Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Out of Africa, Back to Africa, Out Again?

  1. #21
    Senior Member rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 05:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I don't know where this idea that whites are an older race comes from. Blacks are the oldest race, asians second oldest and whites the youngest.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Renwein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, December 28th, 2018 @ 07:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    630
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rainman View Post
    I don't know where this idea that whites are an older race comes from. Blacks are the oldest race, asians second oldest and whites the youngest.
    That's a pretty crude scheme of generalisations, don't you think?

    If you were referring to my remark that Congoids/Negrids are youngest in the fossil record, it's the truth. Don't confuse oldest morphological 'type' with the oldest genetic lines. The oldest (most diverse) lines are in the Kho-san, not Congoids, and they are an east asian type (so Velvet says ). The rest of the world is less 'diverse' since it budded off from a small group and hence contained less 'lines' of diversity. The Congoid type is the youngest in the fossil record, (but has more diverse genome since it is formed from older, diverser lines than the OOA races), and also less primitive than say Australids or Capoids (Khosan), so it's probable some evo. 'progress' was made in the formation of that type since the OOA event occured.

    I would like to know how you know whites are the 'youngest' also, and again, don't confuse genetic schemes for the population of europe with the formation of the Caucasoid type. The settlers of europe were already 'Caucasoid' when they got there.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Renwein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, December 28th, 2018 @ 07:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    630
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    They are indeed of east Asian stock partly, they are mixed with Negroids which is responsible for their hair and taints some of their features, but they are genetically related with both, Negroids and East Asians (the same stock that brought forth Inuits, an older line than Mongoloids).
    They classify themselves, of course, as humans, they put also Asians into the human category automatically, Blacks though, their direct neighbors, they classify as not eatable animals.
    Their skin is for a black very yellowish, they are much lighter therefor than Sub-Saharan blacks.
    They do indeed call asians by the same name they call themselves, but IMO this is superficial, just like euro. exporers classifying australids as 'negros' because they had black skin and frizzy hair was.

    They do have similarly neotenic flat faces and 'slanty' eyes (but NOT epicathus like mongolids), but they have hair that is even frizzier and more 'peppercorn' than Congoids (blacks), and they have large fat development of the hind quaters (like Congoids, and their anthem 'I like Big Butts' ), wheras Mongoloids have straight hair and slender builds. Bushmen also have protruding labia amongst other unique things...
    The point is that if they were mixed-east asian, we would expect other mogoloid features (shovel teeth, hair form) to be as prominent as the facial similarities (just as any mixed population is a mix of all traits), but it isn't. And that's not to mention the closeness to african neighbours in genome studies.

    Coon's idea was that the East Asians were formed partially from an old migration of Capoids (San etc). which is an interesting idea, but doesn't really seem likely anymore.

    I dont do it, but there is a lot of unexplained things in the currently given form of the theory.
    I wasn't saying you did, but many do, and I was talking to them when you butted in

    Well, wolves domesticated themselves already some ten thousand years ago (as well as the cat domesticated itself), we know of chinese temple dogs from around three thousand years ago. So your timeline is a bit short
    But it is true that a controlled breeding programme can produce results in a much shorter time than free evolution would. The question remains though, who would have run this controlled breeding programme in early humans, or in humans of 40K years back?
    the same aliens that built the pyramids, of course
    more seriously: the environment (the Frostbitten North™ ). It's not a 'who', although it does take various personalties in mythic writings . I do belive it's enough to explain the degree of difference.

    Theoretically this is possible of course. But actually, light skin in a cold climate seem to be a disadvantage, because light skin doesnt produce so much vitamine D from the sun light, which needs to be replaced then by nutrition; nutrition that is generally rare in a cold climate. Dark skin holds the warm better, because it has a thicker fabric, the thin, fair skin of Europeans is an overall disadvantage in the climate given, and the climate that is said to be the driving force behind the adaption.
    You're right about dark skin holding heat better, but I thought light skin aided the production of Vit. D, not the opposite .
    I'm not convinced there's a 100% satisfactory explanation for the skin colours yet, but who knows. Anyway, like you said, the oldest people (San) don't have deep-black 'negro' skin. To me it seems possible people were more intermediate in colour, and became darkest in areas with most sun (central africa, india, australia) only later. Also, there's the idea that northern peoples became depigmented quicker from sexual selection, IE because it looks better .

    What I mean for example was this depiction made by a facial artist of a find (it was linked here), where this caucasian find was made into an ape-like black. Or the depictions of Neanderthals shown here, which are not very correct. Even when facts are not suppressed, they are manipulated.
    ...
    There are scientists who research the effects of Neanderthal genes on Europeans. I've read somewhere that we indeed have traces of Neanderthal genes in our mtDNA (cant find the link right now though).
    Btw, I find the depictions of the super-primitive Neanderthals shown here in Germany near Düsseldorf quite annoying. They were different from 'modern humans' yes, but I doubt that they've been that ape-like as it's shown there.
    They are made out as if they'd be like homo erectus or even earlier, made even more primitive than early African finds, which would btw contradict the notion that the homo-line developed continually to more advanced humans.

    However, what would be so tragically about having Neanderthal genes? It would make us even more different from others, no?
    I don't think it'd be so 'tragic', actualy it would be kind of cool, it's just it seems unlikely. Even Bryan Sykes (who was the first person to extract Neanderthal DNA) said he was 'disappointed' he couldn't find any signs of it in modern europe. (so it's not always scientists only find what they want to find ).

    I sort of agree about some reconstructions, but they can also go the other way, like this one :


    Still, I dont see how we, with thin light skin, blue, green or fawn eyes, a complete different hair structure and a whole lot more significant differencies, should have come out, even when we assume a however controlled selection / breeding programme, of black and thick skinned humans, with only black eyes, who on top have a significantly different brain structure?

    Blue or light eyes are not a result of depigmentation, they are genetically encoded, not a phenotype variant. A depigmentation would result in red eyes like in Albinos, it would not produce blue, green or grey eyes. The same goes for skin. Our different skin fabric and color is encoded genetically, it is not a pigmentation defect.
    Blue eyes are actually depigmented; hair, eye and skin are all 'coloured' by melanin, and in blue eyes there is a low level of melanin (but not none, as in albinos) which causes some light to be reflected giving a 'blue' impression.
    Given all of those are linked via melanin production, it isn't hard to imagine a process of melanin reduction making all these changes, IMO. They do occur in wild animials too. Look at arctic forms of rabbit, bear, fox etc. Aiding this, skin is polygenic so there are many allelles to choose from to create variety (I think it's 5 locii in humans, of the top of my head)

    'significantly' different brains is a bit of an exaggeration but it's (probably) true 'northern' (caucasoid, mongoloids) are more complexly 'folded', which only shows they continued further in the direction of brain evolution than some others did (possibly due to the demands of living in the Frostbi... you know ).

  4. #24
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Its not separate origins nor one single point of ancestry, its reticulated gene flow over a broad area. Modern anatomical traits are now known from the fossil record of China way to early to fit the OOA model, in fact certain such traits appeared in the Cape only later.

  5. #25
    Sound methods Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    5 Minutes Ago @ 06:33 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,396
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,385
    Thanked in
    1,039 Posts
    'Oldest remains' outside Africa reset human migration clock



    Source: Phys

    A 210,000-year-old skull has been identified as the earliest modern human remains found outside Africa, putting the clock back on mankind's arrival in Europe by more than 150,000 years, researchers said Wednesday.

    In a startling discovery that changes our understanding of how modern man populated Eurasia, the findings support the idea that Homo sapiens made several, sometimes unsuccessful migrations from Africa over tens of thousands of years.

    Southeast Europe has long been considered a major transport corridor for modern humans from Africa. But until now the earliest evidence of Homo sapiens on the continent dated back only around 50,000 years.

    There has however been a number of discoveries indicating the ancient presence of Neanderthals—an early human cousin—across the continent.

    Two fossilised but badly damaged skulls unearthed in a Greek cave in the 1970s were identified as Neanderthal at the time.

    In findings presented in the journal Nature, an international team of researchers used state-of-the art computer modelling and uranium dating to re-examine the two skulls.

    One of them, named Apidima 2 after the cave in which the pair were found, proved to be 170,000 years old and did indeed belong to a Neanderthal.

    But, to the shock of scientists, the skull named Apidima 1 pre-dated Apidima 2 by as much as 40,000 years, and was determined to be that of a Homo sapiens.

    That makes the skull by far the oldest modern human remains ever discovered on the continent, and older than any known Homo sapiens specimen outside of Africa.

    "It shows that the early dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa not only occurred earlier, before 200,000 years ago, but also reached further geographically, all the way to Europe," Katerina Harvati, a palaeoanthropologist at the Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen, Germany, told AFP.

    "This is something that we did not suspect before, and which has implications for the population movements of these ancient groups."



    Apidima 1 lacked classic features associated with Neanderthal skulls, including the distinctive bulge at the back of the head, shaped like hair tied in a bun.

    Multiple migrations?

    Hominins—a subset of great apes that includes Homo sapiens and Neanderthals—are believed to have emerged in Africa more than six million years ago. They left the continent in several migration waves starting about two million years ago.

    The oldest known African fossil attributed to a member of the Homo family is a 2.8 million-year-old jawbone from Ethiopia.

    Homo sapiens replaced Neanderthals across Europe for good around 45,000-35,000 years ago, in what was long considered a gradual takeover of the continent involving millenia of co-existence and even interbreeding.

    But the skull discovery in Greece suggests that Homo sapiens undertook the migration from Africa to southern Europe on "more than one occasion", according to Eric Delson, a professor of anthropology at City University of New York.

    "Rather than a single exit of hominins from Africa to populate Eurasia, there must have been several dispersals, some of which did not result in permanent occupations," said Delson, who was not involved in the Nature study.

    Harvati said advances in dating and genetics technology could continue to shape our understanding of how our pre-historic ancestors spread throughout the world.

    "I think recent advances in palaeoanthropology have shown that the field is still full of surprises," she said.
    “Remember that all worlds draw to an end and that noble death is a treasure which no-one is too poor to buy.” - C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Germanics in South Africa Back in Europe
    By Teuton in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 08:16 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, September 18th, 2010, 10:09 PM
  3. Humans Migrated Out of Africa, Then Some Went Back, Study Says
    By SuuT in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, December 18th, 2006, 02:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •