"Out of Africa" theory: a done deal

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tablaridm, we know that we are all human so finding likenesses would be natural. The thing that concerns me is the communal aspect of such a migration as noted by the distinct groups of humans inhabiting various regions of the earth.

You know Dr. Lous post hit on something because what i thinkis that if this were to happen as stated in the OP there would almost certainly have been inbreeding but i dont think inbreeding alone is sufficient to sustain a thriving population of humans. EDIT: Without inbreeding the level of distinction would have been blurred along the way. We would not see such level of detail without inbreeding and i dont think inbreeding played a role in human development.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This has nothing to do with race(ism). I know i would make the same observation if Asia was the location.

 

Your jokes only prove my observations to be sound.

 

It wasn't just finding likenesses. It was DNA.

 

Math is not science. Math is "numeric/symbolic logic". Both logiic and math use axioms whch are always assumed true.

Nope. But we assume it is true until disproven by other evidence. Will it ever be disproven? Who knows, neither you nor I.

 

Absolutely it would be. It would be an unnacceptable hypothesis, you would be forbidden from exploring the possibility that this was the case (and I doubt it is the case, but that's beside the point).

I think it's complete garbage to let political correctness stand in the way of knowledge and understanding, but it definately does.
I'm glad this little bit slipped though, I'm sure it's because white people are on the negative side of the equation, that makes it ok.
We're allowed to scrounge up the bits and pieces which might potentially offend white people and try to get some semblance of a picture.

An example is in this very topic, Australian aborigines have morphological characteristics which indicate they are a more primitive human design than other races. They have thick skulls that share characteristics with homo erectus and homo sapiens, indicating they represent a transitionary stage in human evolution, and are probably most like the earliest humans out of any current humans.
They show us where humans were in their development when the first wave out of africa occurred.
This was all evident before we knew anything about DNA, and now it's loosely being carefully and quietly confirmed, but still avoiding talking about the peoples and how they differ.
We've had to skirt around it and try not to notice because aborigines might be offended by the implications, that is that they are less advanced versions of the human design than all other ethnicities.

I think they could equally be proud knowing they are the original people, they could have a different perspective where they see themselves as the pioneers responsible for the greatness of humans or whatever.

In the end it simply shouldn't be sciences responsibility to consider people's feelings, it really inhibits us from understanding things as well as we could.

 

What inbreeding does is it allows potentially deleterious recessive genes in the genotype to 'double up' and be expressed phenotypically. If they are fatal recessives, the off-spring dies [usually during embryonic development]. If they are non-fatal, but deleterious nonetheless, it causes the off-spring to be less than ideal.

On occasion, a genotype's recessive, when 'doubled up' via sex, makes for a better phenotype, i.e. a stronger, healthier organism than the average ideal.

Humans have a propensity for weeding out the deleterious double-recessives [via warfare, picking on the weaker in a tribe or clan, etc.] on their own, without requiring the environment to do so. By overproducing, but inbreeding, we've made many races of people that are likely more fit for their environment than the original population many generations back.

Dominant genes [those expressed phenotypically while only a single gene in the genotype, or a double gene] need no such inbreeding to increase their number amongst the population, as they are selected for without the requirement of being doubled via inbreeding sex.

Just thought we ought to know that incest per se is not necessarily bad for the species, even if considered immoral. Only when we impose the social burden of maintaining the viability of a double recessive that is deleterious does it become detrimental to the species, or the social burden of stigmatizing incestuous relationships so they are less productive to the species.

It's quite probable that close incestuous relationships were far more common in olden days, when tribes and clans were small in number, compared to modern society in which we have far more potential mates to choose from.

 

For about a year, then off to college. Any more stupid questions?

 

Walter is right about incest and the old days,it goes back to the ancient days going back to Egypt.Pharoahs had relations with members of the bloodline plenty of time.Tut married his half sister.They actually discovered 2 fetuses in his tomb,believe to be failed births of there daughters as a result of incest though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wha??? I didn't know that!

 

How do you explain this post exchange? Hardly sounds like a scietist to me, more of a pundit with a belief.

 

First off, please to all members of this Forum, do not even engage Zarlok! Do not even acknowledge him when he says something. Every post I have seen him on he acts like some superior being who has intelligence beyond everyone else which he feels gives him carte blanche (and feel free to point out my misspelling Zarlok since you need to constantly reassure yourself that you are smart) to act like an ass! Oh wait, he probably has no life outside of sitting in front of his computer screen in a dimly lit smoky room in his moms basement that smells like BO and gas while his Mom yells at him to clean up the mess he made in the kitchen while making mac&cheese with hot dog slices and ketchup. Get a life dude. Stop trying so hard!

Ok, so now that I got that off my chest, another interesting show I have seen is called "The Search for Adam" by National Geographic. Anyone seen it?

 

You are pretty hard on youself, what with all those angst-filled projections. That, or are you just a hypocrite who randomly capatilizes words while insulting other posters?

 

They could argue that white people are less varied than black, genetically.

There is no "therefore" to the inferiority. Neither is there any evidence of any particular genetic groupe of humans beign "more advanced" - they have all been evolving in parallel, as far as anyone knows.

Those kinds of judgments would have nothing to do with any of this science.