• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Strawberry

Europe, the birthplace of mankind

Recommended Posts

Love this sort of thing

https://www.cnet.com/news/history-rewritten-with-europe-the-birthplace-of-mankind/

 

Quote

Up until now, experts have believed human lineage split from apes some 7 million years ago in Africa. But now scientists have traced the first hominid species to Europe instead some 7.2 million years ago.

Our ancestors were apparently already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid.

 

Not that it matters of course, but I find it fascinating that we know so little of our past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it does matter. A lot.

When you have professional grievance-hunter racists like Bonnie Greer arguing for no borders because 'we are all Africans really', when that gets shown to be false, she should at least apologise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko2010 said:

I'd say it does matter. A lot.

When you have professional grievance-hunter racists like Bonnie Greer arguing for no borders because 'we are all Africans really', when that gets shown to be false, she should at least apologise.

Im very reluctant to get into this whole genes and race thing ... but ....

(And this does assume that the DNA gene analysis is correct):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

The data implies that Europeans (and Asians) are a hybrid species of Homospian + Neanderthals.

Most Africans are purely Africans.

Imagine the outcry when people start cottoning on and declaring Euros/Asian a defferent species.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh, when you see an African and Eskimo side by side it's like looking at two different species.

A zebra and a horse look broadly similar but we consider them different species. It's only political correctness that makes us say all humans are the same species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nosler said:

Tbh, when you see an African and Eskimo side by side it's like looking at two different species.

A zebra and a horse look broadly similar but we consider them different species. It's only political correctness that makes us say all humans are the same species.

Humans are all the same species otherwise mixed race people would be sterile. The genetic differences between the various ethnicities is actually minimal - we still can't reliably tell a person's ethnicity from a DNA sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, This Time said:

Humans are all the same species otherwise mixed race people would be sterile. The genetic differences between the various ethnicities is actually minimal - we still can't reliably tell a person's ethnicity from a DNA sample.

Not quite. That inter species sterility is not true in all cases.

I cannot find it but I beleive there are fertility issues between people from different regions of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Not quite. That inter species sterility is not true in all cases.

I cannot find it but I beleive there are fertility issues between people from different regions of the world.

You do get some exceptions like ligers and tigons where the females are fertile but the males are still sterile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ccc said:

Even if we are the same species we are certainly very different sub species. It's pretty obvious !

The DNA doesn't support that. The term subspecies has a fixed biological meaning and requires a much higher level of differentiation than you see between human populations. Please stop bandying and tend that you do not understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say that Africans have the highest genetic variation and this means they have the earliest human genetic material but what do they mean by African? Sub-Saharan only? Do they exclude the obviously European genetic admixture in the Hausa people (black Africans with coloured eyes)? I just don't trust these scientists' bona fides any more.

Edited by Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Im very reluctant to get into this whole genes and race thing ... but ....

(And this does assume that the DNA gene analysis is correct):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

The data implies that Europeans (and Asians) are a hybrid species of Homospian + Neanderthals.

Most Africans are purely Africans.

Imagine the outcry when people start cottoning on and declaring Euros/Asian a defferent species.

It's pretty amazing that according to DNA interpretations "modern humans" were interbreeding with "Denisovans" from Spain to Siberia as little as 25,000  years ago. Yet 20 years ago, there was no such thing as "Denisovans" known to science. Even now, we only have a tooth and a couple of finger bones to study, so we have no idea what they looked like. Although recently in the cave in Denisova where those remains were found evidence has been found that suggests they may have been substantially more technologically advanced than the "modern humans" of the time: http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds-oldest-needle-found-in-siberian-cave-that-stitches-together-human-history/

Quote

information_items_4513.jpg

The 7 centimetre (2 3/4 inch) needle was made and used by our long extinct Denisovan ancestors, a recently-discovered hominin species or subspecies.

Scientists found the sewing implement - complete with a hole for thread - during the annual summer archeological dig at an Altai Mountains cave widely believed to hold the secrets of man's origins. It appears to be still useable after 50,000 years.

Professor Mikhail Shunkov, head of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography in Novosibirsk, said: 'It is the most unique find of this season, which can even be called sensational.

'It is a needle made of bone. As of today it is the most ancient needle in the word. It is about 50,000 years old.' 

The needle is seen as providing proof that the long-gone Denisovans - named after the cave - were more sophisticated than previously believed. It predates by some 10,000 years an intricate modern-looking piece of polished jewellery made of chlorite by the Denisovans.

It was made of the bone of a large and so far unidentified bird.

 

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

I'd say it does matter. A lot.

When you have professional grievance-hunter racists like Bonnie Greer arguing for no borders because 'we are all Africans really', when that gets shown to be false, she should at least apologise.

Just ignore her, and others like her.

"We are all Africans" - so we all belong together. Sure, that's what the scientific evidence suggests.

And there's also a number of studies that show that humans work best in social groups of around 150 people. A tribe, in other words. Humans are designed to be tribal. So a big city with lots of different cultures is, well, it goes against scientific evidence.

So science says we are all together, and also that we clearly should all be separate. WTF?

Basically it's nonsense to take a single "factoid" from scientific research, and then build a human society around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Panther said:

They say that Africans have the highest genetic variation and this means they have the earliest human genetic material but what do they mean by African? Sub-Saharan only? Do they exclude the obviously European genetic admixture in the Hausa people (black Africans with coloured eyes)? I just don't trust these scientists' bona fides any more.

The current DNA analysus - assuming its correct - would say thats wrong.

Sub-Saharan are pretty much same load of DNA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, This Time said:

Humans are all the same species otherwise mixed race people would be sterile. The genetic differences between the various ethnicities is actually minimal - we still can't reliably tell a person's ethnicity from a DNA sample.

I broadly agree and I see little to be gained, by anyone who doesn't have an agenda, to arrive at any other conclusion. Just because some fuckwits use it as an argument to promote multiculturalism, or overly hasty and engineered racial and social integration, doesn't mean anyone should stoop to the same fuckwittery to argue against it.

It's like someone saying let's put tigers with cattle they're all mammals. You don't have to resort to claiming they're not both mammals to respond to such obvious fuckwittery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, This Time said:

Humans are all the same species otherwise mixed race people would be sterile. The genetic differences between the various ethnicities is actually minimal - we still can't reliably tell a person's ethnicity from a DNA sample.

The genetic differences between humans and chimps is minimal as well....

"Researchers at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge found that our genes and those of the gorilla are 98 per cent identical, although we share around 99 per cent of our make-up with chimpanzee"
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Nosler said:

Tbh, when you see an African and Eskimo side by side it's like looking at two different species.

A zebra and a horse look broadly similar but we consider them different species. It's only political correctness that makes us say all humans are the same species.

No. The classic definition of a species is fairly straightforward.

If two healthy individuals of opposite sexes can typically mate to produce viable offspring, who themselves are then able to grow up to be fertile, then they're the same species.

The idea that Neanderthals were a separate species came to prominence at a time when it was thought interbreeding wasn't possible, and hadn't happened.. Now we know that it happend, that means that they and homo sapiens were simply different variants (call it races,  breeds, strains, or whatever) of one human species.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

No. The classic definition of a species is fairly straightforward.

If two healthy individuals of opposite sexes can typically mate to produce viable offspring, who themselves are then able to grow up to be fertile, then they're the same species.

The idea that Neanderthals were a separate species came to prominence at a time when it was thought interbreeding wasn't possible, and hadn't happened.. Now we know that it happend, that means that they and homo sapiens were simply different variants (call it races,  breeds, strains, or whatever) of one human species.

 

 

dogs can all interbreed together.

however we accept that Alsatians and poodles are different breeds..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nosler said:

dogs can all interbreed together.

however we accept that Alsatians and poodles are different breeds..

If you what to call different ethnicities breeds then knock yourself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

No. The classic definition of a species is fairly straightforward.

If two healthy individuals of opposite sexes can typically mate to produce viable offspring, who themselves are then able to grow up to be fertile, then they're the same species.

The idea that Neanderthals were a separate species came to prominence at a time when it was thought interbreeding wasn't possible, and hadn't happened.. Now we know that it happend, that means that they and homo sapiens were simply different variants (call it races,  breeds, strains, or whatever) of one human species.

This kind of recalls the OPs original point: "I find it fascinating that we know so little of our past."

Some very fundamental assumptions are being overturned with new evidence, or better techniques for examining existing evidence. Yet people keep trying to adjust the existing model and claim it is meaningful. The truth is we don't know anything like enough to form a model of our early origins that we would justifiably have any confidence in.

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, This Time said:

Humans are all the same species otherwise mixed race people would be sterile. The genetic differences between the various ethnicities is actually minimal - we still can't reliably tell a person's ethnicity from a DNA sample.

That is correct, and I can't tell until I get the clothes off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hail the Tripod said:

This kind of recalls the OPs original point: "I find it fascinating that we know so little of our past."

Some very fundamental assumptions are being overturned with new evidence, or better techniques for examining existing evidence. Yet people keep trying to adjust the existing model and claim it is meaningful. The truth is we don't know anything like enough to form a model of our early origins that we would justifiably have any confidence in.

Yes, ancient human history before DNA analysis is at best a set of sketchy extrapolations based on bits of bone and flint that we happened to stumble across.

It's like a blind man trying to make a jig saw out of random shit he found. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just googled and found that if chimps are within 99% of humans then all humans are within 99.5% of each other - which puts that last 0.5% of human variation to get to 100% into a very deep perspective. Race very obviously describes something significant at these scales, halfway to a different species

Edited by Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

This kind of recalls the OPs original point: "I find it fascinating that we know so little of our past."

Some very fundamental assumptions are being overturned with new evidence, or better techniques for examining existing evidence. Yet people keep trying to adjust the existing model and claim it is meaningful. The truth is we don't know anything like enough to form a model of our early origins that we would justifiably have any confidence in.

Any evidence not fitting the current, near religious, scientific or historical orthodoxy of things like the theory of evolution seems to get very hastily discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.