PDA

View Full Version : Homo Erectus: Extinct or still with us?



Von Braun
Thursday, February 20th, 2003, 06:29 AM
I have read about evidence for modern syb-Saharran Africans being mostly if not entirely Homo Erectus. Modern establishment scientists will tell you that all people are modern Homo Sapiens. This is clearly a lie. Sub-Saharran Africans are either archaic Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus, or a mix of the two, in my opinion.

Whenever ones species evolves into existence, it comes from a branch off the parent specis. Those of the parent species not of this off-shot go on living until extinction or until they evolve into something else. This means that the picture presented to layman of species A evolving into species B evolving into species C and so on is incorrect. To be more precise, when a new species arises, it overlaps in time with the parent species.

In Africa, Homo Sapiens evolved out of part of Homo Erectus. In my opinion, the former species left Africa for the most part. The degree of gene flow of the new species back into the more primitive one (or vice versa) is hard to speculate on. We do know that one Homo Sapiens left Africa, and we also know that a branch of Homo Erectus left Africa in an earleir wave (Java Man in the Indian Ocean area). I think that that branch, instead of dying out as is claimed, went on to become the Australian indiginous population (as well as other peoples in the surrounding islands). Meanwhile, Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa, then left Africa in a later wave, and populated Eurasia, while the branch of Homo Erectus that stayed behind in Africa advanced litte (and are the people whom we call "black" today).

Liberal multicult scientists will throw the definition of "species" at me and point to the fact that members of various races can produce fertile offspring. To counter this, I cite Darwin's "Descent of Man" which cited information on mixed race people being less fertile than people who are racially pure. In any case, the notion that hybrids are ALWAYS sterile is not true. I have heard that some mules (donkey-horse mixes) can reproduce (as can ligers and other interspecies hybrids). Unfortunately, when mating occurs as often as it does with the mixed-race mud people in this country, they will still have several offspring regardless.

Azdaja
Thursday, February 20th, 2003, 06:38 AM
<< we also know that a branch of Homo Erectus left Africa in an earleir wave (Java Man in the Indian Ocean area). I think that that branch, instead of dying out as is claimed, went on to become the Australian indiginous population (as well as other peoples in the surrounding islands). >>

Ok, I've actually been thinking for awhile now that this may be true. I even posted about it in another thread. Going strictly by physical appearence, it seems obvious.
However going solely on physical appearence can lead one astray. I wonder if there have been any genetic tests done that would lend some more weight to this theory?

GreenHeart
Thursday, February 20th, 2003, 08:27 AM
That just might be. What evidence have you read Von Braun? They seem rather primative to me, and skeletal structure fits also.

Here's a sketch of Homo Erectus

http://www.gridclub.com/fact_gadget/images/qa2c05f4.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,37512,00.jpg


They look like Homo Erectus, albeit slightly evolved. Slightly less prognathic. Does that make them Homo Sapiens? I don't think it does.

Von Braun
Thursday, February 20th, 2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by NordicPower88
That just might be. What evidence have you read Von Braun? They seem rather primative to me, and skeletal structure fits also.

Here's a sketch of Homo Erectus

http://www.gridclub.com/fact_gadget/images/qa2c05f4.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,37512,00.jpg


They look like Homo Erectus, albeit slightly evolved. Slightly less prognathic. Does that make them Homo Sapiens? I don't think it does.

I read this on SF several months ago. It was a thread with a catchy title: something like "All humans are equal." It turned out his point was that many other races are not human like us. People were commenting that they thought he was an anti-racist from the title of the thread. Anyway, I think he had some good sources.

Evolved
Thursday, February 20th, 2003, 07:18 PM
This site (http://hometown.aol.com/canovanogram/) claims Aborigines are clearly homo sapiens. It's a statement made to dodge any claims of Australoids being subhuman. The modern Aborigine skull shown on that site bears more than a passing resemblance to homo erectus. (http://www.hmag.gla.ac.uk/Neil/labwork/Vertebrate%20Class/I6.jpg)

Aborigine?
http://www.nature.com/nsu/011206/images/model_160.jpg
Though it somewhat reminds me of the negroid Whoopi Goldberg, too. x_hehe

Von Braun
Thursday, February 20th, 2003, 07:20 PM
I agree with Von Braun.

:)

Allenson
Thursday, February 20th, 2003, 10:21 PM
Not that Coon is the 'be all end all' in physical anthropolgy but he states that there is nothing MORE sapiens than the Negroid. That's right, the Negroid. According to his hypothesis, the modern European population is a combination or blend of sapiens and the Neaderthal, whereas the Negroid is purely sapiens....albeit an archaic variety.

GreenHeart
Friday, February 21st, 2003, 05:57 AM
The theory that whites are mixed with Neanderthals has long been disproved. Why people keep propagating it I have no idea.

Coon copied most of his ideas from anti-racists.

Allenson
Friday, February 21st, 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by NordicPower88
The theory that whites are mixed with Neanderthals has long been disproved. Why people keep propagating it I have no idea.

Coon copied most of his ideas from anti-racists.


Oh I'm not saying that there is Neaderthal in us or not....just presenting theories that have have been devised before. Personally, I find the notion to be quite possible. What about all the intermediate skulls that have been found....especially the ones from what is now Israel/Palestine? Coon's theory is that the rugged Upper Paleolithic types (Brunns & Borrebys) are the direct result of this blend.

I thought you were a 'Coonist'. You quote and site his work often here but now you say he 'copied his ideas from anti-racists'.

I'm not being argumentative here but I'm curious what you know about the disproval of this theory. Have genetic studies been conducted? Thanks.

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, February 24th, 2003, 04:42 AM
Have to agree with Dalon. I used to be very interested in the multi-regional theory a while back, and read up on it some. I tend to believe its actually the out-of-Africa thory, so beloved of commies, which is the anti-racist idea.

Evolved
Monday, February 24th, 2003, 05:47 AM
The Out-of-Africa theory shows we're all one big human family? Not really, it proves negroids today are a less evolved form of mankind, and that other races progressed while they stayed behind in Africa. The lack of intellectual evolution Negroids experienced is unimportant for life in Africa, a continent full of wildlife and natural resources. You don't have to think too much when you're surrounded by a lot of good stuff you can just pluck from the trees or chuck a spear at. When they come into contact with other races, this lack of intelligence is very important and poses a big problem.

Somewhere down the line we were all Negroids. And before that, we were various types of monkeys. It's fact. Unless you believe aliens hatched eggs on the lost island of Atlantis to give birth to the Aryan race. :)

The Negroids who eventually evolved into Caucasoids and Mongoloids had to develop a sharper sense of intelligence to deal with different climates, different vegetation, different animals in their travels out of Africa, through Asia and into Europe. Hence, we are smarter and more advanced than they are and have been for thousands of years.

GreenHeart
Monday, February 24th, 2003, 08:57 AM
I agree with ladyGoeth. Overwhelming evidence is in favor of the Out of Africa theory although I am still interested in hearing the other theories they don't make much sense. The commies don't love the theory, the theory is a little inconvience to them just like DNA but if they twist the evidence into proving whatever they want people will believe it and thats what they do. The implications that we're one big family? Well consider this. We all descend from amoeba and some point in history, yet we have little in common with them at all. We descend from monkeys but that doesn't mean they are equal to us. In my opinion all the Out of Africa Theory really proves is that we are more evolved than the other races and hence superior.

By the way I don't cite Coon, I site nordish.com, which occasionally references Coon. I'm not very fond of him OR his work, but even as a racial antagonist, he still did classify the races.

Allenson
Monday, February 24th, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by NordicPower88

By the way I don't cite Coon, I site nordish.com, which occasionally references Coon. I'm not very fond of him OR his work, but even as a racial antagonist, he still did classify the races.

Occasionally references Coon? That whole site is for all intents and purposes, based on his work....with a few minor 'adjustments'.

Racial antagonist? What?

Zimmer Mann
Thursday, April 10th, 2003, 02:09 PM
I admit when I first saw the title of this thread I almost fell off my chair laughing. I just had to see for myself what sort of idiocy would be used to demote the sub-saharans even further down the evolutionary scale. First off, anyone who would make a statement like this is extracting it entirely from the back of their own head. Whether you want to believe it or not, all humans alive today are anthropologically modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It is not just in body structure but in head form and most importantly cranial capacity. It is painfully clear how those photos above don't resemble a bit any human alive today, especially when you consider Homo Erectus died out 750, 000 years ago. You are going to look like an ass if you try to promote this theory and you might as well try to convince us that the world is flat, or witches are responsible for the failed crop. There is a certain fine line when anthropological contemplation passes from emperical observational theory to being purely motivated by the ingrained and deep set personal feelings of contempt that have no relevance in science. I think people can all have their opinions on any creed or race, but that is purely subjective. I just have a problem when the barriers of reason when it comes to objective sciences are blurred or ignored altogether in light of someones emotional attachment. This is when we see ridiculous ideas like above believed in when the clear opposite is so obvious. I think it is representative of the highest order of civilization and character when baseless pseudo-sciences and primitive, lawless superstitions are banished and replaced by rational thought. :viking

Von Braun
Friday, April 11th, 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Zimmer Mann
I admit when I first saw the title of this thread I almost fell off my chair laughing. I just had to see for myself what sort of idiocy would be used to demote the sub-saharans even further down the evolutionary scale. First off, anyone who would make a statement like this is extracting it entirely from the back of their own head. Whether you want to believe it or not, all humans alive today are anthropologically modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It is not just in body structure but in head form and most importantly cranial capacity. It is painfully clear how those photos above don't resemble a bit any human alive today, especially when you consider Homo Erectus died out 750, 000 years ago. You are going to look like an ass if you try to promote this theory and you might as well try to convince us that the world is flat, or witches are responsible for the failed crop. There is a certain fine line when anthropological contemplation passes from emperical observational theory to being purely motivated by the ingrained and deep set personal feelings of contempt that have no relevance in science. I think people can all have their opinions on any creed or race, but that is purely subjective. I just have a problem when the barriers of reason when it comes to objective sciences are blurred or ignored altogether in light of someones emotional attachment. This is when we see ridiculous ideas like above believed in when the clear opposite is so obvious. I think it is representative of the highest order of civilization and character when baseless pseudo-sciences and primitive, lawless superstitions are banished and replaced by rational thought. :viking

Greetings, you judeo-egalitarian lemming. Why did you attack the idea without providing any counter-points, save for something about cranial size? How about you address my points, NordicPower88's points, and ladygoeth33's points.

By the way, it makes me sick seeing someone like you using that as your avatar. Why don't you use some "anti-racist" avatar and go be with your on kind?

:hang

Von Braun
Saturday, April 12th, 2003, 01:50 AM
Here it is:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13299

At first, he sounds like an anti-racist, but it is truly great when you see the end!

Wow, I even started this thread one year to the day after the SF thread was started, without realizing it.

Zimmer Mann
Saturday, April 12th, 2003, 04:11 AM
One thing I am not is jew. Just because I happen to disagree with one point doesn't make me an outsider. Would you like it if I called you a jew Von BRAUN. What was your source for this thread? You merely did some reading. Was it from Scientific American? The point I was making was bold claims need bold evidence. I might be interested in reading the source if you give it. I don't think you fully understand what the term Homo Erectus implies. To say a branch of Homo Erectus stayed in Africa and evolved little just has no backing. Is there DNA evidence? The Erectus cranium is about half of modern man. Just like if you look at a chimp you can easily spot how shallow the top of the skull is. How would you explain the huge discrepency in cranial size between Homo Erectus and blacks if blacks are supposidly little altered Homo Erectus? I do believe that as far as anatomically modern humans are concerned, blacks are at or near the bottom with aborigines but that is because they are lesser varieties of fully modern humans. Just as blunt trauma to the head can damage the brain and impair judgments that spawn criminality, blacks with their lesser intelligence as a group are more succeptable to deliquincy and squalor. This isn't because they represent some kind of "lost world" leftover from a million year old species, but rather a more archaic blueprint of fully modern humans.:cool

Zimmer Mann
Saturday, April 12th, 2003, 04:18 AM
I just noticed the last post so I will read it. Thanks.:)

Von Braun
Saturday, April 12th, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Zimmer Mann
I don't think you fully understand what the term Homo Erectus implies. To say a branch of Homo Erectus stayed in Africa and evolved little just has no backing.

Do you think that every single Homo Erectus lineage left Africa? There were branches that left and became Australoids (Java Man), and there were branches that stayed behind, and had minimal miscegenation with the new Homo Sapiens branch later on, which for the most part left Africa (or was absorbed ino Homo Erectus in Africa).

So there you have it. Homo Erectus, being unintelligent, can only survive in warm climates. Sub-saharrans are slightly smarter than Aboriginees because the former were able to absorb some *archaic* Homo Sapiens blood as it evolved in Africa.

Jack
Sunday, April 13th, 2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Zimmer Mann
I admit when I first saw the title of this thread I almost fell off my chair laughing. I just had to see for myself what sort of idiocy would be used to demote the sub-saharans even further down the evolutionary scale. First off, anyone who would make a statement like this is extracting it entirely from the back of their own head. Whether you want to believe it or not, all humans alive today are anthropologically modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It is not just in body structure but in head form and most importantly cranial capacity. It is painfully clear how those photos above don't resemble a bit any human alive today, especially when you consider Homo Erectus died out 750, 000 years ago. You are going to look like an ass if you try to promote this theory and you might as well try to convince us that the world is flat, or witches are responsible for the failed crop. There is a certain fine line when anthropological contemplation passes from emperical observational theory to being purely motivated by the ingrained and deep set personal feelings of contempt that have no relevance in science. I think people can all have their opinions on any creed or race, but that is purely subjective. I just have a problem when the barriers of reason when it comes to objective sciences are blurred or ignored altogether in light of someones emotional attachment. This is when we see ridiculous ideas like above believed in when the clear opposite is so obvious. I think it is representative of the highest order of civilization and character when baseless pseudo-sciences and primitive, lawless superstitions are banished and replaced by rational thought. :viking

You're an idiot. You seen any real Australian Aboriginies? They're homo erectus definetly. They haven't died out. They still exist. Liberals and egalitarians preach lies when they say we're all homo sapiens sapiens. We're not. Just because they can think doesn't mean they're the same as we are. I don't know a great deal about Coon, but its not pseudo science. Pseudoscience is what you read in mainstream sources, controlled, supressed and twisted towards the political ends of those that allow certain stuff to come out. Only until after the revolution will we see real science and the truth come out - if the revolution doesn't go too far. That's one of the only things I fear when it comes, whether it'll allow itself to go beyond the true aim of everyone that's here - to build a truly free society, free from social engineering. One of the main reasons I oppose NS and I lean towards a cross between massive scale white unity and anarchism. I want to be free to be who I am, free from indoctrination, whether its from those who propound "liberal democracy" or "white national socialism". Free your mind.

Jack
Monday, April 14th, 2003, 10:46 AM
That's the true Germanic spirit! One of the best things I read for quiet a while! Bravo!

I'm Irish English mix. English came from Saxony, Irish came from Spain, Spaniards are descended from the Goths, Goths are Germans, we're all Germans on the inside :D

Zimmer Mann
Monday, April 14th, 2003, 12:19 PM
I have done some searching on the internet trying to find sources that could prove a late occuring Homo Erectus strain that far exeeds the excepted end date of around 200 000 years. I would find a site that was promising and read on and maybe think this it until I realized I should check the source. Sure enough it's some Christian Science sponsored site that have their own objectives in doing so. Their ultimate goal is to displace evolution from excepted thought by promoting the notion of fixed species that would place all extinct animals on earth at the same time. This is the key sumbling block to their doctrine. They promote this or that scientist from such in such university as being the big man with the breakthrough discovery. Of course the much better part of more credible scholars are in disagreement. Of course I shouldn't be biased in favor of these guys because they have more trophies in their cabinat. But it certainly makes things inconclusive.

Homo Erectus also entered southern Europe, but during an interglacial period. Why should we assume that only negroids from Sub-Sahara and Austhraloids (who share ancestry with some southern Indian affinity) be as you claim "homo Erectus", and other areas of habitat like Spain or China not? Why would Erectus survive to this day and the much superior Neanderthal die out. I am very open to suggestions and I apologize for my earlier post as it was uncalled for.

One suggestion is that the Australoids are at least a crudely fashioned archaic Homo Sapian with some Erectus like leftovers. The brain is more or less modern sized but brow ridges and mental immaturity are intermediate. And lets face it they are ugly muther fuckers. There were originally two Australian types. The second Tasmanian type died out last century. The age for Australian colonization keeps on getting pushed back further and further. If it sinks below the 100k years ago, which is conceivable, there could exist a more proto-Sapien that could have been isolated. But the clear definition between Sapien and Erectus is very significant. 1300 cc in cranium for modern man and 850 to 1000 for Erectus. And don't diminish this as being inconcequencial. If the Aborigines were pure Homo Erectus, they would be severly comprimised with no exceptions in all mental fields that we call human. They are dumb fucks but they are functional and there would be exceptions. And just because I am wary of this theory doesn't make me a nigger lover either. As I said before, unbiased scientific thought is the key to greatness. Also if we do discuss this, lets get passed the condecending and talk like collegues. We're on the same side.:cool

Marduk
Monday, April 14th, 2003, 11:56 PM
I agree with you Zimmer Mann. If I may, I'd ask that there's no point in exagerating the facts, because we give liberals some arguments to refute our thesis.
There are several souches of Homo Sapiens who have evolved separately and more and less differently.