the generations instead of being flushed out of the genome through the evolutionary process of natural selection.
Both papers have important implications for understanding the genetic origin of disease and why some populations – associated with ethnic groups, geographic locations or both – seem more at risk from certain disorders than others.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1859/out-africa-human-odyssey-traced-detail


http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/news/files/20080221_map.jpg


This is also contrived, with a socio-political agenda at work. Subcontinental Indians have the largest genetic variation outside Africa, and they're "asians."

Native Americans have far less genetic variation than Europeans, and that's left out. We've seen manipulation like this before, and the researchers have had to distance themselves from the people using their research.

[gotchagood]

Mohammad Ali:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieiAzIJjggdi3_0YlJXkV0uFqC4QD9AEOPT00

There are only two types of people. People who have more "melanin" in their skin and people who have less.


Have a great day all.

Sorry that melenin theory is bs.Hmmm, I'm sorry that you disagree. Let me explain further for you, it's quite simple. The more "melanin" you have in your skin, the darker your skin is. The less you have makes you lighter. Example, albino people have almost 0 melanin in their skin. What other types of people are there? Plaid? Furthermore, you hear people saying well, I'm Irish or Scandinavian, but if you took the two people from these two regions and stood them side by side, could you tell who was from where? Hope you understand.


Have a great day

[Rogers]

Agree completely, muhmuh. Doesn't Austria send Holocaust deniers to prison because of that infamous Austrian too?

no idea frankly

I somehow got the impression that you were German or Austrian, muhmuh. My bad. :oops:
Holocaust denier Irving is jailed [for 3 years]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm
Holocaust denier gets 5 years in Austrian prison
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707764,00.html



There is nothing to suggest we have changed significantly genetically in many, many thousands of years. Basically the same shit, just different day.

isnt that entirely missing the point? im pretty sure there have been changes in human genes over those years but more importantly evolutionary 60k years is nothing
also i vaguely remember reading that theres some evidence to suggest that the (information theoretically rather impressive) error correction fo gene replication and gene interpretation ensures that some rather significant changes in the genes dont have any visible effect until a certain point often tiggered by some drastic changes in the animals habitat

That's right, we have and are evolving genes which MAY lead to evolutionary change in the future or possibly MAY even be causing change right now. However, we will only know if these genes are significant in the future as we only ever see the "ghost of evolution past". Evolution isn't constant. This is what the theory of punctuated equilibrium is all about. Look at the plots of the evolution rate of lungfish in the link I posted above and you'll maybe grasp what I'm trying to get across.

I saw this guy give a talk on snails once: :lol:
Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece
End of evolution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081007_endofevolution.shtml

[Rogers]

Read about the multi-regional theory.

"Conclusion
For the moment, the majority of anatomical, archaeological and genetic evidence gives credence to the view that fully modern humans are a relatively recent evolutionary phenomenon. The current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model that postulates a single, African origin for Homo sapiens. The major neurological and cultural innovations that characterized the appearance of fully modern humans has proven to be remarkably successful, culminating in our dominance of the planet at the expense of all earlier hominid populations.

© 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences."
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

[muhmuh]

I somehow got the impression that you were German or Austrian, muhmuh. My bad. :oops:

german yes which means that i dont care much about austrian laws


Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece
End of evolution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081007_endofevolution.shtml

if that were true wed be dead within the next few centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen

[Rogers]

Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece
End of evolution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081007_endofevolution.shtml

if that were true wed be dead within the next few centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen

The Red Queen hypothesis is indeed the best explanation we have as to why sexual reproduction did evolve, and we do indeed run risks by reducing natural selection on our species. But sexual reproduction, the mixing of our genes, and mutations are all still happening in our species. It's just that evolution needs natural selection for a new gene that confers an advantage to spread thoughout a population then on through the whole species. If you don't grasp this then you really don't get Darwinian evolution I'm afraid. Jones explains this in the BBC radio clip on the second link.

[thx1138]

http://www.physorg.com/news171286860.html

[SarahG]

I have to suspect bullshit on a show that asserts 2 and 4. Adam and Eve didn't exist and race is becoming more and more apparent to researchers. Social Scientists try to tell you that race doesn't exist, then actual researchers find that it very much exists when they are learning to treat disease. Dosages and Treatments for east asian women might have bad effects on African American women, etc. etc.

You raise a good point here, medical treatment absolutely has to take race into consideration, and they're finding that it is extremely difficult to properly match treatments for patients of mixed races under certain scenarios. Just look at organ transplants, its far easier to match a donner to a recipient when they're the same ethnicity/race, but there can be more rejection problems when talking about mixed race recipients getting unmixed material.

Whether we like it or not, "race" differences include an array of things far beyond eye color, hair color, and skin color.

http://www.physorg.com/news162659550.html


Nick Glasgow, left, who has Leukemia, is comforted by his mother Carole Wiegand at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Hayward, Calif., Friday, May 22, 2009. If Glasgow were white, he would have a nearly 90 percent chance of finding a matching bone marrow donor to treat the leukemia that has robbed him of his dark hair and whittled 20 pounds off his bodybuilder's frame. But because the 28-year-old is one-quarter Japanese, his doctor warned him the outlook was grim: Glasgow's background would make it almost impossible to find a match, which usually comes from a patient's own ethnic group

[lochaber]

I think the thing with race is not so much that there is/isn't race, but that our concept of race is an artificial and arbitrary construct.

Yes, a group of people who have descended from a certain geographic area will have more genetic (and morphological) similarity then people descended from another geographic area.

However, most of our perceptions of race are based on skin pigmentation, and this is a pretty minor aspect, and why the concept of race is often seen as arbitrary. As someone mentioned before (sorry, can't remember who), there is a tremendous amount of genetic diversity amongst Africans. Some groups of Africans are genetically more similar to Europeans than some other African groups; yet with our current concept of race, both of these dissimilar African groups would be (and are) grouped under 'black', and thought of as being essentially the same to each other, while being drastically different from Europeans.

I think the best description I have heard of the concept of race is that it is a 'fuzzy set' of characteristics (I can't remember the author off hand, read it a few months ago...). Like me, the author claimed they had a lot of trouble distinguishing races, and was often questioned about this. His explanation was that if someone falls clearly in the center of the 'fuzzy set', he could identify them as being a member of a given race, but when drawing examples from people towards the edge of the fuzzy set, it was difficult for him to assign a race to the individual.

Which brings up another criticism of race, in that there is a continuous spectrum of the qualities that we use to define race, and none of these qualities are a binary yes/no quality, each of them are present to a different degree in everybody. Our current concept of race is trying to take a binary system (white/black for example) and overlay it on a continuous spectrum of a given quality (levels of melanin in the skin, for the black/white example). Granted, there are more then two races, and more qualities then just skin color used to identify these races, but the point is the same, race is little more then an artificial dichotomy.

[muhmuh]

If you don't grasp this then you really don't get Darwinian evolution I'm afraid. Jones explains this in the BBC radio clip on the second link.

you may want to try getting off your high horse i do know how evolution works but that doesnt mean i agree with those articles
not to mention that they flatly contradict each other

also you dont seem to understand that sexual reproduction itself is a form of natural selection

[Rogers]

If you don't grasp this then you really don't get Darwinian evolution I'm afraid. Jones explains this in the BBC radio clip on the second link.

you may want to try getting off your high horse i do know how evolution works but that doesnt mean i agree with those articles
not to mention that they flatly contradict each other

Flatly contradict themselves, how so? :lol: So the London Times article doesn't mention Africa. Since when did newspaper articles ever tell the whole story, or the "real story" in their headlines for that matter? No one is saying that human evolution has stopped, it just has slowed greatly in the majority of the human species. I've already told you, evolution isn't constant. It's like a car that can speed up, slow down, or stop completely.


also you dont seem to understand that sexual reproduction itself is a form of natural selection

Yes I do. Jones was saying precisely that in BOTH the links. Nice "contradicton" there, huh? :wink:

"Professor Jones added: “In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.” He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children. To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years."

Sex with an average of 1.2 women a day for 60 years!!! :shock: No doubt he died during the act as well. :D

Another example of this natural selection by sexual reproduction was Ghengis Khan. He was a prodigious collector of beautiful women. Definitely the best job in the world if you can get it. :lol: Attila the Hun was the same.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

Evolution by natural selection, I.E. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION, works by differential fecundity (see above) AND differential mortality (see below).

"Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. “In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21.”"

The same thing is happening in China (how many billion?) where they also have legal caps on the number of children an individual can have.

[muhmuh]

Flatly contradict themselves, how so?

one claims the average father is too young the other claims the exact opposite... did you actually bother to read them?


No one is saying that human evolution has stopped, it just has slowed greatly in the majority of the human species.

so because of 2 articles based on what one guy said its suddenly an absolute irrefutable truth?


Another example of this natural selection by sexual reproduction was Ghengis Khan. He was a prodigious collector of beautiful women.

no its not in fact its quite possibly the exact opposite since the women never had a chance to choose their mate thus allowing one guy with the money to afford a large harem who the women might or might not have ever had sex with based on his merits to father a large number of kids

[jcinva]

no its not in fact its quite possibly the exact opposite since the women never had a chance to choose their mate thus allowing one guy with the money to afford a large harem who the women might or might not have ever had sex with based on his merits to father a large number of kids

"Women had the chance to choose...???"

WTF are you talking about?

If the system rewards powerful and successful behaviors with money and harems, then the most children by the males who can kidnap the most women, or woo them with the most money sounds like natural selection to me.

Women's personal interests and "nature's" are not necessarily one and the same. I think, for the most part, the whole discomfort and inconvenience around pregnancy and childcare would be disincentive to get involved in the whole process at all.

[trish]

Just arguing in a non-scientific fashion: it would seem that in developed nations the existence of public sanitation and health programs together with the advance of medical knowledge and technology has the effect of lessening certain sorts of selection pressure. Most people in developed nations live to reproductive maturity. If the U.S. and European populations are accepting of the influx of immigrants, this could have the effect of widening the “bottleneck” and generating some genetic diversity. If mortality is less pressing, then it would seem sexual selection would be the dominate selection pressure. Computer nerds and other geeks making out less (pun intended) than more prolific stereotypes, raises the question, “are the common stereotypes also phenotypes?” If for example, there is a complex of genes which is expressed in males as polygamous behavior and in females as acceptance of male polygamy (which does seem to be the case in some mammalian species; e.g. sea lions) then the dominance of sexual selection in modern society would seem to favor this gene complex and ultimately males with harems. If such behavior in humans is not due to any genetic predisposition than any “selection” for or against such behavior would be social or political rather than natural (in the Darwinian sense of natural selection).

[Rogers]

Flatly contradict themselves, how so?

one claims the average father is too young the other claims the exact opposite... did you actually bother to read them?

Huh? :?
"Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece
"we are living longer and having less children later in life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081007_endofevolution.shtml

What contradiction???



No one is saying that human evolution has stopped, it just has slowed greatly in the majority of the human species.

so because of 2 articles based on what one guy said its suddenly an absolute irrefutable truth?

Absolute irrefutable truth??? Ermm, no. :lol: When did science ever work like that, especially in as something as complex as evolution? But there is nothing wrong with what he's said, and you're not suggesting anything else. He's amply explained how differential fecundity and mortality rates (which is how evolution by natural selection works) have come way down. If you don't want to accept that then that's fine by me. Science is not a dictatorship. End of conversation. :)



Another example of this natural selection by sexual reproduction was Ghengis Khan. He was a prodigious collector of beautiful women.

no its not in fact its quite possibly the exact opposite since the women never had a chance to choose their mate thus allowing one guy with the money to afford a large harem who the women might or might not have ever had sex with based on his merits to father a large number of kids

Female choice of partner has much, much less evolutionary importance because women have much lower fecundity, i.e. capacity to reproduce. This is basic biology. Do you really think a woman could give birth to 800+ kids? :lol: Like I said, differential fecundity and differential mortality. :wink:

[Alyssa87]

the experiment itself was really cool.
i'd like to have my lineages traced back like on the show..

i thought it was cool how people who looked soo different have common ancestors who traveled the globe together at some point. way after Africa.

[Alyssa87]

also what i thought was interesting was that Africa still is the most genetically diverse place on earth.

the other continents and places of the world are more closely related because they all stem from the few initial lineages that left Africa. Most of 'us' stayed there, and the genetic diversity is greater there because of it.


wOoOow

[trish]

also what i thought was interesting was that Africa still is the most genetically diverse place on earth.

the other continents and places of the world are more closely related because they all stem from the few initial lineages that left Africa. Most of 'us' stayed there, and the genetic diversity is greater there because of it.


wOoOow

If visited the Galapagos Islands one summer and was struck by how few species were to be found on each island, and yet also by how varied each specie was from it's mainland relative. It's the same thing you're struck by but only in a smaller scale. I agree, the founder effect deserves a big wOoOow.

[BrendaQG]

I watched the show in question, and have seen others like it before.

Personally I was not surprised by how many "black" people are in fact multiracial to various degree's. My own family is just like that, and has been for generations.

I think that the use of Adam and Eve by the scientist has confused people. When they say "genetic eve" or "Y-chromosomal Adam" they aren't talking in any biblical terms at all. They are not saying that literally these two existed X years ago and were the only people in some garden. If you pay attention the show makes it clear that genetic eve lived tens of thousands of years BEFORE Y-chromosomal adam. Further it makes clear that we would have all had chromosomes from those other lines of people in us too.

The most chilling thing to me is when shows like this talk about Mt. Toba's eruption, which killed everyone outside Africa. I can't imagine how horrible it would be if anything remotely like that happened now.

[JackLovesTSs]

Adam and Eve



LMAO

[partlycloudy]

for the people that missed the show:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/2925694

trace your lineage for $100:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/participate.html

[muhmuh]

"Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece
"we are living longer and having less children later in life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081007_endofevolution.shtml

What contradiction???

uhhhh how about because apparently theres few old fathers yet somehow people produce children later in life


But there is nothing wrong with what he's said

theres plenty of things that directly contradict evolutionary evidence


Female choice of partner has much, much less evolutionary importance because women have much lower fecundity

so how would your idea of evolution explain peacocks and other male animals with features highly detrimental to successful survival?


If visited the Galapagos Islands one summer and was struck by how few species were to be found on each island, and yet also by how varied each specie was from it's mainland relative.

pacific islands in general are a great example how less pressure from natural selection can and will lead to extraordinary jumps in evolution
islands are often inhabited by very few species with very little competition in a very rich environment that puts little pressure on the species

and yet depspite contradicting elementary school understanding of evolution these psecies evolve into some of the most unique and diverse faunas anywhere on earth
however naturally the lack of competition makes them weak when animals from more contested areas are brought into the environment which is why so many endangered species are found on islands

[Rogers]

"Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece
"we are living longer and having less children later in life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081007_endofevolution.shtml

What contradiction???

uhhhh how about because apparently theres few old fathers yet somehow people produce children later in life

You said the two links I posted contradicted themselves, muhmuh. They don't. You know that and so do I. Selectively editing posts is not nice at all. But the answer to your question is given in the quote from the second link above. Just because we're living longer doesn't mean we're reproducing late in life. There is little need to do that because kids are surviving to adulthood to reproduce themselves. This is the reason why people had such big families in the past because so many would die early. Why are you trying to drag this out with pure BS? If you don't agree with what I've posted that's fine.



But there is nothing wrong with what he's said

theres plenty of things that directly contradict evolutionary evidence

Feel free to elaborate.



Female choice of partner has much, much less evolutionary importance because women have much lower fecundity

so how would your idea of evolution explain peacocks and other male animals with features highly detrimental to successful survival?

You're talking about birds. Birds are monogamous and mammals are not. Monogamy in humans is a relatively new phenomenon driven by religion. Who knows where it may lead, but sexual selection plays only a small part in natural selection.

"The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of birds engaging in social monogamy but only 7 percent of mammals engaging in social monogamy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals



I visited the Galapagos Islands one summer and was struck by how few species were to be found on each island, and yet also by how varied each species was from it's mainland relative.

pacific islands in general are a great example how less pressure from natural selection can and will lead to extraordinary jumps in evolution
islands are often inhabited by very few species with very little competition in a very rich environment that puts little pressure on the species

and yet depspite contradicting elementary school understanding of evolution these psecies evolve into some of the most unique and diverse faunas anywhere on earth
however naturally the lack of competition makes them weak when animals from more contested areas are brought into the environment which is why so many endangered species are found on islands

It's not just that, it's very largely down to them simply having small populations.

The theory of Island Biogeography:
"They are limited to the island or a particular part of the island, and they usually have low population numbers. These factors make them more likely to become extinct as a result of natural factors such as disease, fire, and normal population fluctuations. If the population is small to begin with, a natural occurrence may occasionally kill enough individuals so there is no longer a viable population of that species."
http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/spot_spisland.htm

[lochaber]

You're talking about birds. Birds are monogamous and mammals are not. Monogamy in humans is a relatively new phenomenon driven by religion. Who knows where it may lead, but sexual selection plays only a small part in natural selection.

"The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of birds engaging in social monogamy but only 7 percent of mammals engaging in social monogamy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals


Not to but in on the disagreement here, but just wanted to say that humans demonstrate a lot of characteristics commonly found in non-monogamous species. One of the most obvious of these is the male/female size difference. Generally, this is a trait pretty common to polygamous species, as the males have to compete with each other for the attention of the females, and all else being equal, bigger=stronger=more successful competition.

Also, the size of genitalia is another one - humans have the largest genitalia size/body size ratios of all the great apes. While it can be hard to tease out the details from just measurements, one of the hypothesis that has a lot of support has to do with pleasuring and satisfying a mate, and sexual preferences of the female (all in a polygamous setting).

Another fairly recent study had to do with the shape of the human penis, with the claim being that repetitive 'pumping' during sex can help to remove semen from their partner. There would be no need for this if humans were actually naturally monogamous.

[muhmuh]

You said the two links I posted contradicted themselves, muhmuh. They don't. You know that and so do I. Selectively editing posts is not nice at all. But the answer to your question is given in the quote from the second link above. Just because we're living longer doesn't mean we're reproducing late in life.

oh for fucks sake i give up
and i did not selectively edit your post it says right there in the bit you quoted from the article
"having less children later in life."

feel free to come back when your reading skills have improved

oh i think i see what the problem is hes saying that were having less children and were having them later in life not having less of them later in life
at least it must be considering that the average age for a mother to have her first child is currently at around 30 in most of europe

[dc_guy_75]

The theory that we all originate from Africa is flawed, explain the different races and ethnic groups and how everyone in the world speaks a different language, science is so far off the mark with its theory of evolution its not even funny.. How did man go from primitive caveman to a pyramid builder overnight,it cannot be explained... Do you research... Darwin was a fraud and even denounced his own theory of evolution on his death bed...

This poster oozes ignorance, if he's American, he makes me ashamed to be an American too.

60k years ago, man leaves Africa.
5.5 years ago, pyramids built.

Darwin did not denounce his theory of evolution on his deathbed, where did you hear that bs?

[Nowhere]

I think what throws many people off (myself, at one time, included) is that certain geographic areas that people presume to be on the border / in-between where "races" are present are both of low populations and have had few immigrate to America, which reinforces these artificial barriers.

I mean if you had a huge chunk of the US be Ethiopian or Uyghur, this wouldn't even be an issue, since they'd see the obvious BLEND of features.

For those who disagree with me, just read up on it.

Not that this matters, anyway, since in 100 years, most people will be of globally mixed backgrounds, just like virtually no Americans with European backgrounds are from just a single country today.

[Rogers]

You said the two links I posted contradicted themselves, muhmuh. They don't. You know that and so do I. Selectively editing posts is not nice at all. But the answer to your question is given in the quote from the second link above. Just because we're living longer doesn't mean we're reproducing late in life.

oh for fucks sake i give up
and i did not selectively edit your post it says right there in the bit you quoted from the article
"having less children later in life."

feel free to come back when your reading skills have improved

oh i think i see what the problem is hes saying that were having less children and were having them later in life not having less of them later in life
at least it must be considering that the average age for a mother to have her first child is currently at around 30 in most of europe

Last post on this. :)

You've got it round the wrong way, muhmuh. That's why you thought the articles contradicted themselves. They don't. The average age of women at first childbirth is nearer 25 than 30 in the developed world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_age_of_wom_at_fir_chi-health-age-women-first-childbirth

That's not old. Not that many generations ago they were having kids much later in life to counteract high mortality rates in not only offspring but birthing mothers too. That's why Jones mentioned fathers in their 50's.

“For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.

“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.”

Having offspring that survived into adulthood used to be the best insurance policy against poverty in old age there was. That's one of the reasons why they kept having kids.

[muhmuh]

You've got it round the wrong way, muhmuh. That's why you thought the articles contradicted themselves. They don't. The average age of women at first childbirth is nearer 25 than 30 in the developed world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_age_of_wom_at_fir_chi-health-age-women-first-childbirth

the guy is from london where the average is near as makes no difference 29
which considering the makeup of most relationships put fist blood for fathers in the range of 31-34
is also generally higher (mid 30s or thereabouts) for academics who are on the more intelligent end of the spectrum and thus fit into modern times better


That's not old. Not that many generations ago they were having kids much later in life to counteract high mortality rates in not only offspring but birthing mothers too.

evolutions happens not over a few generations it happens over hundreds of thousands of years
considering mortality back eons and as recent as say 2000 years ago realistically the average mother in the uk would long have died of whatever cause before having her first child