Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Science => Topic started by: TylerDurden on April 11, 2014, 06:47:43 am
-
This study shows that Neanderthals were not brutes who never cared for their children, and also that Neanderthals and humans must have interbred with each other well outside Africa. Another nail in the coffin of the Out of Africa theory:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2601402/Cavemen-good-parents-Study-dismisses-claim-Neanderthal-children-difficult-dangerous-upbringing.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2601402/Cavemen-good-parents-Study-dismisses-claim-Neanderthal-children-difficult-dangerous-upbringing.html)
-
The research found that the two per cent of neanderthal DNA which exists in people today came from the mating outside of Africa.
-
That is the whole point. Previous attempts by Out of Africa proponents were to hysterically suggest that modern humans "must" have interbred with Neanderthals in Africa before then emigrating out of Africa. For this study to make it clear that breeding occurred well outside Africa debunks this stupid notion. I will admit that the Out of Africa proponents still blindly stick to the notion that such interbreeding "only" occurred c. 60,000 years ago or so, so their whole theory has not been fully destroyed yet, but it is interesting that one of the main claims of the out of africa theory, namely that modern man somehow only evolved in Africa and then spread unaltered to the rest of the world is a total fabrication/myth/lie.
-
Man, it always shocks me how racist most white Europeans are. ROFL
-
Man, it always shocks me how racist most white Europeans are. ROFL
This whole issue has nothing to do with racism, I am merely pointing out that many previous scientific theories about the neanderthals and humans are completely bogus.
-
Just to make things clear, the out of africa hypothesis suggests that hominids came out of africa anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 years ago and then differentiated. The multiregional hypothesis suggests that hominds left africa anywhere from 800,000 to 2,000,000 years ago and then differentiated. No "racism" involved as no one on either side is suggesting that there is no common origin at some stage.
-
Just to make things clear, the out of africa hypothesis suggests that hominids came out of africa anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 years ago and then differentiated. The multiregional hypothesis suggests that hominds left africa anywhere from 800,000 to 2,000,000 years ago and then differentiated. No "racism" involved as no one on either side is suggesting that there is no common origin at some stage.
Yes, but the farther back you can push the common origin, the easier it is to justify racism, you racist. Come on, you know how smart I am. How do you think I don't see the game you're playing?
-
Yes, but the farther back you can push the common origin, the easier it is to justify racism, you racist. Come on, you know how smart I am. How do you think I don't see the game you're playing?
There is no "game". Actually, I was more interested, at the start, in the (essentially anti-Out of Africa) notion of Cro-Magnons and other hominids interbreeding with so-called "apemen" like Neanderthals or Homo Denisovans as it showed that there never was a "modern Man" really but that we were all actually descended from various varying admixtures of so-called "apemen"- this issue of interbreeding has been a major part of the Multiregional Hypothesis right from the start. I had never believed that the Neanderthals were inferior to Cro-Magnon-era humans despite most out of Africa proponents insisting they were without evidence, and I suspected that the Neanderthals might even have been more intelligent than the Cro-Magnons, given certain data.
As regards "racist", this label is now so overused and now somewhat bankrupt since it is commonly used now to counter any and all scientific/political ideas which factually debunk silly liberal-retard notions, especially when the Liberal in question has no actual facts to debunk a particular point - so I know what your game is. Of course, it was just as bad in the past in that people would at the time be accused of being anti-God or anti-royalty whenever they cited basic data such as the Earth goes around the Sun or whatever, so plus ca change., plus c'est la meme chose........
As for the difference in eras cited for coming out of Africa, the older date simply makes far more sense to me. For one thing, the Out of Africa theory, is all over the place, with, depending on who you talk to, suggesting that the exodus out of Africa came anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 years ago.Also, I happen to have read one or two lists of racial differences in sources such as the Daily Mail, which delved into how bone-density varied widely among different ethnic groups, among hundreds of other factors such as differing ethnic reactions to certain pharmaceutical drugs, differing levels of achievement in sport due to physical differences etc. etc. It was even mentioned that mixed-race patients had very little chance when trying to get marrow-transplants due to the wide differences in DNA in the patient being incompatible with others'. So, the 800,000 to 2,000,000 figure given by the Multiregional Hypothesis for the exodus out of Africa makes more sense to me to account for such a level of differences appearing.
I am also not too convinced re the notion of environment altering ethnic appearances. I mean, if that were so and if the Out of Africa theory were correct, one would by now reasonably expect the Inuit to all have developed white skin, blue eyes and blond hair by now.
-
Dude, you have to admit that it looks extremely suspicious, a white European searching diligently for proof of genetic differences between Europeans and Africans.
I admit, I am also interested in the multiregional theory, simply because it's more interesting, but the percentage of Neanderthal DNA, etc. in modern humans is still very low, according to everything I've seen. Sure there was intermixing, but very few of those genes survive to the present day.
-
Dude, you have to admit that it looks extremely suspicious, a white European searching diligently for proof of genetic differences between Europeans and Africans.
I didn't "search diligently". I just came across a random newspaper article on the subject once and did a little more searching as I was curious about what is generally a politically taboo subject. There had been a recent furore in the UK in which a team coach got fired for stating that blacks were better runners but poorer swimmers than whites on average so the Mail wrote a whole scientific article on the various differences.
I admit, I am also interested in the multiregional theory, simply because it's more interesting, but the percentage of Neanderthal DNA, etc. in modern humans is still very low, according to everything I've seen. Sure there was intermixing, but very few of those genes survive to the present day.
So far the science of genetics is really new and often very badly misinterpreted due to constant errors appearing. Even now, the Neanderthal proportion of DNA is said to be anywhere from 0-20% of modern humans depending on which scientist one asks etc - I am sure there is evidence of other hominids' DNA in modern humans but further research should eventually reveal that,too. At any rate, being somewhat anarchistic I love it when really big theories, especially ones which are religiously worshipped by the mainstream to the point of expressing intolerance towards all other views , get debunked by a more unpopular but scientifically stronger theory. That is why I am so against Einstein's theories since if he is wrong, FTL is achievable and my science-fiction dreams might eventually become reality in the future.
-
I do think people go overboard in the direction of being politically correct. Africans really do make better runners and worse swimmers and weightlifters, on average. That's factual. Probably they are more musically and verbally gifted as well, on average. I have no problem stating those facts.
-
That is why I am so against Einstein's theories since if he is wrong, FTL is achievable and my science-fiction dreams might eventually become reality in the future.
According to Jean-Pierre Petit http://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/f31c/f31c1.htm (http://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/f31c/f31c1.htm) “Gauge cosmological model with variable light velocity”, Einstein’s special relativity wouldn’t necessarilly prevent travel to other solar systems in reasonable durations: perhaps a few days or weeks instead of decades or centuries. :)
-
It is sad that my numbskull brain does not seem to understand what the link is really saying. I wish I was more scientifically-oriented.
-
Yes, this is too theoretical for me as well. He published a book in French which is much more readable for non-specialists :
http://www.amazon.fr/perdu-moiti%C3%A9-lUnivers-Jean-Pierre-Petit/dp/2012789358 (http://www.amazon.fr/perdu-moiti%C3%A9-lUnivers-Jean-Pierre-Petit/dp/2012789358)
There are other scientific papers of his in English on this page:
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/scientific_summary.htm (http://www.jp-petit.org/science/scientific_summary.htm)
and this one may well interest you:
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/interstellar_travel/interstellar_travel1bis.htm (http://www.jp-petit.org/science/interstellar_travel/interstellar_travel1bis.htm)