Negritos means “little black people”; it is what the Spanish called the short black people they saw in South East Asia. The men were barely over five feet (1.5 m), the women shorter still. They looked like black people from Africa: woolly hair, dark brown skin, flat noses, thick lips.
They live in the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and the Andaman Islands to the west. There is at least 30,000 of them in the Philippines.
Negritos do not think of themselves as Negritos: they see themselves as belonging to this or that tribe.
The Chinese knew about them: one appears as the hero in the book “Kunlun Nu” (c. 880). Even the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu was said to be “black in complexion”. Some of the ancient Buddhas of Thailand look black too!
The big mystery about Negritos is when and how they got to South East Asia.
We do not know yet for sure, but the following seems to be the probable answer based on what we know so far:
Negritos are extremely ancient, so ancient that they were the very first people ever to come to South East Asia. The Malaysians even call them the orang asli – the original people. They came with the first wave of people to leave Africa. South East Asia was mainly Negrito 5,000 years ago but now only pockets of them are left here and there. Like the American Indians in North America.
If you look at people’s mitochondrial DNA you can not only build a family tree of all mankind, you can also piece together when and how humans spread across the earth.
Most Negritos who have had their DNA tested turn out to have the same mitochondrial DNA as the people in southern India, New Guinea and Australia: haplogroup M, the first to leave Africa. They left about 50,000 years ago, following the coast of the Indian Ocean and then spreading inland. This gave rise to:
- India: Dravidians
- South East Asia: Negritos
- New Guinea: Papuans, Melanesians
- Australia: Aboriginals
- South America: palaeoindians of 30,000 years ago
We do not know if the Palaeo-Indians of 30,000 years ago (at Pedra Furada in Brazil and Monte Verde 2 in Chile) belonged to haplogroup M, but we do know they looked like the people in Australia, so it seems likely. They could have been shipwrecked there – they did have boats, having reached Australia. (The Incas, for example, knew about white people before the Spanish came because of shipwrecks.)
Every branch of mankind started out in Africa and started out black. But because haplogroup M stayed mostly in the tropics they kept much of their black appearance, like dark skin and flat noses.
It seems that South East Asia is most like Africa so that Negritos changed the least in appearance, unlike, say, the Aboriginals to the south, who changed more (straighter hair, for example).
Negritos, though, did get shorter. That might be due to island dwarfing: most Negritos who remain live on islands where food is limited, which gives short height an advantage.
See also:
- Aeta – one Negrito people who live in the Philippines (the people pictured at the very top are Aeta).
- DNA ancestry test
- Race in Brazil
Very interesting. Thanks for the post!
LikeLike
that’s interesting…i guess they’re afro-asian then. Abagond, have u ever been to any countries in africa?
LikeLike
What I find interesting about Negritos is that they knew had to navigate the seas all those years ago. They were also a matrilineal society even though slavery was the bulwark for their growth in that area. I read that several Polynesian societies continued to have females in dominant roles. It wasn’t until the influence of China and India that this changed. This is the same part of the world where Margaret Mead studied Polynesians and Negritos and marveled at their democratic marriage practices and how their society seemed far more egalitarian.
The Filipino population must be a lot more mixed then one would think. How very interesting.
It does look like the Negrito populations are disappearing:
AGTA HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS:
Why Southeast Asian Negritos are a Disappearing People
The Agta Negrito people of the Philippines have suffered throughout the 20th century from harassments from outsiders, including Americans before World War Two. These human rights abuses have included, slavery, murders, kidnapping of children, and especially takeovers of their ancestral lands. In 1997, we published a report of these violations against the Agta in the journal Human Organization (volume 56, pp. 79-90), titled “Limitation of Human Rights, Land Exclusion, and Tribal Extinction.” The examples below are condensed from that article:
http://www.sil.org/~headlandt/agta.htm
LikeLike
Very interesting read. Keep it up, Abagond!
LikeLike
Really nice post,btw I love your blog, read it almost everyday.
Could you view my blog it is not anything important in the posts but I would like people to at least view the about me page.
LikeLike
Oh the the link:
http://sweetme1993.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Oh cool. I added you to my blogroll.
LikeLike
Mayhue:
Wow, thanks for the info on the Agta. They are the same people who are pictured at the top of the post. (The second picture is from Malaysia, the third from Thailand.)
LikeLike
Peanut: I have not yet been to Africa.
LikeLike
This is fascinating.
LikeLike
The Orang asli are indeed related to the aboriginal people of Australia and New Guinea. Nicolas Wade discusses them in his book “Before the Dawn” when he talks about the first migration out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. This migration followed the shoreline of the Indian ocean all the way to Australia.
The Orang Asli do not look at all like Malays. The ones I know about live up in the mountains in Sarawak and Sabah of East Malaysia (Borneo). There are very few of them in peninsular Malaysia. The Malays are intent on converting them all to Islam, whereas the Filipinos are mostly content to leave them alone.
LikeLike
abagond have you seen the trailer for “Good Hair?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A68UVn0nMvo
LikeLike
Yes. Thanks. With that and Tyra Banks going natural, Solange cutting off her hair off and the Time magazine article on Michelle Obama’s hair (the most objectified First Lady in history) I have been thinking of doing a post along those lines.
LikeLike
Tyra did not go natural. She just wore her real hair (sans weave) on her show. Her hair is permed.
LikeLike
This is interesting and refreshing to know that Black ancestry is widespread througout the world despite the misinformation, bias, and ignorance on the part of the powerful.
This only proves my point that Black presence is everywhere, not just in Africa and the Americas.
La Reyna
LikeLike
Several years ago, I watched a Filipino show about the heartbreaking true story of a Negrito/Aeta girl. She was raped by two people she trusted. And she wanted them prosecuted. She was horribly mistreated because she was a minority there. I missed the ending not knowing if she finally received the justice she deserved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There has been an African presence globally for millenia,it just hasn’t been publicized (no surprises there) in the mainstream. see: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/runoko.html
LikeLike
Very informative. I only found out about the Negritos only 2 years ago.
LikeLike
To Herneith
There has been an African presence globally for millenia..
I think Abagond can comment on this further but from my understanding Negritos are more genetically distant from Africans than Europeans are from (especially east Africans..) Africans.
LikeLike
Strangely, I agree with both La Reyna and Uncle Milton.
On the one hand the Negritos are a true case of blacks spreading to other parts of the world, just like they have since 1500 in coming to the Americas.
But the thing is, whites are too! They are a case of blacks spreading to Europe. Only it does not seem that way because they turned white from living up north.
Because whites left Africa much later they are closer cousins to black Africans than the Negritos! That means whites have more genes in common with black Africans, even though it does not seem like it because some of the genes that did change affect appearance.
LikeLike
The Negritos have distinct black features and are percieved as such in the Phillipines, hence their name. Being perceived as such despite actual genetics is what has contributed to their oppression. When the Europeans started settling Australia for example, I doubt they took ‘genetics’ into account when they first clapped eyes on Aborigines. They saw them as black and proceeded to treat them as inferior. As race is a social construct, and the Negritos are percieved as black, for all intents and purposes they are black. I have spoken to various Phillipinos about Negritos as I have noticed that quite a few have black features and have questioned them as to whether or not they are part Negrito. Being brainwashed by colonialism most said no as if offered an insult. Only one man said yes and proceeded to tell me that his grandmother was. He then proceeded to tell me that many deny this despite the physical evidence to the contrary. I noticed that some will voluteer information about their Chinese ancestors and Spanish ones. However when you ask some of them where they got their full lips crinkly hair or their brown skin they become offended. Imperialism and colonialism wreaked havoc on the esteem racialized peoples of the world.
LikeLike
A famous negrito is Apl.d.ap from the Black Eye Peas!
LikeLike
Actually, dani, he’s part Filipino and part African-American. I met him a few years back and he spoke of how proud he was of his heritage. A very polite, and humble man.
LikeLike
The woman holding the baby looks like a relative of mine. Very interesting.
LikeLike
The Out of Africa Theory is flawed as the Negritos have DNA that is that similiar to
African DNA at all.
The evolved in their own regions where they live in SE ASIA and Melanesia
LikeLike
Negritos belong to the oldest branch of mankind to leave Africa, so for that reason their DNA is least like that of Africans. On the other hand, because they remained in the tropics their physical appearance did not change much.
LikeLike
abagond Says:
Sun 15 Nov 2009 at 03:15:42
Negritos belong to the oldest branch of mankind to leave Africa, so for that reason their DNA is least like that of Africans. On the other hand, because they remained in the tropics their physical appearance did not change much.
This not true. Negritos DID NOT come from Africa.They originated in the areas of the Pacific and Melanesia.
If they came from Africa,how did they get 6000 miles away to the Asia-Pacific?
Why are the negritos all short and not tall
as many Africans are?
Mathew
LikeLike
Uh…Mathew, did you not read the post?
LikeLike
Matthew:
Everyone came from Africa. According to those who study people’s DNA, everyone came from a single woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. There was an Eve and she was black.
The branch the Negritos and Melanesians belong to left 50,000 years ago. They arrived in Asia-Pacific region by 30,000 years ago. That is 6,000 miles in 20,000 years – well under a mile a year.
Further, in those days because of the ice age, the sea was much lower and they could walk the whole way to the Philippines – no boats required (though by then people did have them).
Marco Polo, though he had the use of horses and camels and roads, was able to travel from Italy to China and back in 24 years. So I do not see what is so hard to believe about this.
LikeLike
Hi and Seasonal greetings – For those who celebrate!!
A very good blog that also helped to improve my understanding. Thanks for that.
With so much in ancient history there is so much to be clarified.
I would like to add the following:
1. Some historians argue that the ‘Small Blacks’ if I can use that term were in fact the very first people on the earth and the taller types emerged later.
2. Again some historians, anthropologists etc suggest that it is wrong to think that straight hair as an exclusive Caucasoid/Mongoloid trait. It can also be found in Africoid peoples. It is possible to explain straight to wavy hair amongst Africoids without recourse to inter-mixing with other groups.
Some make the connection between Napatians (Nubians pre-dynastic), Dravidians and Aborignes of Australia. Either way it is now established that these groups emerged’out of Africa’.
I guess one source of contention is to what degree ‘evolution’ in essence the environment modify the phenotype of such groups?
This of course if one accepts the various delinations and appellations regarding to race as opposed to one race per se.
I am off to explore the rest of the blog site which looks very interesting
Thank you…
Happy New Year everyone!!!
LikeLike
The Out of Africa Theory is factually incorrect,as it bases itself on Evolution Theory which has never been proved and such why Scientists are still looking for the Missing link.
It is also physically and chemically impossible for animals or lower primates to evolve into Humans.
If the Out of Africa Theory was correct,then the you would not have the second most prevalent race in Africa being Caucosoid,which you have in North Africa as well in elements in SubSaharan Africa.
Also the migration out of Africa would be able to be mapped by Linguistics-language,and Archaeological remains such as boats ot method of travel,tools,housing,clothes etc,of which there has been none.
Dravidians ,Aborigines,Aetas,Melanesians,all evolved in their current homelands now,or in the general Oceania area.
Mathew
LikeLike
Hi!!
The problem with the ‘out-of Africa’ of theory is the social implication it has in the society/world and I believe this is the reason why the theory has not been accepted until now, over a hundred years later.
It is not a new theory and there are many scholars who have argued that Africa was/is the home of the human race, in spite of the status quo view of it being Asia.
As early as 1880s, even Charles Darwin believed this to be true, that the origins of teh human race would be found in Africa.
There is also another aspect to this issue and that is to remember no scientific theory is ‘irrefutable’. Scientific theory comes and goes according to ‘paradigms’.
In the philosophy of science, I think it is safe to say for NOW that the out-of-Africa is in fact the ‘best’ theory, or ‘paradigm’ based upon empiricism (e archeological evidence etc), which has the highest ‘degree of corroboration’ to explain our human origins on the planet, that science is utilisng at present.
Changing tact, and on another level. The social implications of the out-of Africa paradigm may mean all those ideologies built upon race/racism etc in the past and present is in fact an ‘illusion’.
Finally I can remember a quote by a historian suggesting one of the paradoxes of being human is that we are not interested in ‘truths’ – unless it is on our side of course.
Rather we want to believe and accept those things that are ‘nice’ and help to support or bolster our world-views, egos and so on – even when it is not true.
Thank you for your ears and time!
LikeLike
I’ve too found it fascinating that a black skinned Senegalese and a blond Scandinavian are genetically closer related than they are to a Negrito or Aborigine. I guess looks can be deceiving!
LikeLike
Matthew:
This blog takes the findings of Western science as a given. Science is not the absolute truth but a set of best guesses that make the best sense of known facts. New facts are discovered and we see it is not quite what we thought, etc. So maybe evolution is all wrong, or maybe we all came from New Guinea, etc.
Boats are made of wood and last for hundreds of years tops. Languages play out over thousands of years, so again the time scale is too small. And since people back then did not drink out of bottles that last for a million years, like they do now, the best thing we have to piece together the past is mitochondrial DNA. Going by that you get what I wrote in the post.
I agree with J that some people do not like the idea that we all came from Africa because of how they feel about blacks. Too bad. It is more likely that racism is wrong than that the science is wrong.
LikeLike
Abagond
You say science,western science is,and that science is a set of given guesses,thus this could be the same for your assumptions on Aetas and other peoples coming from Africa
But science has to show some definative empirical facts,evidence.
You claim that racism might be in hand in that people will not accept that black people were the first people,or their ancestors,but you also are being biased racially when you state such that Lao Tzu was said to be black in complexion,
of which if he was the Chinese certainly have no records of saying so,just the same as Black Buddhas. I have studied
Asian history and know what is true and not in it.
What is more racist or appalling to people,including Black people,is that to say they are closely related to animals.
This is the what the Theory of Evolution states,that people evolved from apes and lower primates,which as I have stated is only a Theory. Even Charles Darwin stated this fact:
The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323.[12]
There are distinct differences in the Aetas,Melanesians,Papua New Guineans,Australian Aborigines,Polynesians,Micronesians, from each other,as well as Africans,to show they did not evolve from any other group but themselves.
If the Aetas had sailed or migrated from Africa,60,000 years ago,why did they do this? Would it have not been a
dangerous task venturing in unknown territory with the chance of no food or shelter,coming into dangerous
lands of different peoples and wild animals?
Where in Africa did they migrate from? Wouldn’t there technology not be more developed than it is now?
IIf the Theory of Evolution _Out of Africa is correct then
Polyensians would be genetically related to Melanesians,
assuming black skinned people evolved into brown,then red,then yellow(if in this order) but there is little genetic
connections between Melanesians and Polynesians
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118093728.htm
According to this anthropologist,there are no races:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981008051724.htm
My contention is that peoples evolved independently
in their own areas,they may have migrated,their has been some admixture of peoples and races in the past
that people did not evolve from animals.
Mathew
LikeLike
Matthew:
You do not need to assume that humans evolved from apes to believe that men migrated from Africa to South East Asia.
On the other hand, if men did not migrate, how is it that people in East Africa, the Middle East, India, South East Asia, Australia and New Guinea all have the same mitochondrial DNA, haplogroup M? This is something you are born with that you get from your mother.
LikeLike
I will post something on this
Human DNA research is very complex
Haplogroup M1 has a restricted geographic distribution in Africa, being found mainly in North Africans and East Africa at low or moderate frequencies. If M had originated in Africa around before the Out of Africa migration, it would be expected to have a more widespread distribution
Owing to its great age, haplogroup M is one of those mtDNA lineages which does not correspond well to present-day racial groups, as it spans Siberian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Central Asian, South Asian, Melanesian as well as Ethiopian, Caucasian, and various Middle Eastern groups in lesser frequency.
http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Haplogroup
You will find more results in tracing tracing peoples together by modern study of genetic relations based on
thousands of years rather than 10’s of thousands of years,as well as cultural similiarities.
Here is significant finding of tribes in India connected to Australian Aborigines:
http://spittoon.23andme.com/2009/07/24/direct-genetic-link-between-australia-and-india-provides-new-insight-into-the-origins-of-australian-aborigines/
Mathew
LikeLike
@Matthew:
Are you Slappz brother?
LikeLike
LOLOLOLOL Herneith 😉
LikeLike
World’s most ancient race traced in DNA study
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 1 May 2009
The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth, according to the biggest and most detailed analysis of African DNA. The San, also known as bushmen, are directly descended from the original population of early human ancestors who gave rise to all other groups of Africans and, eventually, to the people who left the continent to populate other parts of the world.
A study of 121 distinct populations of modern-day Africans has found that they are all descended from 14 ancestral populations and that the differences and similarities of their genes closely follows the differences and similarities of their spoken languages.
The scientists analysed the genetic variation within the DNA of more than 3,000 Africans and found that the San were among the most genetically diverse group, indicating that they are probably the oldest continuous population of humans on the continent – and on Earth.
The study, published in the journal Science, took 10 years of research involving trips to some of the most remote and dangerous parts of Africa to collect blood samples. The project found modern Africans had the most diverse DNA of all racial groups in the world, confirming the idea that Africa is the birthplace of humanity, said Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania.
The scientists also found genetic “markers” in the DNA of the present-day inhabitants of East Africa living near to the Red Sea, which indicated that they belonged to the same ancestral group who migrated out of Africa to populate Asia and the rest of the world. West Africans speaking the Niger-Kordofanian language were found to share many genetic traits with African-Americans, indicating they were the ancestors of most of the slaves sent to the New World.
One of the main findings to emerge was the genetic similarity between groups who shared similar languages despite living many thousands of miles from one another. The Sandawe and Hadza of Tanzania shared common ancestors with the Khoisan speakers of southern Africa: all three groups speak “click” languages.
[Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/worlds-most-ancient-race-traced-in-dna-study-1677113.html – editor]
LikeLike
Like good academics and researchers – even though I am not one, we always try to quote our sources.
Since in quoting the source(s) it brings into evidence things to be questioned on a scholarly level.
“It was said that he (ie Lao Tzse) had existed from all eternity; that he had descended on earth and was born of a virgin, black in complexion, described “ marvelous and beautiful as jasper.”
http://martianvisitor.com/Doane%20120.html
The same can also be said about what image the earliest Buddha statutes have been stylised in, which numerous historians etc have commented upon. However, i will not go into it here. Since it is an argument one ought to be familar with – even if one should disagree with its claims
One of the problems of learning history is that it will be ‘localised’. I have been fortunate to have had the chance to read and study (in no great detail I may add) Arabic/Muslim history. What I can say is that it is totally different from what you may find in most standard Western textbooks – if Arabs/Muslim are even mentioned at all.
This fact of ‘localised history’ should not be minimised and/or forgotten why there are so many ‘facts’ we do not get to hear?
In fact it harks back to my earlier point about what is in fact the role of history etc? Is to unravel the ‘truth’?? Or is it to acquiese the ego etc??
If I am being honest, if you have not heard of a general consensus arguement/theory etc (even if you may disagree with it). Then in all probability its a case that your reading and research has not been broad enough.
And one of the reason our reading has not been broad enough is because of cultural factors like race, ethnocentricism, sex etc
Thank you again!!
LikeLike
Here is good website you might like since we are dealing with peoples of the pacific
http://www.polynesian-prehistory.com/
LikeLike
And as I said, I am not a researcher so I forgot to mention this item in my earlier post.
It also shows the importance of reading a variety of different sources where possible, and to have an open mind too…
“For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550859/Aborigines-came-out-of-Africa-study-shows.html
This in response to
Here is significant finding of tribes in India connected to Australian Aborigines:
http://spittoon.23andme.com/2009/07/24/direct-genetic-link-between-australia-and-india-provides-new-insight-into-the-origins-of-australian-aborigines/
And notwithstanding there were also ‘Australian negritos’ too. A fact that is often overlooked…
http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm
Thanks!!
LikeLike
Abagond
You goal is trying to imly the first people came out of Africa
,were black,which I think is not empirically correct and I don’t think humans evolved from Apes,and all humans lived at the same time.
I will post something though in context if we are going on the Out of Africa Theory and the San are said to be the oldest race in the world.
The original hominids were not black- the black indigenous african skin colour gene, black indigenous racial DNA and human racial groups defined as indigenous black african evolved as geo-specific responses to localised climate change among the original hominid groups within the African continent at the moment they, and all humans, became Homo Sapiens.
The original hominids were not black, nor were they human. The human clock only began to tick as per racial differentiation at the moment we all became human, not before.
The present indigenous black racial groups all evolved from the original Homo Sapiens group, as did all human racial groups.
To suggest that the original hominids were ‘black’ is racist – simply as they were not human, and therefore by logical extension this implies and suggests that Black Africans are not modern humans but are remnants of the original non-human archaic hominid group who have not evolved when in fact the black racial groups and all other racial groups have all evolved from the Homo Sapiens lineage.
We all, black and white, became humans and members of our present racial groups after continously evolving from the orginal Homo Sapiens group.
The original pre-human hominids were not ‘black’ as black is a reference to a HUMAN genetic adaption of the Indigenous African Homo Sapiens racial group that includes the Sans.
The Sans groups are groups that have managed to preserve their own ancestral HUMAN racial DNA in a way that ensured they did not experience the evolutionary changes of other human racial groups elsewhere that led to the varied racial groups present in the world today.
In effect, the Sans racial group chose to not racially mix with other groups (and also not suffer racial DNA drift into their racial group from other racial groups that evolved elsewhere into their own specific racial groups) and nor did their environment change to such an extent that evolutionary pressures forced them to undergo racial evolution (or geo-specific genetic climate adaption as it should be defined).
What this research reveals is that the Sans group are the only human racial group in the world who evolved from the original Homo Sapien group that have had the least geographic and climatic imperative to evolve racial changes in their DNA.
The Sans group are, like all modern human beings, the remnants of the original humans but who have the most diverse DNA due to the fact that they have experienced the least racial differentiation.
The less diverse DNA in a racial group means the more racial differentiation.
In other words the less diverse the DNA of a racial group the more closely related that group is.
LikeLike
Where does white skin come from? – New Scientist 19 August 2009
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327222.500-where-does-white-skin-come-from.html
LikeLike
Aetas camps 1971
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1029146706028974552DIeFJAezqx
LikeLike
It’s official: Pinatubo is now owned by Aetas
http://www.piplinks.org/it%E2%80%99s-official:-pinatubo-now-owned-aetas
Posted November 27th, 2009 by whit in Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) Region 3
Source: By Tonette Orejas, Philippine Daily Inquirer
Date of publication: 26 November, 2009
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, Philippines—Mt. Pinatubo, including the three-kilometer wide crater lake left by its 1991 eruptions, is now officially lutan tua (ancestral land) of Aetas in Botolan, Zambales.
Carlito Domulot, chair of the Lubos ng Alyansa ng mga Katutubong Ayta sa Sambales (Lakas), shared this piece of information with the Inquirer on Thursday as he received confirmation from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) that at least 15,998 hectares have been registered at the Registry of Deeds in Zambales as a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT).
NCIP Commissioner Rolando Rivera confirmed Domulot’s information, saying CADT RO3-BOT-0708-073 indeed includes the volcano.
“Their CADT really covers Mt. Pinatubo,” Rivera said in a telephone interview.
He said a CADT registered with the Registry of Deeds “perfected the tribe’s ownership and stewardship of their ancestral domain.”
Registered on Oct. 3 and issued on Nov. 9, the CADT is entered as Original Certificate of Title No. CAD-0-1.
The application originally covers 20,567.89 hectares. The size was reduced to 15,998.4748 hectares after government agencies recognized and segregated private titles within ancestral domains.
The final CADT spans the villages of Burgos, Villar, Moraza and Belbel in Botolan and portions of the towns of Cabangan, San Felipe and San Marcelino, the title showed.
Domulot said the volcano straddles Villar and Belbel.
The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Phivolcs) refers to Mt. Pinatubo and its environs as located in the tri-boundary of Zambales, Tarlac and Pampanga. The volcano’s crater lake and lahar canyons have drawn local and foreign tourists.
“Before the CADT came, we, Aetas of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales, have an understanding that Pinatubo is on the Botolan (Zambales) side and the lands there belong to us, Botolan Aetas,” Domulot said.
Helping Aetas protect their domain from Korean and other foreign and local business ventures, the Botolan council issued in August 2008 a resolution recognizing the ownership and management of Botolan Aetas over Mt. Pinatubo.
Although vigilant against Korean firms on the Tarlac side, the Aetas have not built gates or watchtowers to ward off illegal settlers.
The Aetas returned to the volcano about five years after the eruptions to cultivate lands there.
Although the lands were made fertile by volcanic materials, Domulot said the lack of farming and fishing tools make it difficult for the tribe to grow more cash crops.
“Our elders have been fighting for our lands since the time of [the late former President Ferdinand] Marcos,” he said.
Rivera said the NCIP had registered at least four CADTs covering 25,615 hectares in Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales and Aurora.
Pending registration are CADTs for Dumagats in Karahume, San Jose
del Monte City in Bulacan (1,817 hectares) and for Kalanguyas in Carranglan, Nueva Ecija (25,373 hectares).
NCIP records showed there are still 11 pending applications for CADTs over 247,261.19 hectares in Central Luzon.
LikeLike
Ancient tribal language becomes extinct as last speaker dies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/04/ancient-language-extinct-speaker-dies
LikeLike
And again one from 2009:
‘Are we here just for your amusement?’
Our increasing demand for adventure is pushing back the frontiers of tourism, but is it also posing a threat to tribal people? John Vidal investigates
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/jul/25/tribal-adventure-ethical-tourism-jarawa
LikeLike
Interesting read Abagond. Ancient man has been in the New World far longer than traditionally thought. (Much earlier than the Bering land bridge.)
Also, I love your piont regarding the genetic differences on why the Haplogroup would not have changed.
Thanks for the read…
LikeLike
The Negrito People and the Out-of-Africa Story of the human race
http://www.andaman.org/index.htm
An interesting link, even though it suggests that ‘Negritos’ are not ‘African’ even though both look same ‘phenotypically’
LikeLike
More food for thought. When the first Polynesians made it to the Hawaiian islands, one of the oldest was Kuai. There are actually ruins on this island that predate the Polynesians. Hard to separate legend from fact, but the Menehune were thought to be the original settlers – which later turned to Menehune legends commone today.
If you consider some of the ruins now being given much more scientific attention, there is evidence of ancient Marinas built of stone during times of much lower sea levels.
http://hawaii-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_timeless_beauty_of_kauai
Some new ruins recently discovered in Japan: http://www.squidoo.com/ancientcivilizations
and don’t forget the Bimini road in Bimini.
LikeLike
J phenotypes do not necessarly mean that people are related.
Black skinned,Kinky Haired people evolved not just in Africa but in the tropical regions of the world,which the pacific ocean is one of the largest areas of.
There are differences in Negritos and Africans,just as there are Australian Aborgines,of whom scientists find there is a genetic connection with a tribe of people in India.
Mathew
LikeLike
Color of Luv
You are refering to the sunken civilisation of Atlantis with Bimini and sunken Continent of Mu,with in the pacific and the new ruins off of Okinawa Japan.
The Lost Continent of Mu is suppose to have been the islands of the pacific from Easter(Rapa Nui) and to Tahiti,Tonga, Micronesia,to the Marianas.
The most significant thing here is the megalithic and monolithic structures which are a mystery to as how they were made.
Nan Madol off of Pohnpei is said to be the 3rd largest mandmade structure of its kind in the world- 250 million tons of basalt logs on 11 manmade islands.
One structure is 260 feet long by 60 feet wide.
The Pohnpeins said Nan Madol was made by magic.
Mu is in the oral legends of the Hawaiians-Kahunas and some Native Americans like the Chumash said they came from Mu-Hawaii.
Mu was suppose to have been were the original races of man began
Mathew
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
With regard to:
“Phenotypes do not necessarly mean that people are related.
Black skinned,Kinky Haired people evolved not just in Africa but in the tropical regions of the world,which the pacific ocean is one of the largest areas of.
There are differences in Negritos and Africans,just as there are Australian Aborgines,of whom scientists find there is a genetic connection with a tribe of people in India”.
What you say here in essence is true, but paradoxically it somewhat misses the substantive point.
If you do not mind, I can guess from how you worded your piece here, you do not accept or possibly may not be conversant with how some ‘African centred’ scholars ‘construct’ the idea of ‘race’, that is if you believe in the ‘concept’ at all??
With regard to ‘race’ there very rarely seems to be any problem classifying groups of people that have white skin, or skin that approximates to ‘White’, along with ‘Caucasian’ features as being White/Caucasians.
Even to a large degree there is rarely a problem classifying those who can be classified as Mongoloid, like the Native Americans, Caribs, Chinese etc.
The only ‘race’ where difficulty arises is with the ‘Black/African. This is because in the past there was only one Black type ie the ‘Negro’.
Any ‘Black skinned’ person (with the associated features) anywhere else in the world could not be ‘Black’ or ‘African’ (racially).
Here we then go on to discuss problems like ‘Blacks do not have straight and/or wavy hair’, Blacks with different DNA, Blacks do not have Blondism and a host of other clever arguments which are really designed to ‘confuse’ the reality.
LikeLike
@Mathew
I realize what you’re saying regarding an advanced civilization in the Pacific. Personally, I believe this is true based on many of the “underwater monolithic stone” structures beginning to be discovered – and in the one instance, remnants on dryland in Kuaia.
I postulate that it could be possible (based on loose descriptions in legend) that the Menehune would have been direct descendants of Haplogroup M, or “Negritos”. Interesting that you find some Fuean peoples in Southern South America also have strong indicators of the Haplogroup M !!! (Indicating that early peoples of that Haplogroup, such as the Aborigines of Australia, were indeed more advancedff sea-farers at a certain period in time.)
As for DNA, Abagond attempted to explain why many Africans today, would not share as strong of ties to Haplogroup M due to the diversity (out flow and influx of people) In deed, many Europeans are more similar to Africans genetically.
All in all, we’ll need to continue DNA research and search for additional archaeological evidence. In addition to studying the areas surrounding some of these recent “new finds”.
LikeLike
And still on the presence of Negritos butthis time in Taiwan
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AG16W20081117
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/11/27/2003212815
And Taiwan becomes of significance because this is viewed as the place of origin for the Austronesian language
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pacific-people-originated-in-taiwan-5200-years-ago_100146061.html
LikeLike
Wow I really enjoyed this post! I did not know Lao Tzu was supposed to be dark skinned, very interesting.
LikeLike
J said: With regard to ‘race’ there very rarely seems to be any problem classifying groups of people that have white skin, or skin that approximates to ‘White’, along with ‘Caucasian’ features as being White/Caucasians.
Even to a large degree there is rarely a problem classifying those who can be classified as Mongoloid, like the Native Americans, Caribs, Chinese etc.
The only ‘race’ where difficulty arises is with the ‘Black/African. This is because in the past there was only one Black type ie the ‘Negro’.
Any ‘Black skinned’ person (with the associated features) anywhere else in the world could not be ‘Black’ or ‘African’ (racially).
Here we then go on to discuss problems like ‘Blacks do not have straight and/or wavy hair’, Blacks with different DNA, Blacks do not have Blondism and a host of other clever arguments which are really designed to ‘confuse’ the reality.
****************
Yep, I agree with that, there are obvious double standards in regards to this issue.
LikeLike
J
I found this ona website on Negritos in Taiwan
“Taiwanese sources keep mentioning “Negritos” on Taiwan, but where is the evidence? Taiwanese aborigines think it is a ploy to delegitimize their aboirginal claims.”
http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/8568951/1/
I have doubts about Taiwan being the home of the Austronesian people as the Polynesian language is more widespread than the languages of Taiwan,and if Taiwan was the home of Austronesians its language would be more influencial.
The Taiwanese Natives are more genetically related to Indo-Malayan people,as well as some people that are directly related to people of the Northern Philippines islands(Batanese) and my belief is that the Native Taiwanese came from the south- Philippines,Malaysia,Indonesia to Taiwan,rather than the other way around.
Mathew
LikeLike
J and Jade(are you two related ? :_)
There has been problems in the past in racial classifications
of brown skinned people who are racially caucasoids
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Diaspora/roots.html
The political aspirations of Asian Indians were to receive further setbacks with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1917, which virtually barred all Asians from entering the United States. At this time naturalized citizenship was reserved for “whites” only. The Supreme Court’s 1922 decision in the “Ozawa” case, where it was ruled that “white” ought to be interpreted to mean “Caucasian”, provided only a short-lived reprieve to jubilant Indians, for in the following year the Supreme Court declared that in the “understanding of the common man”, “white” clearly denoted a person of European origins. Thus Bhagat Singh Thind, though a Caucasian of “high-caste Hindu stock,” was not entitled to naturalization. Over the next few years, some 45 naturalized Indians were stripped of their American citizenship.
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
The problem with the link though is whether it is reflective of ‘academic theories’ – not that all academic theories are correct, or does it represent the view of an individual who is an ‘aboriginal’ and perceives the situation this way?
It may well be a ‘ploy’ by the government to deny ‘aboriginals’ their rights.
Also it may be both
1. A ploy
2. And a ploy that is factually historically correct .
Either way, it may not be appropriate to merely cite a link that merely refutes a contention, but the link does not in fact get to the very heart of the subject matter.
Do you follow this line of reasoning??
Now with regard to academia, I think it is generally agreed that the first people to populate and reside in Asia even before the ‘Mongoloid’ type are the ‘Africoid’ types, and for the purposes of our conversation, I am referring now specifically to the ‘Negritos’.
As for the Austronesian people there really is no such thing, if we being accurate. ‘Austronesian’ is a language group spoken by a wide and varying different groups of people (ie nationality, ethnicity, race – if you permit me to use these terms).
Those who reside on the land in Taiwan today may be descended from Indo-Malayan, to use your term, though I am not quite sure what that term suggests?
However, this is not the topic under discussion, but at least it gives me a chance to present this images of
the ‘Aboriginals’ nonetheless
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Taiwanese_Aborigine_leopard_fur_by_Torii_n7550.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taiwanese_Aborigine_leopard_fur_by_Torii_n7550.jpg&usg=__R-6_nAXbblJ1FamxO7AhxqO9Tck=&h=1156&w=876&sz=143&hl=en&start=5&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=XFVYUMKIk6hUJM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTaiwanese%2Baboriginals%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1
LikeLike
With regard to:
J and Jade(are you two related ? :_)
Please just give me one second to check… as I take a look down below.
Phew its still there he he he.
So Matthew you can take it that Jade and I are not elated.
Hope this is of some some assist to you…
ha ha
LikeLike
A Gene Story: the Negritos’ Early Southern Migration
http://bonvito.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/a-gene-story-the-negritos-early-southern-migration/
LikeLike
This link does not in anyway change the ‘premise’ which it is clear you do not believe in that the ‘Negritos’ are Black/African, irrespective where they originate from.
Furthermore before the Negritos reached Australia they would first have to travelled through Asia. Unless the link is suggesting that the Negritos originated ‘outside of Africa’ – which is the multi-regional origin/approach for homo sapiens sapiens.
I am not quite sure what the link is demonstrating, would you like to elaborate please??
Cheers
LikeLike
And again with regard to your own comments:
“I have doubts about Taiwan being the home of the Austronesian people as the Polynesian language is more widespread than the languages of Taiwan,and if Taiwan was the home of Austronesians its language would be more influencial”.
The link you provided suggests:
“His theory (Bellwood) argues that proto-Austronesian groups from Taiwan migrated to the Philippines, Indonesia, and went all the way to Madagascar, bringing with them their language, technology, and culture.
=
Absent in Bellwood’s model however, which is supplied here by Stoneking and Delfin, is the understanding of the Philippine past before agriculture came about–the time of the Philippine Paleolithic”.
LikeLike
And just for clarification purposes on Austronesian languages
http://www.answers.com/topic/austronesian-languages
LikeLike
There seems to be some misunderstanding when haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA are discussed. It’s true that negritos share the same mtDNA as Aborigines, but what some forget is that mtDNA is not a selective DNA and has nothing to do with the physical appearance of a person. A group of people could experience drastic physical divergence from another group, but still share the same mtDNA. Mitochondrial DNA mutates at random and is not subject to any selection pressure. It only shows relation, not genetic similarity. You’d have to compare autosomal DNA, to see how alike two groups are.
LikeLike
And again…
it is possible to find an ‘African’ closer to a ‘Swede’ on the genetic level than another African on the continent.
So the genetic analysis has to be assessed with other data and other areas of study, something that ColorofLuv has already alluded to in this thread
LikeLike
@Sagat –
keep in mind the “perspective” of analysis. Something I’ve mostly been averse to is “centric” thinking. However, I have been raised (in the U.S) in “centric” thinking. An anglo-U.S.-Euro-White centrci society.
When you look at history. Look at how “White” it is…. Now enter genetics……. DNA tells us there is no Black/White. Yet, for the most part, world recorded history (like I said, “most part”) has been from a White-Eurocentered perspective. (understand I’ am speaking in broad terms, so allow for latitude)
J comes from an Afro-centric perspective. Why? Why not? One MUST look at conventional ideology and question it. Rather than getting hung up on terminology – Euro, Afro, Asia, centric…. I would say, “Lets step outside the box”.
In this sense, “History as we have been acclimated to, is either ‘White or Black’. When considering “black” people, one must acknowledge the human condition historically is to classify groups based on “phenotype” irregardless of DNA.
LikeLike
ColourofLuv,
I think Sagat is in unison with what you and I are suggesting that you have to be ‘careful’ with regard to genetic analysis when conceptualising ‘race’
LikeLike
ah….. ok. Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I “read” things differently. I need to try and be more careful with my interpretations. Sometimes I’m quick to react………
LikeLike
ha ha… I do the same thing too…but at least I am a little short-sighted…
Well that’s my excuse
he he he he
LikeLike
ColorOfLuv,
I may be stating some things you already know, but I was confused by your response to me, so I just wanted to explain myself better.
What needs to be understood is that mtDNA doesn’t mean much with regards to race or a person’s physical appearance. The vast majority of genetic studies focus on either mtDNA, which is only passed from mother to child, or the Y chromosome, which is passed from the father. Mitochondrial DNA has zilch to do with the nuclear DNA, the DNA that actually matters. Geneticists use mtDNA because it’s easier to sequence than nuclear DNA. mtDNA mutates at random, but at predictable rate, so it’s used as a marker to show relatedness. The thing is, different people can share the same mtDNA yet have major differences in their nuclear DNA as far as the coding region is concerned.
So to give an example, suppose a European explorer washed up on a pacific island where all the inhabitants had the haplogroup M marker on their mtDNA. Let’s say this explorer screwed as many natives as he could and all his offspring were half Europeans with notably different features than the indigenous population. All his offspring would still be part of haplogroup M, despite their European lineage and different looks. Then let’s say that all his male offspring were just as effective at passing their genes around and eventually after generations, a good percentage of the island were descendants of that European explorer. So when geneticists tested the Y chromosome of the island’s inhabitants, they’d find that a large percentage had European lineage despite no one looking European. This is actually the case on a Melanesian island off the coast of Australia.
LikeLike
Thanks Sagat…
fascinating stuff. I’m just an amateur, but nonetheless fascinated. When not at work or at play, and watching TV, I’m stuck on the “science” channels.
thanks again…
LikeLike
@ColorOfLuv,
“Now enter genetics……. DNA tells us there is no Black/White.”
Okay, this was the part that confused me. From that statement, I assume that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics. That’s why I was trying to elaborate on the points that I made.
There obviously are differences in genetics between different population groups. I’m not sure what gave you the impression that a person of African descent and a person of European descent don’t have genetic dissimilarities. If that was the case then they wouldn’t look different.
LikeLike
@Sagat
when I said “no Black/White”, I’m speaking in terms of Race. Racially speaking, a person could phenotypically look ‘Caucasian’ but genetically be more ‘Negroid’….
Have you read some of the DNA testing conducted in Brazil? Check it out on the BBC.
LikeLike
Sagat said:
What needs to be understood is that mtDNA doesn’t mean much with regards to race or a person’s physical appearance. The vast majority of genetic studies focus on either mtDNA, which is only passed from mother to child, or the Y chromosome, which is passed from the father. Mitochondrial DNA has zilch to do with the nuclear DNA, the DNA that actually matters. Geneticists use mtDNA because it’s easier to sequence than nuclear DNA. mtDNA mutates at random, but at predictable rate, so it’s used as a marker to show relatedness. The thing is, different people can share the same mtDNA yet have major differences in their nuclear DNA as far as the coding region is concerned.
So to give an example, suppose a European explorer washed up on a pacific island where all the inhabitants had the haplogroup M marker on their mtDNA. Let’s say this explorer screwed as many natives as he could and all his offspring were half Europeans with notably different features than the indigenous population. All his offspring would still be part of haplogroup M, despite their European lineage and different looks. Then let’s say that all his male offspring were just as effective at passing their genes around and eventually after generations, a good percentage of the island were descendants of that European explorer. So when geneticists tested the Y chromosome of the island’s inhabitants, they’d find that a large percentage had European lineage despite no one looking European. This is actually the case on a Melanesian island off the coast of Australia.
Mathew: Sagat can I ask how you learned of this DNA phenomena you are stating,and can you tell me the name of this island of Australia you are talking about?
Thank You
Mathew
LikeLike
And again, but this time broadening the issue:
African ‘pygmies’ even though that term is a pejorative one…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies
LikeLike
I like how abagond stop talkn to that loser matthew
LikeLike
If negritos were the original inhabitants of Taiwan, that makes a lot of sense; the Austronesians clearly have a significant genetic input that is not “Mongoloid”. So the early proto-Austronesian ancestors who migrated from the mainland (bringing rice cultivation with them) probably mixed with negritos.
Taiwan is almost universally accepted as the homeland of the Austronesian people. In large part this is based on linguistic evidence. The greatest diversity of Austronesian languages exists in Taiwan. By contrast, the many languages of Indonesia are very closely related to each other (indicating a more recent divergence), and the Polynesian languages are even more closely related to each other.
So it would seem that early Austronesian culture developed in Taiwan first, with some mixing of Negritos with immigrants from South China. After a while some of them migrated south to the Philippines and onward. It is not unlike the Out of Africa migrations; the greatest diversity in genes is in Africa, at the source.
LikeLike
I have doubts on the Out of Taiwan Theory for the Austronesians
One main reason is the little connection Polyesians have to Melanesians,as well as Negritos not closely related inculture to Austronesians.
The negritos did not cultivate crops such as rice also
Mathew
LikeLike
eazydee415
I like how abagond stop talkn to that loser matthew
Please tell me how I am loser?
Because I said something you don’t like or don’t agree with?
LikeLike
My mistake in saying Negritos are not Austronesian Eurasian
and not had seen you mention rice cultivation being brought from Taiwan,which Taiwan had had,though there is good evidence that rice cultivation and societal development was
started in the south in Sundaland before or concurrently with Taiwan and China north
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/atlantis.html
There is a non-Mongoloid element in much of Asia,in Japan the Ainu of the north(original inhabitants of most of Japan) as well as Okinawans,or the Caucasoid element of the Uighurs in China,and the Uighurs have a long history of being in China
Here is post on the non -Austronesian elements in the Negrito language,being this would mean the Negritos were
in the Philippines probably coming from the south
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3623000
LikeLike
Negritos Came from The South
http://bonvito.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/a-gene-story-the-negritos-early-southern-migration/
LikeLike
Matthew – welcome back btw
Just to add that I agree with you on the ‘non-Mongoloid’ element in Japan.
I think, if my memory serves me correct, you will find the Ainu’s are not the idigenes of Japan. They came and found another group of people there. However, your point remains valid that they are the longest living group therein.
I am not sure what you mean by the Caucasoid elements in the Uighurs, because I would classify them under the rubric of ‘Mongoloid’??
LikeLike
I’ve never heard of any non-Mongoloid element in Japan, save for the Ainu. There are some indications of Austronesian influence however.
Uighurs are a Turkic people, and like their cousins the Uzbeks, Kazakhs and so on, have both Mongoloid and Caucasoid elements; though tending more towards the former.
Regarding Negritos coming from the south from Indonesia to the Philippines and Taiwan, that is likely. I am a firm believer that the Austronesian movement was southwards though.
Matthew, regarding your comment about the connections between Melanesians and Polynesians:
Polynesians passed through Melanesia on their way out to the Pacific from Eastern Indonesia. They left behind some minor genetic traces, and language. They would have taken on some Papuan genes as well.
“Melanesian” means different things in different contexts. Many of the coastal people of northern Papua and the nearby islands adopted Austronesian languages – these are the true Melanesians. Most people of inland Papua speak Papuan languages, which have no relation to Austronesian. However Melanesians are still mostly the same as Papuans, physically.
Papuans, like Negritos and Australian Aborigines, are all descended from the same initial migration out of Africa. So they are related, although their divergence is very ancient. While Negritos became smaller and more gracile, Papuans tend to be more robust.
LikeLike
Eurasian
There are different theories on the Ainu,one is they are related to the Aborigines of Australia.
The Caucasoid elements are physical,very abundant facial and body hair,square faces,round eyes
These elements the Okinawans also have and why I think there are related.
From what I have read and seen,the Uighurs are suppose to be have more Caucasoid elements in them than other Turkic people of Central and East Asia.
Some pictures:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090710/as-china-protest/images/5b91b8c7-1da3-46f3-bca2-15d64bf6a0bc.jpg
The Uighurs from what I read were suppose to be the fathers of the Turkic people and have a ancient history and are being oppressed by the Chinese because they are not Han
But why do polynesians and melanesians have little genetic or cultural connection if one is derived from the other?
This leads me to be skeptical about the evolutionary theory
where one race becomes or evloves into another race.
Story here:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118093728.htm
Melanesians have a range of differences,and Aborigines show little connection to Papuans or other Melanesians
but they are said to be closely related to peoples in India
Story here:http://spittoon.23andme.com/2009/07/24/direct-genetic-link-between-australia-and-india-provides-new-insight-into-the-origins-of-australian-aborigines/
One interesting trait that many melanesians and aborigines have is the occurence of blond hair,usually when children,though some adults might have this too.
This is a trait that Subsaharan Africans do not carry
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
The Ainu are something of a mystery, but it is quite possible that their distinctive appearance is due to a genetic bottleneck, and their long isolation before the Japanese arrived.
“From what I have read and seen,the Uighurs are suppose to be have more Caucasoid elements in them than other Turkic people of Central and East Asia.”
Not really. Central Asia has been the site of enormous movement of peoples over the last few millenia, largely due to their nomadic lifestyles. Wars and other factors meant that many people were displaced, and lots of mixing occurred. Which means that there is enormous variation across Central Asia.
The girl whose picture you posted is by no means typical of the Uighurs; at least her blonde hair isn’t, her face is. Uigurs are more or less typical of Central Asians in appearance, which also means they are quite diverse.
“But why do polynesians and melanesians have little genetic or cultural connection if one is derived from the other?”
They are not. As I stated above, the Polynesians passed through Melanesia on their way out to the Pacific. On their way, there was some genetic exchange, but not necessarily a lot. They also left language behind, which is what we call the Melanesian languages today (a subgroup of Austronesian). The Polynesian languages are related to Melanesian.
Melanesian language speakers are genetically Papuan, with a little Polynesian in there somewhere.
“Melanesians have a range of differences,and Aborigines show little connection to Papuans or other Melanesians, but they are said to be closely related to peoples in India”
“Closely related” is a stretch; there’s a 55,000 year gap separating them, according to the article you linked. The difference between Papuans and Aborigines is probably around the same.
So Indian tribals, Aborigines, Papuans and Negritos all share a common ancestry as the first modern people to leave Africa. But they have been separated a long time.
LikeLike
Mathew:
“From what I have read and seen,the Uighurs are suppose to be have more Caucasoid elements in them than other Turkic people of Central and East Asia.”
Eurasian wrote:
Not really. Central Asia has been the site of enormous movement of peoples over the last few millenia, largely due to their nomadic lifestyles. Wars and other factors meant that many people were displaced, and lots of mixing occurred. Which means that there is enormous variation across Central Asia.
The girl whose picture you posted is by no means typical of the Uighurs; at least her blonde hair isn’t, her face is. Uigurs are more or less typical of Central Asians in appearance, which also means they are quite diverse.
Mathew: Eurasian,there many Uyghurs who have blue or green eyes and blonde or red hair.
This is maybe from the Aryan-Indo European blood
as the Uyghurs and Turkic people are suppose to be originally of Caucasoid origin,and there have been many mummies found in the Tarim Basin,in the Uyghur homeland,that have blonde and red hair.
EurasianSensation:
Melanesian language speakers are genetically Papuan, with a little Polynesian in there somewhere.
Mathew: I would disagree that the Papuans language and genetics are not related to the Melanesian islanders.
Here is a scientific study on this:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/23/8/1628
I believe the Polynesian influencesin Melanesia came from Polynesian settlements,which you have in Melanesian as well in Papua New Guinea.
The Fijians,whom are mostly Melanesian with some Polynesian admixture,have much of their vocabulary derived from Polynesian,and the Fijian culture is more effected by the Polynesian cultures of Tonga and Samoa,which traded with them.
Mathew:
“Melanesians have a range of differences,and Aborigines show little connection to Papuans or other Melanesians, but they are said to be closely related to peoples in India”
Eurasian Sensation:
“Closely related” is a stretch; there’s a 55,000 year gap separating them, according to the article you linked. The difference between Papuans and Aborigines is probably around the same.
Mathew: Eurasion,
No not a stretch if there is a shown genetic,cultural
connection,but this is just stating that 55,000 years ago is the time that is thought of the migrations of people form India to Australia,as it could have been going on up to 15,000 or 10,000 years or even less
So Indian tribals, Aborigines, Papuans and Negritos all share a common ancestry as the first modern people to leave Africa. But they have been separated a long time.
Mathew: Why do you speculate these people came out of Africa,and not evolved in the region they are in or nearest to them.and scoff as the idea that Aborigines and Dravidian Indians are related?
Why would people of Africa travel thousand of miles to unknown and possibly dangerous(no food or safe shelter) territories in the Pacific,and how did they do it?
This is something that has never been shown.
New Guinea
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
Regarding Melanesians and Polynesians, you just completely agreed with what I said. Melanesians are Papuans who have adopted some language and culture from Polynesians.
“Mathew: Why do you speculate these people came out of Africa,and not evolved in the region they are in or nearest to them…”
The multiregional hypothesis was popular a while back, but has basically been debunked by genetic testing. Out-of -Africa is where it’s at, my friend. It’s only a tiny minority of expert thinkers in this field who still refuse to accept an African origin.
“and scoff as the idea that Aborigines and Dravidian Indians are related?”
I don’t scoff at the idea, but the time gap separating them is probably very great, as stated earlier.
Why would people of Africa travel thousand of miles to unknown and possibly dangerous(no food or safe shelter) territories in the Pacific,and how did they do it?
This is something that has never been shown.”
It’s not one big journey. These people left Africa and their descendants got to SE Asia many thousands of years later. It is the same way most populations have spread – looking for new territories to find food. So some would stay in one place while others moved further away.
It is hypothesised that most of this travel would have been along the South Asian coast. Movement along beaches is far quicker than overland because the environment and food gathering methods stay the same.
So if each generation, one tribe split off from the most easterly group and moved 10km away, eventually you have these out-of-Africa people in SE Asia.
LikeLike
Eurasian:
The multiregional hypothesis was popular a while back, but has basically been debunked by genetic testing. Out-of -Africa is where it’s at, my friend. It’s only a tiny minority of expert thinkers in this field who still refuse to accept an African origin.
Mathew: Eurasian,
Not correct,the Out of Africa Theory,and keyword here is connected to the ‘Theory of Evolution”,key word here is “theory” as it has never been proven empircally,and why the “missing link ” is still trying to be found.
I will post my views of scientific nature why I
do not believe in the this,as I do not believe
humans evolved from animals,which is what this theory does.
Also if you are going on this belief,then these peoples,Negritos,Indian,Aborigines,would have evolved into different people or races following the long period it took them to get their present places;if going on the Theory of Evolution.
If these people did come out of Africa,would they not remember it,would it not be in their oral legends?
Mathew
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
Man, for someone who is obviously very well-read, you got some funny ideas, brother.
“If these people did come out of Africa,would they not remember it,would it not be in their oral legends?”
We are talking about an estimate of 80,000 years or even more since the first modern humans left Africa. It is extremely unlikely that any oral legends would survive recognisably from that time.
It’s only a tiny, tiny minority of scientific thinkers who refuse to accept the theory of evolution.
The “missing link” idea is a distraction, as there will never be a single missing link. There is already ample evidence of transitional species intermediate between ape and man. But this is off topic.
From your earlier coment:
“there many Uyghurs who have blue or green eyes and blonde or red hair. This is maybe from the Aryan-Indo European blood as the Uyghurs and Turkic people are suppose to be originally of Caucasoid origin,and there have been many mummies found in the Tarim Basin,in the Uyghur homeland,that have blonde and red hair.”
While these features are not all that common among the Uyghurs, it is true. There were ancient Indo-European people (the Tocharians) in that part of Central Asia. While the Indo-European language has been lost, they have been absorbed into a Turkic population. Turkic peoples tend to be a Caucasoid/Mongoloid mix, tending toward Caucasoid in the West.
LikeLike
Mathew:
Man, for someone who is obviously very well-read, you got some funny ideas, brother.
“If these people did come out of Africa,would they not remember it,would it not be in their oral legends?”
We are talking about an estimate of 80,000 years or even more since the first modern humans left Africa. It is extremely unlikely that any oral legends would survive recognisably from that time.
Eurasian-
Mathew: Well if Native Americans have oral legends,Eyskimoyan peoples,Polynesians-Samoans,Hawai’ans,Tahitians,Moaris,
Arabs,Persians,Assyrians,Ethiopian,Malagasy,Sudanese
Khoisan people of South African,who are said the be the oldest African people-culture
If these people have oral legends-stories and their cultures
are thousands of years old,then there should be oral legends of the Negritos,as they would have had to had the intelligence to consciously…or subconsciously remember their Journey.
This is partial and part of any people of the earth.
If these people took 80,000 years to get to where they live now,or maybe half of this time,they would have cultures-settlments in the regions of the world they trekked through.
This is a empircal phenomena that you will see in the
all nomadic peoples of the world.
The Chumas Indians on Southern California say they originally came from Hawai’i and there are some words that are almost identical in their language.
The Uighurs are a very ancient people and they are suppose to have been originally one people before
they mixed,why there language is very different from Chinese language and script and their script was adopted by Mongolians and all Turkic peoples.
The Turks of Turkey are said to have originated in the Gobi Desert,which in story is suppose to be the original home of the Uygurs who are to be the ancestors of the Turks.
Did you know that the Turkic language,which includes Turkish,is known to be related to languages of Native American Indians and Eskimoyan peoples?
Try to connect the dots here :_)
Mathew
LikeLike
I’m not saying those people don’t have oral legends, of course they do. But as to whether they would have a recognisable legend of their migration from Africa 80,000 years ago? I repeat, EIGHTY THOUSAND YEARS AGO?
Don’t be surprised if they don’t. In any case, as I stated above, it’s wouldn’t be necessarily seen as a migration, because it’s not one big journey. It’s gradual spreading over thousands and thousands of years, without any particular destination in mind.
“Did you know that the Turkic language,which includes Turkish,is known to be related to languages of Native American Indians and Eskimoyan peoples?”
Dunno about “known to be”. It’s a theory. The relationship is too distant to accurately confirm at the moment.
It is thought be many linguists to be distantly related to Korean and Japanese though.
LikeLike
Eurasian:
These people we are talking of ,Negritos,coming out of Africa,
would be a map of ancient history that anthropoligists could trace,because these people would have to have stop in many places along the way,which are present day countries and continents now,where they would have to had developed a culture.
It would be more likely they settled into places that were
fertile and easy to adapt to.
I mean there would evidence of this in artifacts,and modern peoples that would be ancestors,so that one could connect this migration all the way back.
Here is Turkish-Native American Language Connections
http://www.mediamonitors.net/polatkaya1.html
LikeLike
Mathew, just weighing in here as an anthropologist.
Yes, oral histories are important indicators of the past. No, there are no oral histories that stretch back 80,000 years.
Oral history has a half-life of about 500 years.
Hell, even in so-called Western Civilization – which has books, films, movies, T.V. and now the internet – people’s memory rarely stretches back beyond three generations. In oral cultures, they’re a bit more careful to remember things, but you’re still essentially playing telephone across the generations.
The idea that any human culture has a memory that stretches back millenia – without writing – is simply silly. It’s not true, in spite of whatever romantic BS you might have picked up about “native civilizations”.
How do I know this? Well, aside from being pretty well read regarding ethnohistory, many of my friends and colleagues work for the Brazilian government trying to recover native lands. One of the main tools they use is – you guessed it – oral history. It’s very hard piecing together what happened even 200 years ago, because history is quickly turned into myth. 1000 years ago – absent some REALLY major event – is almost impossible.
80,000 years ago? No way. Sorry.
LikeLike
I tend to agree, however:
Oral history has a half-life of about 500 years.
Are you sure “half life” is the term you wanted to use here? With element’s half life of 500 years, it could really go way into the past.
Joking aside, oral history is important; it’s incredibly important. But it’s importance isn’t about facts or actual historical events- they are important for shaping group’s identity (and for shaping a group itself).
Speaking of Europe, many “traditions”- dare to say most of them- were constructed in the 18th century. Meaning, most of what Europeans take for their tradition today is a 18th or 19th century construct.
LikeLike
Well, yeah. I think that some elements go into the past. I would say at least half of them are lost after 500 years. And I’m being very, very liberal here, giving oral cultures almost super-human powers of recall.
I think, for example, that stories of the great flood may be oral history memories of the flooding of the Black Sea region – which, IIRC – happened about 12,000 years ago?
So something very dramatic and very obvious might conceivably last as myth that long. But this is from the dawn of “the West’s” time and was written down maybe 4-5000 years ago. So it’s cheating a bit.
I memory of a routine migration 80,000 years ago? No way.
You’re spot on about European traditions.
LikeLike
ES,
Were you aware of this, from mathilda’s blog??
“I think… the ‘out of Africa’ theory of human evolution is somewhat inaccurate, even though the media seem to be all for it. It’s not amazingly popular among anthropologists and geneticists (see blog for papers on that) although it’s repeatedly printed as the proven truth
I also think that racial differences are a long way from being cosmetic, and there’s no evolutionary reason for us to be the homogeneous species that a lot of people claim we are- it would mean evolution stopped the day modern humans evolved, which is just anti-logic. There’s biological evidence to the contrary, like different gestation spans, twinning rates etc, and more recent genetics publications that have outright backed race as valid”
I wonder if Matthew is also a reader of this blog?
LikeLike
Thaddeus:
Mathew, just weighing in here as an anthropologist.
Yes, oral histories are important indicators of the past. No, there are no oral histories that stretch back 80,000 years.
Oral history has a half-life of about 500 years.
Mathew: I agree Thaddeus,though I did not mean having oral histories that canbe remembered back 80,000 years ago :_)
Itis interesting that many cultures around the world have
oral legend of a great flood too.
J says:
Were you aware of this, from mathilda’s blog??
“I think… the ‘out of Africa’ theory of human evolution is somewhat inaccurate, even though the media seem to be all for it. It’s not amazingly popular among anthropologists and geneticists (see blog for papers on that) although it’s repeatedly printed as the proven truth
Mathew : I agree J,and have reesearched alot myself on this and found problems with pointed out by scientists
Here is a agood site on Philippine Negritos
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/the-peopling-of-the-philippines/
I hade met a Philippines Negrito when I was in the Philippines in Decmeber 2008,outside St Lukes Hospital,of whom I bought several flutes and bird callers
I have lived inthe Philippines before but had not met any Negritos back then
I would hope that if we are serious on this group about Negriots,we could do something to help them out,financially ,et al
Mathew
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
Personally I have a lot more ‘concerns’ with Robert Lindsay’s blog than Mathilda’s blog – though I have ‘issues’ with both to be honest.
What is interesting about the link you kindly posted, it stated:
‘White Nationalists and Afrocentrists both insist that these folks are Black people (ie Aetas/Negritos), but they are very distant from African Blacks. White people are much closer to Blacks than these Negritos’.
Then much later in the piece he says:
‘The Philippine Negritos are related to the first groups out of Africa 60-70,000 years ago. They left via the Horn of Africa, got on boats and crossed over to Yemen, then went on boats or walked along the shore along the Indian Ocean to Iran, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Malaysia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, New Guinea, Indonesia and Australia’.
It is this type of spurious reasoning which is/has proved to be problematic for me.
LikeLike
Just re-read the post again:
With regard to:
“It seems that South East Asia is most like Africa so that Negritos changed the least in appearance, unlike, say, the Aboriginals to the south, who changed more (straighter hair, for example).”
The theory is that Aborigines in Australia are akin to those on the Indian sub-continent, and the Indians on the sub-continent akin to Nubians in North East Africa (ie c-Group).
So the issue of straight hair can have its origins in Africa.
Once again it is that type of thinking, here read ‘programming’ that make us believe that ‘Black-Africoid’ types cannot have ‘wavy to straight hair’
I should add that the former Aborigines/Dravidians used to be referred to as ‘Australoids’
NB – Notwithstanding that the term Dravidian refers to language.
With regard to the different races. It is the ‘extreme’ climate of the ‘ice age’ temperature in Europe that, or so the theory goes, helped bring about the ‘White race’.
Possibly a ‘moderate’ climate would not have brought about this change.
Finally Diop suggest that the Mongoloid race appears somewhere in the Eurasian steppes as a result of the inter-mixture between Blacks and Whites type to produce the Mongoloid type.
Blacks –
Caucasian – 40,000 BC
Mongoloids – 20,000 BC
This obviously is from the empirical data which is before us.
With regard to the size of the negritos, the first humans were small and larger types came thereafter, through ‘evolutionary processes’.
LikeLike
“A Chinese Perspective on the Uighurs”:
I had an interesting conversation with a European friend about Central Asian peoples such as the Uighur, Turkmen and Kirghiz. Most people from China see the Uighur as white Caucasians because their noses are pointed and their eyes are deep-set, compared to Chinese, and there are those among them with light hair and eyes.
But my European friend sees them as Mongoloid because they ‘have slitty eyes’. In reality, there are many Central Asians who don’t have slitty eyes. In fact, there are Uighurs who can pass for white Europeans. Central Asians are of mixed Caucasoid and Mongoloid stock, and their phenotypes range from one end of the spectrum to the other.
But both the Caucasoid Europeans to the West and the Mongoloid Chinese to the East define the Central Asians by how they are different from the ‘norm’. The Chinese see Uighurs and some other Central Asian Turkic peoples as the ‘same race’ as Europeans because the significant Caucasoid strain in their blood differentiates the Central Asians from Chinese.
The Europeans, in turn, see the Central Asians as ‘the same race’ as Mongols and Chinese, because some Central Asians deviate from the European ‘norm’ by displaying traces of Mongoloid features”
http://www.colorq.org/meltingpot/article.aspx?d=op&x=perceptions
LikeLike
J
Cheers Matthew,
Personally I have a lot more ‘concerns’ with Robert Lindsay’s blog than Mathilda’s blog – though I have ‘issues’ with both to be honest.
What is interesting about the link you kindly posted, it stated:
‘White Nationalists and Afrocentrists both insist that these folks are Black people (ie Aetas/Negritos), but they are very distant from African Blacks. White people are much closer to Blacks than these Negritos’.
Then much later in the piece he says:
‘The Philippine Negritos are related to the first groups out of Africa 60-70,000 years ago. They left via the Horn of Africa, got on boats and crossed over to Yemen, then went on boats or walked along the shore along the Indian Ocean to Iran, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Malaysia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, New Guinea, Indonesia and Australia’.
It is this type of spurious reasoning which is/has proved to be problematic for me.
Mathew:
J,I saw this contradiction too and think Robert is refering to
the distant genetic differences btween the Negritos and
Black Africans.
As I had stated before I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution that man evolved from animals,lower hominids
and spread out of Africa.
I believe that negritos,melanesians,papuans,dark brown and black skinned,kinky or wooly haired people,evolved(
not from animals) in the deep tropical regions of the world,
where they live now,or migrated from near by places.
The Aborigines might have lineage to Munda peoples of India and why they they don’t have afro,whooly hair,but straight or curly ,soft,not coarse hair,which they are much distictive diifferences between the Tasmanian Aborigines,who were culturally,physically and linguistically different from the mainland Aborigines.
LikeLike
J
Just re-read the post again:
With regard to:
“It seems that South East Asia is most like Africa so that Negritos changed the least in appearance, unlike, say, the Aboriginals to the south, who changed more (straighter hair, for example).”
The theory is that Aborigines in Australia are akin to those on the Indian sub-continent, and the Indians on the sub-continent akin to Nubians in North East Africa (ie c-Group).
So the issue of straight hair can have its origins in Africa.
Mathew: J,
There are people in North East Africa with straight or curly hair,but these people are a mixture of or fully Semitic peoples that are known to have come over from the Arabian Penisula into Ethiopia,Somlia.
Once again it is that type of thinking, here read ‘programming’ that make us believe that ‘Black-Africoid’ types cannot have ‘wavy to straight hair’
I should add that the former Aborigines/Dravidians used to be referred to as ‘Australoids’
NB – Notwithstanding that the term Dravidian refers to language.
Mathew: Dravidian also means race,of the Tamils or southern Indians,India use to be called Dravidia in its original name.
The Tamil race have a legend they came from the south before they arrived in India.
The Tamils are brown to black skinned,with thick straight or curly hair
With regard to the different races. It is the ‘extreme’ climate of the ‘ice age’ temperature in Europe that, or so the theory goes, helped bring about the ‘White race’.
Possibly a ‘moderate’ climate would not have brought about this change.
Finally Diop suggest that the Mongoloid race appears somewhere in the Eurasian steppes as a result of the inter-mixture between Blacks and Whites type to produce the Mongoloid type.
Mathew: J, find this hard to believe that the Mongoloid race is a mixture of Blacks and Whites,as Mongoloids have straight hair,epicanthic eye fold,which neither white nor black races have.
The Out of Africa Theory follows that different races evolved from a single race,but that race had to evolve into
a race ,such as black people,then others,unless it there were several groups of peoples,of which some evolved into Black people,others White,then Mongoloids.
Though for the evolution of one race into another has never been shown,where you can see the transformation of one racial traits to another.
Mathew
Caucasian – 40,000 BC
Mongoloids – 20,000 BC
This obviously is from the empirical data which is before us.
With regard to the size of the negritos, the first humans were small and larger types came thereafter, through ‘evolutionary processes’.
LikeLike
The Tamil origin myth about coming from a drowned land to the south may relate to the rising of the oceans at the end of the ice age. The land they refer to could well be what is now Indonesia. Which is not to say the Tamils come from Indonesia, but it would be unsurprising if there was some genetic and cultural input from that region. Sometimes people adopt cultural traditions and myths from other cultures that influence them (in the same way that cultures adopt Islam, Christianity or other beliefs).
It is quite likely that Dravidian languages have an origin closer to SW or Central Asia. India has long been a melting pot of different groups. Tamils likely do have an Australoid/Negrito element in their genetic makeup, but there is also a strong Mediterranean component as well, to name but one.
I should add that my partner is Tamil, so I am pretty well acquainted with these folks. She’s unlikely to ever be confused with an indigenous Australian; but certainly I have met Aborigines and Indians who look a little like each other.
LikeLike
@ J:
“Finally Diop suggest that the Mongoloid race appears somewhere in the Eurasian steppes as a result of the inter-mixture between Blacks and Whites type to produce the Mongoloid type.”
This seems like a weird idea to me. I think it far more likely that the African descendants who arrived on the Eurasian steppes had a more generalised phenotype that had elements of all three; they had not fully lost their typically “African” features, but not yet diversified into clearly Caucasoid or Mongoloid phenotypes either.
“It is this type of spurious reasoning which is/has proved to be problematic for me.”
Can you explain what in particular about that statement that you find spurious? I’m not sure I follow.
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
With regard to Robert Lindsay’s blog. the information he provided more or less is totally correct. It is his reasoning that is at fault.
He utilises what anthropologists etc have been doing for a very long time, and we see its effects even today when we speak of race…
viz.
There are no variants within the Black race, only within the ‘Caucasoid’ and ‘Mongoloid’ only.
This is why many people only think Black…then they get a ‘Negro’ type.
Lindsay does exactly the same. He does not notice that if you took an Andamese out of his/her environment, dressed him/her in American clothes. Then they would in essence be no different to an ‘African American’.
And this is the reason that Diop has suggested that it is the phenotype of race which is important.
Furthermore the only real difference between the Negritos is that they left Africa 60,000 years ago approx, whereas African-Americans left only 500 years or so ago.
Lindsay cannot understand this because of his pro-White thinking, which he himself admits on his blog.
As for the Aborigines some do suggest a connection with the Munda types in India.
Have a look at some of these pictures especially those toward the end
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://bp1.blogger.com/_h5L0bq0pIhY/R_i2bPYvQUI/AAAAAAAAA70/xbWMYVM5HlY/s320/Santal%2Bman%2BMunda%2BIndia.JPG&imgrefurl=http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2009/06/giving-life-to-aryan-invasion-theory.html&usg=__jaw9ScWwC6CrXmlhgAxQoL6ztBM=&h=240&w=320&sz=21&hl=en&start=18&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=ZxnQTZNq9XbQSM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMunda%2BAborigines%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4SKPB_enGB349GB349%26tbs%3Disch:1
And again
As for the Aborigines and Tasmanians. This is my own opinion they are part of that same group that left Africa as per that Telegraph link I sent. I would equate the Tasmanians with the Papuan/Melenesian type.
LikeLike
I forgot this link for the Munda tribes:
LikeLike
Matthew
1. There are people in North East Africa with straight or curly hair,but these people are a mixture of or fully Semitic peoples that are known to have come over from the Arabian Penisula into Ethiopia,Somlia.
I have already had this discussion with ES, can’t remember the thread which from my point of view that shows the first people to inhabitat Saudi Arabia were ‘Africoid types’.
And there is no reason to think that North East Africa hair is the result of Semetic influence.
Notwithstanding that Semeticisation occurred inWestern Asia approx 50,000 BC with the intermixing of Black-Africoid & White Caucasoid
butthat is a different story, maybe for that other thread
2. With regard to Dravida, if we are being strict to the ‘facts’. Then we have to say it is a language.
We must also remeber that the Dravidian language is also spoken by other groups who are also not Tamil. I understand what you are trying to say though.
3. There are many groups in Africa and in parts of Uganda which have the appearance of the epicanthic fold – unless these groups are not classed as Black/African.
If you look at the Black race they possess all the characteristic of the other races, which would make some sense only that in all probability, all races evolved from the ‘black’.
4. As for the Out-of Africa theory, I also respect your right not to believe in it.
4.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“It is quite likely that Dravidian languages have an origin closer to SW or Central Asia.”
If I have understood your geography correctly Central Asia being Kazakhstan etc and S.W Asia, not sure where that would be.
I think its origins is probably in India, if not there then somewhere around North East Africa, if the ‘Dravidians’ are connected to the C-Group, as some scholars suggest, even Indian ones too.
LikeLike
wITH REGARD TO:
“This seems like a weird idea to me. I think it far more likely that the African descendants who arrived on the Eurasian steppes had a more generalised phenotype that had elements of all three; they had not fully lost their typically “African” features, but not yet diversified into clearly Caucasoid or Mongoloid phenotypes either.”
I am not sure of the what you are trying to suggest here.
If you can imagine a Black/Africoid type like the Khoi-San intermingling with a ‘Bleached African’ who now became a White Caucasoid type, to produce the Mongoloid types.
This theory is derived from the extant remains. From those remains it appears that ‘Caucasoid’ and ‘Mongoloid’ types do not appear until the dates given
40,000 BC in Europe with the Cro-Magnon
20,000 BC in the Eurasian steppes
LikeLike
Re: Dravidian language origins:
It’s quite possible it is in NE Africa, although I’ve never heard any argument to support that.
Dravidian languages are often linked with the language of Elam, an ancient kingdom which I believe was in modern Iran. A link with the Uralic languages has also been suggested, and some posit that is has a link with Indo-European as well. I’m in no position to say how likely those things are.
The ancient Harappa civilisation, located on the Indus River in what is now Pakistan, is believed to have been Dravidian speaking.
Btw, this is my girl. She’s pretty easily identifiable as being of South Indian extraction.
LikeLike
“I am not sure of the what you are trying to suggest here.
If you can imagine a Black/Africoid type like the Khoi-San intermingling with a ‘Bleached African’ who now became a White Caucasoid type, to produce the Mongoloid types.”
I don’t necessarily think in terms of racial features being created though being a mixture of something else. In small and isolated populations (which would have been very common way back then), the phenotype could change considerably over time due to genetic bottlenecks and so on.
Consider today’s Polynesians, who are principally descended from Indonesian people. The time distance between the two groups is probably only 3000 or 4000 years, but Polynesians usually look very different. They tend to be physically larger, and look considerably less “Asian” than Indonesians.
While this would be in part due to some Papuan influence, I think largely it is due to them descending from a small population in which certain genes came to dominate.
Similarly, there’s a theory that the Ainu are actually fairly closely related to (Mongoloid) Siberians, but their so-called “Caucasian” features arose as random variations that came to predominate in their small localised population.
It is hard to speculate what ancient peoples would have looked like, although everyone with an interest likes to do it.
LikeLike
J
Matthew said:
1. There are people in North East Africa with straight or curly hair,but these people are a mixture of or fully Semitic peoples that are known to have come over from the Arabian Penisula into Ethiopia,Somlia.
I have already had this discussion with ES, can’t remember the thread which from my point of view that shows the first people to inhabitat Saudi Arabia were ‘Africoid types’.
And there is no reason to think that North East Africa hair is the result of Semetic influence.
Mathew: I disagree J,
African Races-Ethnicities:
http://orvillejenkins.com/peoples/raceandethnicity.html
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
Just to say I have seen this link before, and I think you have chosen the wrong link to support your contention and position though.
From the link:
1. As to skin color, however, there are black peoples with Caucasian features in Southern India and the Indian Ocean Islands. In general this group (“race” or “sub-race”) of people is called Dravidian. Examples of Dravidian languages are Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, etc., in India.
Black peoples called Melanesian in the South Pacific are also black, and have some similar features to Negroid Africans, but they are different also. The peoples of Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya, for instance, are Melanesian. Likewise in this group are those called Australian Aborigines (“Originals”).
Thus there are peoples who are black that are not Negroid.” The term “African” is generally used in popular speech to refer to the broad majority of black peoples of Africa who generally fit the popular traditional classification of physical features called Negroid
And hence my point – about Black and Negro and variants within the race
2. It is unclear why the Somalis peoples look more Caucasian, even though they have dark skin like the Oromo Cushites or Bantu Africans. There seems to be no generally accepted explanation among scholars.
LikeLike
I also think that racial differences are a long way from being cosmetic, and there’s no evolutionary reason for us to be the homogeneous species that a lot of people claim we are- it would mean evolution stopped the day modern humans evolved, which is just anti-logic.
Whoever wrote this has some odd ideas about biology.
Races don’t exist as biological objects among humans NOT because we’re a “homogenous species” but precisely because of the opposite reason: human biodiversity is too CHAOTIC to be codified by races. When the avergae genetic distance between peoples of the same race is as great as between peoples of different races, then that means that what we call a “race” is not HOMOGENOUS ENOUGH to be considered a biological subspecies.
LikeLike
@Mathew
I agree J,and have reesearched alot myself on this and found problems with pointed out by scientists.
Translation: I’ve done some surfing on the net. I’ve not read any scientific papers. In fact, I’d probably have a hard time understanding them.
LikeLike
“Whoever wrote this has some odd ideas about biology. ”
I concur!
LikeLike
Btw, does anyone else here thing of Doritos made with black beans everytime the subject of “Negritos” comes up…?
LikeLike
^thing = think
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Whoever wrote this has some odd ideas about biology. ”
and
I concur!
This is from Mathilda’s blog. I would say that from her perspective it does make sense. Furthermore and in keeping with her reasoning she is also against the idea that all humans originated in Africa.
With this type of thinking, off course races would exist, with differnet origins etc
LikeLike
ES,
Perhaps it might be helpful to think with the ideas of henotopes.
Why do I say this??
In essence there is no Polynesian type. All we have is clusters of islands in the Pacific Ocean inhabitated by different groups of people.
Like the Middle East thsi is a construct created
There are also Black Polynesians types also:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TPS1242.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/TPS1242.php&usg=__yCDLIQMtZqabzQzv4LHY6riqQZ0=&h=335&w=500&sz=31&hl=en&start=19&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=VSre0ozKR-VB1M:&tbnh=87&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBlack%2Bskinned%2BPolynesians%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4SKPB_enGB349GB349%26tbs%3Disch:1
So we really have to be accurate when we referring to Polynesian types in the Pacific.
Finally with regard to:
Similarly, there’s a theory that the Ainu are actually fairly closely related to (Mongoloid) Siberians, but their so-called “Caucasian” features arose as random variations that came to predominate in their small localised population.
As for the Ainu’s I think this again is essentially an old euro-centred argument. I had thought that recent research had suggested that on the genetic level it had been demonstrated they were not linked to Caucasians.
Can you confirm or reject??
LikeLike
@ J:
The “black polynesian” picture you linked is no such thing actually. I infer from the accompanying links that he is from the Solomon Islands; they are of a Melanesian/Papuan type.
Polynesia is further east and refers to the Maori, Hawaiians, Tongans etc.
“2. It is unclear why the Somalis peoples look more Caucasian, even though they have dark skin like the Oromo Cushites or Bantu Africans. There seems to be no generally accepted explanation among scholars.”
I would argue there is an explanation that is generally accepted among scholars EXCEPT the Afrocentrists.
LikeLike
With this type of thinking, off course races would exist, with differnet origins etc
Great! Let’s just turn the clock of science back to 1815 and pre-Darwinian polygenism because Mathilda can’t handle the fact that she’s part of the same race as people whose skin color differs from hers.
And folks wonder why I call these people the “Flat Earth Society”.
LikeLike
With regard to your comment,
1. I am suggesting that in Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia you will find Black/Africoid types that exist in those respective spheres or did so in the past.
If we speaking of the term ‘Polynesian’ we are strictly speaking of a population that is already mixed.
If you view Polynesian as a sub-race then you can start to investigate the broader ‘racial’ compenents within that group ie. ‘Mongoloid’
2. Just to clarify that the link kindly provided by Matthew was NOT written by an Afrocentric scholar and he is from the continent of Africa.
So it is not correct to say as you suggest:
“I would argue there is an explanation (for why East Africans have straight hair) that is generally accepted among scholars EXCEPT the Afrocentrists”
LikeLike
Thad,
To be fair to Mathilda and others who support the contention.
If she thinks there is insufficient data to make a conclusion that there is only one race and that their origins occurred in Africa. And perhaps even more importantly as long as she can demonstrate her arguments ‘scientifically’ etc
Then within the field of science she is entitled to have this position. Especially as it is only recently academia has come to this position.
No??
LikeLike
If she thinks there is insufficient data to make a conclusion that there is only one race and that their origins occurred in Africa.
Then Mathilda has another problem: she doesn’t understand how science works. Apparently, she wants science to prove a negative.
Within the field of science, anyone’s entitled to any position. To be accepted, said position needs to be supported with better proof than all the competing positions.
As for “academia only coming to this position recently”, that’s a bit of an exageration. The “out of Africa” thesis has been the dominant position in academia for the better part of a century. Polygenesis is just one of those bad theories than simply refuses to die. Why? Because it allows one to come to so many “interesting” conclusions about the human species.
What has happened recently isn’t that “academia” has begun to accept the “out of Africa” thesis: it’s that genetic studies are showing that the polygenists don’t have a logical leg to stand on.
But don’t worry: polygenists will soon come up with some other tortured explanation to save their theory. They always do. Their ultimate fall back position is “Prove it DIDN’T happen”, which, of course, can’t be done.
My guess is that the new iteration of polygenetic theory will involve the belief that a few humans who evoved outside of Africa survived that quasi-extinction event 30,000 years ago that gave us Eve, but that their mDNA lines were lost in the shuffle;
Rest assured, they’ll come up with something.
[roll eyes]
LikeLike
Mathew@
Eurasian
Consider today’s Polynesians, who are principally descended from Indonesian people. The time distance between the two groups is probably only 3000 or 4000 years, but Polynesians usually look very different. They tend to be physically larger, and look considerably less “Asian” than Indonesians.
While this would be in part due to some Papuan influence, I think largely it is due to them descending from a small population in which certain genes came to dominate.
Mathew: Eurasian,below is an excellent piece on the Polynesians by Sir Peter Buck from New Zealand(Atorea)
who was white on his father’s side and Native Maori on his mother’s. He was a well respected civil servant,war hero and later anthropologist who wrote several books on the
Polynesians and the mysterious histories and cultures
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-BucViki-t1-body-d1-d2.html
Mathew
LikeLike
Anthropologists dispute Out of Africa Theory
http://anthropology.net/2007/07/21/anthropologists-dispute-latest-out-of-africa-claims/
LikeLike
Cheers Mathhew,
With regard to the link you provided, I found this piece very interesting
“Hawks said.
‘The multiregional idea is identical to the recent African origin idea,
********** except for its prediction that Europeans and Asians were part of the single population of origin and didn’t become extinct***********.”
And for me this is what many of the polygenist are about namely the hope to find that White people did not have their origins in Africa among Black people.
Thus a carry over to the idea of White supremacy which has be a prevailing ideology since teh 1500s, others aver as early as 1500 BC but that is another story, for a future date on a different topic on this blog perhaps
LikeLike
And I should say that the acceptance of teh monogenetic theory is in keeping with how scientific theories paradigm changes.
If we sticking and being faithful to ‘science’. Then in essence it all based upon the collective empirical evidence, and what the empirical evidence reveals and shows on the balance of probabilitie, utilising certain technological processes to derive a theory ie to offer an explanation.
It is in essence the collective body of evidence that helps to determine whether a theory has validity or not. One anomaly, or even more than one does not necessarily invalidate a paradigm (theory). This is not how science work.
At present the monogentic origins out of Africa is the prevailingtheory until that time when a further collective of empirical data can prove otherwise.
This is just a brief summary offering an explanation why the monogenetic theory is the prevalent idea accordingto the principles of ‘Philosophy of Science’
LikeLike
Anthropologists dispute Out of Africa Theory
Mathew, science is a discussion, not a lecture. People are free to raise whatever theories they want. There are geologists who believe in creationism and a flat earth, for chissake. So to say “Anthropologists dispute the out of Africa theory” is to say precisely nothing.
What is their proof and how does it stack up to other theories’ proofs?
That’s the proof of the pudding. The ONLY proof I might add.
Furthermore, AFAICS given that blog you linked us to, the argument isn’t about whether or not humans all came out of Africa: it’s about whether they did so in one or multiple waves.
No anthros in this debate are arguing for mulitple human origins: all agree that we come from Africa.
LikeLike
Mathew@
Thaddeus
Anthropologists dispute Out of Africa Theory
Mathew, science is a discussion, not a lecture. People are free to raise whatever theories they want. There are geologists who believe in creationism and a flat earth, for chissake. So to say “Anthropologists dispute the out of Africa theory” is to say precisely nothing.
Mathew: Thaddeus,no reason to get upset about this,I am just posting points that some Anthropologists are making.
What is their proof and how does it stack up to other theories’ proofs?
Mathew: There is not Empirical proof for any Theories,hence why the “Missing Link” is always is always being sought out.
That’s the proof of the pudding. The ONLY proof I might add.
Furthermore, AFAICS given that blog you linked us to, the argument isn’t about whether or not humans all came out of Africa: it’s about whether they did so in one or multiple waves.
No anthros in this debate are arguing for mulitple human origins: all agree that we come from Africa.
Mathew: Where and when exactly did the first humans appear?
LikeLike
Where and when exactly did the first humans appear?
You have to define “human” first. Our species (Homo Sapiens) other species of the genus Homo, Australopithecus perhaps… ?
Evolution is not that simple. In any case, oldest findings of all of these species are found in Africa.
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
you have stated you don’t believe humans evolved from apes, so do infer from that that you are a creationist?
Btw, your link about Polynesian origins is pretty outdated and while it surely has some worthwhile points, some of its theories are a bit dodgy. For example, assuming that Polynesians must be partly Caucasoid because they don’t have Mongoloid eyes or Negroid woolly hair and dark skin colour.
LikeLike
Mathew—–
Eurasian Sensation
@ Mathew:
you have stated you don’t believe humans evolved from apes, so do infer from that that you are a creationist?
Btw, your link about Polynesian origins is pretty outdated and while it surely has some worthwhile points, some of its theories are a bit dodgy. For example, assuming that Polynesians must be partly Caucasoid because they don’t have Mongoloid eyes or Negroid woolly hair and dark skin colour.
Mathew,
Eurasian,which Creationist belief because there are
many from peoples all over the world which all have some similiarites,even the Bibilical account of Creation.
These are all Cosmologies and Man’s place in the Universe/World
The posts on Polynesians by Peter Buck,should be taken as
very good in having a person of Polynesian culture and ethnic,that had first hand experience of his descriptions.
The Polynesians do have elements of Caucasoid in them,as well as Mongoloid and Melanesian.
There is oral stories of red and blonde hair and
people among the people of Rapa Nui-Easter Island,they were the Long Ears and they had enslaved the Short Ears,here is link on it :
Legend has it that while the original descendants of Easter Island are Polynesian, sometime around 500AD the white men appeared. These white men with red hair stayed on the island and – shockingly – enslaved the Polynesian people. From this time on, the white men were known as the Long Ears and the Polynesians as the Short Ears. It was the Short Ears who were mandated to carve the Moais for the ruling Long Ears. This went on for over 1100 years until at last the Short Ears declared war on the Long Ears and overthrew them, saving only one Long Ear. Today, the people of the island are predominantly Polynesian looking, but there are some white-featured and red-headed people as well
A Kahuna woman (Religious-Spiritual of the Native Hawaii’ans,who keep a oral tradition) had said that the original Hawai’ians sailed from the Persian Gulf to Hawai’i,
I read this in Aloha magazine which is printed in and about Hawai’i culture,modern and past.
The ancient Hawaiian language has words that are the same as Pharoanic Egypt,Ra for the sun,as well as having
a Sun Cult.where had the Sun was a Symbol of the Diety and they had Solar Observatories too.
The Legend of the House of the Sun:
According to ancient legend, Haleakala got its name from a very clever trick that the demigod Maui pulled on the sun. Maui’s mother, the goddess Hina, complained one day that the sun sped across the sky so quickly that her tapa cloth couldn’t dry.
Maui, known as a trickster, devised a plan. The next morning he went to the top of the great mountain and waited for the sun to poke its head above the horizon. Quickly, Maui lassoed the sun, bringing its path across the sky to an abrupt halt.
The sun begged Maui to let go, and Maui said he would on one condition: that the sun slow its trip across the sky to give the island more sunlight. The sun assented. In honor of this agreement, the Hawaiians call the mountain Haleakala, or “House of the Sun.”
To this day, the top of Haleakala has about 15 minutes more sunlight than the communities on the coastline below.
So ancient history might be more indepth and mysterious than we know,and there could truths to legends of different peoples and races in the Pacific
Mathew
LikeLike
Mathew: Where and when exactly did the first humans appear?
Every scrap of reliable evidence that we have points to Africa.
LikeLike
You know why there are similarities in all those creation myths, Mat? Because you see them that way.
There are literally thousands of creation myths on this planet. Given that number, one would presume that SOME of them would have at least SOME similarities to the Christian myth.
Given that, it’s just a question of cherry-picking what myths you like and WHAMMO! You have “proof” of a mega myth.
Read Lévi-Strauss’ exhaustive collection of creation myths in the Americas and you’ll quickly see how diverese these can be.
LikeLike
The Tohono O’odham Creation Story
In the Tonoho O’odham creation story, the reproductive powers of the universe give birth to the Papagueria and the world thanks to I’itoi, the god who lives in Waw kiwalik, or Baboquivari Peak. This version is a close adaptation of one Bernard L. Fontana recorded in his book Of Earth and Little Rain.
Long ago, they say, when the earth was not yet finished, darkness lay upon the water and they rubbed each other. The sound they made was like the sound at the edge of a pond.
There, on the water, in the darkness, in the noise, and in a very strong wind, a child was born. One day he got up and found something stuck to him. It was algae. So he took some of the algae and from it made the termites. The termites gathered a lot of algae and First Born tried to decide how to make a seat so the wind could not blow it anywhere. This is the song he sang:
Earth Medicine Man finished the earth.
Come near and see it and do something to it.
He made it round.
Come near and see it and do something to it.
In this way, First Born finished the earth. Then he made all animal life and plant life.
There was neither sun nor moon then, and it was always dark. The living things didn’t like the darkness, so they got together and told First Born to make something so that the earth would have light. Then the people would be able to see each other and live contentedly with each other.
So First Born said, “All right. You name what will come up in the sky to give you light.”
They discussed it thoroughly and finally agreed that it would be named “sun”.
Next First Born made the moon and stars, and the paths that they always follow. He said, “There will be plenty of prickly pears and the people will always be happy.”
That’s the way First Born prepared the earth for us. Then he went away.
Then the sky came down and met the earth, and the first one to come forth was I’itoi, our Elder Brother.
The sky met the earth again, and Coyote came forth.
The sky met the earth again, and Buzzard came forth.
Elder Brother, Earth Magician, and Coyote began their work of creation, each creating things different from the other. Elder Brother created people out of clay and gave then the “crimson evening,” which is regarded by the Tohono O’odham as one of the most beautiful sights in the region. The sunset light is reflected on the mountains with a peculiar radiance.
Elder Brother told the Tohono O’odham to remain where they were in that land which is the center of all things.
And there the desert people have always lived. They are living there this very day. And from his home among the towering cliffs and crags of Baboquivari, the lonely, cloud-veiled peak, their Elder Brother, I’itoi, spirit of goodness, who must dwell in the center of all things, watches over them.
Book of Genesis: Chapter 1
King James Version
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Mathew: Note the focus on Light,Sun,Day and Night
LikeLike
Read Lévi-Straus
What an advice! I like the guy, but I must admit it’s a difficult read.
Mathew,
I am afraid I don’t understand your point. Are you trying to say that human myths describe realistic creation of the world?
LikeLike
Hawaiian Creation Myths
by Daphne Elliott
In the midst of Chaos there was a great void. It was a time of deep darkness, before the memory of mankind.
Into this void came Kane, the god of creation. He picked up a giant calabash, threw it high into the air where it broke into two enormous pieces. The top piece was curved like a bowl, and became the Sky. The seeds scattered and became the stars. The remainder of the calabash fell downward, and became the Earth.
The Sky was the domain of the god Rangi, while the domain of the Earth was of the goddess Papa. To Kanaloa Kane gave the care of the sea that surrounded them.
Kane proclaimed that he was going to create a great Chief to rule over all the Earth. To prepare for the needs of this great Chief, he first filled the earth with living things: caterpillars to make moths and butterflies; eggs which would hatch into birds of every sort, both land birds and sea birds. He created geckos and salamanders, and turtles, for both land and sea.
To the god Ku he gave the domain of the forests to grow great trees of koa wood and candlenut, hau and wiliwilli. To Lono he gave the domain of food plants for the Chief to eat: coconut, breadfruit, sweet potato and taro.
Kane was satisfied, and told the gods they must now seek out the material required to construct this great Chief, be it wood, or clay, stone or bark. He sent them far and wide. The gods searched and searched, when one day, they found a great mound of rich, red earth. overlooking the sea. They took some of this earth to Kane, who fashioned a figure of a man from it, breathing life into it as he did so.
Soon the man walked about, and spoke to the gods, and the gods were pleased. They called him Red Earth Man, and proclaimed him the first son of Rangi Sky and Papa Earth. From this union came Wakea, and his wife, Lihau’ula, from whom are descended the priests (kahuna) and other chiefs (alii). Chiefs forever more are descended from this first union of Rangi and Papa.
In the text of the sacred Hawaiian Creation Chant Kumuliho, can be found all the names of the generations that followed.
Zulu Creation Myth
The Ancient One, known as Unkulunkulu, is the Zulu creator. He came from the reeds (uthlanga, means source) and from them he brought forth the people and the cattle. He created everything that is: mountains,streams, snakes, etc. He taught the Zulu how to hunt, how to make fire, and how to grow food. He is considered to be the First Man and is in everything that he created.
Navajo Creation Story
Only the Creator knows where the beginning is. The Creator had a thought that created Light in the East. Then the thought went South to create Water, West to create Air, and North to create Pollen from emptiness. This Pollen became Earth.
Light, air, water, and earth is contained in everything within nature; all of the natural world is interconnected and equal.
All of these elements mixed together, and the first thing created were the Holy People. These Holy People were given the job and responsibility of teaching what is right and wrong. Holy people were given the original laws, then they created the earth and human beings.
The Creator with the help of the Holy People created the Natural World. They created humans, birds, and all of the Natural World was put in Hozjo (BALANCE). This Hozjo (harmony, balance, and peace) is dependent on interconnectedness. All of the Natural World depends on another. The Navajo say they are glued together with respect, and together they work in harmony. To the Navajo this present world is the fifth.
The place of emergence into this level was Xajiinai, a hole in the La Plata mountains of SW Colorado. The Holy People have the power to hurt or help, and centuries ago taught the Dineh how to live in harmony with Mother Earth, Father Sky and the other elements: man, animals, plants, insects.The Dineh believe that when the ceremonies cease the world will cease.
LikeLike
Forgive me here ES
With regard to:
“For example, assuming that Polynesians must be partly Caucasoid because they don’t have Mongoloid eyes or Negroid woolly hair and dark skin colour.
Do you not think that Matthew is following a similar logic to your own in suggesting
that the East African phenotype ie (nose, face etc) is due to Caucasians
Mutatis Mutandis
LikeLike
And I forgot to add that like yourself, Matthew believes the East African features are due to Caucasians
then I should have written mutatis mutandis
LikeLike
@ J:
not really.
The article assumes Polynesians must have Caucasian origins not because they look Caucasian, but because it of the narrow way it defines the races.
In any case, historically there were no Caucasians anywhere near the Pacific Islands, so such a connection is highly speculative.
Contrast that with the NE Africans – there are Caucasoid people very close by who share similar features. And there was clearly cultural contact between NE Africa and SW Asia. And genetic studies tend to link Ethiopians with both Mediterranean Caucasians as well as other Africans.
LikeLike
Mira@
Mathew,
I am afraid I don’t understand your point. Are you trying to say that human myths describe realistic creation of the world?
Mathew:
Well if you De-Mystify them,you get an underlying story
of simple Science and Physics.
The Universe was a void or empty of life
Light,Water and Forces,from a Creator,made the Earth and Planets,and All Living Things…..including Man.
So it shows that I believe that Man did not evolve from animals with the Theory Of Evolution
Here is a critique of Darwins Theory that has so much common and empirical sense to to it.
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
LikeLike
Eurasian Sensation,
“And genetic studies tend to link Ethiopians with both Mediterranean Caucasians as well as other Africans.”
Which studies?
LikeLike
Cheers ES,
From what you say thus far I will still have to conclude that your reasoning is similar to Matthew.
It appears that you are equating Semitic as being Caucasian. Nor in your account is a discussion of the inhabitants of the region.
For instance the Semitic influence in SW Asia, as in places like Iraq, comes very late c. 2000BC.
Then we have the issue of Somalia as per Matthew link which suggest is very difficult to explain the ‘straight hair hypothesis’ therein, unlike Ethiopia which we know has had ‘Semitic’ influences and hence permit ‘euro-centred scholars’ to suggest this is the reason for the hair-type.
I concur with you that the facts do seem to suggest that there is minimal Caucasian effect in the Pacific region.
Though this is my own opinion and thought, the minimal impact I suspect probably would be derived from Eur-asia.
LikeLike
Natasha W,
This is the study I know of
‘…Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group’…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506
LikeLike
@Mathew
Well if you De-Mystify them,you get an underlying story
of simple Science and Physics.
Do you know how difficult is to, how you say, de-mystify a myth? That is only the first of the problems with this approach.
Not to mention the fact that myths often do not represent what they seem to represent, and their role in the culture is not to mirror past events- they have a different role to play in a culture.
LikeLike
@ Natasha W:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Ethiopia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_(Y-DNA)
and this one if you are a major science-head:
Click to access AJHG_2004_v74_p000-0130.pdf
LikeLike
Mathew@
J
Natasha W,
This is the study I know of
‘…Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group’…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506
Mathew:
Is this decisive? What groups of Ethiopians did it study(what ethnic group as there are over 300)?
Possibly the Greeks had an outpost in Ethiopia
The ancestors of the Greeks are said to be the Carians
of which I know there are people in India who call themselves Karians as wel as some people in Central America who call themselves Carians
Evidence of Naqadan contacts include obsidian from Ethiopia and the Aegean.[11]
Ethiopia is a derived from a a Greek word The name “Ethiopia” originates from the Greek word “Aethiopia” which translates to “Land of the Burnt Face,” meant for any person with dark complexion in their ancient mythology
LikeLike
Mira
@Mathew
Well if you De-Mystify them,you get an underlying story
of simple Science and Physics.
Do you know how difficult is to, how you say, de-mystify a myth? That is only the first of the problems with this approach.
Not to mention the fact that myths often do not represent what they seem to represent, and their role in the culture is not to mirror past events- they have a different role to play in a culture.
Mathew,
I think it it easily to see from the Creation Myths I posted ,that they all focus on the beginnings of life,man,planets,
with a Sole Creator focused on;in some cases there are other gods under the Supreme God
It is so simple to me :_)
LikeLike
Cheers ES,
From what you say thus far I will still have to conclude that your reasoning is similar to Matthew.
It appears that you are equating Semitic as being Caucasian. Nor in your account is a discussion of the inhabitants of the region.
Mathew:
J 2000 B.C is 4000 years ago but this probaly goes back to
4000 B.C.though this is quite along time ago if recorded history goes back to only about 7000 years ago.
For instance the Semitic influence in SW Asia, as in places like Iraq, comes very late c. 2000BC.
Then we have the issue of Somalia as per Matthew link which suggest is very difficult to explain the ‘straight hair hypothesis’ therein, unlike Ethiopia which we know has had ‘Semitic’ influences and hence permit ‘euro-centred scholars’ to suggest this is the reason for the hair-type.
Mathew: J,
I don’t see how you equate a fact that Somalis and Ethiopians have Semitic- Caucasoid genes and is most likely the reasons for straight hair in whomever has this trait.
Euro-Centric people would not look to any dark skinned person as being White,European,Caucasoid..even if they were .
Semitic people are Caucasoids
I concur with you that the facts do seem to suggest that there is minimal Caucasian effect in the Pacific region.
Though this is my own opinion and thought, the minimal impact I suspect probably would be derived from Eur-asia.
Mathew: This is a possibility too but it could be that Caucasoid peoples originated in East Asia,and why there are many remains of Caucasoid peoples buried in the Tarim Basin,and if they migrated east ward they could have gone to Japan,Korea,China,then to the Pacific Ocean
Mathew
LikeLike
It is so simple to me :_)
No offence, but if these things were “so simple”, there would be no need for people to study certain humanities (say, anthropology) for years. Would you let a random, non-medical person operate you just because it’s “so simple”? I guess not.
While it’s more than ok not to agree with a scholar, and while it’s certainly true some anthropologist have no idea what they’re talking about, isn’t it safe to assume they know, well, a bit more than your average person about what is the role of a myth in a society and whether it can be interpreted literally?
LikeLike
Matthew,
I am not sure I have understood some of your question/points but here goes
1. As for the link with the Ethiopians, this is all the information I have. Perhaps someone here can offer some further insight .
2. As for Semitic
The following is a list of ancient Semitic peoples.
“Akkadians — migrated into Mesopotamia in the late 4th millennium BC and amalgamate with NON-SEMITIC Mesopotamian (Sumerian) populations into the Assyrians and Babylonians of the Late Bronze Age.
Eblaites — 23rd century BC
Aramaeans or Chaldea — 16th to 8th century BC / Akhlames (Ahlamu) 14th century BC
Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
3. As for straight hair amongst the Somalis it is harder to it explain it amongst them than the Ethiopians, just as per the link you sent
4. I would disagree with your statement
“Euro-Centric people would not look to any dark skinned person as being White,European,Caucasoid”
There was a time when Ethiopians, Aborigines and a host of other groups were classified as ‘Dark Whites’
5. Personally, I think Caucasians originated in Europe, and they migrated to Euro-asia where they partly influenced the origins of the Mongoloid types. I do not believe they originated in East Asia
LikeLike
.
J:
As for straight hair amongst the Somalis it is harder to it explain it amongst them than the Ethiopians, just as per the link you sent
4. I would disagree with your statement
“Euro-Centric people would not look to any dark skinned person as being White,European,Caucasoid”
There was a time when Ethiopians, Aborigines and a host of other groups were classified as ‘Dark Whites’
Mathew: I have never heard this,J.
If this were so true you might have had less discrimination of Aborigines in Australia as well as Ethiopians in Europes by skin heads
5. Personally, I think Caucasians originated in Europe, and they migrated to Euro-asia where they partly influenced the origins of the Mongoloid types. I do not believe they originated in East Asia
Somali has had a history of Arab intermarriage there
and they are shown to genetically have 15% Eurasian
genes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_people
genetic genealogy, although a new tool that uses the genes of modern populations to trace their ethnic and geographic origins, has also helped pinpoint the possible background of the modern Somalis.
[edit] Y DNA
A Somali man in a traditional taqiyah.
According to one prominent study on Y chromosomes published in the European Journal of Human Genetics, the Somalis are closely related to certain Ethiopian and Eritrean groups:
“The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population − closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya − with predominant E3b1 cluster lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000−5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.”[32]
Besides comprising the majority of the Y DNA in Somalis, the E1b1b (formerly E3b) genetic haplogroup also makes up the bulk of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Eritreans, Berbers, North African Arabs, as well as many Mediterranean and Balkan Europeans.[33] The M78 subclade of E1b1b is found in about 77% of Somali males, which may represent the traces of an ancient migration into the Horn of Africa from the upper Egypt area.[32] After haplogroup E1b1b, the second most frequently occurring Y DNA haplogroup among Somalis is the Eurasian haplogroup T (M70),[34] which is found in slightly more than 10% of Somali males. Haplogroup T, like haplogroup E1b1b, is also typically found among populations of Northeast Africa, North Africa, Southwest Asia, and the Mediterranean.
[edit] mtDNA
According to a recent mtDNA study, a large proportion of the maternal ancestry of Somalis consists of the M1 haplogroup, which is common among Ethiopians, Egyptians, Libyans and Berbers. M1 is believed to have originated in Asia,[35] where its parent M clade represents the majority of mtDNA lineages[36] (particularly in India).[37] This haplogroup is also thought to possibly correlate with the Afro-Asiatic language family:[38]
“We analysed mtDNA variation in ~250 persons from Libya, Somalia, and Congo/Zambia, as representatives of the three regions of interest. Our initial results indicate a sharp cline in M1 frequencies that generally does not extend into sub-Saharan Africa. While our North and especially East African samples contained frequencies of M1 over 20%, our sub-Saharan samples consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only. In addition, there existed a significant amount of homogeneity within the M1 haplogroup. This sharp cline indicates a history of little admixture between these regions. This could imply a more recent ancestry for M1 in Africa, as older lineages are more diverse and widespread by nature, and may be an indication of a back-migration into Africa from the Middle East.”[38]
Somali girls in nomadic attire.
Another mtDNA study indicates that:
“Somali, as a representative East African population, seem to have experienced a detectable amount of Caucasoid maternal influence… the proportion m of Caucasoid lineages in the Somali is m = 0.46 [46%]… Our results agree with the hypothesis of a maternal influence of Caucasoid lineages in East Africa, although its contribution seems to be higher than previously reported in mtDNA studies.”[39]
Overall, the genetic studies conclude that Somalis and their fellow Ethiopian and Eritrean Northeast African groups represent a unique and distinct racial bloc on the continent:[40]
“The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African — that is, the Ethiopian and Somali — populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations… The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity — and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis — makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) — that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).”[41]
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
1. With regard to the racial theory of ‘Dark Whites’
“In the nineteenth century the division of humanity into distinct races became a matter for scientific debate. In 1870, Thomas Huxley argued that there were four basic racial categories (Xanthocroic, Mongoloid, Australioid and Negroid). The Xanthocroic race were the “fair whites” of north and Central Europe. According to Huxley,
On the south and west this type comes into contact and mixes with the “Melanochroi,” or “dark whites”…In these regions are found, more or less mixed with Xanthochroi and Mongoloids, and extending to a greater or less distance into the conterminous Xanthochroic, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australioid areas, the men whom I have termed Melanochroi, or dark whites. Under its best form this type is exhibited by many Irishmen, Welshmen, and Bretons, by Spaniards, South Italians, Greeks, South Slavics, Armenians, Arabs, and high-caste Brahmins…I am much disposed to think that the Melanochroi are the result of an intermixture between the Xanthochroi and the Australioids. It is to the Xanthochroi and Melanochroi, taken together, that the absurd denomination of “Caucasian” is usually applied.
In the nineteenth century the division of humanity into distinct races became a matter for scientific debate. In 1870, Thomas Huxley argued that there were four basic racial categories (Xanthocroic, Mongoloid, Australioid and Negroid). The Xanthocroic race were the “fair whites” of north and Central Europe.
By the late nineteenth century Huxley’s Xanthocroic group had been redefined as the “Nordic” race, while his Melanochroi became the Mediterranean race”.
2. As for the Eurasian element within Somalis. I have seen other readings that suggest there is minimal Arab influence.
Again there is a need for clarification. Are you suggesting that ‘Eur-Asian’ is the same as ‘Arab’?? Notwithstanding the origins of the ‘Arabs’, something I have alluded to earlier in this thread.
3. With regard to the Negrito’s ie specifically Andamans. They have ‘Asian genes’, different from those on the African continent, but they nonetheless look like Africans.
This is why Diop sugest that this issue of reducing race to genetics is deceptive, and deliberately designed to confuse matters. Especially since nearly all of humankind history has and is still based on the phenotype.
LikeLike
East African and Ethiopian population studies- notes
http://www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/ethiopians.htm
LikeLike
J:
2. As for the Eurasian element within Somalis. I have seen other readings that suggest there is minimal Arab influence.
Mathew: J,
Well you can ask historians or Somalis themselves about their Semitic bloodlines and they will tell you ,as it is easily shown there is this history and of course how did the Somalis become Muslims?
Again there is a need for clarification. Are you suggesting that ‘Eur-Asian’ is the same as ‘Arab’?? Notwithstanding the origins of the ‘Arabs’, something I have alluded to earlier in this thread.
Mathew: Eurasian could be Arab,or Indo-European,or
Turkic(Mongoloid-Caucasoid)
3. With regard to the Negrito’s ie specifically Andamans. They have ‘Asian genes’, different from those on the African continent, but they nonetheless look like Africans.
Mathew: They do look like Africans a bit but have features that set them apart and are said to be more closely related to Oceanic people
Click to access Genetic%20Affinities%20of%20the%20Andaman%20Islanders,%20a%20Vanishing%20Human%20Population.pdf
This is why Diop sugest that this issue of reducing race to genetics is deceptive, and deliberately designed to confuse matters. Especially since nearly all of humankind history has and is still based on the phenotype.
Mathew:Genetics is a very valid science,of course there
some flaws in it but certainly you say it has a high percentage if accuracy.
In a case like sickle cell anemia,which is genetic disease
which only affects black people from Africa or their descedants. Such as Tay Sachs disease effecting only
Jewish people of Eastern European Descent
Genotypes and Phenotypes are different but you can always notice racial elements or ethnicites a bit by looking at a person’s face and body build
At least I can and I amaze people by do this :_)
Mathew
LikeLike
Cheers!!
1. As for asking Somalians, I have done this with a good friend. He said he can trace their his decent.
Conversely, I have read that others have tried to link themselves to Arabia, because of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH), Islam etc, who are keen to trace their heritage from there.
So its not always the best way – but point taken nevertheless.
2. I am not sure what is meant by the term ‘Eurasian’ when you start bringing it into the real world but thanks nevertheless for the input
3. With regard to the link you kindly sent. i had a very brief look. This seems to be tied into the issue of genetics. And this is confirmed even what you say that the Andamese are more tied to Oceanic people. Personally and this is only my opinion. I would say Andamese look more ‘African’, than they do Melenesians – if this connundrum makes any sense.
I am aware that on the genetic level Andamese are considered ‘Asian’ by their genes.
4. With regard to Sickle cell traits it can also be found within the Mediterranean. I remeber reading that the trait left from Africa, but that was a long time ago and I am not sure if that is still valid or not. You seem to be suggesting that it is??
LikeLike
J:
2. I am not sure what is meant by the term ‘Eurasian’ when you start bringing it into the real world but thanks nevertheless for the input
Mathew: It could mean the mixed raced people,such as Turkic,which makes up one of the largest ethnic families of Europe to Asia:or it could mean the continent itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia
J-
3. With regard to the link you kindly sent. i had a very brief look. This seems to be tied into the issue of genetics. And this is confirmed even what you say that the Andamese are more tied to Oceanic people. Personally and this is only my opinion. I would say Andamese look more ‘African’, than they do Melenesians – if this connundrum makes any sense.
Mathew:
They do look Black African but I have seen people from the Solomon islands who look similiar to the Andamans,
J-
4. With regard to Sickle cell traits it can also be found within the Mediterranean. I remeber reading that the trait left from Africa, but that was a long time ago and I am not sure if that is still valid or not. You seem to be suggesting that it is??
Mathew: Sickle Cell Anemia is very prominent in African-Americans as well as people of Black African genes.
Mediterranean people do not get Sickle Cell but another disease called Thalassemia,which is said to be mutation in defense of malaria just as Sickle Cell is.
Mediterranean people and people in the Middle EAst,India
all get Thalassemia
Mathew
thalassemia
LikeLike
Cheers again for teh clarification
With regard to:
1. Eurasian – It could mean the mixed raced people,such as Turkic,which makes up one of the largest ethnic families of Europe to Asia:or it could mean the continent itself
I will presume that you are referring to the two continents of Asia and Europe respectively,
The problem with the term Eurasian then is that it can also include a ‘Mongoloid’ (in a racial sense) input. However, this point is very rarely clarified.
2. Mediterraneans also get sickle cell
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml
3. With regard to Thalassemia just to add N. Africa to your list
LikeLike
Mathew—-
J_
Cheers again for teh clarification
With regard to:
1. Eurasian – It could mean the mixed raced people,such as Turkic,which makes up one of the largest ethnic families of Europe to Asia:or it could mean the continent itself
I will presume that you are referring to the two continents of Asia and Europe respectively,
The problem with the term Eurasian then is that it can also include a ‘Mongoloid’ (in a racial sense) input. However, this point is very rarely clarified.
Mathew: J
Yes.My mistake in denoting just Turkic(Mongloid-Caucasoid)
as I was thinking about the technical terms for Eurasian in race.but Eurasia would include all the peoples of this vast area;Semitics,Indo-Europeans,Turkics,Mongoloids and all else;maybe Gypsies too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia
2. Mediterraneans also get sickle cell
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml
Mathew: You are correct! :_) My apologies for my ignorance of the fact.
I had asked a man of Maltese heritage(Maltese-American) if Sickle Cell Anemia exited in Malta and he had replied that they don’t but they have Thalessemia,which is another hemoglobin disease that mirror SCA, in they are mutations in response to Malaria.
Though SCA is less severe than it is in people of sub-Saharan African ethnicty,and the people of the Mediterranean and the Middle East-North Africa,India,South Asia,have percentage wise higher
cases of Thalessemia than they they do SCA,though they a
http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/10/875
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/835535
Am J Dis Child. 1977 Feb;131(2):186-8.
Sickle cell anemia in an American white boy of Greek ancestry.
Campbell JJ, Oski FA.
Abstract
A 7-year-old American white boy of Greek ancestry had sickle cell anemia. The disease in this patient was not accompanied by painful episodes or recognizable hematologic complications, although he did demonstrate considerable delay in skeletal maturation. The patient sought medical attention for a dermatologic problem that was ultimately diagnosed as pityriasis rubra pilaris. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstrated example of sickle cell anemia in a white male described in the United States.
I did not know and was surprised to find out that Native Have cases of Sickle Cell Anemia too.Here is a graph of SCA stats in a case study in the U.S
Table 2. Prevalence of sickle cell disease (Hb SS, sickle cell-hemoglobin C disease and sickle beta-thalassemia syndromes) by racial or ethnic group, per 100,000 live births, United States, 1990 and unspecified years*
Racial or ethnic group Mean prevalence 95 percent confidence interval
White
1.72
1.06 – 2.66
Black
289
277 – 300
Hispanic, total
5.28
2.60 – 9.61
Hispanic, Eastern States
89.8
27.0 – 190.0
Hispanic, Western States
3.14
1.19 – 6.86
Asian
7.61
1.85 – 57.20
Native American
36.20
0.04 – 182
It is particularly common among people whose ancestors come from Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, Cuba, Central America, Saudi Arabia, India, and Mediterranean countries such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy. In the Unites States, it affects around 72,000 people, most of whose ancestors come from Africa. The disease occurs in about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every 1000 to 1400 Hispanic-American births. About 2 million Americans, or 1 in 12 African Americans, carry the sickle cell allele.
J —
3. With regard to Thalassemia just to add N. Africa to your list
Mathew: Yes,I had forgot to add this,but subtly included as part of the Mediterranean,which it is…but the people are Semitic Arabs,or Non-Semitic Berbers,compared to European Mediterraneans,though there is an admixtures of these peoples to varying degrees in North Africa and Mediterranean area.
Mathew:What is very interesting is that Melanesian people do not get Sickle Cell (and Malaria as well)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17623733.200-malaria-fails-to-get-a-grip-on-melanesians.html
Mathew
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew!!
I think the Gypsies are classified as Indo-European
And just for clarification…
Just to say, not that I know anything on the subject. The link you suggests uses the word MANY for Melanesians and malaria, as opposed to all.
LikeLike
J-
And just for clarification…
Just to say, not that I know anything on the subject. The link you suggests uses the word MANY for Melanesians and malaria, as opposed to all.
Mathew: Correct again,J.
Many Melanesians don’t get malaria because of a mutation,but there are some that do.
But they do not get Sickle Cell Anemia
Mathew
LikeLike
JC virus genotype profile in the Mamanwa, a Philippine Negrito tribe, and implications for its population history
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/112/2/112_173
Just found this.
Mathew
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew
LikeLike
Thought I’d add this interesting article on Brazil…
Title: “The Original Black Brazilians: “Luiza” and the Black Indigenous Muurs of South America” – Scientific Report
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-original-black-brazilians-luiza-and-the-black-indigenous-muurs-of-south-america/
LikeLike
And tying it altogether:
The Negritos and their suspected relatives are found all over the world:
Green: Possible American relatives such as the 1 Pericu of the Californian peninsula in Mexico, 2 the Lagoa Santa people of Minas Gerais. Brazil (“Luzia”), 3 the Fuegians of southernmost South America – see Chapter 54
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter6/text6.htm
LikeLike
CoL, Luiza’s remains are in my old department’s storage area at the National Museum.
The problem is that Luiza isn’t particularly short and that supposed “negroid” features show up in several native american groups. Flatter noses, thicker lips, certain kinds of skull shapes are not genetically specific to black africans but carried in most of humanity’s genes. A relative few generations of genetic drift can easily bring them to the fore.
So no, there’s no reason to think that Luiza belonged to J’s mythical negritos who immigrated directly to South America from Africa. This is an illusion caused by the belief that human morphological characteristics are static and “belong” to one race only. To substantiate a direct immigration hypothesis, we need more proof than “she had ‘negroid’ features”.
LikeLike
Color O’ Luv wrote
Thought I’d add this interesting article on Brazil…
Title: “The Original Black Brazilians: “Luiza” and the Black Indigenous Muurs of South America” – Scientific Report
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-original-black-brazilians-luiza-and-the-black-indigenous-muurs-of-south-america/
Mathew: Color
The website you post is obviously biased,if you will notice rasta and Indigenous Moors,then it is suspect
Mathew
LikeLike
Mathew
Color O’ Luv wrote
Thought I’d add this interesting article on Brazil…
Title: “The Original Black Brazilians: “Luiza” and the Black Indigenous Muurs of South America” – Scientific Report
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-original-black-brazilians-luiza-and-the-black-indigenous-muurs-of-south-america/
Mathew: Color
The website you post is obviously biased,if you will notice rasta and Indigenous Moors,then it is suspect
Mathew
The Original article is here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm
LikeLike
That BBC article is pretty sensationalistic, too.
It would be cool to find out that humans occupied the Americas long before the ancestors of todays indians showed up. But Luiza’s skull and a few charcoal drawings aren’t radical enough evidence to shift things that way (though they ARE enough evidence to indicate that the people who are searching for ancient americans aren’t complete loons).
Note that the charcoal drawings range anywhere from 17,000 to 50,000 years ago. That’s quite a stretch. Analysis of cave drawings is also notoriously suspect and subjective and the idea that Luiza’s people must come from Australia because a drawing of aboat appears to have a large prow is wishful thinking at best.
On the other hand, we do know that human morphological features are very flexible, due to genetic drift.
So the jury’s still out on this one, folks.
LikeLike
One theory I heard about the alleged presence of negritos in South America was that they came via a coastal route along the East Asian coast and Beringia.
Whether this is feasible or not I don’t know (with the freezing over of Beringia for much of the Ice Age). But it could mesh with the theory held by some that the Ainu of Japan have Australoid connections. (Not that I really believe that.)
LikeLike
Negritos in China according to Du Bois and other scholars
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iGx0ZE2PY1cC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Dimunitive+Black+people+China+tcheu-li&source=bl&ots=xWEvQ0mx_a&sig=35v3326s4Wpn3yf80h3Erw4QzbM&hl=en&ei=t50wTNzsFMjKjAeAneWWBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
p. 12
LikeLike
The idea that America may have been populated before the ‘Mongoloids’ is not a new theory. It can be traced back at least to late 1940s by some anthropologists etc
LikeLike
The problem with this whole negritos thing is that it’s based on a faulty understanding of how human genetic diversity works.
At it’s root, it’s basically a rewarmed version of the 19th century notion of polygenesis, wherein people believed that God created seperate races and placed them down in seperate Gardens of Eden. Like polygenists, people who believe in global colonization by negritos think that thinks like height, skin color and hair type are really solid and permanent genetic features which stay stable over time. In fact, all human populations carry the genes for the “negrito” biotype and the things that people find so notable about it (i.e. short stature and dark skin) can occur due to genetic drift in the course of less than 20,000 years.
So just because you find short dark people here and there across the globe does not mean that they are all descended from the same ur-race and place, folks.
It’s a wonderfully romantic idea, folks, but you need more proof than “hwy look: short dark-skinned people” to make something like this fly.
LikeLike
It seems a bit disrepectful to me the theory that non-negrito persons is proposing all the things about the origins of negritos and other similair peoples,without asking the negritos themsleves what they feel about these theories
I mean has anyone asked the negritos about their own history and what they feel about,rather than a obviously biased and flawed theories
LikeLike
Thad,
What you say here does not make much sense.
For instance you say:
“So just because you find short dark people here and there across the globe does not mean that they are all descended from the same ur-race and place, folks.”
However, is it not ‘agreed’ that the negritos came out of Africa.
Or are you suggesting something else here??
LikeLike
All humans came out of Africa, J.
What I’m saying is quite clear. Let me make it even simpler for you:
Not all small, dark-skinned peoples are descendents of the same “race” – any more than we all are, that is.
Luisa, for example, is probably not some sort of close relative to Asian negritos.
LikeLike
Cheers Thad,
Not sure I fully understand the point.
However, as I have said before. It is argued by some that the first human types were the small ‘Black/dark skinned’ given a variety of appellation like ‘Negritos’, Twas etc that spread themselves probably all over the earth, having their departure from Africa c. 80,000 years .
LikeLike
Thaddeus
All humans came out of Africa, J.
What I’m saying is quite clear. Let me make it even simpler for you:
Not all small, dark-skinned peoples are descendents of the same “race” – any more than we all are, that is.
Luisa, for example, is probably not some sort of close relative to Asian negritos
Mathew: A much flawed theory that has never been proven
and is silly
LikeLike
Yes, J, that might be true. However, that does NOT mean that every small-statured, dark-skinned population out there in the world is a direct, unchanged descendent of these original African populations.
AFAICS, that’s your point, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Thaddeus
All humans came out of Africa, J.
Mathew: A much flawed theory that has never been proven
and is silly
LikeLike
First of all, Matt, theories are never proven: they are supported. We judge a theory’s probable veracity based on the level of support it has in comparison with alternative theories.
By that yardstick of scientific truth, the theory that humans came out of Africa is incredibly well-supported in comparison with other theories regarding human origins.
You yourself, who ocasionally show up here to troll us on this topic, have only so far been able to link us to a couple of scientific articles which – according to you – challenge the “Out of Africa” theory with new data.
Unfortunately for your rather quixotic crusade, all those articles showed is how fundamentally difficult it is for you to understand scientific writing, for none of the scientific articles you linked us to challenges the “Out of Africa” theory. What they challenge is the idea that humans came out of Afica in a SINGLE WAVE.
AFAIK, there is no reputable, peer-reviewed scientist out there who has any solid evidence that humanity evolved outside of Africa. Certainly nothing at the level of evidence supporting the theory that humanity evolved INSIDE of Africa.
So if your only point is that a scientific theory is never absolutely proven and we should thus always be skeptical, OK, fine.
However, it seems to me that your point is that “scientific theories are never absolutely proven, so science is thus rubbish and I can make up any old crap I want to”.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Yes, J, that might be true. However, that does NOT mean that every small-statured, dark-skinned population out there in the world is a direct, unchanged descendent of these original African populations.
AFAICS, that’s your point, isn’t it?”
Well not quite, since there are places where negritos may have probably been but not quite established like India.
Personally I think the Negritos are the same ‘race’ as Africans, the only difference is they left the continent may thousands of years ago, whereas many Africans left ‘recently’.
And we see this with other ‘races’ in other parts of the world also.
Just to say, and it is a common feature in your reasoning viz THAT IT IS YOUR POSITION, that every small-statured, dark-skinned population out there in the world is a direct, unchanged descendent of these original African populations. I have NOT stated that anywhere here.
LikeLike
Personally I think the Negritos are the same ‘race’ as Africans, the only difference is they left the continent may thousands of years ago, whereas many Africans left ‘recently’.
And we see this with other ‘races’ in other parts of the world also.
Sorry, no we don’t.
Human phenotypes are notoriously flexible and I’m not aware of ANY group which looks like it did when humans left Africa.
First of all, humans have sex with ALL other human groups around them and that keeps the gene pool very nicely stirred.
Secondly, if a human group WERE to be isolated enough for thousands of years, that means genetic drift would occur all that much quicker and the group would quickly express a series of recessive traits unlike their ancestors.
So no J: there are no primeval little short black people running about the planet who are “remnant populations” of the first humans out of Africa. Human population dynamics do not work that way.
LikeLike
Just to say, and it is a common feature in your reasoning viz THAT IT IS YOUR POSITION, that every small-statured, dark-skinned population out there in the world is a direct, unchanged descendent of these original African populations. I have NOT stated that anywhere here.
Sorry. Then let me restate that: there is not ANY small-statured, dark-skinned population out there in the world is a direct, unchanged descendent of these original African populations. Your position seems to be that there are.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Sorry, no we don’t.”
So the Mongoloids did not migrate to the Americas 12,000(??) years ago…
And subsequently they were introduced again in the form of the Chinese late 1800s as indentured labourers.
The Mongoloids and teh Chinese are of the same race.
One group left Asia earlier, the other left more ‘recently’.
And this is the example you see with other ‘races’
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Sorry. Then let me restate that: there is not ANY small-statured, dark-skinned population out there in the world is a direct, unchanged descendent of these original African populations. Your position seems to be that there are
Whether they are unchanged or not my point is that these Negritos are ‘African peoples’ by ‘race’.
LikeLike
So the Mongoloids did not migrate to the Americas 12,000(??) years ago…
People from what is today eastern Siberia certainly did. And in spite of what you might believe about Native Americans, their descendents developed into a WIDE variety of phenotypes. You can see a resemblance between some Native American and some Eastern Siberian peoples (more than, say, between Indians and Swedes), but they aren’t identical populations by any stretch of the imagination.
To say “The Mongoloids and the Chinese are the same race” is to make believe that everything we’ve learned about human biodiversity over the last 100 years is false. Why would you want to do that, J?
Whether they are unchanged or not my point is that these Negritos are ‘African peoples’ by ‘race’.
Only if you mean that in the most general sense (as in all humans are ultimately African peoples). Genetic testing shows that the negritos of Indonesia are much closer related to the populations nearby them than they are to Africans of any sort.
LikeLike
With regard to:
To say “The Mongoloids and the Chinese are the same race” is to make believe that everything we’ve learned about human biodiversity over the last 100 years is false. Why would you want to do that, J?
All it means they are both ‘Mongoloid’ by ‘race’ but live in a different environments.
Not sure what biodiversity serves in this respect?
LikeLike
Racism stems from the psychological electric pulses.
LikeLike
All it means they are both ‘Mongoloid’ by ‘race’ but live in a different environments.
Not sure what biodiversity serves in this respect?
It means that there is no genetic package that can be labled “mongoloid”, J. Their is no set of genes that can be stamped with that label. It means that Eastern Siberians are genetically quite different from, say, Iroquis.
It means you are confusing DNA with mDNA and population descent with genetic homogeneity.
LikeLike
Oh, and it means that your terminology regarding human population groups is more than a half century out of date.
Tell the truth J: in reality, you are a time traveller from 1910, aren’t you? It certainly seems that way at times, because I have yet to see you espouse a single belief whose roots can’t be found in the racist thoughts of late Victorian Europe.
LikeLike
If you believe in the phenotype of race then you can identify population groups that are Mongolid etc.
If you do NOT believe there is any race using genetics, then you cannot.
Its as simple as that really…
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Oh, and it means that your terminology regarding human population groups is more than a half century out of date.
Tell the truth J: in reality, you are a time traveller from 1910, aren’t you? It certainly seems that way at times, because I have yet to see you espouse a single belief whose roots can’t be found in the racist thoughts of late Victorian Europe”.
Then perhaps you might want to consider:
” American Indians are a mixture of caucasoid and mongoloid people”
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
I guess I must be “Michael J. Fox” going ‘Back to the Future’.
Well at least you know my other names now…
LikeLike
Oh, hey! It’s on the internet! That means it must be true, right?
J, why don’t you crack open a book on modern human biology and genetics? No serious biologist accepts that description of race anymore, in spite of what things like Metapedia might say.
But I’m curious: why did you choose for your “proof” a site whose only links to race theory are to racists like Phillipe Rushton and theories like racially-based IQ?
Abagond has spent tens of thousands debunking literally every link on that page.
Are you pulling an RR on us now, J?
You’re citing the likes of Rushton’s 19th century biological view of race to us and I’m supposed to be impressed that this means you’re somehow up to date on genetics and race?
😀
J, you didn’t even take a look at that site, did you? You haven’t the slightest clue about what they are talking about. 😀
Either that, or your neo-Garveyite version of fascism has more in common with the standard garden variety of the same than I had previously thought! 😀 😀
LikeLike
[Looking over Metapedia]
This has got to be the biggest boner yet on this site. J is SERIOUSLY suggesting that we “consider” a racist wiki with clear national socialist leanings as a decent authority on race.
LikeLike
Thad,
It is clear that dialoguing with you on the ‘facts’ is becoming impossible, because of your inability to reason and present arguments etc.
This is very unfortunate, because it appears to give you the appearence of an ‘academic troll’ in this respect.
LikeLike
ROFL! Is that some serious butthurt I hear, J?
Did you TRULY not relaize you were linking us to a far right racist website?
Or do you believe that the crap on that site truly represents a decent view of human biological and cultural diversity?
LikeLike
Cheers Thad,
I did not know it was a far right site, but either way it still does not change the facts about Native Americans being a part of the ‘Mongoloid race’
Here’s another one, saying the same thing.
As far as I can see it is not far right, but if it is then please let me know again. And I will provide another reference .
“mongoloid race
A major racial group distinguished by classification according to physical features. This group centres around the pacific ocean and includes the malayan, northern and southern chinese, mongolian, siberian, eskimo, and AMERICAN INDIAN’.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Mongoloid_race
LikeLike
Right, J. They are only citing major fascist figureheads on the front page, such as Ernst Rüdin National Socialist eugenicist. Also on their front page, pictures of Nietzche, the Brandeberg Gate, a link to a post about Jewish spies and a flat-out declaration that the wiki is a political site which seeks to manipulate people’s opinions.
All of this just passed you by, along with the fact that their links on that “race” page you linked us to are 100% to hardcore racists.
All this just passed you by in the wind, did it?
This because you’re so well informed about these issues, right J? I’m the guy who can’t understand the links you posted, but you’ve apparently not even read them?
😀
And now you’re “proof” that “Mongoloid” is a cutting-edge, current term to describe human biodiversity is a wee fluff on-line dictionary?
And to make matter worse, the FIRST comment on that dictionary site is entitled “Brain size=IQ level theory (Blacks vs Whites & Asians)”…?
J, are ALL your links this full of fascist and racist content, or is today just some sort of special “recognize the contributions of fu@#wits” celebration over there in Merry Olde Englande?
Man, this just gets better and better…
😀
LikeLike
Thaddeus
First of all, Matt, theories are never proven: they are supported. We judge a theory’s probable veracity based on the level of support it has in comparison with alternative theories.
By that yardstick of scientific truth, the theory that humans came out of Africa is incredibly well-supported in comparison with other theories regarding human origins.
Mathew: Thaddeus,the theory is well supported in what ways,or can it be shown that there are holes in the theory?
As I have stated before,the theory that human evolved from lower primates is pure bunk and I will show you why
You yourself, who ocasionally show up here to troll us on this topic, have only so far been able to link us to a couple of scientific articles which – according to you – challenge the “Out of Africa” theory with new data.
Mathew: I am not a troll,I am logged on to this group because of my interest in the Negritos of the Philippines,where I use to live before,and I have met some Negritos in the Philippines,I have also studied about them when I was in school in the Philippines.
I also have an interest in anthropology and studied some in college.
Thaddeus
Unfortunately for your rather quixotic crusade, all those articles showed is how fundamentally difficult it is for you to understand scientific writing, for none of the scientific articles you linked us to challenges the “Out of Africa” theory. What they challenge is the idea that humans came out of Afica in a SINGLE WAVE.
Mathew: Ok,lets see then,why did people only come out of Africa,at what point and where did the races of man begin from out of Africa?
Lower primates would not wander off on thousand mile journeys,as primates such as apes are not migratory outside of their
living areas where food and shelter is in immediate vincinty.
There are several scientists that do not believe in the OOA theory
The fact that I might take items from the internet does not mean what I post has not substance,as the internet is full of scientific articles from scientists,professors,scholars
and thus why one can get a college degree online must mean the internet has some significant empirical aspects to it.
Here is an article on Charles Darwin’s mistakes in his Evolutionary Theory
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm#ENTROPY.
I will post something more significant later,on why it is impossible for lower primates to evolve into humans.
LikeLike
Matthew,
With regard to:
“I mean has anyone asked the negritos about their own history and what they feel about,rather than a obviously biased and flawed theories”
I observed that you have met these people did you by chance manage to ask them what did they think of their origins??
As for Thad, I agree with you definitely a ‘troll’, but since he is under the illusion that he is very clever and can tell everybody else that their belief system is false, and lecture to them here what they should be believing.
I would rather use a term more befitting to him viz. an ‘academic troll’.
Can you seriously imagine his classroom, andhow he tells his students to reason and use counter-arguments, etc, his lectures, his conduct amongst his fellow University lecturers, some who would be Professors…If his conduct here is anything to go by??
I doubt he behaves that way at University – since he would be out of a job immediately.
LikeLike
J
Matthew,
With regard to:
“I mean has anyone asked the negritos about their own history and what they feel about,rather than a obviously biased and flawed theories”
I observed that you have met these people did you by chance manage to ask them what did they think of their origins??
As for Thad, I agree with you definitely a ‘troll’, but since he is under the illusion that he is very clever and can tell everybody else that their belief system is false, and lecture to them here what they should be believing.
I would rather use a term more befitting to him viz. an ‘academic troll’.
Can you seriously imagine his classroom, andhow he tells his students to reason and use counter-arguments, etc, his lectures, his conduct amongst his fellow University lecturers, some who would be Professors…If his conduct here is anything to go by??
I doubt he behaves that way at University – since he would be out of a job immediately.
Mathew@J
I just deleted my reply to you here so will write in short and more later
I thought you and Thaddeus were friends?
It seemd that way earlier :_)
All debates should be done with respect and no maliciousness.
What points are we trying to prove or tout?
Lets try use rational thinking and empirical science to
illuminate our conjecture
Mathew
LikeLike
Interesting book on the subject of who came and where from: Stephen Oppenheimer: Out fo Eden, Robinson 2004.
About the racial purity: I think it is lot of crap. Latest research from the gene pool of the finns showed that the guys from the southwest were closer to italians genetically than to the guys who live in north east of Finland. And believe me, you can’t tell the difference between these finns by any racial signs or other than that.
I think all this talk about race is somehow old, left over from decades past. Is there racism? Yes there is. But the fact is were all humans. There really are no such things as races. The idea of pure race was created in 1800’s and lived on, reaching its finest hour during the Hitler regime in Germany few decades back. The results were all to see.
Ok, you look different from me. Maybe your skin is darker or lighter, hair is different, but you are also taller or shorter than me. You might be bigger, fatter, skinnier too. That is all what so-called race is from my perspective.
Are we biggots sometimes? Yes. Do we have wrong beliefs? Yep. Are we unsecure front of people we do not know? Yes. Do we treat other people bad just because they look different? Yes indeed. But for me that is human behavior and has no REAL bases on race.
Do we have different DNA? Yes. Does it make us different race? No, it just makes us individuals.
I might be wrong, but this is how I see this whole issue of race/races.
As for the so-called negritos: it is interesting. But they don’t prove anything else but the fact that all kinds of humans have been moving around the globe for who know how long.
Sometimes historians tend to think that in the old days people were somehow unable to immigrate or move around. Yet, when I, a lazy city born and bread bookworm was in the finnish army (mandatory national service) we walked, yes that is walking, trough forests and swamps and all kinds of terrain for 20 km a day 35 kg ruck sack on our backs.
Now that doesn’t sound much, but we were city kids, not athletes. In one week we covered more than 100 km. In a year we could have walked for 5200 kilomteres. Makes you think. A guy on skiis can easily do 50 km’s a day. On a boat you can do more. On a sailing boat even more. And if we are talking about people who can do these things as easily as we drive cars etc.? Makes one think.
LikeLike
What is interesting with the idea that there is no race, is how the use of teh language enfolds.
Its possible to say that there is ‘only’ the human race.
Or depending, it would be equally true to say that there is only the ‘African race’ (and everything in essence is a manifestation of that).
For most of the world the former would be ‘more preferable’.
LikeLike
Matthew,
I agree with what you say but whilst we are on this chatboard there are many other things on display, like our our own ‘dislikes’, insecurities etc.
So therefore many a word will be spoken disrespectfully etc, especially when one’s worldview is being challenged by an alternative perspective.
As for science, we also have to be careful here. Science is undertaken by people who also have their own dislikes, prejudices etc. It is not objective as we like to think it is and even more so with the social science subjects of history, archaeology etc.
Sometimes what ‘we’ choose to believe tells us more about ourselves than the actual validity of the theories. Notwithstanding all the issues in ‘Philosophy of Science’ regarding ‘knowledge’, ‘scientific method’ etc.
Anyhow much of what you say in your last comment is very true except for the part about ‘friends’ bit. Isn’t that a popular tv show??
ha ha ha
LikeLike
@Matthew
Thaddeus,the theory is well supported in what ways,or can it be shown that there are holes in the theory?
There are holes in every theory. That is the nature of theories. When trying to discern the relative worth of scientific theories, the question you need to ask isn’t “are there holes”?” It’s “how do these holes compare to the holes in other, competing theories”?
In the case of human origins theory, the near absolute lack of convincing homo sapiens sapiens remains outside of Africa is a pretty big gaping hole.
As I have stated before,the theory that human evolved from lower primates is pure bunk and I will show you why…
I eagerly await your exposition.
I also have an interest in anthropology and studied some in college.
Very nice. I have a PhD in social anthropology and am currently teaching the history of race to biologists, so I am very excited with this opportunity to learn how the world’s scientific community is made up of complete idiots who believe in a theory that can be debunked by a freshman with a few wiki searches on the internet.
There are several scientists that do not believe in the OOA theory
Let’s have some names and links to their works, please. So far you have provided none at all.
Lower primates would not wander off on thousand mile journeys,as primates such as apes are not migratory outside of their
living areas where food and shelter is in immediate vincinty.
Why do you find this to be relevant?
The fact that I might take items from the internet does not mean what I post has not substance,as the internet is full of scientific articles from scientists,professors,scholars
and thus why one can get a college degree online must mean the internet has some significant empirical aspects to it.
Correct. That doesn’t mean, however, that everything posted on the internet is worthwhile, nor that you even understand it. In the case of the links you’ve given us above, which you claimed refute “out of Africa” theory, the scientists involved did nothing of the kind. They were talking about whether or not humanity moved out of Africa in one wave or two waves. The fact that you didn’t grasp this excedingly obvious fact doesn’t auger well for your claims as a self-taught scholar of human evolution. It also shows up why many on-line degree programs are, in fact, paper mills.
As for the claim that “the internet has some significant empirical aspects to it”, you are using the concept “empirical” incorrectly. Look the word up (in an on-line dictionary, if you must).
By the way, the article you link us to is an excellent example why a wiki education can confuse more than enlighten. Who is “Alex Patterson”, the author, and why should we think he’s an authority of any kind on evolution? What are his credentials? Apparently none whatsoever. He’s just a guy writing stuff on the net.
Can we find any refutations of his theories?
Why yes, the internet itself is chock-a-block full of them. But we can look at Patterson’s arguments themselves and quickly see that he doesn’t know much of what he claims to know.
He mischaracterizes Darwin’s theory, to begin with. Darwin did not psotulate how life arose; his theory is not known by scientists as “survival of the fittest”; there is actually quite alot of empirical evidence from both the laboratory and real life which shows evolution at work (one simple and excellent example is the evolution of diseases which have become progressively more resistent to treatment through Darwinian selection; fossil evidence does not show the spontaneous appearance of life; etc. etc.
What you have here is a laundry list of provavbly false and misleading arguments posted by a man with no qualifications regarding human biology and evolution other than his Christian faith.
This is not what we in the real world call a “good source”, Matthew and, again, the fact that to you this guy Patterson is as much of an authority on the topic of biology as a Nobel prize winner is indicative of why you should be wary of wikischolarship: you apparently have a marked inability to winnow out bullsh1**ers from people who are armed with an informed opinion.
Now, where’s the proof you were going to show us that humanity did not evolve in Africa?
LikeLike
@Matthew
Can you seriously imagine his classroom, andhow he tells his students to reason and use counter-arguments, etc, his lectures, his conduct amongst his fellow University lecturers, some who would be Professors…If his conduct here is anything to go by??
I doubt he behaves that way at University – since he would be out of a job immediately.
First of all, let me disabuse you of a common prejudice: university professors are not monks. We don’t swear a lifelong oath to some notional university code which binds us to act at all times and in all places the way highschool students think university professors should act. And in case you’ve been having difficulties perceiving this, Mat, Abagond’s website is not an online university and it CERTAINLY isn’t UFRJ, where I teach.
Secondly, presuming you showed up in my class with that cull of Alex Patterson’s thoughts and presented this to all and sundry as “definitive proof” that evolution is a lie, I would probably be fired for NOT pointing out the obvious problems with your theory. The main job a university professor engages in is in DEBUNKING all the crap nonsense kids pick up from T.V. and the internet. Nothing in my contract states that I need to pretend that fantasy is reality, nor am I bound to respect your feelings as a human being when you get angered that your pet theory doesn’t match the observable proof which is out there in the world.
I wonder why people seem to think that university professors are supposed to be giving you love and acceptance instead of an education. I mean, are people that starved for affection from their friends and relatives that they think it’s now the university’s job to provide them with emotional as well as intellectual sustenance?
What an odd idea.
You say you’ve actually taken some university courses, Mat? And yet you find it odd that univeristy involves intellectual debate…?
LikeLike
On respect and arrogance…
While I agree that respect is good, there are many different forms of disresepect and some are easier to descry than others.
For example, I think we can agree that if I were to say “Fulano is a fool”, that would be disrespectful.
But it is also EXTREMELY disresepectful to just whip up some web-page produced by a born-again pastor in Australia and say “See? This proves evolution a lie. This trumps millions of biologists, palentologists, geologists and geneticists and everything they’ve produced”.
To do something like that takes a level of ignorance and simple effrontery which borders on the monomaniacal. And it’s disrespectful in the extreme to quote research papers (like Matthew does) as making claims they absolutely do not make.
To be able to say “Hey, I know evolution’s a lie and all those scientists out there are fools for believing in it because I took an hour out of my life to do some ‘google’ searches and they clearly show that evolution is pants” requires a breath-taking level of arrogance and disrespect.
It presumes that disciplines that require decades of education to master can be learned by a single self-taught genius at the keyboards in an afternoon, in the intervals between downloading pirated MP3s. It presumes that any old opinion, no matter how poorly argued or supported, is just as worthwhile as the results of rigorous research. It presumes, ultimately, that the world is just one big T.V. show and that “right” and “wrong” are simply a matter of ratings and entertainment value.
Now THAT’s disrespectful and arrogant. And people who waltz into discussions with that sort of arrogance really have no cause to sniff and whine when they get intellectually slapped about a bit.
.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“The main job a university professor engages in is in DEBUNKING all the crap nonsense kids pick up from T.V. and the internet. Nothing in my contract states that I need to pretend that fantasy is reality, nor am I bound to respect your feelings as a human being when you get angered that your pet theory doesn’t match the observable proof which is out there in the world”.
The only problem with this is that it starts from the ‘false premise’ that the university professor does have enough ‘knowledge’ in the first place.
And its out of this university professor’s ‘arrogance’ that he feels he can ‘debunk’ and speak to people in any way shape or form, because his title of stewardship (ie Proffessor) gives him this right to debunk those he views his ‘inferior’.
However, when the student challenges the university professor. The same professor goes on to exhibit the same range of emotions in others he has debunked in the past, with a range of other ‘defence mechanisms’ to use to his defence.
LikeLike
The only problem with this is that it starts from the ‘false premise’ that the university professor does have enough ‘knowledge’ in the first place.
Hmmm. I don’t know any university which makes that premise. We are required to teach, do extension work and research because the premise is precisely THE OPPOSITE. The premise is that WE NEVER HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE.
The premise is also that we attempt to make transparent our search for said knowledge so that our students can participate in it. As part of that search, we are supposed to make very clear how we are engaging in it and based upon what premises.
One premise that I’m quite willing to make is that the discipline of biology knows more, about human evolution, collectively speaking than a born-again Australian who can’t even correctly describe Darwin’s theories.
I’m willing to live with that premise because I think I can make some pretty good arguments about why it’s valid.
And its out of this university professor’s ‘arrogance’ that he feels he can ‘debunk’ and speak to people in any way shape or form, because his title of stewardship (ie Proffessor) gives him this right to debunk those he views his ‘inferior’.
Oh, not at all. I don’t think Matthew is inferior in the slightest degree. I think that the IDEAS that he has expressed are inferior and I think that they show a certain degree of intellectual arrogance and laziness – arrogance and laziness that certainly could be corrected on Matthew’s part, however, presuming that he has a desire to do so.
And my “right” to debunk said ideas doesn’t come from my PhD: it comes from being a human being. My PhD is just a pretty good indication that a lot of fairly powerful institutions feel that I’ve done the requisite work to be labled as someone who has an informed opinion within a narrow set of disciplines. It just so happens, however, that one of these disciplines involves race, biology and culture and how they interact.
However, when the student challenges the university professor.
J, linking us to the site of an evangelical preacher and claiming that this debunks evolution is hardly a challenge. In fact, you’ll note that in spite of all his claims that evolution is bunk and that humans didn’t arise in Africa, Matthew has yet to give us one solid, reasonably argued thesis of his own why this is so. So far, he’s just linked us to other peoples’ words and, often, these people don’t claim what he says they do.
This is a “challenge”? No J, this is the intellectual equivalent of scribbling “Jetz rulez OK” on the chalk board.
And, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly, my class blogs and other blogs are always open to you folks who wish to “save” my students from my poor teaching skills. So far, you’ve avoided them like the plague, J. 😀
LikeLike
I wonder why people seem to think that university professors are supposed to be giving you love and acceptance instead of an education.
This is a problem with the ‘education’ system as a whole. Instead of being challenged and given an education, they want the teachers/professors, to mollycoddle them and stroke their egos. I have always preferred a teacher/professor, who challenges and provides enough references and information regardless of their political or personal slant. If they prove to be too objectionable for your personal tastes, well you can always drop out of their class. If they are being out and out a-holes, there are complaint procedures. My main preferences is for a professor who is accessible with a sense of humour and a taste for the absurd. I may have differences of opinion with the said professor, but this will only act as a spur to seeking out information and knowledge which will enhance my own. When I mean information and references, I am referring to academic journals, books etc. All in all, regardless of what you may think of a professor, you can only enhance your own knowledge and skills if you choose to do so, rather than personalizing the teachings and demeanor of a professor. The idea is to get an education and in the process, analytical skills. Who knows, you may be even able to rebut the said professor once you have acquired such.
LikeLike
Thad,
Its amazing that you do not have the ability to see that ‘metaphor’ was directed at you.
You are Thad ( ie that) ‘university professor’ who claims to know and talk at people here in a condescending way, but at the same time you do not really ‘know’.
For this reason it is not necessary for me to visit your blogs – since in a paradoxical way. You already ‘know’ all the answers…
LikeLike
Thaddeus :
Oh, not at all. I don’t think Matthew is inferior in the slightest degree. I think that the IDEAS that he has expressed are inferior and I think that they show a certain degree of intellectual arrogance and laziness – arrogance and laziness that certainly could be corrected on Matthew’s part, however, presuming that he has a desire to do so.
Thaddeus
You might be better believed if you spelled my name
properly
Mathew,not Matthew.
:_)
LikeLike
With regard to:
Oh, not at all. I don’t think Matthew is inferior in the slightest degree. I think that the IDEAS that he has expressed are inferior and I think that they show a certain degree of intellectual arrogance and laziness – arrogance and laziness that certainly could be corrected on Matthew’s part, however, presuming that he has a desire to do so.
I never saw this
but as we English say over here, ‘this is taking the pis*’
LikeLike
Thaddeus added a new comment to the post Negritos.
Thaddeus said on Negritos
Thu 8 Jul 2010 at 13:25:06
In response to abagond on Mon 21 Sep 2009 at 13:48:54:
Negritos means “little black people” it is what the Spanish called the short black people they saw in South East Asia. The men were barely over five feet (1.5 m), the women shorter still. They looked like black people from Africa: woolly hair, dark brown skin, flat noses, thick lips. They live in the Philippines, […]
@Matthew
Thaddeus,the theory is well supported in what ways,or can it be shown that there are holes in the theory?
There are holes in every theory. That is the nature of theories. When trying to discern the relative worth of scientific theories, the question you need to ask isn’t “are there holes”?” It’s “how do these holes compare to the holes in other, competing theories”?
In the case of human origins theory, the near absolute lack of convincing homo sapiens sapiens remains outside of Africa is a pretty big gaping hole.
Mathew: Homo Sapiens are humans,modern humans are they not?
Where do modern humans live?
Do they still live today?
As I have stated before,the theory that human evolved from lower primates is pure bunk and I will show you why…
I eagerly await your exposition.
I will post some more indepth later but for now this.
Evolution states that an animal becomes chemically more complex,which is impossible to
for the following reason:A chemical change in the elementary compounds of a living body
upsets the vital balance.When the vital balance is upset,the machine is compelled to stop working,because one or more of the wheels in life’s machine has been made either too large or too small to mesh in with the next wheel,or surrounding ones.In other words,in popular language:poison has been administered.
Death by poisoning is simply the result of adding to and changing some of the elementary
compounds of the body,throwing it out of vital balance.Biological evolution,as it being taught today asserts that chemical changes take place in living animals,making them more complex. This is absolutely impossible,because:
A chemical change means poison,Poison means death,and
Death means the elimination of the life
The life has disappeared forever
I also have an interest in anthropology and studied some in college.
Thaddeus:
Very nice. I have a PhD in social anthropology and am currently teaching the history of race to biologists, so I am very excited with this opportunity to learn how the world’s scientific community is made up of complete idiots who believe in a theory that can be debunked by a freshman with a few wiki searches on the internet.
Mathew:
How is Social Anthropology connected with Physical Anthropology
Which one is more predominate in Theory of Evolution?
There are several scientists that do not believe in the OOA theory
Well first here is one who says Evolution and I D can both exist,and flaws in some of Darwin’s
theories
http://knol.google.com/k/evolution-and-intelligent-design-the-way-to-an-agreement#Introduction
Here is a list of scientists opposing Darwinian Evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Let’s have some names and links to their works, please. So far you have provided none at all.
Lower primates would not wander off on thousand mile journeys,as primates such as apes are not migratory outside of their
living areas where food and shelter is in immediate vincinty.
Why do you find this to be relevant?
Mathew: Well prehumans would be very much the same in cognitive ability
such would be their Social setting,which would they would be primitive,limited in
their spacial thinking of which journeys of thousand of miles outside of their
present living area not logical or physically feasible.
Thaddeus:
Who is “Alex Patterson”, the author, and why should we think he’s an authority of any kind on evolution? What are his credentials? Apparently none whatsoever. He’s just a guy writing stuff on the net.
Mathew:
Alex is a airline pilot believe that is a mechanical engineer too.
If you read his post on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,you will understand
why the law of evolution as stated goes against the laws of physics.
Thaddeus:
Can we find any refutations of his theories?
Why yes, the internet itself is chock-a-block full of them. But we can look at Patterson’s arguments themselves and quickly see that he doesn’t know much of what he claims to know.
He mischaracterizes Darwin’s theory, to begin with. Darwin did not psotulate how life arose; his theory is not known by scientists as “survival of the fittest” there is actually quite alot of empirical evidence from both the laboratory and real life which shows evolution at work (one simple and excellent example is the evolution of diseases which have become progressively more resistent to treatment through Darwinian selection; fossil evidence does not show the spontaneous appearance of life; etc. etc.
Mathew: Your statements are contradicting, if diseases,which are bacteria and viruses
are becoming resistant to treatment,then this means that if humans die from such diseases,there is a flaw in the humans being a superior evolution as their bodies would be
able to defeat these diseases by the fact they are on the top of the line in the evolutionary
development,the highest rung of the ladder are humans.
But since it is only by development of new drugs and vaccines that humans
beat these resistant bacteria and viruses
Mathew
LikeLike
@J
Its amazing that you do not have the ability to see that ‘metaphor’ was directed at you.
It was? Really?!
J, you’re just too subtle for me, I guess.
You already ‘know’ all the answers…
Why thank you, J. That’s not true, of course, but it was a nice sentiment.
(By the way, you might want to look up the definition of “metaphor”. I know English isn’t your first language, like Portuguese isn’t mine, but for that very reason, we need to work on perfection, hey?)
LikeLike
OK, now let’s see what Mat’s brought to the debate today. I’m hoping it’s his much-awaited proof that evolution is pants, but I’m expecting more links to whacko websites across the bloggosphere.
OK, we start out with an English lesson:
You might be better believed if you spelled my name
properly
Mathew,not Matthew.
Mat, I enjoy giving English lessons too (see my advice to J, above) as I believe we should all try to improve our writing skills, just as Abagond does. But I try to avoid lecturing people on obvious keystroke misses or on mispellings of foreign words and names.
If you like, however, I can proof your posts with the same degree of precision that you show here. Wouldn’t that be fun?
Now, on to more serious fare…
Homo Sapiens are humans,modern humans are they not?
Where do modern humans live?
Do they still live today?
Yes.
All over the world and now also in low Earth orbit.
Yes.
Next.
[Thaddeus: As I have stated before,the theory that human evolved from lower primates is pure bunk and I will show you why…
I eagerly await your exposition.]
I will post some more indepth later but for now this.
Groooooooooan.
I knew it. Mat’s gonna wuss out again. [facepalm] Instead of “proving” what he said he could easily prove, he’s going to go run off on another, completely unrelated tangent. Just watch him…
Evolution states that an animal becomes chemically more complex,which is impossible to for the following reason:A chemical change in the elementary compounds of a living body upsets the vital balance.When the vital balance is upset,the machine is compelled to stop working,because one or more of the wheels in life’s machine has been made either too large or too small to mesh in with the next wheel,or surrounding ones.In other words,in popular language:poison has been administered.
Death by poisoning is simply the result of adding to and changing some of the elementary compounds of the body,throwing it out of vital balance.Biological evolution,as it being taught today asserts that chemical changes take place in living animals,making them more complex. This is absolutely impossible,because:
A chemical change means poison,Poison means death,and
Death means the elimination of the life
The life has disappeared forever.
First of all, Mat, I am disapointed that all you’ve done here is rewarm your Australian pastor friend’s argument. I specifically asked for something better. In second place, you don’t even CORRECTLY restate the argument and finally, from the errors you’ve made, it’s now quite clear that you haven’t the slightest clue as to what Darwin’s talking about.
But in an attempt to demonstrate why you’re out hunting bear with a popgun, let’s play Jack-the-Ripper and take your argument a bit at a time, shall we?
Evolution states that an animal becomes chemically more complex…
The very first sentance is wrong on two accounts, which takes some doing, Mat. First of all, darwin says absolutely nothing about chemical complexity, nor does his theory indicate that evolution work necessarily to greater complexity, chemical or otherwise. There are plenty of examples of evolution working towards less complexity.
The second error has to do with a basic misperception regarding the unit on which evolution works: it is not animals, but SPECIES. Animals do not become more or less complex over time, Mat their progeny do in teeny, tiny increments. This is not only possible, it is quite easily OBSERVABLE. ANY child is going to be chemically different from both of its parents and this is provable fact, Mat, not speculation.
What evolution says is that errors in reproducing genes on a molecular level (which, again, is a process that has been amply observed in the laboratory and in nature) often create characteristics which were not present in either parent. When this occurs millions of times over hundreds of thousands of years, it is expressed in an incremental change in the typical body of members of the species. If the change positively adds to the species chances of reproduction and survival, it will spread throughout the species and eventually become common. If it impacts negatively, it will eventually die out.
But in any case, no single animal’s body undergoes the “chemical change” your Australian pal is on about.
I also have an interest in anthropology and studied some in college.
Given that you’ve apparently flubbed the basic of a theory that most people here in Brazil learn in Junior High, I think I can essay a guess as to why you only studied “some” in college…. Next!
How is Social Anthropology connected with Physical Anthropology
Which one is more predominate in Theory of Evolution?
Social anthropology has largely taken over from physical anthropology when it comes to discussing the whys and wherefores of human diversity in today’s world. Physical anthropology, however, is still quite useful when we’re discussing human biological evolution. Neither particularly dominates in the “Theory of Evolution” which is properly a biological and not an anthropological theory. Most anthropologists and biologists, however, would agree that physical anthropology is more useful for understanding human beings greater than 50,000 years ago, before the revolution of culture made us into an effectively superorganic species.
In my case, I’ve had pretty good training in both, given that my mentor was originally trained in physcial anthropology and her (and my) main focus has been race and anthropology.
There are several scientists that do not believe in the OOA theory. Well first here is one who says Evolution and I D can both exist,and flaws in some of Darwin’s.
Yes, and there are several scientists who believe the world
theories is flat, too. Science isn’t an individual activity, MAt, because scientists can be just as nutters as the regular run of human. This is why doing science involves publishing articles which are reviewed by your peers in an appropriate scientific forum. I am a scientist. If I want, I could put up a website today that claims the moon is made of green cheese. That doesn’t make it so, of course. The main point, though, is that no scientific jornal on lunar morphology is going to publish an article by an anthropologist who claims that the moon is made of green cheese, no matter how many clever arguments I give them, UNLESS I offer up more proof of my thesis than the competing thesis that the moon is made of rocks.
Do you understand? This is how science works.
So to say “there are scientists who believe this” is to say precisely nothing. What we want to know, Mat, is what is THEIR PROOF?
Now, have you provided any in the links you’ve given us? Let’s see…
The very first link shows us once again that you seem to have fundamental difficulties in understanding what you read. You persist in believing that showing flaws in a theory means that it is useless. I’ve told you why that’s not the case, above. Yes, there are flaws in Darwin’s theory, as in every theory. There are even MORE flaws, however, in any theory yet articultaed which tries to do away with evolution. So Darwin continues to be our best answer. That does not mean he’s perfect.
Secondly, no one here has ever argued that Darwin’s theories means God can’t exist or couldn’t have had a hand in starting the universe. Darwin himself believed in God. Your author simply states what every rhetorician and scientist knows: we do not know who or what started the universe and we certainly don’t know how it all comes together. It could very well be, for example, that God or some other supreme force is/was ultimately behind what we conceive of as “evolution” and this is indeed the position that most theistic scientists take.
(Being something of a theist myself, I must admiot that I( have a difficult time understanding why so many so-called Christians see evolution theory as being more inimical to God’s existance than, say, the theory that the Earth orbits around the Sun, another scientific theory that a strict and unimaginative interpretation of the Bible would seem to preclude. But I digress..)
In other words, then, your furious googling for proof that evolution doesn’t exist has turned up one publication by a scientist who shows that belief that evolution and belief in God are not necessarily contradictory.
Hear that, Mat? That’s the sound of one hand clapping. That first link does absolutely nothing to support your contention that evolution is false.
As for the second…
Mat, again, can you read?
That list is not a list of people who oppose evolution, This is what it concretely says:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
“Being skeptical”, first of all, is not being opposed. As the statement says, they want to encourage the careful examination of theory and evidence and that, my friend, is completely scientific. Secondly, the main problem here is “random mutation and natural selection”. If one is a theist and a scientist, one could quite easily see the hand of God in the direction of mutations. As your other link points out, guided evolution is also an acceptable theory. More than half of those scientists signing that statement are objecting precisely on that ground and not because they believe that God snapped his fingers and brought the world into existence in 7 days.
Finally, again, it is one thing to be skeptical of a theory: it is quite another to come up with a better one. As of this moment, NONE of those scientists has presented any conclusive, peer-reviewed evidence which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that evolution theory needs to be tossed overboard. And I should remind you that if you think science is a popularity contest, the list of scientists who DO believe in random mutation and natural selection is much, much longer than that one.
It should also be pointed out that the organization which published that list is a Christian group and not a scientific organization of any sort – at least in terms of being an organization which PRODUCES science.
Next.
Well prehumans would be very much the same in cognitive ability such would be their Social setting,which would they would be primitive,limited in their spacial thinking of which journeys of thousand of miles outside of their present living area not logical or physically feasible.
First of all, you make an unwarranted assumption. Prehumans are not necessarily the same in their cognitive or social abilities. The fact of the matter is, we just don’t know. They may have been or not. What we DO know is that human beings themselves didn’t develop their cognitive abilities until well after they were established biologically as a species. We apparently didn’t learn to talk or produce anything that could reasonably be called culture until about 25-50,000 years ago. So there’s been a BIG “cognitive and social” revolution inside our species itself. This indicates that the difference between modern humans and immediately preceeding species was enormous. In fact, it was probably what lead us to out-compete the Neanderthals.
Secondly, again, you seem to persist in the belief that evolution occurs in the lifetime of one individual.
Mat, even non-human species change their ranges over time. This is an observable fact. The move out of Africa took tens of thousands of years to complete and it took another couple of tens of thousands for humans to spread across the planet. A species that changes its range one kilometer per year can go across half the globe in 20,000 years.
No serious scientist that I have ever heard of denies the human species the ability to cross continental distances over thousands of years, Mat. This argument of yours is thus complete pants.
Alex is a airline pilot believe that is a mechanical engineer too.
So by extending that logic, that makes me qualified to fly an airplane and fix the brakes on your car, does it? 😀
C’mon, Mat. Alex may be smart (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here), but AFAIK, he has no training at all in the biological sciences and approaches them strictly from the perspective of his interpretation of the Bible.
If you read his post on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,you will understand why the law of evolution as stated goes against the laws of physics.
I have read it and I very much doubt you understand it. No, evolution doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is also known as ENTROPY and the defining characteristic of entropy is that it is MORE CHAOTIC and LESS ORDERED. Furthermore, as any physicist can tell you, even chaotic and entropic systems will generate order over time – at least in a purely local sense.
There are three excellent rejoinders to Pastor Alex’s theory that I can thus think of off the top of my hat. One is theistic and two aren’t.
1) God zapped the primordial muck and brought life into existence. Evolution is thus part of God’s plan, part of the system of making the universe what it is. I mean, as long as we’re going to believe in God, in makes logical sense to believe in God in a way which does not deny the evidence which He has presented to us and that evidence clearly suggests that something like evolution is going on. So ZAP! God creates life and maybe has dabbled in its evolution since then. Pastor Alex should have no logical trouble accepting this as it’s a theory that is, in fact, more rational than the one he appears to hold to (i.e. God created life in 7 24 hour days) and it still includes God.
2) Life is in fact entropic. Given the fact that, from all evidence presented so far, life BREAKS DOWN order and turns high-energy environments into low energy environments, on the universal scale of things, life may very well be a development of the entropic process itself. It arises out of the chaos formulated by the breaking down of primordial order and, in fact, encourages said break down.
3) Life is very, very rare, the local product of an extremely unlikely conjuncture of events. In universal terms, we are a fart in a hurricane and we’ll not be repeated – or only very locally and occasionally repeated. We’re like that one perfect word you apparently hear out of the random noise of a static on a T.V. screen. Apparent order out of chaos, but when looked at from the Big Picture, nothing statistically significant.
So no, the rise of life itself neither negates the second law of thermodynamics, nor – even if it were to do this – does it mean that evolution doesn’t occur (I mean, if we’re gonna postulate the existance of God, anyway, why should Go9d worry about the second law of thermodynamics?)
Next.
Your statements are contradicting, if diseases,which are bacteria and viruses are becoming resistant to treatment,then this means that if humans die from such diseases….
As they well do, Mat. Do a “google” on “malaria” and tell us what you find.
…there is a flaw in the humans being a superior evolution as their bodies would be able to defeat these diseases by the fact they are on the top of the line in the evolutionary development,the highest rung of the ladder are humans.
Mat, NOTHING in Darwin’s theory or any evolutionary theory indicates that humans are invulnerable. When biologists say “humans are the dominant species on the planet” (a statement many Darwinians would disagree with, by the way), they do not mean that each and every human individual is a superman, able to fight off all comers. They mean that, as a species, we’ve successfully colonized the widest variety of niches and have eliminated or appear to be able to eliminate most of our competition.
Our biggest predators our now ourselves, Mat. That doesn’t mean, however, that individual human beings are all of a sudden invulnerable to bacteria, viruses and speeding bullets, however.
The point, Mat, is this: we invent new anti-biotics and diseases EVOLVE resistence against them. This is obvious and well-proven.
You’ve made the comment – as a lot of creationists do – that no one has ever seen evolution in action and that is simply a lie. The evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria is just one simple example of evolution at work in the world.
This has been shown time and again in the lab, too. Zap a colony of ants with a poison and you’ll breed a posion-resistant ant over time.
Finally, you’ve said “no one has ever created new species in the lab” and THAT is also a lie. Scientists create new species of things like flatworms and fruitflies all the bloody time.
Sorry, Mat. Evolution has very, very good empirical evidence. But no one can force anyone to see what they don’t want. If you are bound to the view that the Earth is flat, no ammount of proof is going to prove you’re wrong.
But again, Mat, you rpomised us proof that evolution is pants. So far, nothing. And very bad nothing, at that.
How about putting some money where your mouth is, kiddo?
LikeLike
@ Thad – Mathew,
Just a question in line with evolution and early man. Isn’t there a theory about the sudden “appearance” of modern man (cro-magnon: a.k.a the Naked Ape) -not to confuse the two. I was readding somewhere that it is theorized a virus was responsible for the mutation? (only it was a positive mutation. Here is the link that got me thinking about it, though it does not speak directly to the sudden “emergence” of modern man.
Discovery Shows 8% of Human Genome from Viruses
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/andromeda-dna.html
@ J –
Just found an interesting link which I’m sure you have seen before. ( I realize I’ve already posted similar but this is reaffirmation.)
Americans Descended from Australians ?
Americans from European ancestry are traced to one of the daughters of Africa Eve, as found in a study above. A further study examined a 11,500-year-old skull, found in Brazil, which appears to belong to a woman of African or Aboriginal (Australia) descent. This might suggest boat travel.
http://www.ramsdale.org/dna10.htm
LikeLike
Cheers ColorofLuv,
I have not seen the link previously. I had a very quick look at the link and what caught me is:
The link between, Africa, India, something which I have mentioned previously.
As for your other question, although not directed at me.
If you take this subject from an African centred perspective. The Cro-Magnon is the evolution of the Caucasian race, ie the metaphoris from Black to White, even though if we being true to the facts, still the same ‘race’.
Many Euro-centred scholars will refer to ‘modern man’ originigating c. 40, 000bC but what they really means is the ‘Caucasian race’.
As for how the Caucasian race came about the theory is that in cold ice age europe it became a biological necessity for the Africoid to de-melanate (ie whether through a process of albinoism and/or some other genetic mutation) otherwise they would not survive.
So in essence the Caucasian race only came about as a result of the extreme result of the climate. if the weather had remained ‘temperate’. You would have no ‘Caucasian’ and ‘Mongoloid’ races.
The Mongoloid race is a mixture of Africoid and Caucasoid types around the Eurasian steppes and they became distinct c. 20,000 BC.
This is the evidence we have before us thus far.
Its not to everyone’s liking for obvious reasons.
So depending on what book you read you may get a different perspective.
It would be interesting to hear what is your slant on the topic, good sir.
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
I forgot to address your main point
The article suggests
“A further study examined a 11,500-year-old skull, found in Brazil, which appears to belong to a woman of African or Aboriginal (Australia) descent. This might suggest boat travel”.
The thing with this comment is that it contains within it a pre-supposition that the ‘Aborigines’ evolved distinctly and separately. This was the prevailing view for a very long time but not no longer.
Matthew kindly gave us information regarding the connection between the ‘Australoid’ (if we are going to use that term) in India and those in Australia (Aborigines).
I then went a step backward to show that the Aborigines migrated out of Africa c. 70,000 BC. And in all probability the Aborigines are akin to the ‘Nubian A Group’.
So what we have is as the article suggests:
“The results showed that a common maternal ancestor coming out of Africa existed 50,000 years ago between the people of Ethiopia and the Arabian peninsula, and India”.
So in essence what I am saying the quote could and should have been read as:
“A further study examined a 11,500-year-old skull, found in Brazil, which appears to belong to a woman of AFRICOID descent”
Again it would be nice to hear what is your slant on this matter??
LikeLike
CoL, there’s really no evidence to prove that Cro-Magnons appeared “suddenly” because we don’t know when they appeared with any degree of precision.
What we do know is that they didn’t develop anything like “culture” for tens of thousands of years after they came on the seen. Why they suddenly were transformed – and it wasn’t a physical transformation – is one of the great mysteries of early human anthropology.
Regarding the post on that skull in the Brazilian national Museum, that’s Luiza and we’ve talked about her above.
LikeLike
Testing
LikeLike
1,2,3,
You having troubles Matthew??
LikeLike
Abagond
I am trying to post my replies here but for some reason cannot post if it more than a word or like what I wrote(testing) above
Whats going on?
Mathew
LikeLike
Yes I am having troubles J
Computer Genie is hijacking me
LikeLike
Thaddeus
Mathew_
Thaddeus@ Mathew:
OK, now let’s see what Mat’s brought to the debate today. I’m hoping it’s his much-awaited proof that evolution is pants, but I’m expecting more links to whacko websites across the bloggosphere.
OK, we start out with an English lesson:
You might be better believed if you spelled my name
properly
Mathew,not Matthew.
Mat, I enjoy giving English lessons too (see my advice to J, above) as I believe we should all try to improve our writing skills, just as Abagond does. But I try to avoid lecturing people on obvious keystroke misses or on mispellings of foreign words and names.
Mathew: Thaddeus,
Nothing to do with English lessons,I was replying back to your sarcasm in a nice way.
You do come off as scathing a bit. I do correspond with other
Professors of much more academic prominence than thou,who are more cordial in their replies.:_)
Now to the other things.
Mathew:
Evolution states that an animal becomes chemically more complex…
Thaddeus:
The very first sentance is wrong on two accounts, which takes some doing, Mat. First of all, darwin says absolutely nothing about chemical complexity, nor does his theory indicate that evolution work necessarily to greater complexity, chemical or otherwise. There are plenty of examples of evolution working towards less complexity.
LikeLike
Mathew:Lets focus on human evolution,as humans are more complex than than the animals they are said to have evolved from;yes?
Are humans more chemically complex than their unknown
ancestors,pre-humans?
Well we don’t know because we have never been able to do tests on live subjects,but we know that humans are more highly developed in walking upright and…
yes of course their mental functions of their brain.
Yes humans are more highly developed than chimps or apes.
LikeLike
Very strange and there was I thinking my pc was very bad.
Hope you sort it soon.
Nice one
LikeLike
Thaddeus:
Mat, NOTHING in Darwin’s theory or any evolutionary theory indicates that humans are invulnerable. When biologists say “humans are the dominant species on the planet” (a statement many Darwinians would disagree with, by the way), they do not mean that each and every human individual is a superman, able to fight off all comers. They mean that, as a species, we’ve successfully colonized the widest variety of niches and have eliminated or appear to be able to eliminate most of our competition.
Our biggest predators our now ourselves, Mat. That doesn’t mean, however, that individual human beings are all of a sudden invulnerable to bacteria, viruses and speeding bullets, however.
The point, Mat, is this: we invent new anti-biotics and diseases EVOLVE resistence against them. This is obvious and well-proven.
Mathew:evolve how though?
Is there a brain at work here;do viruses and bacteria
have an intelligence in them that helps them do this?
You’ve made the comment – as a lot of creationists do – that no one has ever seen evolution in action and that is simply a lie. The evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria is just one simple example of evolution at work in the world.
Mathew: Thaddeus,you are implying that I am a creationist?
Why?
Could I imply that you are a atheist?
I had only posted one thing by Alex also so don’t presume I am posting other things from him
LikeLike
Mathew:
What view of creationists do I take?
I don’t take the literal biblical tale I will give you this,unless aybe as metaphor
I do believe in the world and all planets were created by Light.
I had earlier posted creation stories of people around the world.Native American,,Polynesians,Zulus of Africa,others
of all pointing out their own belief that Man was created
along with the animals and life on the planet or planets
You can not give people credit for their collective conscious history(quoting Karl Jung) or that there would some validation that these people knew their where their human ancestors were created separately?
Thaddeus:
First of all, you make an unwarranted assumption. Pre-humans are not necessarily the same in their cognitive or social abilities. The fact of the matter is, we just don’t know. They may have been or not. What we DO know is that human beings themselves didn’t develop their cognitive abilities until well after they were established biologically as a species. We apparently didn’t learn to talk or produce anything that could reasonably be called culture until about 25-50,000 years ago. So there’s been a BIG “cognitive and social” revolution inside our species itself. This indicates that the difference between modern humans and immediately preceeding species was enormous. In fact, it was probably what lead us to out-compete the Neanderthals.
LikeLike
Mathew: Are we humans related to Neanderthals?
BIG “cognitive and social” revolution inside our species?
Yes how does evolution explain the cognitive ability to reason?
Thaddeus:
Secondly, again, you seem to persist in the belief that evolution occurs in the lifetime of one individual.
Mat, even non-human species change their ranges over time. This is an observable fact. The move out of Africa took tens of thousands of years to complete and it took another couple of tens of thousands for humans to spread across the planet. A species that changes its range one kilometer per year can go across half the globe in 20,000 years.
Mathew: Was it pre-humans or humans that migrated out of Africa
When and where did the different races start? This has not been shown and the slow migration would certainly it easier to
track. Or as you had stated,were there different migrations going on at the same time,and the different races started at the same time frame?
Did these humans develop boats or domesticate animals
What type of housing did they live in?
When and what languages did they develop?
LikeLike
It seems a map of the gradual development of culture and society,civilisation,would be able to
have been more easily mapped
So we have a period between 25,000 years to about 6000
years ago when the first developed civilisations took place
on earth?
Can you explain how the pyramids of Egypt were built or the pyramids in Central America,or the megalithic -monolithic structures of the pacific built?
LikeLike
It is a difficult question and I am always curious to the answer that anthropologists suggest because it differs with what the Native people say and there is no evidence of how or what tools they used to do this with
From Central America,Egypt or the Pacific
I am a student of Hermetic Science,which differs a bit on creationism but it does believe in the Creative Principle for the Universe and all Life within.
Mathew
LikeLike
If evolution is on going,does this mean that there are other primates that are or will evolve into modern humans?
LikeLike
Mathew
Sorry for all the postings but it seems something is wrong with our server or system and sometimes I can post things but then only in certain length
?
LikeLike
Help
LikeLike
DC Physics logo
ABOUT
Doug Craigen’s
Physics Pages
HOME
# Web Directory
# Web Search
# Practice Problems
# Monthly Features
# Textbook Errata
# Humor
Press Ctrl-D to add this page
to your Netscape or Mozilla Bookmarks.
Also see:
Do you click on links in your email? Is it safe?
Entropy and Evolution
This is an old “world wide cobweb” page, one of the first pages I wrote. Way back when I was young(ish). It was moved to this location September, 2008. To learn more about it read this article: End of an Era.
by Doug Craigen, PhD (physics)
revision 1.02, Oct. 29, 1996
Introduction
The theory of evolution presents many mechanistic and philosophical questions for those of us who believe in Divine creation. Among the many approaches to answering these questions, there are varying levels of questioning the existence of evolution and whether it could happen without Divine intervention to assist it. One argument that is commonly raised in this context that since entropy is disorder, and since evolution represents a greater state of order, therefore, evolution violates the second law of theromodynamics (that entropy is always increasing). In turn, this argument has led to the mocking reply that we believe in the “Sun God”. The purpose of this present writing is to explain the relevant issues in this argument in a way that does not presume a high level of education in any of the subjects of physics, mathematics, biology, or chemistry.
Order, Disorder and Design
Consider the following three possible arrangements for 16 marbles in a box:
1. to call something ‘ordered’ is to imply the existence of an ordering rule. In a geometrical situation like the positions of marbles in a box an ordering rule would permit you to start at one marble and then using the rule predict the positions of the others. So for example, one could have the rule “from any marble you can find another one an inch to the left, or an inch to the right, or an inch up, or an inch down”. Together with a rule to tell you where the edge was, this ordering rule could describe marbles as shown in #1. Geometric ordering rules could produce a wide number of resulting shapes (spirals, triangles, diamonds …), the unifying thing that makes them all ‘ordered’ is the ability to use the rule to predict where to find ‘the marbles’.
2. if we cannot find an ordering rule to describe something, then we call it disordered. If we have limited success describing something with an ordering rule then we can defined the amount of disorder mathematically by how much deviation there is from the ordering rule.
3. when we say that something has design, it is as much a matter of how we perceive it as of what is actually there. To someone who reads english, box 3 reads “Hi”, but to someone who only reads Japanese it may simply look like a case of partial ordering. If it appears to us that there was some intelligence behind how something occured, or if it conveys meaning to us, then we say there is design. There may or may not be order in something that we consider to be designed (for example, abstract art). The problem with trying to talk about design in a quantitative fashion is that the human mind seems to have endless capacity to see design in something which is disordered (animal shapes in clouds, constellations in the sky etc).
Probability
Suppose that the marbles were simply dropped into the box. Which one of the arrangements 1, 2, or 3 would be the most likely to occur? A critical thing to understand is that they are all equally likely. From a mathematical point of view you should be no more surprised to see 1 or 3 than to see 2. And yet we are, and we should be.
Confused yet? The solution is that while any single outcome is equally likely, the number of outcomes that are just plain disordered far outnumbers the number of outcomes that show either order or design. So while no single disordered outcome is any more likely than any single ordered outcome, the net probability of having the outcome disordered is much higher than the probability of having the outcome ordered. There are simply so many more ways of having the outcome disordered than there are of having it ordered.
Entropy
In a Thermodynamics or Statistical Mechanics class, the preceeding ideas would be usually brought together somewhat like this:
Consider the gas molecules that make up the air of the room you are in. They are scattered somewhat evenly throughout the room. There are many possible arrangements where the gas molecules would all be on the other side of the room, but we could spend our entire life in the room without fear that we would ever see it happen. The reason is that there is such an immensely larger number of possibilities where the gas fills the room, that the probability of seeing it all in one half of the room is for all practical purposes zero. Clearly the number of ways of achieving each possibility is a very important number for predicting what will happen. We give this number a special name, entropy (I will not bother with the complete mathematical definition of entropy here as it doesn’t make any difference to the understanding of principles that I’m driving at).
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
If we have a physical system that is free to change between various states, we have the question of which state we expect to find it in (or if you have are watching it change, which state it will drive towards). From the point of view of , the state which is the most likely to occur is the state which has the most ways of occuring, and this is the state of highest entropy. We don’t expect to see a system move from a state of high entropy to a state of lower entropy. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So, for example, if you have a cup of water and carefully place a spoonful of milk on top of the water, you will expect to see the milk mix into the water. It will maximize its entropy by spreading out, because there are so many more ways of being spread throughout the cup than there are of being all together. We expect the milk to mix into the water, and we don’t expect it to later separate itself from the water.
When Does the Second Law Apply?
In the milk example above, if you were to leave the mixture uncovered long enough, the water would evaporate and you would have the milk left over. Does this violate the second law? No it doesn’t. By taking the water molecules and spreading them through the room as a vapor, the total entropy of the water and milk together is much higher (even though the entropy of the milk has decreased again). One can have a decrease in the entropy of a part of the system, provided the entropy of the entire system still increases. What if you were to have a condenser that put the water back into a second cup as it evaporated from the first one? In this case, you have included something that is not part of the system. The second law does not apply to open systems where material or energy is being traded with some outside system, it only applies to self-contained, or closed systems. To have a closed system, you would have to make the condenser a part of it. In this case the operation of the refrigeration system creates enough additional entropy to account for the decrease in entropy when the milk and water separate.
From a chemical point of view of life, the thing that keeps our world going is the continual receiving of energy from the sun and the re-radiating of heat that keeps out planet from over heating. The earth is not a closed system, the reception of energy from the sun provides the possibility of process which locally decrease entropy (even though on a large scale entropy still increases). This is why you may find yourself mocked with “believing in the Sun God” if you say that God is the creator and sustainer of life.
Other Expressions of the Second Law
With some advanced calculus it is possible to take the mathematical expressions that underlie the description above, and find other equivalent principles that apply to situations other than closed systems. The second law can be seen as a fundamental principle behind why many processes occur in the direction that they do. For example, according to the first law of thermodynamics, a ball on a hill side could either stay where it is and maintain a high potential energy, or it could roll down the hill lowering its potential energy but gaining kinetic energy (as speed and rotation). The thing that tells you that it is the second one of these that will happen is the general form of the second law.
A Question of Scale
Two common logical fallacies are the Fallacy of Composition (arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole – such as “pennies are light, so a million pennies are light”) and the Fallacy of Division (arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts – such as “computers are changing the world, therefore my computer is changing the world”). In thermodynamics we divide properties up into how they behave with respect to scale or division. Intrinsic properties are ones which are the same for the whole system and for any part of it. For example, temperature is an intrinsic property. If you pour half a cup of water into a second cup, both half cups of water have the same temperature which is the temperature they had when they were together in one cup. Extrinsic properties are proportional to the size of the system. Weight is one example. The two half cups may be at the same temperature as the initial full cup, but they are each only half the weight.
Entropy and energy are extrinsic properties. We can find the energy of the earth by adding up all the energies of everything in it. Similarly, we can find the entropy of the earth by adding up all the entropies of everything in it. We can also find entropy changes by subdivision, so that we can look at what is happening on an individual basis (plant by plant, leaf by leaf, cell by cell, molecule by molecule) regarding absorption of sunlight and the resulting chemical changes.
Entropy is NOT Disorder
As an aid for conceptualizing entropy, it is often described as a measurement of disorder. This is not intended as a definition of either entropy or disorder. Entropy is determined by the number of ways you could achieve a state, disorder is defined by the amount of violation of an ordering rule. The assignment “entropy is disorder” is intended to describe situations such as “the more space a gas takes up, the higher its entropy is, and the less you know about where all the molecules are (which in a casual sense means more disorder)”. This conceptual link between entropy and disorder should not be interpreted as saying that increased disorder is increased entropy. An example of how entropy isn’t disorder is that if you take a piece of glass, which is an amorphous material (one whose atoms are disordered), and place it in a fridge to cool it down, you will not change the atom locations. The glass remains just as disordered, but its entropy decreases as its temperature drops. In fact, in a very good fridge, the closer you brought it to absolute zero (-273.15 C or -459.67 F) to closer its entropy would become to zero. This would all happen without changing its structural disorder.
Entropy and Life
To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision…? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.
To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news… I’m sure I would have heard of it.
Closing Remarks
Though I believe that we should stop arguing that the process of life (e.g. evolution) violates the second law of thermodynamics, this is not to say that there are no big unanswered questions for those who would use evolution to argue philosophically against religious belief. How and why it is that we see so much orderliness and design in the world around us remain big questions. However, the second law says nothing about design (which is a matter of perception of what is there) and does not appear to contradict anything about the order we observe. Actually, it should strike us as odd if God had set up the universe to operate under inconsistent laws.
In fact, many experts on the philosophy and history of science and technology believe that it was no accident that it was in Christian (and perhaps in particular, Protestant) areas where science advanced so quickly and had such a revolutionary effect on society. Rather it was the Christian belief that God created an ordered and rational universe working by predictable rules that enabled a scientific view of the world to develope. While the Bible records instances of the miraculous, it is perhaps remarkable what a small fraction of its content is involved in these cases. The vast majority of the Bible is about God’s Providence guiding the world in ways that we would never see, except perhaps by inferal from the final result, where the miraculous is the exception. Whereas events like the parting of the Red Sea are spectacular, most of the Bible suggests a God who orchestrates events behind the scenes, planning hundred or thousands of years in advance through the smallest details in life for thousands of miles around. It would be arrogant to believe that now that we are a “scientific” people, that if we cannot detect God’s working in our microscopes, then He isn’t there. The church has gotten sidetracked on this point many times, with horrible results. The Bible is not a text book of Science. It is a mistake either to classify scientific theories as Biblical and non-Biblical, or to believe that the proof of God’s existence will be found in the failure of science to explain something. We believe that God set the universe in motion with consistent and sufficient mechanical rules. Science studies those rules.
The larger questions such as why should we observe any order anywhere at all (rather than the smaller question I’ve addressed here of whether there are contradictions within the order we see) take us into whole new questions, such as the Anthropic Principle. That would be a whole other (and much bigger) paper than this one.
Related Pages:
* Life on Earth – flow of Energy and Entropy
* The Page of Entropy – one of the pages on this site (Entropy and Disorder) is particularly relevant.
* The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith
* The Thermosynthesis Home Page
LikeLike
You do come off as scathing a bit. I do correspond with other Professors of much more academic prominence than thou,who are more cordial in their replies.:_)
I’m sure you do, Mat, because prominent biology and anthropology professors just love to waste their days chatting with a guy who doesn’t even know what evolution is but is convinced that it’s a lie. [roll eyes]
Spare me, please.
Well we don’t know because we have never been able to do tests on live subjects,but we know that humans are more highly developed in walking upright and…
yes of course their mental functions of their brain.
Yes humans are more highly developed than chimps or apes.
Most of today’s Darwinists would have serious problems with that statement, Matthew. The idea that evolution is some sort of ladder from low to high is quite contested by a series of evolutionary scientists. So you’re making a bit if a strawman here by saying evolutionary theory supports something that it doesn’t necessarily support and then disqualifying it based on that supposed support.
evolve how though?
Any basic biology text can tell you how mutations arise in living beings, Mat. There’s a series of ways this occurs. One of the most common is a simple error in copying the DNA during reproduction. This occurs quite often and leads to miniscule differences within a given species’ population. Most of these differences are neither positive or negative, but some of them are. When it’s a difference that means better resistance to a certain chemical, for example, and said population is exposed to that chemical, only those individuals who have the resistance will be left to breed. Do that a few times and sooner or later, you will find the resistance has been naturally spread throughout the population. Evolution at work.
Mathew: Thaddeus,you are implying that I am a creationist?
Why?
Every one of your sources on evolution to date is creationist. Not just Alex but your “Discovery” foundation people, too. Why would you be citing them otherwise?
“Creationism”, by the way, is the belief that a higher power created life on Earth. It doesn’t necessarily have to be Christian creationism.
Are we humans related to Neanderthals?
Yep. In fact we apparently interbred with them.
Yes how does evolution explain the cognitive ability to reason?
Oh, there are several theories being tossed around out there, but why is this of any more import than evolution explaining how birds began to fly, for example?
Was it pre-humans or humans that migrated out of Africa.
Possibly both. Some other groups of hominids seem to have originated in Africa and migrated out. And, of course, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, however, evolved in Africa and migrated out. Whether or not we evolved from a hominid which stayed in Africa or migrated out as well is not known, but it’s pretty well demonstrated that our species evolved inside of Africa.
When and where did the different races start? This has not been shown and the slow migration would certainly it easier to track. Or as you had stated,were there different migrations going on at the same time,and the different races started at the same time frame?
Actually, it has been shown. There ARE no human races in biological terms, Mat. There are no stable, homogenous, inbreeding subspecies (which is what a race is) among human beings and there never have been.
Did these humans develop boats or domesticate animals? What type of housing did they live in?
When and what languages did they develop?
At this point, we don’t even know for certain when humans left Africa, but it was prior to full behaviorial modernity, which means the development of language and what we now call culture.
Without language and culture, pre-modern humans probably didn’t have boats, domesticated animals or any kind of housing except perhaps the most primitive. All of this stuff developed WELL AFTER we were out of Africa, so the most likely answers to your questions are “No, no and in caves or under hides draped from trees”.
Can you explain how the pyramids of Egypt were built or the pyramids in Central America,or the megalithic -monolithic structures of the pacific built?
Sure, Mat. There are several easily digested books on all of those topics but I suggest you start with “Pyramid” by David Macaulay. It’s got lots of nice pictures which are hard to misinterpret. There is PLENTY of evidence regarding what tools they used, Mat. I mean REAMS of it. Those “Chariot of the Gods” type authors you are reading are lying to you when they say there isn’t any.
If evolution is on going,does this mean that there are other primates that are or will evolve into modern humans?
Nope. Evolution doesn’t work that way. If, for some reason, we were to disappear and other primates would still be around, they might eventually develop into intelligent beings, but they wouldn’t be humans. Furthermore, none of the primates which we developed from are still around. Many creationists say evolution means we developed from the chimps. That’s ignorance. We and the chimps developed from a common and now extinct ancestor several million years back. As far as we know, nothing in our immediate biological family tree is still alive on this planet because we’ve out-competed it. The Neanderthals were our last close relatives to go.
I am a student of Hermetic Science,which differs a bit on creationism but it does believe in the Creative Principle for the Universe and all Life within.
In other words, you are the student of a religious philosophy and you haven’t a clear idea as to what distinguishes religion, philosophy and science.
LikeLike
Wiki should always be taken with a grain of salt as a source, but given that it has a MUCH higher confidence level than a creationist airplane mechanic holding forth on evolution, I’m sure you won’t mind reading this very well written and fairly correct wiki entry on human migration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations
LikeLike
Thaddeus
I thought the above is a great article ,though I am not promoting it because the writer is a christian-creation,more so that he shows empirical science as well as being or trying to be unbiased and secular in his theories and formulas
As well as being an interesting article that shot down my
entropy theory :_)
Mathew
LikeLike
What “above” article is that?
LikeLike
Are we humans related to Neanderthals?
Thaddeus:
Yep. In fact we apparently interbred with them.
Neanderthals not human ancestors
AP
A Neanderthal jaw from Croatia
Modern humans do not have Neanderthal ancestors in their family tree, a new DNA study concludes.
The DNA extracted from the ribs of a Neanderthal infant buried in southern Russia 29,000 years ago was found to be too distinct from modern human DNA to be related.
“There wasn’t much, if any mixture, between Neanderthals and modern humans,” said William Goodwin, of the University of Glasgow, UK. “Though they co-existed, we can’t find any evidence of genetic material being passed from Neanderthals to modern humans.”
The new work, published in the journal Nature, contradicts recent evidence from ancient remains of a child found in Portugal, which appeared to combine Neanderthal and human features. Those researchers concluded that some interbreeding must have taken place.
Last of the Neanderthals
The bones from the Neanderthal infant were very well preserved and the child must have been among the last of the Neanderthals as they died out about 30,000 years ago.
Exactly what happened to them is a mystery. Conflicting theories suggest that they were massacred, out-competed for food or simply absorbed by interbreeding with modern humans.
The research by Dr Goodwin and his Swedish and Russian colleagues agrees with the findings of the first analysis of Neanderthal DNA in 1997.
That study of DNA, taken from the first Neanderthal skeleton found in the Feldhofer Cave in Germany in 1856, supports the theory that modern humans replaced Neanderthals.
Little diversity
According to Dr Goodwin, the DNA sequence from the infant was very similar to the specimen from the Feldhofer Cave, proving that there was little diversity among Neanderthals.
“If they had been very diverse at the DNA level, they could have encompassed modern humans. The fact that these two Neanderthals are closely related and not related to modern humans implies that they don’t have the diversity to encompass a modern human gene pool,” said Dr Goodwin.
DNA comparisons also showed that different ethnic groups do not have any links to Neanderthals.
In a commentary on the research in Nature, Matthias Hoss, of the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research, said the two studies provide the most reliable proof so far of the authenticity of ancient DNA sequences.
The similar features of the two samples “argues against the idea that modern Europeans are at least partly of Neanderthal origin,” he said.
Genetic support for kicking Neanderthals out of the homo sapiens family
Posted 8/11/2008 8:54 AM | Comments 30 | Recommend 14 E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this
A reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton, right, and a modern human version of a skeleton, left, at the Museum of Natural History in New York in 2003.
Enlarge image Enlarge By Frank Franklin II, AP file
A reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton, right, and a modern human version of a skeleton, left, at the Museum of Natural History in New York in 2003.
* Share
* Yahoo! Buzz
* Add to Mixx
* Facebook
* Twitter
*
More
o Fark
o Digg
o Reddit
o MySpace
o StumbleUpon
o Propeller
o LinkedIn
* Subscribe
* myYahoo
* iGoogle
*
More
o Netvibes
o myAOL
*
Stumpy illiterates who live in caves. That sounds like how most people describe their relatives, right? But they were the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe as recently as 28,000 years ago, and whether they were true relatives of today’s homo sapiens, or instead an “archaic” human species, homo neanderthalensis, remains an open question among human-origins researchers — if not folks trying to explain away their less reliable relations.
The Neanderthals occupied Europe and parts of the Middle East from at least 600,000 years ago and their remains are beetle-browed and thick-legged compared to the more modern-looking human remains found in African burial sites from at least 200,000 years ago and elsewhere within the last 50,000 years.
SEE A NEANDERTHAL: University of Zurich: Neanderthal Girl reconstruction
Most scholars lean towards the answer, “No,” on the relatedness of humans and Neanderthals (or Neandertals for some), citing fossil evidence that modern-looking people replaced their stumpy cousins instead of mixing with them, at least judging by appearances. A bit more genetic support for their dismissive view came last week in the journal Cell, pointing to a more conclusive answer down the road.
The genes in the Cell study were inside three tiny samples of Neanderthal leg bone, each one less than a fifth of a gram in weight. A team led by anthropologist Richard Green of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology drilled the 38,000-year-old bone for the samples inside a specially-prepared cleanroom, designed to evade contamination problems that have plagued such efforts since they were first attempted in 1997.
In 2006, Green and colleagues began reporting details of a Neanderthal genome, a list of all the DNA “base pairs” or letters that are the building blocks of genes inside cells. That effort looked at the genes inside the cell nucleus — the nuclear genome that contains the great majority of genes. That effort is still underway.
In the latest study, the team has instead produced a complete “mitochondrial” genome of a Neanderthal. Mitochondria are energy-producing storehouses inside cells which contain DNA almost always inherited from maternal genes. Using the latest genome decoding machinery, the team effectively sampled the mitochondrial genome of their Neanderthal 35 times and compared it against similar information from 311 modern people to try and rule out contamination.
“Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal (mitochondrial DNA) falls outside the variation of extant human (mitochondrial DNA),” concludes the study. In other words: No signs of a relationship to homo sapiens mitochondria. Studies have suggested that chimps and humans last had a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. The stumpy and non-stumpy descendants, homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens, last could have held a family reunion about 660,000 years ago, the study adds.
It wouldn’t have been a large affair either, as the Neanderthal population probably wasn’t a large one. Only thousands of them were alive at any one time, the study authors suggest, judging from oddities in the mitochondrial genome.
Genetic support for and against a genetic link between humans and Neanderthals has ebbed and flowed in the last decade, with some researchers finding as much as a 5% mix between homo sapiens and archaic human species such as Neanderthals. But most studies have downplayed any link.
The Cell study team does provide reason for caution in their own results. A paper last year in PloS Genetics pointed to inconsistencies in previous Neanderthal genome results and Green’s team acknowledges similar flaws in a past look of their own at Neanderthal mitochondrial genes, finding an 11% error rate in those efforts. But the study team notes that errors in their just-reported mitochondrial genome don’t rely on the old, contaminated data. An error rate is 0.4% is statistically likely for their current results.
So stay tuned. The first recognized Neanderthal was uncovered in a German quarry in 1856, and they have been studied by paleoanthropologists ever since. While the Neanderthal nuclear genome due for completion this year may not answer everyone’s questions, it should answer most of the big ones about our maybe-distant cousins.
LikeLike
Mat, how about no copypasta? It’s annoying.
Here is much more recent information about the human-neanderthal link:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html
Time Magazine, not the best science source, but this news was brayed to the four corners of the Earth, so Time is probably the most acceptable and easy to access source for you.
LikeLike
Mathew: Thaddeus,you are implying that I am a creationist?
Why?
Thaddeus:Every one of your sources on evolution to date is creationist. Not just Alex but your “Discovery” foundation people, too. Why would you be citing them otherwise?
“Creationism”, by the way, is the belief that a higher power created life on Earth. It doesn’t necessarily have to be Christian creationism.
Mathew: Wasn’t Charles Darwin a creationist at one point in his life?
Yes how does evolution explain the cognitive ability to reason?
Thaddeus:
Oh, there are several theories being tossed around out there, but why is this of any more import than evolution explaining how birds began to fly, for example?
Mathew:Well I should have said in humans,because humans are light years beyond lower primates with inductive reasoning,spatial thinking,etc.
So you dismiss this point because you can’t show what process in evolution made this quantum jump from
animal to man.
Was it pre-humans or humans that migrated out of Africa.
Possibly both. Some other groups of hominids seem to have originated in Africa and migrated out. And, of course, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, however, evolved in Africa and migrated out. Whether or not we evolved from a hominid which stayed in Africa or migrated out as well is not known, but it’s pretty well demonstrated that our species evolved inside of Africa.
When and where did the different races start? This has not been shown and the slow migration would certainly it easier to track. Or as you had stated,were there different migrations going on at the same time,and the different races started at the same time frame?
Actually, it has been shown. There ARE no human races in biological terms, Mat. There are no stable, homogenous, inbreeding subspecies (which is what a race is) among human beings and there never have been.
Mathew: You must be kidding! There are no races?
I am sure you would be laughed at by the majority of
academic experts.
How can you be taken seriously is amazing to me.
You must have seen this:
Race, sex, gringos and life in Rio de Janeiro
Did these humans develop boats or domesticate animals? What type of housing did they live in?
When and what languages did they develop?
Thaddeus:
At this point, we don’t even know for certain when humans left Africa, but it was prior to full behaviorial modernity, which means the development of language and what we now call culture.
Without language and culture, pre-modern humans probably didn’t have boats, domesticated animals or any kind of housing except perhaps the most primitive. All of this stuff developed WELL AFTER we were out of Africa, so the most likely answers to your questions are “No, no and in caves or under hides draped from trees”.
Mathew: wow,so we know so much about ancient man and pre-humans,but we everything is a mystery of how
modern civilisation just suddenly popped up out of the blue
Mathew:Can you explain how the pyramids of Egypt were built or the pyramids in Central America,or the megalithic -monolithic structures of the pacific built?
Thaddeus:
Sure, Mat. There are several easily digested books on all of those topics but I suggest you start with “Pyramid” by David Macaulay. It’s got lots of nice pictures which are hard to misinterpret. There is PLENTY of evidence regarding what tools they used, Mat. I mean REAMS of it. Those “Chariot of the Gods” type authors you are reading are lying to you when they say there isn’t any.
Mathew: I like the move Chariots of the Gods but never read the book.
I like Graham Hancock though have not read his books,just articles
But why should I should I believe that a primitive society
would or could build such as the pyramids in Egypt,when they had not the basic of modern tools to do such,such as the lever or having no wheel,in Central America and Egypt?
Why is there no book by Egyptians on on how they built them?
What about in Nan Madol,the third largest structure inthe world was made by people who had no metal tools or transport to move 250 tons of basalt logs to manmade islands.
Should I believe the Pohnpein theory on how Nan Madol was made,or white archaeologists?
I am a student of Hermetic Science,which differs a bit on creationism but it does believe in the Creative Principle for the Universe and all Life within.
Thaddeus:
In other words, you are the student of a religious philosophy and you haven’t a clear idea as to what distinguishes religion, philosophy and science.
Mathew:Obviously you are not familiar with Hermetic Science,of which you would know that Plato and Pythagorus were Hemertics and I do believe there
are touted as looney creationists as you like to do :_)
LikeLike
Thaddeus
Mat, how about no copypasta? It’s annoying.
Here is much more recent information about the human-neanderthal link:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html
Time Magazine, not the best science source, but this news was brayed to the four corners of the Earth, so Time is probably the most acceptable and easy to access source for you.
Mathew:Probably for reasons of hype,selling their magazines
Else wise it would show that scientists disagree amongst themselves
I cut and paste because I was having problems posting links
Neanderthals not related to man:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020421
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/tech/main596026.shtml
LikeLike
Mathew: Wasn’t Charles Darwin a creationist at one point in his life?
I noticed that you spelled your own name incorrectly their, MatThew. 😀
Darwin was a creationist, then he looked at the evidence and developed his theory over the course of a lifetime.
Yes how does evolution explain the cognitive ability to reason?
“The cognitive ability to reason” is redundant, Mat. And it explains it the same way it explains everything else: incremental changes over a very long period of time.
For what it’s worth, however, we don’t really know what caused the leap into abstract thought. It could have been a sudden genetic mutation, it could have been a very gradual accumulation of abilities over hundreds of thousands of years. Jury’s still out on this one, though I personally favor the second interpretation.
You must be kidding! There are no races?
I am sure you would be laughed at by the majority of
academic experts.
Nope. No biological races. I suggest you look at this here. It’s the best take on the topic for laymen and gets used in freshman university classrooms the wide world over:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
For what it’s worth, Mat, this view of race is the baseline view of this very site. See:
Race, sex, gringos and life in Rio de Janeiro
Apparently you didn’t read what I said very carefully: race does not exist among humans as a BIOLOGICAL entity. It is a socio-historical construct. Because of this, it’s not properly in the balliwick of evolutionary theory.
Or to answer your question another way, the “races” began around 1600-1700 AD when Europeans first started asserting that there was some sort of stable, homogenous human subspecies. Modern genetics has since proven this theory wrong.
wow,so we know so much about ancient man and pre-humans,but we everything is a mystery of how
modern civilisation just suddenly popped up out of the blue
Matthew, 500,000 years of evolution is hardly “popped out of the blue”. Hell, the 50,000 years of CULTURAL development which has occured since the invention of speach and culture is likewise not “popped out of the blue”.
I like Graham Hancock though have not read his books,just articles.
I figured. Hancock is one of the worst snakeoil salesmen out there. He makes his money off of people like you, folks with great romantic ideas but no patience for fact checking.
A word to the wise, Matthew: Graham Hancock lies. He lies a lot. In fact, it’s hard to find a page of any of his works that doesn’t contain a lie or a very gross exageration.
But why should I should I believe that a primitive society would or could build such as the pyramids in Egypt,when they had not the basic of modern tools to do such,such as the lever or having no wheel,in Central America and Egypt?
Because:
A) We know how they did it and it’s not at all impossible.
B) We have ample proof of how they did it.
c) Modern tools weren’t necessaru to do it, in spite of the lies that Hancock may have inserted into your head. All that was needed was a workforce of a couple of tens of thousands of people and some decades of work.
The pyramids weren’t a particularly complicated engineering feat, Mat, just very, very big.
Btw, every single building technique used on the pyramid has been proven to work, repeatedly.
Why is there no book by Egyptians on on how they built them?
Because Egyptians didn’t write books. We do, however, have many models, scrolls and illustrations of various parts of the building process. There’s plenty of evidence on this, Mat.
What about in Nan Madol,the third largest structure inthe world was made by people who had no metal tools or transport to move 250 tons of basalt logs to manmade islands.
Should I believe the Pohnpein theory on how Nan Madol was made,or white archaeologists?
You’ll notice that Polynesian archeologists happen to be in agreeance with all toher types of archeologists on this one, Mat.
Mat, Egyptian, Peruvian and Polynesian scholars and archeologists tend to think that guys like you are racist. Why? Because you look at the great engineering feats of these so-called primitive peoples and you just can’t believe that they could’ve been done the wya they were done. So instead of believing the evidence, you believe they were built by Gods or ancient astronauts or what have you.
You are hardly given these ancient peoples justice when you belittle their work as “impossible” Mat.
Obviously you are not familiar with Hermetic Science,of which you would know that Plato and Pythagorus were Hemertics and I do believe there
are touted as looney creationists as you like to do
Neither of those gentlemen were escientists: they were philosophers.
Mat, seriously: learn to distinguish between science, philosophy, religion and simple wishful thinking.
LikeLike
Here’s an easily-understood article on how the pyramids were built, Mat.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlifts.htm
LikeLike
Mathew: Wasn’t Charles Darwin a creationist at one point in his life?
Thaddeus:I noticed that you spelled your own name incorrectly their, MatThew. 😀
Mathew: What are you refering to Thaddeus,maybe you are looking at something I don’t see?
Darwin was a creationist, then he looked at the evidence and developed his theory over the course of a lifetime.
Mathew: Darwin was a creationist but became an atheist or agnostic after his young daughter died.
Mathew:
Yes how does evolution explain the cognitive ability to reason?
Thaddeus:
“The cognitive ability to reason” is redundant, Mat. And it explains it the same way it explains everything else: incremental changes over a very long period of time.
Mathew: Redundant my arse!
This is the most important aspect of man’s evolution
of how man became an intellectual being that he is and you say it is redundant?
For what it’s worth, however, we don’t really know what caused the leap into abstract thought. It could have been a sudden genetic mutation, it could have been a very gradual accumulation of abilities over hundreds of thousands of years. Jury’s still out on this one, though I personally favor the second interpretation.
Mathew: Another load of bunk!
If you will understand why you said about humans evolving
that a baby develops from not being able to speak to an adult that is capable of talking,reading,writing ,doing
complex mathematics,chemistry,learning different languages,and the whole span of disciplines and sciences that humans ,in the span of 22 or so years.
This cognitive ability is already set in the mental-brain structure makeup of the human for this feat,
while it takes a 100,000 years for a ancient man to learn to talk ! ?
A physical mutation of a primitive animal has no way of
bringing abstract reasoning of consciousness of what
a human has.
This trait has to already exist in the being for such to happen,and this why human brains are completely unique
to humans.
I would like to know how many specimens of ancient or pre humans science has accumulated.
Race, sex, gringos and life in Rio de Janeiro
Thaddeus:
Apparently you didn’t read what I said very carefully: race does not exist among humans as a BIOLOGICAL entity. It is a socio-historical construct. Because of this, it’s not properly in the balliwick of evolutionary theory.
Mathew: Races or racial ethnicites exist,phenotypes and genotypes,of course there is the main human race,but
you can certainly tell that there are different peoples
but culturally of course race has always been a factor
throughout history.
Mathew:
I like Graham Hancock though have not read his books,just articles.
Thaddeus:I figured. Hancock is one of the worst snakeoil salesmen out there. He makes his money off of people like you, folks with great romantic ideas but no patience for fact checking.
Mathew: I figured too,Thad,another scathing indictment
from you when I told you I have not even read his books.
It seems like you do this from a fear based reason.
I would say that Graham did say some very accurate things when he bravely told how the U.N. is place where
overpaid,corrupt bureaucrats reside,and why he resigned from the place.
Mathew:
But why should I should I believe that a primitive society would or could build such as the pyramids in Egypt,when they had not the basic of modern tools to do such,such as the lever or having no wheel,in Central America and Egypt?
Thad:
Because:
A) We know how they did it and it’s not at all impossible.
B) We have ample proof of how they did it.
c) Modern tools weren’t necessaru to do it, in spite of the lies that Hancock may have inserted into your head. All that was needed was a workforce of a couple of tens of thousands of people and some decades of work.
The pyramids weren’t a particularly complicated engineering feat, Mat, just very, very big.
Mathew: Wrong again. The pyramids are avery complex
and if there were so easy or have the proof to do such
they would have been built again today.
The Egyptians could not afford thousands of men to work on pyramids while the chores of life then required full time
work,farming ,also these people would have been used in
army in national defence or defence of the Pharoahs.
But why does a culture do a quantum leap in building things that are beyond their own standards,if the average Egyptian had lived in such undeveloped
status,and thus the Pharaohs had this built for them?
Were the mass of the people slaves or not part of the
high caste culture of the Pharoahs?
The most famous pyramids are the Egyptian pyramids — huge structures built of brick or stone, some of which are among the world’s largest constructions. The age of the pyramids reached its zenith at Giza in 2575-2150 B.C.[3] As of 2008, some 138 pyramids have been discovered in Egypt.[4][5] The Great Pyramid of Giza is the largest in Egypt and one of the largest in the world. Until Lincoln Cathedral was finished in AD 1311, it was the tallest building in the world. The base is over 52,600 square meters in area
onstruction Unequaled by Modern Technology
* Like 20th century bridge designs, the Pyramid’s cornerstones have balls and sockets built into them. Several football fields long, the Pyramid is subject to expansion and contraction movements from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years it’s structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction.
* While the bulk of the Pyramid’s core was constructed of 4,000- to 40,000-pound blocks of soft limestone, the outer layer of the Pyramid was made of a beautifully bright, protective layer of polished stone. These outer “casing stones” are missing today because about 600 years ago they were stolen by Arabs, (This accounts for the very worn appearance of the Pyramid today, since the inner limestone blocks are not immune to attack by the elements-wind, rain, and sandstrom.) This protective covering was made up of 100-inch-thick, 20-ton block of hard, white limestone, similar to marble but superior in hardness and in durability against the elements.
The Great Pyramid did not always look as “rough” as it does today.
Originally it was encased with a layer of tight-fitting, highly polished 20-ton stone slabs.
# Thirty times larger than the Empire State Building, the Pyramid’s features are so large they can be seen from the Moon.
# Its base covers 13.6 acres (equal to seven midtown Manhatten city blocks), each side being greater than five acres in area.
* The casing stones, 144,000 in all, were so brilliant that they could literally be seen from the mountains of Israel hundreds of miles away. On bright mornings and late afternoons, sunlight reflected by this vast mirrored surface of 5-1/4 acres distinguished the Pyramid as being visible from the moon.
* The people of the area had viewed the Pyramid and its polished stones with awe for centuries. But when a 13th century earthquake loosened some of these casing stones, the Arabs recognized a great quarry of precut stones that could be used to finish off palaces and mosques. For instance, the casing stones were used to rebuild the new city of El Kaherah plus Cairo mosques and palaces, including the Mosque of Sultan Hasan.
* Amazingly, the outside surface stones are cut within 0.01 (1/100th) inch of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. And they were placed together with an intentional gap between them of 0.02 inch. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid.
* Even more amazing is that the 0.02-inch gap was designed to allow space for glue to seal and hold the stones together. A white cement that connected the casing stones and made them watertight is still intact and stronger than the blocks that it joins.
LikeLike
Mathew:
What about in Nan Madol,the third largest structure inthe world was made by people who had no metal tools or transport to move 250 tons of basalt logs to manmade islands.
Should I believe the Pohnpein theory on how Nan Madol was made,or white archaeologists?
Thaddeus:
You’ll notice that Polynesian archeologists happen to be in agreeance with all toher types of archeologists on this one, Mat.
Mathew: And what is this Thad?
Mat, Egyptian, Peruvian and Polynesian scholars and archeologists tend to think that guys like you are racist. Why? Because you look at the great engineering feats of these so-called primitive peoples and you just can’t believe that they could’ve been done the wya they were done. So instead of believing the evidence, you believe they were built by Gods or ancient astronauts or what have you.
Mathew: Thad,you are wrong again.
The Pohnpeins I talked to,and this is in their own
legends,say Nan Madol was built by flying these stones through the air by magic.
Now why would they say this?
The people of Easter island also say that the Moai were put there by “Mana” and laugh when white archaeologists
have tried to pull fallen Moai and lift them upright,but never have been able to do such without something breaking.
Mathew:
Obviously you are not familiar with Hermetic Science,of which you would know that Plato and Pythagorus were Hemertics and I do believe there
are touted as looney creationists as you like to do
Neither of those gentlemen were scientists: they were philosophers.
Mathew: They were Mathematicians who developed
Theorems
Mat, seriously: learn to distinguish between science, philosophy, religion and simple wishful thinking.
Mathew: You are obviously biased in your opinions
and why attack things so much
Fear based beliefs.
LikeLike
I been away from computers for a while. Interesting how this thread has progressed/regressed.
@ Mathew:
So are you asking us to accept that evolutionary theory is false (despite it being accepted by every scientist worth their salt), yet wish that we believe in Polynesian legends about stones magically flying through the air?
@ Thad:
I basically agree with all that you have said here… but I must say I wish your arguments could come with a little less “attitude”, if you know what I mean.
LikeLike
Eurasian Sensation
I been away from computers for a while. Interesting how this thread has progressed/regressed.
@ Mathew:
So are you asking us to accept that evolutionary theory is false (despite it being accepted by every scientist worth their salt), yet wish that we believe in Polynesian legends about stones magically flying through the air?
Mathew: Eurasian,you missed my point about the flying stones. Thad was saying that Polynesians think that people like I am a racist thinking that the huge structures of Nan Madol could not have been made by the people of 1500 years ago,with the existing technology.
Here is good article on it.
Click on the first picture to go into the gallery
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Nan-Madol-The-City-Built-on-Coral-Reefs.html#
Not all scientists believe in the TOE and the ones that do have differing opinions all the time of things they keep changing.
Of course I don’t believe it as animals do not evolve into humans.
I will give an example of a mule,which is a cross between a donkey stallion and a horse. A mule is barren and cannot reproduce. This is on account of internal changes.
In crossing,two separate and distinct elementary compounds have been mixed together,resulting in throwing dual compound out of balance with the vital force.
These parts are the generative organs and generative secretions
If a new or more complex animal could be born or evolved from a more simple one,there is no reason why specimens of each form should not be found contemporary with each other.One where the change has been made,the other before it was made. Have such tow specimens been found together? Contemporary with each other?
It would seem to be impossible that millions of a species should make a date for a general change,then all keep it without a single laggard left behind.
If the elementary compound of the simple animal
was in balance with the vital force,and the elementary compounds of the more complex animal was also in balance
with the force,then there would be no reason why some of the gigantic reptiles of the mesozoic time should not
be found in the endless swamps of South America and Africa.
No real connecting link has been found between fishes and amphibians,amphibians and reptiles,reptiles and mammals,or monkeys and men.
The vital force is the element of life in the body that has to be properly balanced.
@ Thad:
I basically agree with all that you have said here… but I must say I wish your arguments could come with a little less “attitude”, if you know what I mean.
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
“No real connecting link has been found between fishes and amphibians,amphibians and reptiles,reptiles and mammals,or monkeys and men.”
Er, yes it has. Two words: FOSSIL RECORD. I’m not going to be bothered explaining why the T of E is correct to you, because there is information on it everywhere. And it is clear that you don’t believe it because you don’t understand it and don’t wish to.
Personally, I don’t really care if you believe in evolution or God or magic or whatever; that’s your right, and I’m not particularly driven to convince you otherwise. Except that when you are on a thread such as this one, your opinions don’t have a lot of credibility when you don’t believe in evolution.
“Not all scientists believe in the TOE and the ones that do have differing opinions all the time of things they keep changing.”
Virtually all scientists with even a hint of credibility believe in it. The details of the theories do change because that is the nature of science – building upon what is known, modifying it when new information becomes available, and speculating and testing new theories. Creationists and their like find this too uncertain, because they need someone to give them a simple answer when one does not exist.
LikeLike
http://www.zuko.com/CrypticSphere/Lost_Civilizations_Nan_Madol.asp
LikeLike
Eurasian:
Personally, I don’t really care if you believe in evolution or God or magic or whatever; that’s your right, and I’m not particularly driven to convince you otherwise. Except that when you are on a thread such as this one, your opinions don’t have a lot of credibility when you don’t believe in evolution.
Well again please tell that to the majority of people in the world,the Native Americans,or Polynesians,or Africans,or
Chinese or Arabs or people from India,who most all believe in
a creation theory and the culture of India is the oldest in the world,of which all their science has affected modern western science in one way or the other.
Here is something that was a blunder by scientists
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302131719.htm
Most scientists are atheists,while I have no problem with
that is that it clouds the reality that life can not appear
from mysteriously with out something creating it from a
order of balance and perfect harmony,of which the Universe is.
But of course the missing link has just been found
though everything in evolution has been proved and shown in the last 150 years,except the link between:_)
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/08/missing-link-man-apes-anthropology/
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
so some scientists made a mistake. And this discredits the whole theory of evolution how?
The whole need for a “missing link” is rubbish anyhow. There is no one missing link. Homo erectus, Australopithicus, etc etc are all transitional forms between apes and humans. (Humans ARE apes anyway, btw.)
LikeLike
Humans are apes?
How do you come to this conclusion?
I would say that dogs are more closer to man in intelligence and affinity
Man is said be more closer to Chimps than Apes.
http://www.amnh.org/news/2010/02/after-darwin-at-amnh-ian-tattersall/#more-822
There were…many reasons why Darwin should have been disposed in The Descent of Man to shrink from any substantive discussion of whether extinct human relatives might actually be represented in fossil form. The fossil and antiquarian records were awash with fakes
Limitations of the fossil record
Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record because the fossil record is nowhere near complete. Organisms are only rarely perserved as fossils in the best of circumstances and only a fraction of such fossils have ever been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the total number of of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, which suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived. Furthermore the fossil record is very uneven. Certain kinds of organisms, for example those without hard body parts like jellyfish and worms, are very poorly represented.[5]
Transitional vs ancestral
A source of confusion is the concept that a transitional form between two different taxinomic group must be directly ancestral to one or both groups. This was exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy was the attempt to identify taxa that were ancestral to other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the record is actually a direct ancestor of any other. In fact because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder like progression, and the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasized the concept of one taxonmic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the concept of identifying sister taxa that share a common ancestor with one another more recently than they do with other groups. There are a few exceptional cases, such as some marine plankton micro-fossils, where the fossil record is complete enough to suggest with confidence that certain fossils represent a population that was actually ancestral to another later population, but in general transitional fossils are considered to have features that illustrate the transitional anatomical features of actual common ancestors of different taxa rather than to be actual ancestors.[7]
LikeLike
Men are Apes
LikeLike
@ES
I basically agree with all that you have said here… but I must say I wish your arguments could come with a little less “attitude”, if you know what I mean.
Why?
ES, we’ve got a case of a guy who thinks that a 15 minute search on Google is enough to overthrow the work of millions of people.
Now THAT’S a ‘tude! That’s a breath-takingly arrogant ‘tude.
If the kid is going to set him self up as some self-taught expert in fields of study which he hasn’t even begun to look at, he DESERVES to take a few lumps.
Let’s put it this way: we are now on the internet where we do not play for real. Mat meeting a little bit of virtual scorn right now may be just what he needs to avoid making himself look like an ass in real life, later.
Because seriously, ES, claiming that an Australian aircraft mechanic has debunked Darwin is pretty damned stupid, as is claiming that you understand Darwin when it’s obvious that you haven’t read a single word of what the man wrote.
I’d say that polite folks such as yourself disresepect guys like Mat far more than I do precisely because you’re not willing to tell them what sort of fool they look like. But you definitely JUDGE them as fools, don’t you?
LikeLike
Whoops! “Mathew”, not “Matthew”. For some weird reason – brain fart or what have you – I thought it was the other way around.
Sorry.
Darwin was a creationist but became an atheist or agnostic after his young daughter died.
Source, please. And Mat, make it a reasonably trustworthy one. Someoen who’s actually read Darwin at least.
“The cognitive ability to reason” is redundant, Mat. And it explains it the same way it explains everything else: incremental changes over a very long period of time.
Mathew: Redundant my arse!
Well, I don’t know if your ass is redundant or not, Mat, but “cognitive ability to reason” certainly is, given that “cognition” and “reason” are synonyms.
A minor point, but still…
Another load of bunk!
You’re good at making blanket claims, Mat, but so far very bad at producing evidence. I’ll remind you that this debate started because you seem to feel that if science doesn’t explain everything, it can’t explain ANYTHING. Science is not an absolutist field of understanding, Mat, unlike religion or philosophy. Science is empirical: it goes on observable evidence. Fort some things we have yet to find any observable evidence. Whether or not the jump to abstract thought was quick or slow, accumulative or abrupt, we still do not know. What we DO know, however, is that it seems to be a logical progression of biological evolution: increasing brain sizes, increasing tool use, increasingly complex mouth structures. All of this stuff came around bit by bit, so my money is on the theory that culture and language likewise developed slowly.
But yeah, very little evidence, one way or another.
But this is where you jump the rails entirely, Mat, especially for someone who claims to be a scientist. Because we don’t know for sure, you think you can say “Bunk!” and just invent any old thing you like, screw the evidence.
That’s not how science is played, Mat. Science says you need to take into account the evidence that DOES exist in your new theory and account for it BETTER than the old theory. That is the only way you can legitimately say “Bunk!” to an established theory and create a new paradigm.
Presuming that you’re a scientist, that is, and not some kid putzing around on the internet with a few pet ideas gleaned from T.V. and pop novels.
And what does the evidence show us? Increasing intelligence and capacity for abstract thought all across the ancestors of the human line. Increasingly sophisticated tools and tool use., etc. etc. The jump to ABSTRACT thought is thus a logical progression of this line.
Now, of course, maybe the ancient astronauts DID INDEED come down, snap their fingers, and raise us up from the great apes. For that to be accepted as a rational hypothesis, Mat, it has to deal with the available evidence better than the evolutionary hypothesis. And guess what? It doesn’t. Because even the “short” hypothesis of the cultural explosion shows that it took tens of thousands of years. It did not just happen “out of the blue”.
If you will understand why you said about humans evolving
that a baby develops from not being able to speak to an adult that is capable of talking,reading,writing ,doing
complex mathematics,chemistry,learning different languages,and the whole span of disciplines and sciences that humans ,in the span of 22 or so years.
And here you go again, showing that you don’t even understand the basics of Darwin, let alone enough to mount a serious critique.
Mat, Darwin is talking about the evolution of SPECIES: not the evolution of individuals. The two are completely different. Furthermore, we don’t know whether or not babies CAN talk without someone teaching them. The available evidence suggests not. Unless an already speaking adult is there to teach a baby language, babies don’t just develop it on their own. It’s one thing to have the capacity to do something and another to do it. How long, then, did it take language to develop? Language is a very complex thing, relying on abstract thought. Without language, you don’t have abstract thought, without abstract thought, you don’t have language. Yes, it probably would take tens of thousands of years for a reasonably complex linguistic structure to be established. But in evolutionary time, this isn’t all that much.
And this is another main problem in your thought, Mat: you are constantly screwing up your time scales. Evolution takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. It took hundreds of millions of years for humans to evolve from our ape-like ancestors. Historical and cultural evolution takes thousands of years. It’s on a completely different time scale.
So you read a biologist who says human culture can about right out of the blue and you think that means it happened one fine Tuesday afternoon without taking into consideration what “sudden” means to an evolutionary biologist. 50,000 years is nothing on the scale of physical evolution. On the scale of cultural evolution, however, it’s a bloody looooooooong time.
So what has really occurred with the revolution in abstract thought is that human beings moved radically into a new time scale. Abstract thought allowed us to push “fast forward” on the evolutionary process. The change from the one state to the other is thus simultaneously fast and slow. It is fast from the perspective of biological evolution and slow from the perspective of socio-cultural evolution.
A physical mutation of a primitive animal has no way ofbringing abstract reasoning of consciousness of what
a human has.
Why not? You’re trying to prove a negative here, Mat. Furthermore, best evidence indicates that this is exactly what occurred. But yet again, you seem to misread the scale of evolution. There is no one single mutation which will make any animal into any other animal. It is a series of very small mutations, occurring over MILLIONS of years which very gradually shift species from one form to another. And this is precisely what we see in the fossil record with human beings and in their cognitive record as well.
This trait has to already exist in the being for such to happen,and this why human brains are completely unique
to humans.
Simply untrue. When a chain of DNA is “read” in order to reproduce it, its various components are often “misread”. Think of it as typing “teh” instead of “the”, or even “tge”. “Tge” is a completely new chemical combination and its effects are new. Mostly, they are so small as to be unnoticeable. Occasionally, however, they can produce big errors. This “misreading” and “misprinting” function of DNA is quite well known and observed, Mat, so your assertion that a trait has to already exist for it to appear is quite simply, factually, wrong. New traits are appearing all the time through this sort of mutation. You just don’t notice them because 99.99% of them make no difference whatsoever.
Races or racial ethnicites exist,phenotypes and genotypes,of course there is the main human race,but
you can certainly tell that there are different peoples
but culturally of course race has always been a factor
throughout history..
First of all, there is no such animal as “racial ethnicities”. Ethnicity and race are two separate concepts. Race presumes biological descent and ethnicity presumes socio-historical creation. Culture has exactly zero connection to race. There is no form of human culture that is specific to one race and learnable only by members of that race. Finally, the fact that biological race doesn’t exist DOES NOT mean that human beings are biologically all the same. In fact, it means quite the opposite: we do not have enough HOMOGENEITY in our genotypes for stable, homogenous and discrete subspecies to exist. There is as much genetic diversity between two members of the same “race” on average, as there is between two people from different “races”. There is thus nothing like subspecies among humans, Mat. This point has been empirically demonstrated time and again and the fact that you think that it would be laughed out of a university classroom only demonstrates how little you know about what’s actually being taught regarding race and biology in today’s universities.
Wrong again. The pyramids are avery complex
and if there were so easy or have the proof to do such
they would have been built again today.
Why in heavens name would anyone WANT to build a pyramid today, Mat? They could be built, but why waste money that way?
We could also build medieval cathedrals, Mat, but we don’t for the same reason we don’t build pyramids. So are you claiming that ancient astronauts built medieval cathedrals too?
But why does a culture do a quantum leap in building things that are beyond their own standards,if the average Egyptian had lived in such undeveloped
status,and thus the Pharaohs had this built for them?
First of all, what “quantum leap” are you talking about? Pyramids of ever greater complexity and size had been a-building along the Nile for THOUSANDS of years before the great pyramids were built. This was hardly an original idea which Cheops came up with over his afternoon tea, Mat. The pyramids were a logical and incremental evolution of other pyramids which had been raised before. Secondly, what “underdeveloped status”? The Egyptians were very highly developed for their time and place.
Also, I’ve warned you before: please restrain from copypasta. If there’s something you think we should see, link us to it. You don’t do your argument any good by cutting and pasting massive sections of other people’s sites right here.
Thad,you are wrong again.
The Pohnpeins I talked to,and this is in their own
legends,say Nan Madol was built by flying these stones through the air by magic.
Have you talked to any Polynesian ARCHEOLOGISTS, Mat? If so, who?
Mathew: They were Mathematicians who developed
Theorems
Math is an abstract philosophical discipline, Mat. It is not empirical and it is thus not a science.
Not all scientists believe in the TOE and the ones that do have differing opinions all the time of things they keep changing.
That is the nature of science, Mat: it is not absolute and theories change as new data comes in. What science is, however, is empirical and accumulative. You’ll notice that despite the multitude of theories regarding Nan Madol, nobody is postulating unobservable, unreproduceable forces for its construction. Again, you main intellectual failure seems to be that you think that because we don’t have all the answers, that’s carte blanche to make up whatever the hell one wants. Scientists say “We don’t know yet how Nan Madol was built” and that’s license for Mat to start postulating the existence of brothers from another planet.
That’s not science, Mat: that’s bullsh**.
And you, my friend, are not a scientist: you area bullsh***er.
Do yourself a favor Mat: go back to school. A wiki education is no substitute for a real education.
LikeLike
Nan Madol and the pyramids were built as vacation getaways for Uranians(Originally from Uranus). So in essence I agree with you there. Now, onto other points. The human race is a failed experiment. Humans were created in the laboratories of Mars. To be exact, the Lotharians. Being the supreme egoists, they amalgamated the three races of Mars, yellow, black and white, which were blended into red. This mongrelized race became the dominant race on Mars. Eventually they were transplanted to Earth. Personally, I would have preferred they transplanted the green Martians to Earth. The men sound hot! The green Martians were, on average, between 10-12 feet tall. They have four arms! The only drawback is that they have four eyes on the side of their head! Who cares when the lights are out! Funnily enough, it has been posited that the white and green Martians were one and the same at one time! The original race, called the Burning, were separated by the Guardians of the Universe. They reproduced asexually(how boring), it’s a good thing they separated them.
The white Saturnians were developed by the Martians also. They were referred to as Koolars. The green Martians created/cloned the red Martians. Whereas the green Martians treated their creations as equals, the white Martians enslaved their clones. I can see where slavery came from based upon these incontrivertible facts. There have been known Martian?Human hybrids also. The white Martian scientist, A’mmon A’Amok, created 5 such hybrids, Sapling, Buster, Silhouette, Quaker and Blur. Unfortunate names! Buster for example was apparently a cross between Bizarro and Solomon Gundy. The black Martians referred to themselves as the First Born, perhaps this is where the scientists of today get their notion that mankind came out of Africa! Anyhow, I could write reams about the origin of man, however, I am getting typer’s cramp. Perhaps some other time. The neutrons in my brain are starting to overload, the eyes on the side of my head are starting to get buggy. I will regale all and sundry with more nonsense as soon as I’m rested.
“In the name of the Ninth Ray!” Then there’s Cthulu, a thoroughly evil creature!
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
Humans are apes?
How do you come to this conclusion?
I would say that dogs are more closer to man in intelligence and affinity
Man is said be more closer to Chimps than Apes.
I cannot believe you just wrote this. And I cannot believe we are actually having this conversation.
Chimps are a kind of ape. As are humans. Same body shape as us, high intelligence, yada yada. This is not rocket science.
This seems to indicate you know little about dogs, apes or humans.
Why am I even bothering with this, I ask myself?
@ Thad: I’ll leave Mathew all to you, I’m done.
Btw, my comment about your ‘tude was more in relation to J, to be honest.
@ Herneith:
Whatever you are smoking, I want some!
LikeLike
Personally, I think Nan Madol was built as a temple to Cthulhu. Probably by the same guys who built that temple on the Island in “Lost”.
I know that this is true because I saw it on the internet and talked with a couple of winos in a New York back alley who claimed to be from The Island.
And they would know for sure, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Whatever you are smoking, I want some!
You don’t need artificial stimulants my dear. All you need is the blessings of Issus.
talked with a couple of winos in a New York back alley who claimed to be from The Island.
Must have been the same winos I talked to, what a small world! Are you sure they weren’t agents of Cthulu?
LikeLike
I must say that this blog is getting funnier day after day! Uranus? Yeah, I know it’s juvenail, but it is so fkin funny!
Thad, J, all you guys. Don’t let the net craze get you. Or your egos.
Cthulu?? Whose been readin too much Alistair or occulta texts?
Hilarious! I thoughed this was just in South Park, but here we go!
LikeLike
@ES
Why am I even bothering with this, I ask myself?
@ Thad: I’ll leave Mathew all to you, I’m done.
I only due it because it’s good practice for keeping my own ideas in order, ES. Trying to explain basic biology to the absolutely clueless is great practice for trying to explain it to the moderately confused in the classroom.
Btw, my comment about your ‘tude was more in relation to J, to be honest.
ES, J has called me a racist and a white supremacist when it should be blindingly obvious by now that I’m neither – at least no more than anyone else who’s been brought up in a racist society and has had to reason their way out.
In the meanwhile, J is promoting frankly fascist, anti-semitic and even national socialist authors and ideas as “afrocentric”. Not only is he thus misinforming people, he is doing so very consciously.
And no one calls him out on this because he claims to be black.
I mean, don’t you find this rather interesting? I could log on this site through a proxy and, as long as I mouthed appropriate slogans, I could propagandize for white supremacists and racists to my heart’s content, as J is currently doing.
I think the debate between J and myself and the way it’s been taken very concretely demonstrates that anti-racism is more of a fashion pose for most people who comment here and not something that they’ve actually thought through. A flat-out declared fascist will have people’s sympathy if he describes himself as black. People are THAT ignorant when it comes to understanding the intellectual and historical roots of racism.
And why do you think I shouldn’t have a ‘tude towards a guy who links us to sites such as the über-racist “Metapedia” or that of anti-semite Michael Bradley, claiming these to be profound sources of afrocentric thought?
The more I look at what J is actually saying, the more I believe that he’s pissing on all of the non-white and anti-racist posters here. He’s hawking fascism as afrocentrism, ES. Pure, plain and simple. He fundamentally believes the exact same things as commentators such as RR and Steve Sailor.
This is someone who deserves less ‘tude?
LikeLike
Of course, we’re only mocking Mat’s ideas in this fashion because we are all secretly scared of the implications of the fact that Chthulhu built Nan Madol.
(Oh, and he built Las Vegas, too, but that’s another story entirely.)
LikeLike
Thanks Sam for the advice…
I am going to have a check if I can find this ‘Hugo’ and then get back to you…I mean my ‘ego’.
LikeLike
Thad,
Looking for support and sympathy elsewhere ha ha ha
As I said previously, if you are prepared to give it out. Then you should not be unwilling to receive it also.
This is an interesting comment regarding the Black members of the board, and how you view them, especially as no-one came to support any of us. In fact you were the only who had support from another commentator of the same kin:
Here are your disturbing comments toward the board
” In the meanwhile, J is promoting frankly fascist, anti-semitic and even national socialist authors and ideas as “afrocentric”. Not only is he thus misinforming people, he is doing so very consciously…
A flat-out declared fascist will have people’s sympathy if he describes himself as black People are THAT ignorant when it comes to understanding the intellectual and historical roots of racism”.
Surely as the ‘bully blog’ you can do better than this.
If you wish to criticise me then stick with that, I can handle it – but to stereotype and mis-characterise the whole board thus, is absolutely ridiculous, and in fact shows your role in your deluded state as the Great White Man here who has come, and given his time to educate the ‘natives’ and the natives in your opinion are ‘ungrateful’ because they do not need your assist, all within your imaginations of course.
Now can we leave me out of it -until the next time we have to meet toe-to-toe in the ring, and leave the Black members of this board alone, and allow this thread run on its related course of topic, or as near as…
LikeLike
You link us to white supremacist sites, claiming that they are great sources for information about race and you claim that notoriosu Aryanists are, in fact, afrocentric scholars.
And I’m the racist, am I?
Right, J. 😀
LikeLike
Yes, for also finding and bringing it to our attention. I showed you an idea within a book, nearly 25 years before the website you exist
LikeLike
edit
showed you an idea within a book, nearly 25 years before the website you FOUND existED
LikeLike
The author of the website and the book are the same guy. The author’s website sys the new DNA info on Neanderthals proves his contention that white people are “special”.
The author then spends about 15 pages of text ranting against Jews and proposing a global anti-semitic alliance to save the planet.
This is the guy who you describe as an afrocentric author, J: a white Canadian Aryan supremacist.
He was a racist and an Aryan supremacist 25 years ago when his book first came out. He is the same today.
And you call this man an afrocentric scholar. Just like you claimed the Nazi Metapedia is a good source for information on race.
Germany looks like they’re going to take third place in the World Cup, J, so while you’re at it, why don’t you declare this to be a great victory for Africa?
It would be on a par with all the other romantic nationalist German crap which you claim as “afrocentric”. 😀
LikeLike
J! :-DD “Hugo”! Alright!
LikeLike
…and Germany takes third place in the World’s Cup.
So I guess this is an afrocentric victory too, huh J? 😀
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
Humans are apes?
How do you come to this conclusion?
I would say that dogs are more closer to man in intelligence and affinity
Man is said be more closer to Chimps than Apes.
I cannot believe you just wrote this. And I cannot believe we are actually having this conversation.
Mathew: You are technically correct on humans being apes
as what scientists proclaim.
My mistake when I said an is closer to Chimps than Apes,as I was thinking of apes as being Gorillas
Humans are of the same genus as the other apes
but we are of a different species.
But chimps are different from gorillas and other apes
Chimps are a kind of ape. As are humans. Same body shape as us, high intelligence, yada yada. This is not rocket science.
Mathew:
Yes but humans are humans,chimps are smart but can they
go to school and college,get jobs and be productive members of society than just be clowns in the circus?
:_)
This seems to indicate you know little about dogs, apes or humans.
Mathew: I have 6 dogs,my beautiful Sheeba of 15 years just died(Ihad to put her to sleep she got tick disease)
I have had maybe 15 dogs in my life,so I think I know abit about the canine family and I can tell you that dogs are abit smarter than chimps.Not that chimps are dumb
but they just like to clown around too damn much!
Why am I even bothering with this, I ask myself?
@ Thad: I’ll leave Mathew all to you, I’m done.
Btw, my comment about your ‘tude was more in relation to J, to be honest.
@ Herneith:
Whatever you are smoking, I want some!
LikeLike
Thaddeus:
Personally, I think Nan Madol was built as a temple to Cthulhu. Probably by the same guys who built that temple on the Island in “Lost”.
I know that this is true because I saw it on the internet and talked with a couple of winos in a New York back alley who claimed to be from The Island.
And they would know for sure, don’t you think?
Mathew: Gosh,you seem like you wished you could be a
bona fide archaeologist :_)
LikeLike
To Thad:
Charles Darwin’s Views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.
— Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, cited in Peter’s Quotations, by Lawrence J Peter (1977), p. 45, quoted from James A Haught, “Breaking the Last Taboo” (1996)
LikeLike
Thaddeus writes:
Math is an abstract philosophical discipline, Mat. It is not empirical and it is thus not a science.
Mathew: Wow Thaddeus!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
Mathematics as science
Carl Friedrich Gauss, himself known as the “prince of mathematicians”,[27] referred to mathematics as “the Queen of the Sciences”.
Carl Friedrich Gauss referred to mathematics as “the Queen of the Sciences”.[28] In the original Latin Regina Scientiarum, as well as in German Königin der Wissenschaften, the word corresponding to science means (field of) knowledge. Indeed, this is also the original meaning in English, and there is no doubt that mathematics is in this sense a science. The specialization restricting the meaning to natural science is of later date. If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science. Albert Einstein stated that “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”[6]
Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper.[29] However, in the 1930s important work in mathematical logic convinced many mathematicians that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic alone, and Karl Popper concluded that “most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently.”[30] Other thinkers, notably Imre Lakatos, have applied a version of falsificationism to mathematics itself.
An alternative view is that certain scientific fields (such as theoretical physics) are mathematics with axioms that are intended to correspond to reality. In fact, the theoretical physicist, J. M. Ziman, proposed that science is public knowledge and thus includes mathematics.[31] In any case, mathematics shares much in common with many fields in the physical sciences, notably the exploration of the logical consequences of assumptions. Intuition and experimentation also play a role in the formulation of conjectures in both mathematics and the (other) sciences. Experimental mathematics continues to grow in importance within mathematics, and computation and simulation are playing an increasing role in both the sciences and mathematics, weakening the objection that mathematics does not use the scientific method.[citation needed] In his 2002 book A New Kind of Science, Stephen Wolfram argues that computational mathematics deserves to be explored empirically as a scientific field in its own right.
The opinions of mathematicians on this matter are varied. Many mathematicians[who?] feel that to call their area a science is to downplay the importance of its aesthetic side, and its history in the traditional seven liberal arts; others[who?] feel that to ignore its connection to the sciences is to turn a blind eye to the fact that the interface between mathematics and its applications in science and engineering has driven much development in mathematics. One way this difference of viewpoint plays out is in the philosophical debate as to whether mathematics is created (as in art) or discovered (as in science). It is common to see universities divided into sections that include a division of Science and Mathematics, indicating that the fields are seen as being allied but that they do not coincide. In practice, mathematicians are typically grouped with scientists at the gross level but separated at finer levels. This is one of many issues considered in the philosophy of mathematics.[citation needed]
Mathematical awards are generally kept separate from their equivalents in science. The most prestigious award in mathematics is the Fields Medal,[32][33] established in 1936 and now awarded every 4 years. It is often considered the equivalent of science’s Nobel Prizes. The Wolf Prize in Mathematics, instituted in 1978, recognizes lifetime achievement, and another major international award, the Abel Prize, was introduced in 2003. These are awarded for a particular body of work, which may be innovation, or resolution of an outstanding problem in an established field. A famous list of 23 such open problems, called “Hilbert’s problems”, was compiled in 1900 by German mathematician David Hilbert. This list achieved great celebrity among mathematicians, and at least nine of the problems have now been solved. A new list of seven important problems, titled the “Millennium Prize Problems”, was published in 2000. Solution of each of these problems carries a $1 million reward, and only one (the Riemann hypothesis) is duplicated in Hilbert’s problems.
Mathew: Here is working example of Math being a Science
by Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com/administration/index.html
Sorry if this is cut and paste,but as the Physicist said in the Wikipedia article above,Science is Public Knowledge
=Public Access :_)
LikeLike
To Thaddeus:
Is Mathematics a Science
http://www.arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index.html
LikeLike
@ Thad:
I figure J made a major error by linking to Metapedia without doing a quick check of what it really was. And I think J knows he f@cked up. So why keep going on about it?
Like I said, I have a lot of respect for most of your ideas, but being able to deliver them without excessively winding people up would be a good skill to learn.
LikeLike
First of all, Mat, I am disapointed that all you’ve done here is rewarm your Australian pastor friend’s argument. I specifically asked for something better. In second place, you don’t even CORRECTLY restate the argument and finally, from the errors you’ve made, it’s now quite clear that you haven’t the slightest clue as to what Darwin’s talking about.
Mathew: Thaddeus,that was not from Alex ,though I know you would relish it because of your fixation on religion
and its evil reign of terror in the fight against evolutionists :_)
But in an attempt to demonstrate why you’re out hunting bear with a popgun, let’s play Jack-the-Ripper and take your argument a bit at a time, shall we?
Evolution states that an animal becomes chemically more complex…
The very first sentance is wrong on two accounts, which takes some doing, Mat. First of all, darwin says absolutely nothing about chemical complexity, nor does his theory indicate that evolution work necessarily to greater complexity, chemical or otherwise. There are plenty of examples of evolution working towards less complexity.
Mathew:Is natural selection the only means of Evolution?
The second error has to do with a basic misperception regarding the unit on which evolution works: it is not animals, but SPECIES. Animals do not become more or less complex over time, Mat their progeny do in teeny, tiny increments. This is not only possible, it is quite easily OBSERVABLE. ANY child is going to be chemically different from both of its parents and this is provable fact, Mat, not speculation.
What evolution says is that errors in reproducing genes on a molecular level (which, again, is a process that has been amply observed in the laboratory and in nature) often create characteristics which were not present in either parent. When this occurs millions of times over hundreds of thousands of years, it is expressed in an incremental change in the typical body of members of the species. If the change positively adds to the species chances of reproduction and survival, it will spread throughout the species and eventually become common. If it impacts negatively, it will eventually die out.
But in any case, no single animal’s body undergoes the “chemical change” your Australian pal is on about.
Mathew:Chemical change would be of that from an animal to human,of which would require such drastic changes in the glandular and chemical output of the body to change to that of a human,if this evolution took place,because scientists have never taken into account these changes
that would have to happen,only the brain has become larger and they learned to talk,etc.
Do you understand what I mean?
What are the evolutionary changes that took places inthe
internal organs and glandular system,the nervous system of a lower primate that evolved into humans.
LikeLike
@ES
I used to think J was making major errors, but he continuosly to make them. Now I’m forced to admit that the guy knows very well what he is doing.
But don’t take my word for it, ES. Tally up what J believes about race and politics and compare it to a list of characteristics of fascism and you’ll see that there’s a strict correspondence.
After J linked us to über-Aryanist Michael Bradely’s “The Iceman Inheritance”, claiming it to be a good text for “afrocentric theory”, it became increasingly clear to me that, sadly, J is a member of that part of the afrocentrist movement which is blatantly and consciously recycling 19th century race theory and calling it “African”.
This is hardly as difficult or contradictory as it sounds, btw. The 19th century Aryanists basically believed that Aryan peoples were a specific, special and superior branch of the human race, distinguished by their ability to conquer other peoples. This is a wonderful theory for certain black nationalists because all one needs to do is change a few valences (conquest becomes evil, for example, instead of enobling) and voilá! You have an instant corpus of supposedly ‘scientific” work which supports your theory that biological races exist, that blood is politics and that there’s something seriously wrong with the white race.
What both traditional aryanists and afro-aryanists believe is in the “special” nature of the white race. Traditional aryanists believe that said “specialness” makes so-called aryan peoples superior: afro-aryans believe the opposite. Both groups believe in the fundamentally savage nature of Aryans. Traditionalists see this as a leg up in the Darwinian struggle between the various human subspecies. Afro-Aryans see it as a horrible and barbaric nature which must be suppressed at all costs for “true” humans to survive.
This ideology is very well mapped out in the writings of people J claims as the diaspora’s “natural” leaders. People like the current leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. If you read the Nation’s papers and other publications, you’ll see this ideology laid out for you in full.
Of course, this sort of thought has as much to do with Africa and African philosophical roots as Abagond’s Catholicism. It is a philosophy which is ultimately rooted in the romantic reaction to the French Revolution and all the so-called Afro-centrists have done is paint these thoughts up in black face.
But ES, I think that you are seriously fooling yourself if you believe J linked us to that site by mistake. That sort of worldview is fundamentally J’s worldview, as expressed here by him on numerous occasions.
The only difference is the valence J gives to various races. Where the tradional Aryanists believe that so-called Aryans are a special branch of humanity and thus superior. J believes that they are a special branch and thus inferior.
But like I said, a bad white theory doesn’t suddenly become good when you paint it black.
Go to Michael Bradley’s website and read it, if you can stomach it, and reflect that this guy is a major afrocentric theorist, according to J.
LikeLike
Mat, I’m all for discussions, even heated discussions. I enjoy writing stuff. It’s good practice and it helps me get my ideas down on paper.
There comes a time, however, when one needs to realize that certain arguments go nowhere.
I’ve posted several times above why evolution doesn’t move an individual from one state to another: it moves entire populations.
I’ve also corrected your basic misunderstanding that this sort of evolution happens in one fell swoop – from animal to human, in your words. It does not. It happens over millions of years in teeny, tiny increments and there is no clear cut border line between animal and human – or between one species and the next. One generation isn’t a rat and the next giraffes, Mat. That’s not how evolution works.
You’ev very tediously cut ‘n pasted this entire discussion into your post above, which – to my way of thinking – is a mark of disrespect for the people you’re talking to. Then you’ve proved yoursefl to be even more disrespectful – or perhaps simply ignorant – by showing one and all that you DIDN’T EVEN READ the post. If you had read it, you’d know that this “chemical change” argument of yours is so much pants because evolution does not postulate any radical chemical changes which would occur in the life of an individual – or even over dozens of generations, for that matter.
So answer me this, Mat: why should any of us bother discussing things with a guy who either won’t or can’t understand the very simple points we bring up? Refuting someone’s point, Mathew, isn’t a case of pretending that they never made it.
Either argue in good faith or piss off. Either is fine by me.
LikeLike
Thaddues:
I’ve posted several times above why evolution doesn’t move an individual from one state to another: it moves entire populations.
Mathew: Yes I know
I’ve also corrected your basic misunderstanding that this sort of evolution happens in one fell swoop – from animal to human, in your words. It does not. It happens over millions of years in teeny, tiny increments and there is no clear cut border line between animal and human – or between one species and the next. One generation isn’t a rat and the next giraffes, Mat. That’s not how evolution works.
Mathew: Yes Thad.
You are not answering the question then,
Scientists have never found any complete ancient human
of which would consist of internal organs,the brain,
to even test like a forensic scientist would
Understandably so,since they would all decay.
So they work for the most part on fossils with no
of which many are not complete.
I have posted significant information on the evidence that
humans are not related to Neanderthal man,posted by reputable scientists.
I have shown the oral stories of people around the world
which tell of man being created,along with the animals,plants and life on earth.
I posted a question on natural selection you never answered by a distinquished scientist,which you did not answer,because you disagree with it
===
Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?
Evolution has several mechanisms.
Genetic drift involves random changes.
Futuyma: No, certainly not. There cannot be evolution without genetic variation in the first place. So there must be mutation and often recombination to generate the different genotypes or the different versions of the genes, known as alleles, which then may or may not make a difference in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. You can’t have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation, and perhaps recombination, giving rise to genetic variation. But once you have genetic variation, there are basically two major possibilities:
Natural selection is more consistent, adaptive change.
* First, there is simply no difference between the different genotypes or different genes in their impact on survival or reproduction, and in that case, you can have random changes of one versus the other type in a population or a species until eventually one replaces the other. That is an evolutionary change. It happens entirely by chance, by random fluctuations. That is what we call the process of genetic drift.
* Genetic drift is very different from possibility number two, natural selection, which is a much more consistent, predictable, dependable change in the proportion of one gene vs. another, one genotype vs. another. Why? Simply because there is some consistent superiority, shall we way, of one genotype vs. another in some feature that affects its survival or some feature affecting its reproductive capabilities.
A world- renowned scientist, Douglas Futuyma is professor of evolutionary biology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has been president of the Society for the Study of Evolution and the American Society of Naturalists. He was the editor of Evolution and Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Futuyma received the Sewall Wright Award from the American Society of Naturalists, has been a Guggenheim Fellow, and was a Fulbright Fellow in Australia. Along with his many scientific publications, he is the author of Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed., 1998, Sinauer Assoc.), a textbook widely used in undergraduate- and graduate-level biology courses. Dr. Futuyma is also the author of Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (1995, Sinauer Assoc.), an introduction to the creation-evolution controversy from the perspective of a scientist. His new textbook, Evolution (Sinauer Assoc.), will be published early in 2005. Futuyma received his B.S. at Cornell University and his M.S. and Ph.D. (1969) in the Department of Zoology of the University of Michigan, where he studied with Lawrence Slobodkin. Futuyma was interviewed at the AIBS Symposium “Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation” at the 2004 NABT convention.
LikeLike
Interesting Twist in the Accepted Theory
New research forces U-turn in population migration theory
Research led by the University of Leeds has discovered genetic evidence that overturns existing theories about human migration into Island Southeast Asia (covering the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysian Borneo) – taking the timeline back by nearly 10,000 years.
Prevailing theory suggests that the present-day populations of Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) originate largely from a Neolithic expansion from Taiwan driven by rice agriculture about 4,000 years ago – the so-called “Out of Taiwan” model.
However an international research team, led by the UK’s first Professor of Archaeogenetics, Martin Richards, has shown that a substantial fraction of their mitochondrial DNA lineages (inherited down the female line of descent), have been evolving within ISEA for a much longer period, possibly since modern humans arrived some 50,000 years ago.
Moreover, the lineage can be shown to have actually expanded in the opposite direction – into Taiwan – within the last 10,000 years.
Says Professor Richards: “I think the study results are going to be a big surprise for many archaeologists and linguists on whose studies conventional migration theories are based. These population expansions had nothing to do with agriculture, but were most likely to have been driven by climate change – in particular, global warming and the resulting sea-level rises at the end of the Ice Age between 15,000-7,000 years ago.”
At this time the ancient continent known as Sundaland – an extension of the Asian landmass as far as Borneo and Java – was flooded to create the present-day archipelago.
Although sea-level rise no doubt devastated many communities, it also opened up a huge amount of new coastal territory for those who survived(1). The present-day coastline is about twice as great as it was 15,000 years ago.
“Our genetic evidence suggests that probably from about 12,000 years ago these people began to recover from the natural catastophes and expanded greatly in numbers, spreading out in all directions, including north to Taiwan, west to the Southeast Asian mainland, and east towards New Guinea. These migrations have not previously been recognised archaeologically, but we have been able to show that there is supporting evidence in the archaeological record too.”
###
The interdisciplinary research team comprised colleagues from Leeds, Oxford, Glasgow, Australia and Taiwan. The study was funded by the Bradshaw Foundation and the European Union Marie Curie Early Stage Training program and is published in the current issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution (MBE).
LikeLike
I have posted significant information on the evidence that humans are not related to Neanderthal man,posted by reputable scientists.
Yes you have. That information is several years old now and was recently overturned by new and better findings. I posted a link to a pop-cultural article about those findings above.
So yes, Mat, neanderthals are related to humans. We could even interbreed.
And this is the problem with arguing with you: you make pretend these things were never discussed and hew to positions which have been shown to be false. You repeat these positions, as if repeating them were to make them any better.
So as I said before, either debate in good faith or piss off. It’s all the same to me.
What I won’t do, however, is waste my time repeating the stuff that I’ve already written.
LikeLike
Thaddeus:
The second error has to do with a basic misperception regarding the unit on which evolution works: it is not animals, but SPECIES. Animals do not become more or less complex over time, Mat their progeny do in teeny, tiny increments. This is not only possible, it is quite easily OBSERVABLE. ANY child is going to be chemically different from both of its parents and this is provable fact, Mat, not speculation.
Mathew: Yes ,because the child carries genes from
both of his parents.
Now can you explain twins?
What evolution says is that errors in reproducing genes on a molecular level (which, again, is a process that has been amply observed in the laboratory and in nature) often create characteristics which were not present in either parent. When this occurs millions of times over hundreds of thousands of years, it is expressed in an incremental change in the typical body of members of the species. If the change positively adds to the species chances of reproduction and survival, it will spread throughout the species and eventually become common. If it impacts negatively, it will eventually die out.
Mathew: Are you talking about mutations?
What role does DNA play in natural selection and evolution
in this question,what makes different species unable to
mate,produce off offspring?
Or why do the ones that do mate,their offspring
are sterile?
LikeLike
Mathew:
I have posted significant information on the evidence that humans are not related to Neanderthal man,posted by reputable scientists.
Thaddeus:
Yes you have. That information is several years old now and was recently overturned by new and better findings. I posted a link to a pop-cultural article about those findings above.
So yes, Mat, neanderthals are related to humans. We could even interbreed.
Mathew: Oh yes why can’t these scientists make up their minds,saying something then a year later saying something else;they can’t even agree with each other
And this is the problem with arguing with you: you make pretend these things were never discussed and hew to positions which have been shown to be false. You repeat these positions, as if repeating them were to make them any better.
Mathew:No I pose a significant point about the paradigm
in science ,amongst scientists themselves.
Thaddeus:
So as I said before, either debate in good faith or piss off. It’s all the same to me.
What I won’t do, however, is waste my time repeating the stuff that I’ve already written.
Mathew:
Yes the expert explains on Neanderthals,explains here why people such as yourself,can only rant loudly
when they get subjective and irrational
MAPPING THE NEANDERTHAL GENOME [7.4.09]
A Conversation with Svante Pääbo
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paabo09/paabo09_index.html
In the public media we’re pretty much depicted as saying there was absolutely no mixture. It’s very hard to convey these subtle messages to the public. If you read our papers, we say very carefully that there is absolute proof that they didn’t contribute mitochondrial DNA. That doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have contributed other parts of their genome.
As an outsider to paleontologists, I’m often rather surprised about how much scientists fight in paleontology. And I am thinking about why that is the case. Why do we have less vicious fights in molecular biology, for example? I suppose the reason is that paleontology is a rather data-poor science. There are probably more paleontologists than there are important fossils in the world. To make a name for yourself is to find a new interpretation for those fossils that are extant. This always goes against some earlier person’s interpretation, who will not like it very much.
There are many other areas of science where we can agree to disagree, but at least we often generally agree on what data we need to go out and collect to resolve the issue and no one wants to come out too strongly on one side or the other because the data could, in a year or two, prove you are wrong.
But in paleontology you can’t decide what you will find. You can not in most cases go out and test your hypothesis in a directed way. It’s almost like social anthropology or politics — you can only win by somehow yelling louder than the other person or sounding more convincing. That’s perhaps the reason why paleontologists get so heated in these fights.
LikeLike
Nanu Nanu
:_)
LikeLike
^^^^^^^^
Dotar Sojat! May the Ninth Ray shine on you! May Issus protect you from the evil Cthulu!
LikeLike
Oh, c’mon! Cthulhu is here to save us from the evil Icemen!
LikeLike
Could it be that Paul the Octopus is actually a minion of Cthulhu…?
What say you, Mat?
LikeLike
Bike Humour
A Priest was about to finish his tour of duty, and was leaving his Mission in the jungle where he has spent years teaching the natives when he realizes that the one thing he never taught them was how to speak English.
So he takes the chief for a walk in the forest. He points to a tree and says to the chief, ‘This is a tree.’
The chief looks at the tree and grunts, ‘Tree.’
The Priest is pleased with the response. They walk a little further and he points to a rock and says, ‘This is a rock.’
Hearing this, the chief looks and grunts, ‘Rock.’
The Priest was really getting enthusiastic about the results when he hears a rustling in the bushes. As they peek over the top, he sees a couple of natives in the midst of heavy sexual activity.
The Priest is really flustered and quickly responds, ‘Man riding a bike.’
The chief looks at the couple briefly, pulls out his blowgun and kills them.
The Priest goes ballistic and yells at the chief that he has spent years teaching the tribe how to be civilized and be kind to each other, so how could he kill these people in cold blood that way?
The chief replied, ‘My bike.’
Enjoy your
day and remember to keep off the roads
when riding
someone else’s bicycle
LikeLike
<Could it be that Paul the Octopus is actually a minion of Cthulhu…?
No, he is a minion of Cthulia, Cthulu’s wife!:
One of Cthulu’s spawn supping on his/hers/its first meal:
LikeLike
First Pizza Chain Discovered
Written by C. Cranium
Tags: History, Archeology, Pizza, Pompeii
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
image for First Pizza Chain Discovered
Approach to Pompei Pizza.
Archeology in Pompeii never ceases to amaze and delight. The Pompeii dig is huge and vast portions of it have yet to be plotted, dug, and researched.
In an untapped area archeologists have now discovered what is likely Italy’s first pizza parlor.
Like all Pompeii dig sites the Pizza restaurant is perfectly preserved with a pizza oven, bar, and sitting area. The amazed scientists were ecstatic to find two wholly preserved fossilized large sized pizzas in the oven — double pepperoni and the archaic goat testicle and anchovy.
Pizza is almost as old as the Pope but its origins are more humble. The Pompeii Pizza dig site probably only sat a dozen patrons. The most amazing discovery was the inscription in the marble stone oven – Chang’s Pizza, Pompeii, Napoli, Roma.
Chang, a Chinese name, predates any known contact with Asia by Europeans. Marco Polo wasn’t until early thirteen hundreds which is almost thirteen centuries after the 79 AD Pompeii eruption. Scientists are baffled but conjecture has it that Chang is the long rumored Asian who explored Europe long before Marco Polo.
LikeLike
@ J –
Haven’t forgotten about that answer I owe you on my thoughts. I’ll try to respond later this evening if possible. (regarding early man, south america, etc…)
LikeLike
Cheers ColorofLuv,
What were your thought son that Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) last night…I mean the World Cup finals??
It would be good to hear your views since you seem to be quite knowledeable in this specific area.
LikeLike
An Atlantis in the Indian Ocean
(Review of Stephen Oppenheimer’s Eden in the East)
Koenraad Elst
One of the many insulting epithets thrown at AIT disbelievers is that they are no better than “Atlantis freaks”. Actually, this is not entirely untrue. Some AIT skeptics who have applied their minds to reconstructing ancient history, have indeed thought of centres of human habitation in locations now well below sea-level. When Proto-Indo-European was spoken, the sea level was still recovering from the low point it had reached during the Ice Age, about 100 metres lower than the present level. It was in the period of roughly twelve to seven thousand years ago that the icecaps melted and replenished the seas, so that numerous low-lying villages had to be abandoned.
After all, it is a safe bet that more than half of mankind lived in the zone of less than 100 m above sea level. In the context of the present debate on global warming, it is said that a rise in sea level of just one metre would be an immense catastrophe for countries like Bangla Desh or the Netherlands. The Maledives would completely disappear with a rise of only a few metres. But more importantly, most big population centres today are located just above sea level: Tokyo, Shanghai, Kolkata, Mumbai, London, New York, Los Angeles etc. If the sea level would rise 100 m, most population centres including entire countries would become a sunken continent, a very real Atlantis. Consequently, there is nothing far-fetched in assuming the existence of population centres and cultures, 10 or 15 thousand years ago, in what are now submarine locations on the continental shelf outside our coastlines.
In a recent book, Eden in the East: the Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia (Phoenix paperback, London 1999 (1998)), Stephen Oppenheimer has focused on one such part of the continental shelf: the region between Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Thailand, Vietnam, China and Taiwan, which was largely inhabitable during the Ice Age. Thinking that this was then the most advanced centre of civilization, he calls it Eden, the Biblical name of Paradise (from Sumerian edin, “alluvial plain”), because West-Asian sources including the Bible do locate the origin of mankind or at least of civilization in the East. In some cases, as in Sumerian references, this “East” is clearly the pre-Harappan and Harappan culture, but even more easterly countries seem to be involved.
Oppenheimer is a medical doctor who has lived in Southeast Asia for decades. He is clearly influenced by Marxism, e.g. where he dismisses religion as a means to “control other people’s labour”, with explicit reference to Karl Marx’s Das Kapital (p.483). His book is based on solid scientific research (genetic, anthropological, linguistic and archaeological), and is in that respect very different from the numerous Atlantis books which draw on “revelations” and “channeling”.
The most airy type of evidence, in its massiveness nonetheless quite compelling, is comparative mythology: numerous cultures, and especialy those in the Asia-Pacific zone, have highly parallel myths of one or more floods. These are not opaque allusions to Freudian events in the subconscious but plainly historical references to the catastrophic moments in the otherwise long-drawn-out rise of the sea level after the Ice Age. For, indeed, this rise was not a continuous process but took place with occasional spurts, wiping out entire tribes living near the coast. The last such sudden rise took place ca. 5500 BC, after which the sea level fell back a few metres to the present level.
According to Oppenheimer, the Southeast-Asian Atlantis, provisionally called Sundaland because it now is the Sunda shelf, was the world leader in the Neolithic Revolution (start of agriculture), using stones for grinding wild grains as early as 24,000 ago, more than ten thousand years older than in Egypt or Palestine. Before and especially during the gradual flooding of their lowland, the Sundalanders spread out to neighbouring lands: the Asian mainland including China, India and Mesopotamia, and the island world from Madagascar to the Philippines and New Guinea, whence they later colonized Polynesia as far as Easter Island, Hawaii and New Zealand.
Oppenheimer aligns with the archaeologists against the linguists in the controversy about the homeland of the Austronesian language family (Malay, Tagalog, Maori, Malgasy etc.): he locates it in Sundaland and its upper regions which now make up the coasts of the Southeast-Asian countries, whereas most linguists maintain that southern China was the land of origin. Part of the argument concerns chronology: Oppenheimer proposes a higher chronology than Peter Bellwood and other out-of-China theorists. My experience with IE studies makes me favour a higher chronology, for new findings (e.g. that “pre-IE” peoples like the Pelasgians and the Etruscans, not to speak of the Harappans, turn out to have been earlier “Aryan” settlers) have consistently been pushing the date of the fragmentation of PIE back into the past.
Another reason for not relying too much on the theories of the linguists is that Austronesian linguistics is a very demanding field, comprising the study of hundreds of small languages most of which have no literature, so the number of genuine experts is far smaller than in the case of IE, and even in the latter case linguists are nowhere near a consensus on the homeland question. Linguistic evidence is very soft evidence, and usually the data admit of more than one historical reconstruction, so I don’t think there is any compelling evidence against a Sundaland homeland hypothesis. Conversely, archaeological and genetic evidence in favour of the spread of the Austronesian-speaking populations from Sundaland seems to be sufficient.
It is quite certain that some of these Austronesians must have landed in India, some on their way to Madagascar, some to stay and mix with the natives. Hence the presence of some Austronesian words in Indian languages of all families, most prominently ayi/bayi, “mother” (as in the Marathi girls’ names Tarabai, Lakshmi-bai etc.), or words for “bamboo”, “fruit”, “honey”. More spectacularly, linguists like Isidore Dyen have discerned a considerable common vocabulary in the core lexicon of Austronesian and Indo-European, including pronouns, numerals (e.g. Malay dva, “two”) and terms for the elements. Oppenheimer doesn’t go into this question, but diehard invasionists might use his findings to suggest an Aryan invasion into India not from the northwest, but from the southeast.
But he does mention the legend of Manu Vaivasvata saving his company from the flood and sailing up the rivers of India to settle high and dry in Saptasindhu. Clearly, the origins of Vedic civilization are related to the post-Glacial flood, probably the single biggest migration trigger in human history.
The Tamils have a tradition that their poets’ academy or Sangam existed for ten thousand years, and that its seat (along with the entire Tamil capital) had to be moved thrice because of the rising sea level. They also believe that their country once stretched far to the south, including Sri Lanka and the Maledives, a lost Tamil continent called Kumarikhandam. If these legends turn out to match the geological evidence quite neatly, our academics would be wrong to dismiss them as figments of the imagination. But the Indian or Kumarikhandam counterpart to Oppenheimer’s book on Sundaland has yet to be written. This indeed is probably the most important practical conclusion to be drawn from this book: extend India’s history by thousands of years with the exploration of now-submarine population centres.
Another language family originating in some part of Sundaland was Austro-Asiatic, which includes the Mon-Khmer languages in Indochina (its demographic point of gravity being Vietnam) but also Nicobarese and the Munda languages of Chotanagpur, at one time possibly spoken throughout the Ganga basin. It is the Mundas who brought rice cultivation from Southeast Asia to the Ganga basin, whence it reached the Indus Valley towards the end of the Harappan age (ca. 2300 BC). In this connection, it is worth noting that Oppenheimer confirms that “barley cultivation was developed in the Indus Valley” (p.19), barley being the favourite crop of the Vedic Aryans (yava). Unlike the Mundas who brought rice cultivation from eastern India and ultimately from Southeast Asia to northwestern India, and unlike the Indo-European Kurgan people whose invasion into Europe can be followed by means of traces of the crops they imported (esp. millet), the Vedic Aryans simply used the native produce. This doesn’t prove but certainly supports the suspicion that the Aryans were native to the Indus Valley.
Concerning the political polemic, the usual claim that the caste system with its sharp discrimination was instituted by the invading Aryans to entrench their supremacy is countered by the finding that even the most isolated tribes on India’s hills turn out to have strict endogamy rules, often guarded with more severe punishments for inter-tribal love affairs than exist in Sanskritic-Hindu society. Here, Oppenheimer confirms that in the Austro-Asiatic and Austrone-sian tribal societies, where many of India’s tribals originate, inequality is deeply entrenched: “Yet the class structure which cripples Britain more than any other European state, is as nothing compared with the stratified hierarchies in Austronesian traditional societies from Madagascar through Bali to Samoa. (…) This consciousness of rank is thus clearly not something that was only picked up by Austronesian societies from later Indian influence.” (p.484) Social hierarchy is not a racialist imposition by the Aryans, but a near-universal phenomenon especially pronounced among Indo-Pacific societies including most non-Aryan populations.
Stephen Oppenheimer makes a very detailed and very strong case for the importance of the culture of sunken Sundaland for the later cultures in the wide surroundings. India too certainly benefited of certain achievements imported from there. What is yet missing is a similar study for the equally important and likewise neglected culture of the sunken lands outside India’s coast.
© Dr. Koenraad Elst, 2002.
LikeLike
Can we have some sauce with that copypasta, Matty?
LikeLike
Mamma Mia youa wanna somma sauce witha yu a pasta?
Heya youa lika marina,vongole,carbonera?
I thinka youa French piasano,no brasiliano hoy che?
Há todos os bons restaurantes italianos em Sao Paulo pela maneira? Minha tia disse-me lá era um grande lugar mas eu esqueci que o nome como era aproximadamente 40 anos há lhe agradece
Ciao
Matteo
LikeLike
Moon God Covered
LikeLike
on Sun 4 Jul 2010 at 16:39:52 Thaddeus
The problem with this whole negritos thing is that it’s based on a faulty understanding of how human genetic diversity works.
At it’s root, it’s basically a rewarmed version of the 19th century notion of polygenesis, wherein people believed that God created seperate races and placed them down in seperate Gardens of Eden. Like polygenists, people who believe in global colonization by negritos think that thinks like height, skin color and hair type are really solid and permanent genetic features which stay stable over time. In fact, all human populations carry the genes for the “negrito” biotype and the things that people find so notable about it (i.e. short stature and dark skin) can occur due to genetic drift in the course of less than 20,000 years.
Mathew: I diasgree with Thaddeus that all humans
genes for the “negrito ” biotype and genetic drift,
otherwise there would be populations all over the world,
even in Europe,that have genotypes negritos.
I would say that natural selection would be more relavent
thane genetic drift here.
LikeLike
Mathew, why don’t you go comb some monkeys, as we say here in Brazil? Or argue this crap with one of the legions of professors you claim to dialogue with?
I’ve said what I’ve said and I’m not going to repeat myself in order to accomodate what seem to be learning disabilities on your part. Either engage with what I’ve said, bring up new points or go comb monkeys.
Better yet, READ some real biology.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Piailug
Voyager guided rebirth of cultures
By Gary T. Kubota
The way-finding navigator from an island of less than a square mile who ushered in a renaissance in open-ocean traditional native sailing across the Pacific has died.
Mau Piailug, 78, died Sunday night and was buried yesterday (Hawaii time) on his home island of Satawal in the western Pacific, said Kathy Muneno, a spokeswoman for the Polynesian Voyaging Society.
Piailug was the navigator who reintroduced Hawaiians to traditional Pacific navigational methods using the stars, moon, wind, currents and birds to find distant lands.
In 1976 he was the navigator sailing aboard the double-hulled sailing canoe Hokule’a on its historic voyage from Hawaii to Tahiti.
The Hokule’a voyage supported the assertion that Polynesians were capable of long-distance voyages centuries before European explorers.
Piailug had suffered from diabetes for many years.
Polynesian Voyage Society President Nainoa Thompson said Piailug’s contribution to restoring the cultures of Pacific islanders was immense.
“Thousands of people are sharing in the sadness,” Thompson said. “His contribution to Hawaii and humankind is immeasurable.”
In the mid-1970s, Piailug chose to share his knowledge of Pacific way-finding with native Hawaiians when the island cultures here and in Micronesia were experiencing rapid westernization.
Piailug hoped that by sharing his knowledge, the information would be stored elsewhere and would be shared with his people in the future.
The historic Hawaiian voyage to Tahiti in 1976 helped to restore pride in Pacific island cultures and built bridges among various Pacific island cultures through double-hulled canoe voyaging.
Besides Hawaii, other island cultures have formed voyaging societies to promote native voyaging, including in Taiwan, New Zealand, Samoa, Fiji, Guam, Saipan, Palau, Chuuk, Pohnpe, the Marshall Islands and Tahiti.
Satawal island resident Thomas Raffipiy recalled as a youth the night when Piailug consulted with his family and made the decision to help the Hawaiians.
Traditionally, the knowledge was passed down through the family and did not cross cultures.
“It was a decision that he didn’t take lightly,” said Raffipiy, Piailug’s nephew. “He was among the youngest of the surviving navigators and hoped the knowledge stored somewhere with someone would come back. … Everything he said has come to pass.”
Ben Finney, a founder of the Polynesian Voyaging Society, said Piailug was driven to help by his vision of what needed to be done to revive native cultures through sailing, including Satawal islanders.
“He said, ‘That’s exactly what we need,'” recalled Finney, a former professor at the University of Hawaii.
Finney said Piailug became well known among Polynesians from New Zealand to Hawaii for the generous way in which he shared his knowledge of way-finding navigation.
“He was really an aid giver of ancient knowledge,” Finney said.
Piailug’s work came full circle during the 2007 voyage to his home island of Satawal, when Hawaii crews delivered the double-hulled canoe Alingano Maisu as a gift to Piailug.
That year, for the first time in a half-century, Piailug held a “Po” ceremony to induct master navigators into the Weriyeng school of navigation. The group included five Hawaiians and about 10 Micronesians, including his son, Sesario Sewralur.
Sewralur, the captain and navigator of the Alingano Maisu, teaches native navigation at a community college on Palau.
Thompson said to honor Piailug, the Hokule’a plans to sail around the Hawaiian Islands in the near future with crews of young people.
“It’s a very important time to focus on all our teachers, honor them and celebrate them,” Thompson said. “We know how much he loved Hawaii, and we know how much he loved the people.”
Piailug is survived by more than a dozen children and numerous grandchildren.
STAR-ADVERTISER / 1999
Mau Piailug, the navigator who reintroduced Hawaiians to traditional Pacific navigational methods, died Sunday at the age of 78. Piailug is shown explaining his star compass to the crew of the voyaging canoe Makalii in the chief’s meetinghouse in Satawal, Micronesia.
STAR-ADVERTISER / 2007
Piailug, right, inducts Hokule’a navigator Nainoa Thompson into a select group of Micronesian master navigators during ceremonies on Satawal.
More Photos
The way-finding navigator from an island of less than a square mile who ushered in a renaissance in open-ocean traditional native sailing across the Pacific has died.
Mau Piailug, 78, died Sunday night and was buried yesterday (Hawaii time) on his home island of Satawal in the western Pacific, said Kathy Muneno, a spokeswoman for the Polynesian Voyaging Society.
Piailug was the navigator who reintroduced Hawaiians to traditional Pacific navigational methods using the stars, moon, wind, currents and birds to find distant lands.
In 1976 he was the navigator sailing aboard the double-hulled sailing canoe Hokule’a on its historic voyage from Hawaii to Tahiti.
The Hokule’a voyage supported the assertion that Polynesians were capable of long-distance voyages centuries before European explorers.
Piailug had suffered from diabetes for many years.
Polynesian Voyage Society President Nainoa Thompson said Piailug’s contribution to restoring the cultures of Pacific islanders was immense.
“Thousands of people are sharing in the sadness,” Thompson said. “His contribution to Hawaii and humankind is immeasurable.”
In the mid-1970s, Piailug chose to share his knowledge of Pacific way-finding with native Hawaiians when the island cultures here and in Micronesia were experiencing rapid westernization.
Piailug hoped that by sharing his knowledge, the information would be stored elsewhere and would be shared with his people in the future.
The historic Hawaiian voyage to Tahiti in 1976 helped to restore pride in Pacific island cultures and built bridges among various Pacific island cultures through double-hulled canoe voyaging.
Besides Hawaii, other island cultures have formed voyaging societies to promote native voyaging, including in Taiwan, New Zealand, Samoa, Fiji, Guam, Saipan, Palau, Chuuk, Pohnpe, the Marshall Islands and Tahiti.
Satawal island resident Thomas Raffipiy recalled as a youth the night when Piailug consulted with his family and made the decision to help the Hawaiians.
Traditionally, the knowledge was passed down through the family and did not cross cultures.
“It was a decision that he didn’t take lightly,” said Raffipiy, Piailug’s nephew. “He was among the youngest of the surviving navigators and hoped the knowledge stored somewhere with someone would come back. … Everything he said has come to pass.”
Ben Finney, a founder of the Polynesian Voyaging Society, said Piailug was driven to help by his vision of what needed to be done to revive native cultures through sailing, including Satawal islanders.
“He said, ‘That’s exactly what we need,'” recalled Finney, a former professor at the University of Hawaii.
Finney said Piailug became well known among Polynesians from New Zealand to Hawaii for the generous way in which he shared his knowledge of way-finding navigation.
“He was really an aid giver of ancient knowledge,” Finney said.
Piailug’s work came full circle during the 2007 voyage to his home island of Satawal, when Hawaii crews delivered the double-hulled canoe Alingano Maisu as a gift to Piailug.
That year, for the first time in a half-century, Piailug held a “Po” ceremony to induct master navigators into the Weriyeng school of navigation. The group included five Hawaiians and about 10 Micronesians, including his son, Sesario Sewralur.
Sewralur, the captain and navigator of the Alingano Maisu, teaches native navigation at a community college on Palau.
Thompson said to honor Piailug, the Hokule’a plans to sail around the Hawaiian Islands in the near future with crews of young people.
“It’s a very important time to focus on all our teachers, honor them and celebrate them,” Thompson said. “We know how much he loved Hawaii, and we know how much he loved the people.”
Piailug is survived by more than a dozen children and numerous grandchildren.
LikeLike
Thaddeus
Mathew, why don’t you go comb some monkeys, as we say here in Brazil? Or argue this crap with one of the legions of professors you claim to dialogue with?
I’ve said what I’ve said and I’m not going to repeat myself in order to accomodate what seem to be learning disabilities on your part. Either engage with what I’ve said, bring up new points or go comb monkeys.
Better yet, READ some real biology
Mathew: Now Thaddeus I am actually pointing out something that you are being a hypocrite about,something which YOU
said and claimed has no relavence as Science,and what you are now touting.
Refering to the subject of natural selection vs genetic drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Genetic drift versus natural selection
Although both processes drive evolution, genetic drift operates randomly while natural selection functions non-randomly. This is because natural selection emblematizes the ecological interaction of a population, whereas drift is regarded as a sampling procedure across successive generations without regard to fitness pressures imposed by the environment. While natural selection is directioned, guiding evolution by impelling heritable adaptations to the environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the mathematics of chance.[19]
Thaddeus writes:
Math is an abstract philosophical discipline, Mat. It is not empirical and it is thus not a science.
Mathew: See the last paragraph above,Thaddeus on Genetic Drift,of which you proposed as earlier.
It seems to be based on Mathematics…..of chance.
Well and you chided me for my belief in Mathematics of
Pythagoras and Plato as being empirical science.
Man are you schizophrenic or just a someone who is totally
convoluted they are on a constant tirade of scathing and ranting against anything they deem Evil!
It seems like you have some deep personal problems you need resolved or you just have a terribly fragile ego
I think you have good aspects,as most humans do,but you need to take care of the things that are toxifying your
soul.
Peace
Mathew
LikeLike
Here’s a comb and here’s a monkey, Mat.
Knock yourself out.
LikeLike
Thad,
I would rather go the Carnavale :_)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113766/carnival_in_brasil/
LikeLike
Matthew,
I had problems understanding who said what, here whilst reading over teh post.
If you did not suggest this then do excuse me.
Mathematics is a sciennce, just like chemistry, biology and physics. There are some who might suggest it is the ‘purest’ science within the universe.
LikeLike
ES,
Cheers for your comments which I have just seen for the very first time with regard to Metapedia
With regard to the area of Philosophy regarding knowledge (ie epistemology), we have to be very careful.
Knowledge can come from all sources even from ‘racists’ etc.
Its what the source says with regard to the ‘facts’ rather than the source itself, which is the most important thing for those who love the ‘truth’. Notwithstanding at times you will have to look at the source also.
So with regard to metapedia it was used to bring forth the suggestion that the Native American are a ‘Mongoloid’ descent, and that ‘fact’ can’t be refuted.
So this is why Malcolm X suggest with regard to ‘learning’ your reading/research has to be ‘broad’, and not just according to things that make you feel comfortable or support ones ‘idealic’ world view.
I am sure you will understand
LikeLike
J
Matthew,
I had problems understanding who said what, here whilst reading over teh post.
If you did not suggest this then do excuse me.
Mathematics is a science, just like chemistry, biology and physics. There are some who might suggest it is the ‘purest’ science within the universe.
Mathew:
J,yes,well I posted this from wikipedia ,or also another site of a person who developed robotic devices for NASA as well as developed computer software,who wrote in reference to is Mathematics a true science,as he says so
LikeLike
Sorry, math is not a science: it is properly a branch of philosophy.
A science is necessarily based upon empirical investigation. Math is not.
LikeLike
So with regard to metapedia it was used to bring forth the suggestion that the Native American are a ‘Mongoloid’ descent, and that ‘fact’ can’t be refuted.
Actually that “fact” can and has been refuted. There is no set, stable, dicrete biological subspecies of humanity known as “mongoloid”. Racist theorists once believed this: today’s genetics have disproven it. This is why you’ll only find said “fact” in old textbooks or in racist, generally white supremacist, sources such as the Metapedia.
“Mongoloid” doesn’t exist as a subspecies, J, and it never did. Once again, why is it that all your understandings regarding race seem to end in 1920 and seem to cite precisely those white supremacist scientists which you whine on and on about in other contexts?
LikeLike
Thaddeus
Sorry, math is not a science: it is properly a branch of philosophy.
A science is necessarily based upon empirical investigation. Math is not.
Mathew: I am posting something from the web
that I will have to shows is copy righted by the physicist
below.
Notice what is states about Mathematical formulas of precision under the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method
by Donald E. Simanek
Too often the “scientific method” is presented in schools and textbooks as a “recipe” for doing science, with numbered steps even! That’s misleading. At the other extreme, someone said that scientific method is “Doing one’s damndest with one’s mind.” I know many have said more profound things about this subject than I will offer, but here’s some informal comments about scientific method presented as a set of practical and general guidlines for doing science. Scientists have learned these through trial and error during the entire history of science.
The Methods of Science
Even casual observation shows us that nature, as perceived by our senses, has reliable regularities and patterns of behavior. The use of measuring instruments and scientific apparatus confirms this and reveals even more, and even more detailed, patterns in nature. Through systematic and careful study scientists found that these regularities can be modeled, often as mathematical models of great precision.
Sometimes these models break down when extended (extrapolated). Extrapolation is the process of extending a model or law beyond its known range of applicability. Sometimes extrapolation of a law or model to new situations actually works, but sometimes it fails miserably. This tells us that we had better rigorously test each model for validity, in a wide range of situations, and these tests should be capable of exposing any flaws in the model. That is, they should be capable of demonstrating that the model isn’t completely true.
Even when a model survives such testing we should only grant it “provisional” acceptance. In the future, cleverer people with more sophisticated measuring techniques and a more advanced scientific conceptual framework may expose deficiencies of the model that we didn’t notice.
Full article here:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scimeth.htm
This document, written January 2000 and edited April 26, 2000, is © 2000 by Dr. Donald E. Simanek. It may be reproduced for non-profit educational purposes, provided it is not altered, and its copyright notice is clearly indicated. The author would appreciate notice of any published or internet uses of this essay, and a copy of the publication in which it is used.
LikeLike
Mat, that copypasta says nothing at all about math as a science, does it? It says math is useful in constructing hypothesis and models. Of course it is. Any philosophy is.
You are confusing philosophy with science because both are intertwined and both are rational. Philosophy, however, is not empirical and science is. Math, on its own, is not a science because it is not empirical. That doesn’t mean, however, that science can’t USE math. And that is precisely what Dr. Simanek is saying.
You really need to learn to read a lot more carefully, Mat.
Go look up “empirical” for one thing.
LikeLike
#
#
on Wed 14 Jul 2010 at 16:25:47 Thaddeus
So with regard to metapedia it was used to bring forth the suggestion that the Native American are a ‘Mongoloid’ descent, and that ‘fact’ can’t be refuted.
Actually that “fact” can and has been refuted. There is no set, stable, dicrete biological subspecies of humanity known as “mongoloid”. Racist theorists once believed this: today’s genetics have disproven it. This is why you’ll only find said “fact” in old textbooks or in racist, generally white supremacist, sources such as the Metapedia.
“Mongoloid” doesn’t exist as a subspecies, J, and it never did. Once again, why is it that all your understandings regarding race seem to end in 1920 and seem to cite precisely those white supremacist scientists which you whine on and on about in other contexts?
Mathew: True and False,Thad.
Mongoloid is correct term for a distinct branch of the human race. It is not a subspecies.
Native Americans,Indigenous people of the USA,or First Nations People(trying to find all the correct catergories 🙂
are said to be American Mongoloids for their race.
Is this incorrect,maybe so or maybe not fully correct.
There are actual definitions of race,unless you can better explain.
Though there are peoples who have a mixture of races in their make up and could be termed multiracial,or whatever race they like
LikeLike
Thaddeus
Mat, that copypasta says nothing at all about math as a science, does it? It says math is useful in constructing hypothesis and models. Of course it is. Any philosophy is.
Thad: How should I debate something without showing some evidence,of which copy and pasting clearly lets me do.
You can post things that are just your own believe bit with no empirical facts to back it up…the very reason I post something from someone who is reputable scientist.
You are confusing philosophy with science because both are intertwined and both are rational. Philosophy, however, is not empirical and science is. Math, on its own, is not a science because it is not empirical. That doesn’t mean, however, that science can’t USE math. And that is precisely what Dr. Simanek is saying.
Mathew: Thad, You did read that Dr Simanek said that Even Science is Not Always Empirical,as when Einstein
came and changed Newton’s set Empirical belief of the time.
Science is also a Philosophy.
Is Science dependent on Mathematics?
You really need to learn to read a lot more carefully, Mat.
Go look up “empirical” for one thing.
LikeLike
Cool Math
Try this. Take number 9 and x it with any number and then add up the sum total of all the numbers then you get 9
9×2=18= 1 +8= 9
continue
LikeLike
With regard to:
“There is no set, stable, dicrete biological subspecies of humanity known as “mongoloid”
However, on the phenotypical level there are variables and these variables have been used for thousands of years, in one way shape or form. And this is why we can say the Chinese or Native Americans belong to this sub-divison (ie Mongoloid) having an origin in the country of ‘Mongolia
No amounting of discrete variables etc is going to change this historical ‘fact’ at the societal level.
LikeLike
Who is this Dr. Donald E. Simanek??
Its one thing to know your subject and choose any link from google.
Its another not to know your subject and choose any link to support a theory that one knows little about.
Science per se is not the same as the scientific method
“As it turns out, science doesn’t require that evidence come from nature. If I invent an imaginary world with clearly expressed, consistent rules, I can use the rules to gather meaningful evidence about that imaginary world and I can shape a falsifiable theory based on observation. The result is scientific because the evidence looks the same to all observers, and because the derived theories can be falsified using evidence. Astute readers will see that this is more than a hypothetical argument — some mathematical systems represent just such an imaginary, detailed, internally consistent world amenable to scientific study”.
Conclusion? Nature is innately mathematical, and she speaks to us in mathematics. We only have to listen.
Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics “the queen of the sciences.”
http://www.arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/
LikeLike
Re: “Mongoloid”
I generally agree with Thad that there is no specific set of genes that neatly defines a group as Mongoloid.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, we need to have a term that refers to the people of East Asia, and it is clear that Native Americans are principally descended from East Asia.
I think this debate is largely over semantics. I agree we can be guilty of using outdated terminology, so Thad, if there are terms you deem more appropriate, please state what they are.
LikeLike
ES,
I think your very generous nature is coming to the fore again.
Its not just about ‘semantics’.
You have one commentator who wishes to re-write the ‘construct’ of ‘race’ with another ‘construct’ viz there is no such thing as ‘race’.
Whereas what you see in the real world is still the concept of race being moved from the phenotypical to markers in genetics,
And this is why we can still talk of things like a Eurasian genes, individuals being 30% African 50 Caucasian and so forth.
And also society being constructed along racial lines.
Those who advocate there is no such thing as a race, do not know or understand the socio-politics how this ‘idea’ ‘had’ to come about??
LikeLike
Is Math a Science?
Matthew.
Math began as a “science of measurement”–an empirical science. Often it was considered only a tool of science. But mathematicians soon realized that math was a form of logic, quite independent of science. It didn’t need science, and it didn’t need empirical experiment and measurement. It didn’t even need to relate to real-world problems. Its objectives were greater than mere description of nature. And so it developed on its own as a powerful logical system. Nowadays we sometimes hear the distinction between pure math and applied math. We find scientists sometimes borrowing mathematics from pure mathematicians when they need it. Sometimes scientists need math of a kind not yet invented, so they must invent it themselves. One nice example was the Dirac delta function, devised for understanding quantum mechanics. Dirac was trained as an engineer, though much of his work is now considered physics. Anyway, mathematicians got wind of this, and some were outraged. “The Dirac ‘function’ doesn’t even meet our definition of ‘function’, they complained.” Others looked at the idea and said, “Maybe its not a function, but it is darned interesting mathematically.” They played with the idea, tightened it up, and invented a new category “generalized function” to accommodate it. The Dirac delta function (and its related Heaviside step function) became standard (often the first ideas presented) in Fourier Analysis textbooks. And the generalized function idea led to other fruitful mathematical uses, both pure and applied.
But however math is used, it is not an empirical science. It can be a modeling tool of science, and a tool of scientific thought. We should never forget that math is not merely science and science is not merely math. In math, one does logical deductions from assumed perfectly true premises, and prove the truth of results, which are perfectly true in the logical sense. In a particular case this may or may not mirror something going on in nature. If it does, it is useful as a modeling tool in science, but since measurements in science are never perfect, the correspondence between math and nature is never perfect. The logical derivations in math are called “proofs”. This term should never be used in science–we never prove anything in science with the perfect certainty that we can prove things in mathematics. But that mathematical certainty may have no counterpart in the real world.
–Donald
LikeLike
J
With regard to:
“There is no set, stable, dicrete biological subspecies of humanity known as “mongoloid”
However, on the phenotypical level there are variables and these variables have been used for thousands of years, in one way shape or form. And this is why we can say the Chinese or Native Americans belong to this sub-divison (ie Mongoloid) having an origin in the country of ‘Mongolia
No amounting of discrete variables etc is going to change this historical ‘fact’ at the societal level.
Mathew:
J ,maybe this is not compeletly true.
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew.
Would you like to say what is it that is not completely true??
LikeLike
With regard to:
“It didn’t need science, and it didn’t need empirical experiment and measurement. It didn’t even need to relate to real-world problems. Its objectives were greater than mere description of nature”.
And this is why I suggested that there are many who see ‘mathematics as the ‘purest’ science’ within the universe.
This notwithsatnding that ‘science’ is a ‘construct’ derived from Renaissance Europe.
However, ancient civilizations also made many technological advances in places like Harrappa and Mohenjo Daro (India), Egypt, China etc even without the use of ‘science’ as we now know it.
So for this reason and consideration, even science has its own limitations with regard to knowledge (epistemology).
LikeLike
J
Cheers Matthew.
Would you like to say what is it that is not completely true??
However, on the phenotypical level there are variables and these variables have been used for thousands of years, in one way shape or form. And this is why we can say the Chinese or Native Americans belong to this sub-divison (ie Mongoloid) having an origin in the country of ‘Mongolia
Mathew: J,yes,I mean anthropologists say that Mongolia is the origin of the Mongoloid race(or Mongolic) but I don’t think this can be can be fully empirically true or proven,
because if they were the oldest branch of the Mongolic people,the parents of all others,they would be have a
older culture-civilisation,such as the Chinese do,being the oldest group of a people are suppose to have the highest development than their younger relatives or descendants.
The Chinese are said not to be true or full Mongoloids,because true Mongolics have the Mongolian Blue Spot on the base of the back when born,up til the the teen years in some people.
I am not fully sure if the lack of Mongolian Blue Spot is why the Chinese are presumed not to be fully Mongolics,I think it is what I had read by some Anthropologists years ago.
I believe that the Chinese had mixed with other peoples non Mongolic peoples Indo-Europeans thousands of years ago,possibly,and why they have the prevalence of this.
Though of course I don’t know if I am correct,but I can say that the Mongoloid people could have started in China or
in Manchuria or else where and spread out.
But I think the Chinese are the father of Mongolic peoples
The Mongols are notorious for spreading their genes via
being conquering nomads from the time Genghis Khan
and why they conquered all the way to Eastern Europe.
More question arise
LikeLike
Eurasian:
I generally agree with Thad that there is no specific set of genes that neatly defines a group as Mongoloid.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, we need to have a term that refers to the people of East Asia, and it is clear that Native Americans are principally descended from East Asia.
I think this debate is largely over semantics. I agree we can be guilty of using outdated terminology, so Thad, if there are terms you deem more appropriate, please state what they are.
Mathew:
Eurasion,it is true that Native Americans have genetic and cultural ties to East Asia,and there are tribes in California the language is related to some peoples in Siberia.
Though the I had posted a video on Indigenous languages of North America having some relations-connections to the Turkic language;this is proven.
This theory is that Indigenous people of the New World had
had genetics or cultural ties to people of Central Asia and had migrated to North America and downwards.
I also believe that Native Americans migrated from the pacific ocean and thus have polynesian or other pacific elements in them.
This is not as substaniated as the Asian theory though,the Chumash Indians own oral histories say they came from Hawaii origianally.
I see genotypes of Native Americans that look like pacific islanders more than they do East Asians also.
Though my belief is that Native Americans have
Mongoloid from the East Asian,they have elements of Caucasoid from the Turkic,and Polynesian or Pacific Island
races.
LikeLike
Mongoloid is correct term for a distinct branch of the human race. It is not a subspecies.
If it is not a race and not a subspecies, what is it, precisely, other than a historical term used by racist scientists, now superceded by our understanding of human genetics?
There are actual definitions of race,unless you can better explain.
There are actual definitions of astrological signs, too, but that doesn’
LikeLike
Mongoloid is correct term for a distinct branch of the human race. It is not a subspecies.
If it is not a race and not a subspecies, what is it, precisely, other than a historical term used by racist scientists, now superceded by our understanding of human genetics?
There are actual definitions of race,unless you can better explain.
There are actual definitions of astrological signs, too, but that doesn’t mean that the stars control your destiny. Biological race, like astrological signs, are systems of classification that are created by human beings and which inadequately explain or describe reality.
@J
However, on the phenotypical level there are variables and these variables have been used for thousands of years, in one way shape or form. And this is why we can say the Chinese or Native Americans belong to this sub-divison (ie Mongoloid) having an origin in the country of ‘Mongolia”.
Mongolia didn’t exist as a country 16,000 years ago when the first humans probably came to the Americas. Furthermore, not even the most idiotic classical racists believed that “mongoloids” came from the ACTUAL region that is today’s mongolia. Finally, in terms of phenotypology, Native Americans are incredibly diverse, both from each other and from and eastern asian population you care to name.
So no, this is not a good term with which to attempt to describe the human biodiversity of the Americas.
@Mat
Science is also a Philosophy.
Yes, it has philosophical aspects, yes. But science without empiricism is not science. Einstein did indeed philosophize, but that was to CREATE hypotheses. What makes Einstein’s many hypotheses SCIENCE – and not just pissing around in a mental bathtub – is that they’ve been EMPIRICALLY CONFIRMED.
LikeLike
@ES
However, for the purposes of this discussion, we need to have a term that refers to the people of East Asia, and it is clear that Native Americans are principally descended from East Asia.
I think this debate is largely over semantics. I agree we can be guilty of using outdated terminology, so Thad, if there are terms you deem more appropriate, please state what they are.
ES, I presume that you haven’t followed this discussion from the beginning. We got on this “Mongoloid” tangent because J and Mat believe that if a short black person is found in the Americas, it needs must be the remnant of an ancient negrito tribe that floated there from Australia or what have you.
My original point was, “No, that’s not the case. Human morphology – especially skin color and body size – is pretty darned flexible and it’s quite conceivable that a population descended from the same ancestors as today’s Indians could easily have become shorter and darker through genetic drift in the course of a few millenia. So while Luiza is proof that we shouldn’t RULE OUT the hypothesis that other humans came to the Americas prior to the Indians ancestors, she’s not conclusive proof OF that hypothesis.”
J then begged to differ because “everyone knows” that the Indians are basically mongoloids or half mongoloids so Luiza couldn’t be related to Indians.
So no, “mongoloid” is not a good term for these populations when J and Mat use it – as they have – to indicate that there’s supposedly set and stable human subspecies.
Yes, Native American populations are derived from the populations of East Asia. No, those populations weren’t a set human subspecies with a specific, discrete and stable biology. The term “mongoloid” – or any like racist term – presumes this.
I would prefer that we speak in terms of genetics and populations and not presumptive sub-species that come from countries which didn’t even exist at the time the Native Americans’ ancestors crossed into the western hemisphere.
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
So many mistakes.
The Chinese are said not to be true or full Mongoloids,because true Mongolics have the Mongolian Blue Spot on the base of the back when born,up til the the teen years in some people.
No. The Mongolian Blue Spot has nothing to do with anything here. Do you know that 95% of East African people are born with it? Does that make them “true Mongoloids”?
Mathew: J,yes,I mean anthropologists say that Mongolia is the origin of the Mongoloid race(or Mongolic) but I don’t think this can be can be fully empirically true or proven,
because if they were the oldest branch of the Mongolic people,the parents of all others,they would be have a
older culture-civilisation,such as the Chinese do,being the oldest group of a people are suppose to have the highest development than their younger relatives or descendants.
No, anthropologists don’t say Mongolia is the origin of the Mongoloid race, any more than they claim the Caucasus is the origin of the Caucasoid race.
Why must there be a single origin of a race? I don’t think it works that way.
Your link between “oldness” and highly developed culture is also erroneous. There is no link between race and culture in such a way. The Chinese are have a different culture to Mongolians because they lived in an area ideal for agriculture and the Mongolians didn’t. Hence their cultures developed in radically different ways.
Eurasion,it is true that Native Americans have genetic and cultural ties to East Asia,and there are tribes in California the language is related to some peoples in Siberia.
Though the I had posted a video on Indigenous languages of North America having some relations-connections to the Turkic language;this is proven.
This is not proven; it is highly speculative. Which is not to say that it is wrong, but at this stage it is only a theory that is not universally accepted. Yes, Native Americans did come from Siberia and possibly Central Asia, but to claim links with Turkic languages is pretty iffy.
I also believe that Native Americans migrated from the pacific ocean and thus have polynesian or other pacific elements in them.
This is not as substaniated as the Asian theory though,the Chumash Indians own oral histories say they came from Hawaii origianally.
This is possible, but it is also possible that it happened the other way round; in that Native Americans migrated to Polynesia. Still highly speculative though.
Though my belief is that Native Americans have
Mongoloid from the East Asian,they have elements of Caucasoid from the Turkic,and Polynesian or Pacific Island
races.
Turkic peoples are originally and predominantly “Mongoloid” in appearance. They look Caucasian only in the part of their range that is close to Europe. People from Turkey itself are Caucasian because genetically they are not really Turkic; Central Asian Turkic people conquered Anatolia and gave their language and culture to the people who already existed there, without leaving a huge genetic imprint.
LikeLike
@ Thad:
ES, I presume that you haven’t followed this discussion from the beginning.
Lord knows, I’ve tried. But I think I got lost somewhere between the discussion of mathematics as a science, copypasta vongole, and freakin’ Cthulu.
LikeLike
Thaddeus:
We got on this “Mongoloid” tangent because J and Mat believe that if a short black person is found in the Americas, it needs must be the remnant of an ancient negrito tribe that floated there from Australia or what have you
Mathew: Excuse me Thad,you are insenuating that I said or agreed with the above post about negritos,you are completely out of your mind!
To the contrary,if you have been reading the posts,I refuted the story posted ,that ancient Australians made it to Brasil .
This is delusional or irrational conjecture on your part,and why you will not be taken seriously,even though you
have a Ph.D,as your are posting from subjective
neurosis rather than logical objectiveness
LikeLike
I mean, I’ll let someone use a gloss like “mongoloid” when they make it damned clear it’s just a quick ‘n dirty way to say “people from East Asia”. But both J and Mat make it VERY clear that they think this is some discrete human subspecies.
Apparently, Mat also thinks this subspecies crawled out from under a rock one fine tuesday afternoon, to boot.
LikeLike
OK, Mat. I exagerated a bit.Look up “hyperbole”, please.
However, you DO believe that short black people are remnants of some primordial human race, correct?
So whether or not they floated to Brazil on boats is a mere detail. It’s STILL a bad theory.
LikeLike
Eurasian:
No. The Mongolian Blue Spot has nothing to do with anything here. Do you know that 95% of East African people are born with it? Does that make them “true Mongoloids”?
Mathew: It could mean they Mongoloid genes
such as why the Khoisan-San bush people of South Africa,who were said to originally from East Africa,have
epicanthic folds,high cheek bones and skin with coppery
hues,possibly could be related to the Malagasy people
who are known to culturally related to people in Indonesia.
The Mongloid,or East Asian charateristics(as Thaddeus prefers) is present in all of Asia and the pacific ocean,to varying degrees.
But there are people of Eastern European heritage that have this trait,but much less percentage wise than elsewhere,and they have Mongol blood lines as the Mongols conquered and interbred with people there,such as the Magyar people of Hungary are nomadic herders like the Mongols,an example of Mongol heritage in Central Europe.
Eurasian:
No, anthropologists don’t say Mongolia is the origin of the Mongoloid race, any more than they claim the Caucasus is the origin of the Caucasoid race.
Mathew: Well yes some anthropologists did say these things
The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and classical anthropologist.[4][4] Blumenbach named it after the peoples of the Caucasus (from the Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[5] He based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology.[6] Blumenbach wrote:
“Caucasian variety – I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind
The Mongoloid name was partially racist when it first appeared but this in context of the Mongol invasions:
The term comes from the Mongol people of East Asia, who invaded much of Eurasia during the 13th century, establishing the Mongol Empire. The first usage of the term “Mongolian race” was by Christoph Meiners in a “binary racial scheme” of “two races” with the Caucasian whose racial purity was exemplified by the “venerated… ancient Germans” with some Europeans being impure “dirty whites” and “Mongolians” who consisted of everyone else.[3] The term “Mongolian” was borrowed from Meiners by Johann Blumenbach to describe “second [race], [which] includes that part of Asia beyond the Ganges and below the river Amoor [Amur], which looks toward the south, together with the islands and the greater part of these countries which is now called Australian.” [4]
Eurasian:
Your link between “oldness” and highly developed culture is also erroneous. There is no link between race and culture in such a way. The Chinese are have a different culture to Mongolians because they lived in an area ideal for agriculture and the Mongolians didn’t. Hence their cultures developed in radically different ways.
Mathew: Yes,they adapted to their environment but they could have gone down south in search of better lands to farm but they were nomads and warriors and their simple technology was of the military type they used to conquer
all the way to Europe(pretty formidable though)
They did not have a written language as the Chinese did.
Eurasian:
Turkic peoples are originally and predominantly “Mongoloid” in appearance. They look Caucasian only in the part of their range that is close to Europe. People from Turkey itself are Caucasian because genetically they are not really Turkic; Central Asian Turkic people conquered Anatolia and gave their language and culture to the people who already existed there, without leaving a huge genetic imprint.
Mathew:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
All the Turkic peoples native to Central Asia are of mixed Caucasoid and Mongoloid origin. Of these Central Asian Turks, Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz are closer to Mongoloids racially. Karakalpak are mixed almost evenly. Uighur in Xinjiang China, Uzbek and Turkmen are more close to Caucasoid.
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/xj/2009-07/30/content_209843.htm
Han Kangxin, a Chinese archeologist who studied skulls unearthed in Xinjiang believes the main ancestry of the Uygur population is Caucasoid. “There is also hypothesis that the Uygurs are an mixture of the Causasoid and Mongoloid, but it is not a final conclusion,” Han said.
Eurasian:
This is not proven; it is highly speculative. Which is not to say that it is wrong, but at this stage it is only a theory that is not universally accepted. Yes, Native Americans did come from Siberia and possibly Central Asia, but to claim links with Turkic languages is pretty iffy.
Mathew: read and watch these:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/polatkaya1.html
LikeLike
Mathew:
I also believe that Native Americans migrated from the pacific ocean and thus have polynesian or other pacific elements in them.
This is not as substaniated as the Asian theory though,the Chumash Indians own oral histories say they came from Hawaii origianally.
Eurasian:
This is possible, but it is also possible that it happened the other way round; in that Native Americans migrated to Polynesia. Still highly speculative though.
Mathew: check this link out,the author believes the same thing you do about migration of New World people into the
pacific
http://www.polynesian-prehistory.com/
LikeLike
Thad,
Mongolia didn’t exist as a country 16,000 years ago when the first humans probably came to the Americas
And nor the word term ‘E. Asia’
So this is a redundant argument.
The problem what we have is that you do not seem to understand what people are saying…….
as opposed to what YOU think they are saying.
They are two different things.
Even Matthew has become a victim of this process.
For instance, its not clear how you could reach the conclusion that the negritos reached the Americas via Australia??
For the purpose of this blog, I will be using the term ‘Mongoloid’ to represent a group or collection of people who can be distinguished by a certain phenotype and have their origins around Eurasia.
Finally it is these ‘Mongoloid’ peoples, ES calls them people from E.Asia who finally made their way into the Americas.
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
Just to re-state my position.
frome a ‘racial’ perspective tehre is no difference between the Chinese and the Mongols.
I use the term ‘Mongols’ as opposed to Mongoloid, to denote ethnic tribes living in places like Mongolia, Russia and China.
This is why I made reference to Mongoloids and Mongolia.
Moving to your point, I would say there has been a lot of different admixtures within and across groups.
However, this would not change the premise taht the Mongols, Chinese and even Native Americans CAN be classified as belonging to the same ‘race’ specifically ‘Mongoloid’.
I hope this makes sense instead of confusing the issue even further
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
It could mean they Mongoloid genes
such as why the Khoisan-San bush people of South Africa,who were said to originally from East Africa,have
epicanthic folds,high cheek bones and skin with coppery
hues,possibly could be related to the Malagasy people
who are known to culturally related to people in Indonesia.
No, no and no. Malagasy people are a mix of East Africans with Indonesians who settled in Madagascar less than 2000 years ago. Khoisan are NOT closely related to these Indonesian people at all. There is NO close link between Khoisan/East Africans and Mongolian people. Epicanthic folds arose independently in both Khoisan and East Asian peoples.
LikeLike
Eurasian:
No, no and no. Malagasy people are a mix of East Africans with Indonesians who settled in Madagascar less than 2000 years ago. Khoisan are NOT closely related to these Indonesian people at all. There is NO close link between Khoisan/East Africans and Mongolian people. Epicanthic folds arose independently in both Khoisan and East Asian peoples.
Mathew: There could and I think there is connection between the Khoisan and Austronesian-Indo-Malay people
and time frames by Anthropologists are always changing.
Here is a good article on this:
Click to access Paper%20for%20Cambridge%202007%20proceedings%20submit.pdf
The San definately have Asiatic -South East Asian features
The man in this movie above(have you seen it?)
has a facial structure-teeth almost exactly the same as my former Korean acupuncture doctor
I hope you read the other things I posted,and see that I cam correct in my asertations
LikeLike
San:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=ec34ccdec7&view=att&th=129dac2533d1f2b7&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_gbovjsff0&zw
Definite South East Asian features here
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
You just don’t get it.
People can look similar without being related.
The Dutch are tall. Masai are tall. Thus they must be closely related, yes?
By your logic, a shark and a dolphin are related as well.
The article you linked to says nothing about links between Khoisan and Malagasy. The Indonesian people who would eventually settled Madagascar made little to no genetic imprint on the East African coast, and that was no earlier than 2000 years ago.
Khoisan are way more ancient than that.
I repeat. There is NO link between Khoisan and East Asia. No reputable anthropologist or paleantologist believes there is.
LikeLike
You just don’t get it.
People can look similar without being related.
The Dutch are tall. Masai are tall. Thus they must be closely related, yes?
Mathew: Yes,but tall has not not much with facial features and color and bone structure.
Why do many people in the Mediterranean countries
-places(Sicily-Italy-South Spain,Portugal,Malta)
look like Arabs,why do many European Jews looks like Arabs?
All of these people have genetics ties to Arabs or Semitic peoples
By your logic, a shark and a dolphin are related as well.
Mathew: Did I say such?
The article you linked to says nothing about links between Khoisan and Malagasy. The Indonesian people who would eventually settled Madagascar made little to no genetic imprint on the East African coast, and that was no earlier than 2000 years ago.
Mathew: The article states Austronesian people
came to East Africa,Malagasy people are Austronesian.
Furthermore the San people are a subrace of the negroid peoples but genetically distinct
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-basarwa-adult-image7839925
http://www.namibian.org/travel/namibia/population/busman.htm
LikeLike
Mongolia didn’t exist as a country 16,000 years ago when the first humans probably came to the Americas
And nor the word term ‘E. Asia’
So this is a redundant argument.
No it isn’t, because I’m not proposing that Native Americans are descended from some sort of “race” which sprung up out of the rocks of a given geographic location. The peoples of what is today Eastern Asia didn’t come from there, originally, either.
Here’s the problem, J. You say:
For the purpose of this blog, I will be using the term ‘Mongoloid’ to represent a group or collection of people who can be distinguished by a certain phenotype and have their origins around Eurasia.
But there IS no “phenotype that originated in Eurasia”. As both ES and I have pointed out, there are a vast DIVERSITY of phenotypes in Eurasia – Seeing as how Eurasia properly stretches from Ireland all the way over to Japan. Even if yoy were to reduce your definition to “East Asia”, there are STILL a huge number of phenotypes in that region. Yoy are falling rapidly into the “all Asians look alike” stereotype, J.
For instance, its not clear how you could reach the conclusion that the negritos reached the Americas via Australia??
Because one of the links regarding Luiza’s people placed at the beginning of this debate flat out says that this is a very good possibility.
Unlike you, I actually happen to read the links people place here.
And I should point out once again that I think this “negritos in the Americas came from Australia” theory is pretty much hogwash. (Lest you accuse me of “reaching this conclusion”.)
@ES
People can look similar without being related.
The Dutch are tall. Masai are tall. Thus they must be closely related, yes?
And this is my point anmd has been from the beginning. J and Mathew believe in the racist view that there are distimct stable and discrete human subspecies and we know that this isn’t the case. So, to them, if there are short dark people over HERE, they must be directlym related to short dark people over THERE.
But both body size and skin color are not stable genetic traits. In the past half milenium alone, European average height has increased by some 10-15 centimeters. Skin color can change radically in a population in the course of a few thousand years.
J and Mathew believe in the polygenist phallacy: that God or mother nature created stable human phenotypes and that these have remained the same over tens of thosuands of years.
Thats it simply and provably not true.
LikeLike
Thad,
1. Just for the record here what are you saying about where the Native Americans come from??
2. With regards to the term ‘Eurasian’. Thanks for the semantical definition. However, when we are discussing people who left from E. Asia and migrated to the Americas. Then one would have thought it was obvious what part of Eurasia that I am alluding to, and its not that part of the UK either.
3. With regard to Luiza’s link I did not post that. Nor did I say they came from Australia. What I did say is that there are some scholars who believe the negritos were the first people in the Americas, and that this is not a new idea either.
4. As for the East Asian phenotype, it is no different from the ‘European/White phenotype’. Do you know what comprises the European phenotype, even with its degree of variations?
5. With regard to polygeneist fallacy. Forgive me that is not the correct definition. Polygeneist belive that humanity originated in many different places. What you say with regard to phenotype etc makes no sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism
6. The strange thing having a conversation with you is that paradoxically you are in fact dialoguing and debating with yourself. Its very weird!!
LikeLike
Just for the record here what are you saying about where the Native Americans come from??
Originally? Africa, just like every other human group on the planet.
With regards to the term ‘Eurasian’. Thanks for the semantical definition. However, when we are discussing people who left from E. Asia and migrated to the Americas.
As I said above, that makes no difference: there are many different phenotypes in East Asia, too.
With regard to polygeneist fallacy. Forgive me that is not the correct definition. Polygeneist belive that humanity originated in many different places. What you say with regard to phenotype etc makes no sense.
J, it often seems to me that you are articulating a variant of polygenism. While you do believe that everyone came out of Africa, yes, you also seem to believe that biological sub-species or races evolved some time after that and that these subspecies are “original” to specific places on the planet. To wit, your claims regarding “mongoloids”.
So while it’s not CLASSICALLY polygenism, it retains many of that philosophy’s characteristics in that it presumes that discrete and stable races of humanity sprung up in seperate and specific geographical areas of the planet.
LikeLike
Cheers Thad,
I would say when humans left Africa there was NO ‘Mongoloid race’. So its not possible to say ‘Mongoloids’ have an origin therein. What we can say from the archaeological evidence is that what we class as ‘Mongoloid’ does not appear until 15-20,000 BC, and this appears to be an outgrowth of intermixture between Black and White types around Eurasia
2. With regard to:
“You also seem to believe that biological sub-species or races evolved some time after that and that these subspecies are “original” to specific places on the planet. To wit, your claims regarding “mongoloids”.
I understand what you are suggesting here, but it is alittle more complex than that. If we are going to accept the classification of race, when one looks at the historical records, you can in some instance locate a race to a particular place ie Whites originating in Europe. There are many today who believe that is the case.
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
How you doing mate??
I still would like to read your input here.
Cheers
LikeLike
Thaddeus proclaims
And this is my point anmd has been from the beginning. J and Mathew believe in the racist view that there are distimct stable and discrete human subspecies and we know that this isn’t the case. So, to them, if there are short dark people over HERE, they must be directly related to short dark people over THERE.
Mathew: Please Thad,don’t use my name when your are insenuating things I did not say or imply.
Also you are biased with your Atheist beliefs
because the very people you are talking about,Native Americans,Negritos,etc,all have a believe in a Creator,
but not the kind you are dictating about.
You state the Masai people are all tall,or Eurasian said this. This is apoint of contention,as all Masai are not tall,or tall as the Tutsi people or other Nilotic people and not all Masai are uniform in height such as the negritos
But they are tall in comparison to the shorter African peoples,such as the Pygmies,etc.
My comment about the negritos being short and comparing them to other short people in Africa,(which I don’t think they migrated from anyway) is that if they migrated from Africa,there would be
at least some people of the original group left in Africa(maybe I am wrong) there would be remnants of negritos peoples found through out the trek from Africa to their current homes.
They would have some sort of archaeological findings of these people,traveling along the way.
But also these people would have changed their stature and skin color over time too,to varying degrees,because of the varied climate and terrain,this natural evolution.
Look at all nomadic peoples that travel or have traveled long journeys,such as the New World people of the Americas,and you will see the range of
heights ,body physiques and skin colors.
Look at the Eskimoyan people compared to the Indians,a distince subspecies,and understand why they are of usually short and stout stature
Natural selection for conserving body heat in the extreme cold.
The same why Antrhopologists think the negritos
are small stature,or the pygmies of Central Africa
their isolation in thetropical forests and natural selection of small stature being an advantage to their environment.
LikeLike
As I said above, that makes no difference: there are many different phenotypes in East Asia, too.
Mathew: Thaddeus,you are confusing.
I thought you got all heated about the “racist” use of “Mongoloid” saying it is a dirty word for people
of East Asia?
When in fact we were talking about the racial category widely accepted for Mongoloid,of the Chinese,Korean,Mongolian,Japanese,Sinberian people?
LikeLike
Matthew,
There are pygmies in Congo and other areas of Africa. I am sure you must be aware of this.
As to what relations they have to other ‘negritos’, if any at all remembering the term is merely a ‘nomenclature’, I have no knowledge on the subject
LikeLike
There’s no mongoloid race now, J, and there never was – at least not as a biological entity.
Now who is this “we” who classifies “mongoloids” as a race, J? Metapedia? Because it’s pretty much the consensus of biologists the world over that such a thing does not exist as a biological entity. In fact, about the only biologists who use this sort of terminology as a serious way of classifying human biodiversity are – you guessed – racists and white supremacists.
There is no coherent set of genes which create a “mongoloid”, J. Any two random people you pick out of the “mongoloid” population are as likely to be as genetically distinct from one another as any random “mongoloid” and a random “caucasoid”. You’re trying to deal with clinactic distribution of traits using 19th century views on race, J. It doesn’t work. It’s like trying to describe Einstein’s theories based solely on Newton’s work.
If we are going to accept the classification of race, when one looks at the historical records, you can in some instance locate a race to a particular place ie Whites originating in Europe. There are many today who believe that is the case.
First of all, not even your afrocentric buddy, aryanist Michael Bradley believes that whites “originated in Europe”. We do not know where whiter skin originated, but odds are it wasn’t in Europe because most of that region was under glaciers at the time.
And the problem, in any case, is that you are looking at only one specific trait: skin color. Yes indeed, if you only look at one trait – skin color or blood type or tooth size – you can quite easily divide people up into races. The problem with that, J, is that people are made up of millions of physical traits. Race theory presumes that these traits come in nice little packages and that people with such a color of skin will also have this type of hair and those types of eyes and etc. etc. ad nauseaum. That doesn’t occur in the real world, J. White people are not genetically identical or even necessarily genetically more similar to each other than they are to other peoples.
A southern Italian, for example, is probably much more genetically closer to a northern African – whom you’d call “black” – than he is to, say, a Scandanavian.
The fact of the matter regarding white skin is this, J: lighter skin developed pretty much ANYWHERE a human population spent a long time in an area without constant sunlight. In fact, it may have developed several times over the course of human evolutionary history, because the gene that causes it is not even specific to humans alone: it’s a common mutation.
So no, the idea that God or mother nature snapped her fingers and all of sudden a biologically discrete group of humans called “white people” sprung up in what we now call today Europe is pure poppycock.
No branch of humanity has EVER been isolated enough from the rest to develop a discrete and stable genetic package which we could classify as a subspecies.
I realize that this is a hard thing for you to accept J, because most of your politics – like that of your Aryanist intellectual ancestors – is based on the notion that there are indeed easily descried and biologically seperate groups of humans. You also believe that politics follows blood. So like the Aryanists, you think reaching utopia is simply a matter of getting rid of the “bad blood” in the human mix, which is all – or mostly – conveniently located in the bodies of those people you consider to be your adversaries.
This is racism, pure and simple, J. And when I say that, I don’t mean it in the way that you usually hear it (“Wah! You said bad things about my people! You are a racist!”), I mean it in its strictly historical and philosophical sense.
Time for you to give up your racist security blanket and take a step into the 20th century, J. You can’t go on for the rest of your life claiming that late Victorian racist thought is afrocentric and expect anyone other than a handful of like-minded loons to agree with you.
And you know what’s REALLY sad? Most of those loons who agree with you are in fact white supremacists.
LikeLike
Mat sez:
Also you are biased with your Atheist beliefs
because the very people you are talking about,Native Americans,Negritos,etc,all have a believe in a Creator,
but not the kind you are dictating about.
Mat, just because I don’t share your religious views hardly means that I’m an athiest. And what possible difference could it make in terms of our discussion whether or not people have a belief in a Creator? Myth is not biology, Mathew.
My comment about the negritos being short and comparing them to other short people in Africa,(which I don’t think they migrated from anyway) is that if they migrated from Africa,there would be
at least some people of the original group left in Africa(maybe I am wrong) there would be remnants of negritos peoples found through out the trek from Africa to their current homes.
You are wrong.
Human body height is NOTORIOUSLY subject to change over a short period of time due to thinks like changes in diet and what have you. As I mentioned above, Europeans have shot up close to 15 centimeters on average voer the last milenium or so.
Body morphologies CHANGE rapidly among humans, Mat.
Negritos are not a specific, globe-spanning race, Mat.
Mathew: Thaddeus,you are confusing.
Mat, you are pretty foolish. To wit:
I thought you got all heated about the “racist” use of “Mongoloid” saying it is a dirty word for people
of East Asia?
No, I didn’t say it was a “dirty word”: I said it was a racist term and when I say “racist” I’m not using that as a synonym for “evil”. I mean it very precisely: an obsolete notion of human biology which presumes that the human species is divided into discrete and stabel subspecies.
When in fact we were talking about the racial category widely accepted for Mongoloid,of the Chinese,Korean,Mongolian,Japanese,Sinberian people?
Seriously, Mat, if you think that Chinese and Mongols, Koreans and Japanese all have essentially the same phenotype, you are not really looking at those people. You are caught in the racist myth that “all asians look alike”. No serious biologist believes this today, MAt and that’s why serious biologists – and that’s the vast majority of them – do not use the term “mongoloid” unless it’s under very particular and qualified conditions.
It is a ueseles term which describes precisely nothing in terms of human biology, Mat, that’s why we don’t use it, not because it’s “dirty”.
But what IS a filthy god-damned shame is that you seem to think that you can pick up the rudiment sof human biology without ever cracking a textbook, simply by doing google searches.
LikeLike
@ J –
You got me! (still at work, though I might be online once i get home, so maybe I can elaborate more.) My apologies for the delay.
Ever hear of the Dogon of West Africa? (of course you have!) Knowledge of astonomy confirmed by modern astronomists – an enigma. How could the Dogon contain such knowledge without the benefit of modern science?
Please let me preface this by saying I am NOT a believer in Ancient Aliens. I am a believer in Ancient Humans. Humans from Africa. Technologically advanced Humans. Sea-Faring humas who populated the major continents long before ever thought possible. I do believe in the rise and fall of great civilizations (not necessarily Atlantis) but advanced nonetheless. (Black Olmecs being one of the remnants… ) I believe that certain astronomical knowledge is also an indicator of a shared knowledge, a shared culture – that was once global in nature and is only now evident through glimpses of extra ordinary evidence – such as in this case “Astronomical Knowledge”. The various structures that are being discovered that predate “known theories of coastal civilizations”, such as the sites in Japan, Bimini (Caribbean) and Kauai (Hawaii Islands). I believe that this group originated from Africa and was responsible for civilizations yet to be discovered. Given the sites that are beginning to reveal themselves (such as japan, bimini, kauai) plus the other anomalous pieces of the puzzle that don’t fit, it is only natural to think beyond the boundaries of today’s “defintion of early man. As in first to arrive in the New World, etc… What of the civilization and remnants that populated Kauai (Oldest island in Hawaii) BEFORE the Polynesians. The stone cut canals that predate and are not indicative of Polynesian technology. From who and where did they originate??? —– Predate the Polynesians all the way in the middle of the Pacific?
Sorry for not sharing more…. This may not be what you wanted to here, but I think we’re only beginning to discover at how complex and ADVANCED early man was.
LikeLike
I met a Japanese man that had green eyes.
Where do you suppose he inherited these from?
Why do all Japanese,Chinese,Koreans,Siberians
all have black hair?
Why did the Chinese,Japanese,Koreans
all develop Martial Arts to a much higher degree than any other people in the world?
Why do the these people also use the Lunar calender?
LikeLike
Well, I’d like to see more proof than just some oddly shaped rocks in Bimini, CoL, though yeah, anything’s possible.
@Mat
Why do all Japanese,Chinese,Koreans,Siberians
all have black hair?
First of all, they don’t. Check out the Ainu.
Secondly, what part of “yes, you can easily descry races IF YOU LIMIT YOURSELF TO ONLY ONE CHARACTERISTIC” did you not understand, Mat?
LikeLike
Why did the Chinese,Japanese,Koreans
all develop Martial Arts to a much higher degree than any other people in the world?
First of all, that’s debateable. Secondly, it’s cultural. Martial arts skills have nothing to do with human evolution. Anyone can learn them.
Why do the these people also use the Lunar calender?
Again, that’s cultural. Many peoples use lunar claendars, Mat. Do you know why?
BECAUSE THE MOON IS A F***ING HUGE OBJECT HANGING IN THE SKY WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM ALL OVER THE PLANET!
Jeezis, some people’s kids, I tell ya…
LikeLike
ha ha cheers ColorofLuv,
No its always good to learn something new. Perhaps when you have the time, and it is of no inconvenience, you can post something about:
“The various structures that are being discovered that predate “known theories of coastal civilizations”, such as the sites in Japan, Bimini (Caribbean) and Kauai (Hawaii Islands”
I do not know what this is??
Have a good weeknd!!
LikeLike
Something off Topic but Interesting
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
LikeLike
@Mat
Why do all Japanese,Chinese,Koreans,Siberians
all have black hair?
First of all, they don’t. Check out the Ainu.
Mathew:
Have you seen this personally or from pictures?
What does this mean about their genes?
Why did the Chinese,Japanese,Koreans
all develop Martial Arts to a much higher degree than any other people in the world?
Thaddeus:
First of all, that’s debateable. Secondly, it’s cultural. Martial arts skills have nothing to do with human evolution. Anyone can learn them.
Mathew:
Uh,human evolution in what context?
Is not all things dealing with the society development of people evolution?
Not evolution as in changing the species or biological evolution,but cultural society.
Though they would all be related as all or most humans developed disciplines or modes of warfare foremost,to protect their very essense and survival
Now you can look at this trait in the cultural or primitive to developed warfare through out all peoples and culturals in the world.
LikeLike
Mathew:
My comment about the negritos being short and comparing them to other short people in Africa,(which I don’t think they migrated from anyway) is that if they migrated from Africa,there would be
at least some people of the original group left in Africa(maybe I am wrong) there would be remnants of negritos peoples found through out the trek from Africa to their current homes.
Thaddeus:
You are wrong.
Human body height is NOTORIOUSLY subject to change over a short period of time due to thinks like changes in diet and what have you. As I mentioned above, Europeans have shot up close to 15 centimeters on average voer the last milenium or so.
Mathew: So I was RIGHT!
If this happens in short period of time,then it would certainly happen in much longer period of time.
Body morphologies CHANGE rapidly among humans, Mat.
Negritos are not a specific, globe-spanning race, Mat.
Mathew:Did you and others not say they migrated out of Africa?
LikeLike
I met a Japanese man that had green eyes.
Maybe his mother was pumping one of those service men in Okinawa! This man was the product of her loose morals! Harlot!
LikeLike
Mat, just because I don’t share your religious views hardly means that I’m an athiest. And what possible difference could it make in terms of our discussion whether or not people have a belief in a Creator? Myth is not biology, Mathew.
Mathew: Thad,
Don’t mistake religious beliefs with spiritual beliefs
I don’t follow an organized religion
You talk about biology,can I ask do you know all the
physics of biology and genetics?
Did you know that mutations are detrimental to
humans?
Thaddeus:
Seriously, Mat, if you think that Chinese and Mongols, Koreans and Japanese all have essentially the same phenotype, you are not really looking at those people. You are caught in the racist myth that “all asians look alike”.
Mathew: Jeez Thad I presume you must be
daft! Of course all asians don’t look alike.
To be correct as you would,it would be East Asians.
All members of a family don’t look alike,but just as in
a group of people like East Asians,they have a uniformity of looks,very similiar skin color,eye color,hair color and texture and shape and similiar body build,to be labeled as a distint group of people,a race or subspecies of th human family
I have lived in the Asia-Pacific long enough to know
the looks,similiarities of the people we are talking about-34 years,to make an empirical statment.
http://www.chinapictures.org/photoprint.asp?ip=40610150236189
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/asia_pac_learning_chinese_in_beijing/html/1.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/asia_pac_learning_chinese_in_beijing/html/5.stm
LikeLike
The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. ~Euclid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
LikeLike
Thaddeus:
Why do I feel I’m talking to Napoleon Dynamite here?
Mat, not only have the Ainu had other hair colors, so have certain Chinese groups. Seriously, you can look this up in any text on human biology.
They have different hair color because of having different a different race makeup intheir genes.
Mathew: Why be lazy,as you accused me of being.
Why don’t you comment on the recent posts
I made in regards to Eurasian,about the
Native Americans-Indiegenous New World People
and their connections to the Turkic language-culture of Central Asia,of the UYghurs ,of the Uyghur origins.
Tell me if I was incorrect or correct,or or somewhere in between
Can you connect the evolution of humans,into distinct culturals and societies of the past via lineral
time frame,since you are Social Antrhopologist.
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
The Khoisan are a distinct “race” of African people, who do indeed look different from other Africans.
However, this has absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with any genetic input from Asian people who may have made contact with the East African coast 1500-2000 years ago.
The Khoisan are ancient, and have probably looked like they do for millenia. Any features of theirs that might look “Asian” are merely coincidental and arose independently.
The Indonesians who eventually settled Madagascar had no significant input into the DNA of mainland East Africans. What African people they did come across were most likely Bantu (not Khoisan), as it says in the very article you linked.
I used the example of sharks and dolphins to point out that animals can look superficially similar, yet not be closely related.
LikeLike
Thaddeus:
Evolutionary change occurs due to mutatiuon and the mechanics whereby this occurs have been extensively observed in the laboratory and in the field. This is not a particularly controversial topic in evolutionmary science, by the way.
What caused these mutations,Thad;
what process? This is the work of DNA?
What is the force behind DNA to do such,does DNA have any role in Evolution?
What is the difference between mind and matter?
Does mind or brain have anything to do with human evolution?
LikeLike
Mathew
@ Thad:
Would you say this is true?
According to Darwin’s Theory,matter gradually produces consciousness?
LikeLike
They have different hair color because of having different a different race makeup intheir genes.
But I thought you said all East Asians were effectively identical, Mat?
First you say “East Asians are a race because they all look alike”. Then, when I point out that they don’t look all alike, you say “Well that’s because they are not all the same race.”
Well gee, Mat, seeing as how your original argument was that we could toss all East Asians in one big racial bowl because they were genetically identical, I guess that means you’re kinda screwed doesn’t it?
What caused these mutations,Thad;
what process? This is the work of DNA?
What is the force behind DNA to do such,does DNA have any role in Evolution?
What is the difference between mind and matter?
Does mind or brain have anything to do with human evolution?
Mat, if you’re able to look up looney-toon theories regarding Turkish-Native American linguistic connections on the internet, you’re certainly capable of doing a simple wiki search for some basic information on how DNA works. Better yet, go down to your local library and take out a book on the topic.
Frankly, I don’t think anyone could be as ignorant as you pretend to be and still be capable of using a computer, so please piss off. I’ve wasted enough time on your trolling bullsh**.
LikeLike
Did Consciousness Cause the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion?
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/cambrian.html
LikeLike
With regard to:
“There’s no mongoloid race now, J, and there never was – at least not as a biological entity”.
I am afraid there was a biological base behind Mongoloid, this is to deny and ignore history.
Whether we call them ‘Mongoloid or not’. As I said from the empirical evidence before us we can chart the origins of those who live in E. Asia. Just as we can begin to origins of White people.
You keep talking about this ‘religion’ of ‘biology’ and that there is no ‘race’. If you wish to see the world that way then you can.
However, what I would say is, You have constantly repeated this ‘mantra’ without supplying any empirical evidence.
As for your derisive comments to Matthew, which is actually swearing at him and disgraceful to say the least.
Personally I think you should be banned for it.
Finally, if you understood the movement and dispersal of groups of individuals which comprise a race. Then it would be possible to understand the possible connections between Turkish population (even as far as Turkey) and Native Americans who would essentially be the same ‘race’ but moving to different areas of the world at different time periods
LikeLike
Austronesian Impact on East Africa
Click to access Paper%20for%20Cambridge%202007%20proceedings%20submit.pdf
LikeLike
Cheers Matthew,
With regard to ‘Austronesian’, I am becoming slightly confused.
‘Austronesian’ refers to a specific language group, rather than an ethnic group or race per se.
Would you like to clarify your point?
LikeLike
@ J:
While Austronesian is indeed a language group, it might be used as a way to refer to the populations that speak it. So to speak of Austronesian people might mean Indonesians, Malays, Filipinos, aboriginal Taiwanese, Malagasy, and Pacific Islanders.
It’s probably not technically correct. But the people of island SE Asia do broadly conform to a certain physical type and have cultural similarities.
Austronesian people did have some influence on the East African coast (they probably brought bananas and coconuts, for example). But what Mathew is implying here is incorrect, completely. He seems to believe that the Khoisans are some kind of fusion of Africans and Indonesians, hence their so-called Asian features.
The Malagasy are such a fusion, but the Khoisan are not. They developed that physical type independently.
LikeLike
Cheers for the clarification ES,
Sorry Matthew, if what ES suggets of you is correct, then I am in agreement with him, for whatever that is worth.
With regard to Austronesian what I was trying to get at, and this is my own personal opinion, to speak of Austronesian considering it comprises of so many differeing and divergent groups, that the term can become ‘superfluous’.
Perhaps by way of illustration just imagine 5,00 years from now someone classifying the ‘English speaker across the world’ as some form of ‘identity’, if you follow.
However, what you say about Austronesian, the population that speaks that language, and the connection to Madagascar. I do concur.
LikeLike
Austronesian people did have some influence on the East African coast (they probably brought bananas and coconuts, for example). But what Mathew is implying here is incorrect, completely. He seems to believe that the Khoisans are some kind of fusion of Africans and Indonesians, hence their so-called Asian features.
The Malagasy are such a fusion, but the Khoisan are not. They developed that physical type independently.
Mathew: How do we now this,Eurasian?
Please explain how the San people are more physically
resemble people in Asia -Asia pacific,than Native Africans?
One reason why they are considered the a different race
the Capoid race.
They are completely distinct from the other African peoples around them in their culture. They were pushed down into South Africa from the north also.
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
it is coincidence that they look somewhat like Asians.
In any case, what is it about their appearance that looks “Asian” anyway? It’s primarily the epicanthic folds on their eyes.
The other defining physical features of the Khoisan – “peppercorn” hair, short stature (under 5ft 5 generally) and distinctive body shape (steatopygious buttocks and elongated labia minora in women)- are not like Asians at all.
That’s why I gave the example of height, comparing the Dutch and the Masai. Just because one feature (epicanthic eye folds) is common to two different populations, doesn’t mean they are related. Things can evolve independently due to genetic drift and selection.
Asian contact with East Africa is barely 2000 years old. But fossil evidence shows people all over East and Southern Africa who looked like the Khoisan, 30,000 years ago.
LikeLike
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=origins+of+the+khoisan+people&d=4519070217276344&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=4539b117,7d4e1582
Mathew: This shows the Khoisan and Ethiopian connection
and the Asian presence in the DNA
The other defining physical features of the Khoisan – “peppercorn” hair, short stature (under 5ft 5 generally) and distinctive body shape (steatopygious buttocks and elongated labia minora in women)- are not like Asians at all.
Mathew: You could say this about the negritos of the Andaman Islands too,but they live in South Asia
Of course the Khoisan have mixed with other Africans
too,this is a known fact.
That’s why I gave the example of height, comparing the Dutch and the Masai. Just because one feature (epicanthic eye folds) is common to two different populations, doesn’t mean they are related. Things can evolve independently due to genetic drift and selection.
Asian contact with East Africa is barely 2000 years old. But fossil evidence shows people all over East and Southern Africa who looked like the Khoisan, 30,000 years ago.
Mathew: That contact is barley 2000 years old is subject to debate,as anthropologists are always coming up with new stories and findings all the time.
India in Africa
LikeLike
http://comecarpentier.com/ppt/india.doc
LikeLike
@ Matthew:
do you even read what you link here?
This shows the Khoisan and Ethiopian connection
and the Asian presence in the DNA
The back-migrations from Asia that the article mentions in relation to Ethiopian genes, are from SW Asia. So “Caucasian” rather than “Mongoloid” influence.
That contact is barely 2000 years old is subject to debate,as anthropologists are always coming up with new stories and findings all the time.
This is your standard response to anytime someone waves the facts in your face. It’s getting tiresome.
LikeLike
The back-migrations from Asia that the article mentions in relation to Ethiopian genes, are from SW Asia. So “Caucasian” rather than “Mongoloid” influence.
Mogoloid? Who said anything about being mondoloid?
Yes it could be they were refering to SW Asia,but Asia is big place and it did not specify SW Asia
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/93429568.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921CC759DF4EBAC47D05711CE68448951E88AEA19C2C57B1409C8F6311F5258AF83E30A760B0D811297
Well Eurasian,I think I pointed out a major problem in credibility in Antropology-Archaeology of which I had posted
by ancient DNA scientist,Svante Paabo,when he said that
Paleontology is a dat poor science,there are more Paleontologists than there are good fossils,and these people are always changing themes to make a name for themselves.
Not this is a bit different than cultural Anthropology
which is probably easier to show as a true science but it is still flawed,and it biased by being a science of Westerners who base human history on very short time frame
The Khoisan definanately look Austronesian-South Asian
and my girlfriend who is Malagsy says they look like her people
LikeLike
@ Mathew:
Mogoloid? Who said anything about being mondoloid?
you did. You are implying the Khoisan are part-SE Asian, which falls into the “Mongoloid” category.
The article does not specify SW Asia as a source for Ethiopian genes, but it is well known that Ethiopians have some SW Asian genetic input.
The Khoisan definanately look Austronesian-South Asian
and my girlfriend who is Malagsy says they look like her people
With all due respect to your girlfriend, so what?
I’m half Anglo, half Indonesian. I’ve had people say I look like a Brazilian, a South African, a Mauritian, a Sri Lankan Burgher, an Australian Aborigine, a Maori, an Egyptian, a Chilean, a Greek, and a Cuban.
It’s possible there is some Khoisan genetic input into the Malagasy, but there is no Austronesian genetic input into the Khoisan.
I can’t believe I’m still arguing this point with you Mathew. Keep searching the net for sources to back you up if you like. You’ll find no reputable geneticist or anthropologist who believes the Austronesians or Khoisan have anything to do with each other. So either you are the sole genius who has figured this out and everyone else is wrong, or it is the opposite.
LikeLike
Matthew,
With regard to:
“Not this is a bit different than cultural Anthropology
which is probably easier to show as a true science but it is still flawed,and it biased by being a science of Westerners who base human history on very short time frame”…
Just to say anthropology is not a ‘science’
LikeLike
Eurasian:
you did. You are implying the Khoisan are part-SE Asian, which falls into the “Mongoloid” category.
Mathew: No,South Asians have differences other than Mongoloid base. Of course there people who have more mongoloid features,as they have much Chinese blood
and why the term Indo-China is applied.
The darker races of South-Asia look less or not Mongoloid
Malays,Tamils,Filipinos,Negritos,Native Thai,Vietnamese,Cambodians
Mathew:
The Khoisan definanately look Austronesian-South Asian
and my girlfriend who is Malagsy says they look like her people
With all due respect to your girlfriend, so what?
Mathew: Well I think she knows bit better than you and has lived in Africa
Eurasian:
I’m half Anglo, half Indonesian. I’ve had people say I look like a Brazilian, a South African, a Mauritian, a Sri Lankan Burgher, an Australian Aborigine, a Maori, an Egyptian, a Chilean, a Greek, and a Cuban.
Mathew: I thought you looked filipino.
Eurasian:
It’s possible there is some Khoisan genetic input into the Malagasy, but there is no Austronesian genetic input into the Khoisan.
Mathew: Why would you say this?
Eurasian:
I can’t believe I’m still arguing this point with you Mathew. Keep searching the net for sources to back you up if you like. You’ll find no reputable geneticist or anthropologist who believes the Austronesians or Khoisan have anything to do with each other. So either you are the sole genius who has figured this out and everyone else is wrong, or it is the opposite.
Mathew: I wish we had some reputable geneticists-antrhopologists to answer this.
I have emailed some but they never replied
This is a problem with such academics,being a bit posh,possibly snobbish,being that I don’t have Ph.D
in front of my name,or a I am not journalist that will interview them,they won’t reply.
I mean I emailed the only native Archaeologist in Micronesia with a simple question(from Phonpei a populace of 60,000) and he would not reply.
He did reply after I had written to state govt inquiring about the archaeological site Nan Madol,they contacted him and he replied;it seemed like he was reluctant to do so too.
My good friend also went to school with him and I had mentioned this,on his advice,
Maybe you can find a couple of geneticists and archaeologists for this.
Now this is what I said. There is evidence of Austronesian
contact in East Africa,from what a reputable archaeologist has shown.
The Austronesian presence in Madagascar is said to be
about 2000 years old but could it be older?
I mean could people have sailed there a thousand years earlier or 2 thousand,or more?
I mean you state that people walked from Africa to the pacific isles,8 to 12,000 mile journey,60 or so thousand years ago,so I am assuming that ardent sailors could have easily sailed to the named places said and more,and such might be not know to the archaelogists,scientists.
So how are the Khoisan and Ethiopian connected and what,where are there Asian genetic trails?
LikeLike
J:
Just to say anthropology is not a ‘science’
Mathew: J,well it it suppose to be.
LikeLike
Eurasian:
I can’t believe I’m still arguing this point with you Mathew. Keep searching the net for sources to back you up if you like. You’ll find no reputable geneticist or anthropologist who believes the Austronesians or Khoisan have anything to do with each other. So either you are the sole genius who has figured this out and everyone else is wrong, or it is the opposite.
Mathew: Have I not posted significant,empirical evidence on the other peoples I have made statements on?
Such as the Uygurs and Native Americans,etc?
LikeLike
@ Mathew
you seem to be an expert at missing the point entirely.
Believe what you want. I really can’t be bothered anymore.
LikeLike
Eurasian:
The other defining physical features of the Khoisan – “peppercorn” hair, short stature (under 5ft 5 generally) and distinctive body shape (steatopygious buttocks and elongated labia minora in women)- are not like Asians at all.
Mathew: Again your not correct when you say this,
Well I don’t know if we can determine the labia minora in Asia women,since they are not running around naked ,as well as the very pronounced booty that the Bush women have.
Though I dated a Filipina lady with booty that projected out about a 18inches from her back and was as well formed as bush woman :_
Not usual of course. But this trait is unique to the Bush people and no other African group of people;they
African women -peoples are noted for their full and large
booties,women in the Mediterranean,Middle east,India,
the pacific ocean(Micronesia) and hot climates have this trait.
Mongoloid people are known for have flat or small
booties,but this is not always the case. I had Mongolian
lady doctor who had a very full,prominent booty.
I couldn’t help but look :_)
LikeLike
Austronesians in South Africa
http://www.commissionstories.com/stories/39
They worked with the Cape Malay, a people of mixed races who trace their ancestry to Malaysian slaves of Dutch settlers. The slaves intermarried among a group of South Africans, now known as the “bushmen.” The Cape Malay live in some of the roughest areas, where 70 percent of the city’s crime is reported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Malay
LikeLike
Matthew,
I cannot believe you have reduced this talk to ladies bottom, or ‘booty’ to use your term.
ha ha
LikeLike
Mathew:
J,well I didn’t bum though.
I might have gotten carried away by some of Agabond’s pictures of Big Bottomed African Beauties.
Please have some forgiveness in your heart for
a lustful sinner such as I
Love that booty!
:_)
LikeLike
http://primarysources.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/11/515398-was-megalithic-culture-earths-first-empire
Was Megalithic Culture Earth’s First Empire?
News Type: Other — Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:07 AM EST
europe, history, dna, ice-age, stonehenge, malta, megalithic-culture, sardinia, graham-hancock, carnac, early-civilization, charles-hapgood, genetic-geography
By Synthesis
Photo by Beth Loft. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)
advertisement
Advocates of lost civilization theories, including the likes of Graham Hancock (author of Fingerprints of the Gods) and earlier, Charles Hapgood (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings) have proposed the existence of a world-spanning homogeneous maritime civilization whose apex occurred as much as 12,000 years before our current technological high-water mark. Very often, these writers are careful to avoid mention of the word ‘Atlantis’, but the main belief structure behind all these theories remains fundamentally the same: more than 10,000 years ago, before our recorded history, there existed a relatively advanced civilization that attained a high enough level of culture that they had written languages, maritime trade and sophisticated naval technology.
Leaving aside – for the moment – such superficial, facile approaches as comparison and contrast of New World and Old World pyramids…in fact, steering away from all the Von Danikenesque hyperbole, is there any evidence for a civilization anything like what we’ve described above?
As it happens, there is.
European Megalithic Culture was a prehistoric culture that stretched from the Iberian Peninsula in the south and Sweden and the Orkney Islands in the north, while stretching from the Baltics in the east as far west as the Atlantic.
The earliest structures in this civilization can be reliably dated to about 4800 BC, and consist of circular ditches and communal tombs, and later evolved to include more complicated structures, including henges (the most famous of which is Stonehenge in Somerset, England).
The people belonging to this megalithic culture displayed highly advanced technologies at an almost incredibly early date. For example, by 4000 BC, the Neolithic inhabitants of the Orkneys, Hebrides and Shetlands were demonstrably using skin boats and voyaging nearly out of sight of land. Skara Brae, the spectacular megalithic culture settlement uncovered in the Orkneys features extremely well-designed houses and hearths, some of which seem to include provision for a not-so-primitive sort of plumbing. In England, the first evidence of farming became evident, along with stone axes and distinctive grooved pottery. The culture was knitted together in its use of a common measurement system, most particularly in the use of the megalithic yard, discovered in 1955 by Prof. Alexander Thom, professor of Engineering Sciences at Oxford University. In his March 23 submission to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 118, Thom described the results of more than 20 years of research, at 250 megalithic sites in England and Scotland. Above all, Thom reported that he isolated a common unit of measure, constituting exactly 2.72 feet, and present in site after site.
Many – if not the majority — of the henges and standing stones erected by the Megalithic Culture displayed astronomical alignments with solstices, equinoxes and the movements of the sun, moon and stars. Some, such as Newgrange or Maes Howe would be masterpieces today, even without the incredible intricacies of their alignments. Add in their sophisticated astronomical capabilities – Maes Howe is aligned to the setting winter solstice sun and to the winter setting full Venus, while Newgrange is aligned to the rising winter solstice sun and the winter rising full venus – and you have artifacts of unparalleled sophistication for their time.
Additionally, says Robert Lomas, author of Uriel’s Machine and Mysteries of the Ancient World, they possessed centralized manufacturing and mass production techniques. He cites axes as evidence, illustrating how ax heads were created at two specific sites (with a sea voyage separating them), then finished, polished and fitted with shafts at two other sites. The wide-ranging nature of their trade supply chain is established by the fact that these mass-produced axes are found throughout Britain. Just from this one example, says Lomas, we can infer that the Megalithic Culture people specialized into roles which – for the purposes of ax production – included quarry workers, sailors, polishers and finishers, and “a sales force”.
At around the same time – as much as two thousand years prior to the pyramids – a predynastic Egyptian people began building their own megalithic structures on the Nabta plateau near the Sudanese border. These structures would seem to mark the position where the morning star, Sirius, would have risen at the summer solstice.
Academics such Grafton Elliot Smith, an Australian anatomist who was a proponent of the theory of hyperdiffusionism, which suggested that all megalith-builders originated from Egypt, believed the Nabta peoples and the European Megalithic Culture peoples were one and the same. Today, the hyperdiffusionist theory has fallen out of favour, but there remains the coincidental emergence of cultures within a few hundred years, both of which erect standing stones to track astronomical phenomena.
There also remain the startling similarities between Mediterranean Megalithic structures and those in northern and western Europe, with structures in Sardinia, Sicily and Malta being almost identical. Both cultures featured henges, chambered tombs and standing stones.
So who, then, were the Megalithic Culture peoples? One theory, known as the Anatolian hypothesis, popularized by Colin Renfrew, suggests that they were a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) people from Anatolia, who migrated into Europe along with the spread of Neolithic agriculture. More recent thinking about the spread of the PIE-speaking peoples has tended to reject this, largely on the grounds that the Proto-Indo-Europeans expanded out of the Pontic Steppe later, in the 4th millennium. This theory, called the Kurgan hypothesis, suggests that this migration occurred too late to account for the Megalithic Culture.
Others propose that the migration may have taken place the other way. At around 10,000 BC, the Azilian-Tardenoisian peoples – considered to be the first wave of the Iberians – migrated into Europe. There are suggestions that – unlike other theories which suggest an east-to-west populating of Europe – the Azilian-Tardenoisians arrived from the Atlantic. Their provenance as a sea-going people is further supported by finds of finely worked, but very large, fish-hooks. In this theory, the Megalithic Culture is simply the result of 5000+ years of evolution from a landfall made on the Iberian peninsula at the closing of the Ice Age.
Barry Cunliffe, professor of European Architecture at Oxford University, has pointed out the relative homogeneity of the Megalithic Culture – or at least that of the European Megalithic Culture. Writing in an article titled People of the Sea, in the February 2002 issue of British Archaeology, he says in the late bronze age “had a warrior from the Algarve sailed to Aberdeenshire he would have found much in local behaviour and equipment that was very familiar.”
Cunliffe goes on to say, “it is quite clear…that the technical skills of the people, both in shipbuilding and navigation, must have been sufficiently advanced, even at a very early date, to allow voyages in the open sea to have been a normal part of life…if we accept that networks of maritime communication along the entire Atlantic façade had developed during the Mesolithic period, then it is easier to understand how the cultural traits of agro-pastoralism, which characterized the subsequent Neolithic way of life, quickly spread from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic coast of Portugal and from Continental Europe to the British Isles and Ireland.”
One of the most recent weapons added to the arsenal of those studying the relatively mute passages of prehistory is biostatistics and the analysis of genetic information, particularly Y-DNA. Much groundbreaking study has been done by researchers such as S. Rootsi and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. One of the more revealing findings to emerge from the new discipline of “genetic geography” may be the identification of a Megalithic Culture genetic ‘fingerprint’, Y-DNA haplogroup I.
According to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy, “Y-DNA haplogroup I is a European haplogroup, representing nearly one-fifth of the population. It is almost non-existent outside of Europe, suggesting that it arose in Europe. Estimates of the age of haplogroup I suggest that it arose prior to the last Glacial Maximum. Probably, it was confined to the refuge in the Balkans during the last Ice Age, and then spread northward during the recolonization of northern Europe following the retreat of the glaciers.
There are two main subgroups of haplogroup I: I-M253/I-M307/I-P30/I-P40 has highest frequency in Scandinavia, Iceland, and northwest Europe. In Britain, haplogroup I-M253 is often used as a marker for “invaders,” Viking or Anglo-Saxon. I-S31 includes I-P37.2, which is the most common form in the Balkans and Sardinia, and I-S23/I-S30/I-S32/I-S33, which reaches its highest frequency along the northwest coast of continental Europe. Within I-S23 et al, I-M223 occurs in Britain and northwest continental Europe. A subgroup of I-M223, namely I-M284, occurs almost exclusively in Britain, so it apparently originated there and has probably been present for thousands of years.”
What this seems to suggest is that not only is a pan-European common megalithic ethinic culture not far-fetched, but even quite likely, based on the Y-DNA evidence. In fact, given the significant presence of Haplogroup I in Sardinia, which spread along the northwest coast of continental Europe – often considered the “heartland” of megalithic culture we may even be able to infer links to the Mediterranean megalithic culture.
If this is true – and only further research will tell one way or another – the implications are manifold. For one thing, later Bronze Age migrations (not to mention predations) of the Sea Peoples (which were thought to contain a significant Sardinian and Corsican continent), demonstrated the relative ease with which a population in this portion of the Mediterranean to easily influence culture in the Aegean, Crete, Malta, the Phoenician / Lebanese Coast and even as far south as Egypt. Given this, perhaps hyperdiffusionist theory needs to be considered once again.
This would mean that the megaliths of Malta, Brittany, southern England, the Orkney Islands, Crete, Lebanon (Baalbek) and even Nabta on the Egypt/Sudan border really are far-flung outposts of a common cultural empire.
And if that can be established, how likely is it that other megalithic cultures – for example those in China, India and Japan – that existed at roughly the same time, and built similar structures, are completely unrelated? Or does Occam’s razor suggest that there may be a relationship; indeed, perhaps just another branch of a global, world-spanning homogeneous civilization, spread through maritime travel, whose apex occurred as much as 12,000 years before our current technological high-water mark.
LikeLike
ha ha Matthew,
I think I have to point you to your fellow ‘brother’
So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…
“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:
He said,… where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”
“…No man, (was the reply)”
“…Neither do I condemn thee…”
St. John Ch 8
LikeLike
:_)
LikeLike
DNA Test proves that Chinese came from Africa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3IzMvBeOLk
LikeLike
I sub this post
LikeLike
blacks did not evole frm apes
LikeLike
My mom sort of looks like the people pictured in the pictures on top because shes of the same descent but I wouldnt call her African and its a little offensive that people try to claim they are African the culture is a lot different Negritos are more similar to malayan and pacific islander culture. Also the facial structure is different africans I noticed dont have as round faces as negritos which have very round faces.
LikeLike
Neanderthals from the Caucus Mountains region of Asia and through-out modern day Russia gave rise to the Caucasian “race”, and they spent a long time separated by an icy northern hemisphere, from their cousins in tropical Africa, today called the, “Homo-Sapiens” which are the mothers of all modern man kind.
The Neanderthals (caucazoids) were simply not as good as the Homo-Sapiens (negroids) at surviving the end of the ice-age. The Neanderthals, being hunters (killers) then devised a plan to ensure the survival of their, “white race” which included invading, murdering, raping, and controlling the, “black race.”
The practice is ingrained into their DNA like pit-bulls toward an unwelcomed guest. The white neanderthals have tried to breed out the surviving black homo-sapiens since prior to 10,000 BCE (that’s what the movie was trying to tell you). The mixing of the, “races” has failed and after 10.000 BCE the whitest of the newer versions of the cross-breed, “ARYANS” have separated themselves as much as possible from the, “non-whites” and the best way for manny of them to do this is by treating all, “others” as, “Separate but equal!”
The blood-shed has proven to create at the very least a stalemate between the whites and the blacks “RACE” for the future of humanity. And the “neanderthal” genes which are hardwired to kill (murder) have been passed on to the resulting, “races” of brown people the world over (including the so called, “African-Americans”) which has inspired true Africans to imitate what they see on MTV and hear over the radio from modern, “pop-culture” and the most pressing factor of all, MONEY (or a lack there of)!
Trough economic slavery the Neanderthal genes of our real forefathers are artificially dominating the artificcially recessive black traits of our mothers from Africa. Their out to destroy the truth and replace it with hysterical history (pun intended). Mama Africa was and has never stopped being raped by the murderous white, “race” which call themselves, “Aryans”; yet every time they find they are losing the size of their population due to the, “browning” of the off-spring, they abandon ship and retreat to another place where they might stay, “PURE!”
Mexicans, Indians, Asians, Arabs, Islanders, etc., etc. are all simply the new-brown product of the extremely white skinned people attempting to “bleach-out” the pre-existing black-skinned people of the world, and who are both (whites and blacks) from two essentially, “different worlds” (arctic-mountains, and tropical-jungles).
The mentality lives on masked by an unintentional racist view of “black” not being as desirable as “fair-skinned” is through-out the world, and in the cultures of people who seem to be of the, “Austronesian” or Maylasian stock (including the oriental’s, Phillipine’s, and Polynesian’s) of the world.
Today, there has been so much recombination of the “races”, that there cannot be a phenotypically true or accurate way to catagorize human beings into “races”, rather let the DNA and ADNA do the talking before the whites destroy the whole world with genetically modified foods and hazardous fuoridated water which will result in the permanent damage of the modern human RNA genetic code; causing massive retardation, mutation, and damage to all of the have-not’s (mostly non-whites) future offspring; and sacrificing the few, “others” after they have finished helping to push the white agenda of world domination.
The New World Order approaches, and sees all. “LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES…. DON’T LISTEN TO ME LISTEN TO YOUR HEAD!!!”
LikeLike
The negritos were actually african. The people of any aboriginal decent had actually killed many negritos and that’s the reason you see what you think are negitos with straighter hair. You should probably know by now that the original inhabitants were called the Mons. These are the people that spread to other parts of Asia. These people were fron Ethiopia and the links still exist. These same people are not well known to the public, I think, because many people from these lands that have been physically changed don’t want to be known by the people the look down upon. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and can tell you I felt that it was stupid. In Africa’s earlier years, the 3 people that left Africa were black negroids, australoids, and pygmoids. These same people were found from the Indus Valley to Hawa’ii. Even the Chinese history goes back to Africans called the San Bushmen thousands of years before. (This came from a DNA test if you doubt it.) Also, the original inhabitants of Japan were aboriginies called the Ainu 11,000 years before the Children of the Sun arrived 3000 years ago.
LikeLike
I have been to Xinjiang and have seen tens of thousands of Uyghurs and this statement is simply not completely true.
True, there are *some* Uyghurs which have lighter hair, ie, brown, or even reddish or almost blond. And some do have lighter colour eyes, ie, hazel, some even almost green or blue. If you go to places with large numbers of Uyghurs, then you might seem some.
But, they are by far the minority. You will see them, but they are rare. In fact, I have even seen a few Han Chinese, descendent of Han parents and Han grandparents, which have reddish hair or blue eyes. These genes are spread throughout the population and occasionally express themselves in individuals.
These pictures are chosen to represent rare individuals. I could have found even more Uyghurs which could pass as full Han or Pashtun.
The vast majority of Uyghurs look like a combination of Eastern European, Middle Eastern and Chinese with dark hair and dark eyes and medium complexion, but there are some which may seem to lean to one or the other. Some could pass as Chinese, Mongolian or Pakistani, Hungarian and of course Turkish,
LikeLike
There is a treasure trove of information on this blog.
And it’s like a “box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get”.
LikeLike
I’m really intrigued by things like this. I mostly wonder about the transitional period, meaning I wonder what the black people of Asia & South Pacific/Oceania looked like at say the halfway point of their journey. Think of how many stages of physical looks they went through before the environment shaped their current one.
An even bigger divergence like black to white, or black to east & southeast Asian was probably even more astonishing. Too bad it takes thousands of years for these evolutions to occur and humans hadn’t developed more descriptive forms of record keeping so we in the present could see.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton and Abagon. Excuse my late reply here. I’d picked on this while doing a search on this topic. Regarding Negrito people being distance from Black Africans than Europeans are. To me that’s debatable. Scientist always change things. And even though they seem to be the ones that many of us base our knowledge on. Even they get it wrong. I’d state that the Negrito people have a very strong connection to Black Africans. In particular, the San people who have a very strong resemblance to the Asians, and as far as we know, the oldest on the planet and have the widest DNA.
Abagon. I think that the reason why Europeans look different is less about adapting to their climate and more about having a very strong Neanderthal background. If we go by what scientist have said over the years, neanderthals resided in the north were fair skin, light hair and eyes. And many Europeans have those features. Including the big lower legs. Somewhere, humans and neanderthals, copulated, you can see this with the Aborigines via Australia and who have strong neanderthal look to them, but the surrounding islands, the people of Papua New Guinea look less neanderthal and more Afro black. When you get to the Solomon Islands, the blacks looking people have blond hair and light eyes. I think that the situation was the same as well. What I see is, Blacks have left a trace of their presence, like a fingerprints or presence over the centuries where mixing have also taken place. Even the island where the Afro black looking people, near India is another prime example of Africa and could also be where the Indians of India started from. The same people who killed the Asian American Christian. I just think that there was a lot of mixing between homo sapiens and neanderthals throughout the planet.
LikeLike
The problem with the “Whites are half-Thals theory” is that Neandertals vanished 30 ky ago while the genes that make typical whites (ceder melanina, Blue eles, etc) appeared 6 to 8 years ago (ironically, the time when Yakub from “Nation of Islam” theology started producing them…)
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)
LikeLike
Sorry for last post. It seem like the pornographic corrector (tuned to Portuguese) changed everything
LikeLike
[…] Most Negritos who’ve had their DNA examined prove to have the similar mitochondrial DNA as the folk in southern India, New Guinea and Australia: haplogroup M, the primary to depart Africa. They left about 50,000 years in the past, following the coast of the Indian Ocean after which spreading inland. Source. […]
LikeLike