Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Stolen


Is White the new (genetically mutated) Black?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss_technology


Quote:
Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.



That is so cool! I wonder when I'll be able to check Genetically Mutated African American on a Census form.
Of course, someone better get in touch with the churches about updating their
Adam frescos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png.

I have heard things like this theory when doing biology in High School, always sounded likely, after all, we know that it is quite likely life originated in sunny Africa (where dark skin pigmentation is a big plus.) Although really, that's how evolution can work, mutation, genetic changes and the like, blind selection, luck and those best suited to their environment (or very adaptable) surviving to pass on what makes them good genetically.

Still it's always nice to have something like this to wave in the faces of white supremacists and neo-Nazis that believe in some sort of super white race as the origin of white people.

With or without genetic mutations we are still all of the same race. The Human race.

Very true. Hopefully one day everyone will come to accept and embrace such a fact.

Every well informed or logical thinking person knows this.
The idea of white people being the purebred race or whatever is a bunch of paranoid nonsense wich usually comes down to white people from space or biblical ignorance..

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I have heard things like this theory when doing biology in High School, always sounded likely, after all, we know that it is quite likely life originated in sunny Africa (where dark skin pigmentation is a big plus.) Although really, that's how evolution can work, mutation, genetic changes and the like, blind selection, luck and those best suited to their environment (or very adaptable) surviving to pass on what makes them good genetically.

Still it's always nice to have something like this to wave in the faces of white supremacists and neo-Nazis that believe in some sort of super white race as the origin of white people.

No your wrong wave this fact in a neo-nazi's face and he'll say it proves White people are more evolved than black people!

And it's not my view!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Very true. Hopefully one day everyone will come to accept and embrace such a fact.

Get rid of ignorance and you get rid of racism. Sadly, I don't see the end of ignorance in our world any time soon (if ever).

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Get rid of ignorance and you get rid of racism. Sadly, I don't see the end of ignorance in our world any time soon (if ever).

I don't see any possibility of general ignorance disappearing. In this world people judge each other by differences NOT similarities which is a shame.

I heard about this on news show last week. If only we can get rid of the word "racist" in this research it might be more helpful.

Perhaps your right. The word Racist does imply that there are differnt sub-races in the human race.

The first humans werent black.

Originally posted by KidRock
The first humans werent black.

no?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
no?

Correct.

Originally posted by KidRock
Correct.


How do you know?

Originally posted by KidRock
The first humans werent black.

O.k. genius, give KidRock's version of the birth of humanity. I am giddy with excitement to hear it.

As Africa is the centre of genetic diversity for humans, in the same way Peru is the centre of genetic diversity for potatoess, it seems likely that the original humans were black.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
As Africa is the centre of genetic diversity for humans, in the sam way Peru is the centre of genetic diversity for potatoess, it seems likely that the original humans were black.

No No there is proof that the first Humans where white, a 16th Century Artist painted Adam and Eve as White...Eh? Eh?

The most painful response would be silence (if that is not an oxymoron).

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
No No there is proof that the first Humans where white, a 16th Century Artist painted Adam and Eve as White...Eh? Eh?

read my post Gav please - slowly, I don't think you understand it. Obviously the first humans were black.

He was being ironic, you fluffer.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He was being ironic, you fluffer.

Oh I see That's the ironic thing about irony - it's often ironic.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
read my post Gav please - slowly, I don't think you understand it. Obviously the first humans were black.

It was full of sarcasm on Kid Rocks part,

Originally posted by KharmaDog
O.k. genius, give KidRock's version of the birth of humanity. I am giddy with excitement to hear it.

They werent black..im not saying they were white but they werent black. Evidence proves it.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Oh I see That's the ironic thing about irony - it's often ironic.

Actually, if irony were to truly be ironic, it would lack irony. Wouldn't that be ironic?

I look to VVD for enlightenment on the subject as he is our resident master of comprehension and the english linguistic arts.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
It was full of sarcasm on Kid Rocks part,

got you Thats the thing about Kid Rock he lowers the forums IQ by osmosis sometimes.

Originally posted by KidRock
They werent black..im not saying they were white but they werent black. Evidence proves it.

Can we see that evidence please.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually, if irony were to truly be ironic, it would lack irony. Wouldn't that be ironic?

I look to VVD for enlightenment on the subject as he is our resident master of comprehension and the english linguistic arts.

Indeed, VVD - is irony ironic or not?

Originally posted by KidRock
They werent black..im not saying they were white but they werent black. Evidence proves it.

He's right on that.

You mean I'm a Mutant?

AH SWEET! I wonder when my Super Powers Will Come up!

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually, if irony were to truly be ironic, it would lack irony. Wouldn't that be ironic?

I look to VVD for enlightenment on the subject as he is our resident master of comprehension and the english linguistic arts.

Haha.

Reminds me of that Marge Simpson thing- 'I don't care whether I'm cool or not...that makes me cool, right?'

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
got you Thats the thing about Kid Rock he lowers the forums IQ by osmosis sometimes.

...oook. Dont you have anything better to do? Is swear some of you have no lives at all.

Originally posted by ResubianNushi
He's right on that.

It can be agreed that the first humans had skin of dark pigmentation though correct?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
It can be agreed that the first humans had skin of dark pigmentation though correct?

No

Originally posted by KidRock
...oook. Dont you have anything better to do? Is swear some of you have no lives at all.

sorry I don't really understand your insult, you're on here as well

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
sorry I don't really understand your insult, you're on here as well

Yeah, I am on here but im not makeing stupid little insults such as "Yeah (so and so) lowers the IQ of the forum by osmosis, har har har". like a 5 year old..so like I said I swear some of you have no lives. Pretty sad.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, I am on here but im not makeing stupid little insults such as "Yeah (so and so) lowers the IQ of the forum by osmosis, har har har". like a 5 year old..so like I said I swear some of you have no lives. Pretty sad.

I'd be chuffed if a 5 year old knew the word Osmosis and was able to use it in an insult - I still miss your point

Kidrock, are you going to contribute anything of value to this conversation?

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, I am on here but im not makeing stupid little insults such as "Yeah (so and so) lowers the IQ of the forum by osmosis, har har har". like a 5 year old..so like I said I swear some of you have no lives. Pretty sad.

No, instead you just make contrary posts in order to get attention.

You truly live like an elderly king.

Originally posted by KidRock
No

Where is your evidence

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Kidrock, are you going to contribute anything of value to this conversation?

I already did chief.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I'd be chuffed if a 5 year old knew the word Osmosis and was able to use it in an insult - I still miss your point

Not surpised you missed the point..it wasnt drawn out in crayons for you.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Where is your evidence

Not a question because i already know the answer.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
It can be agreed that the first humans had skin of dark pigmentation though correct?

If you believe humans came out of Africa 100,000 years ago it seems likely as this was a warm zone at the time.

Originally posted by KidRock
I already did chief.



Not surpised you missed the point..it wasnt drawn out in crayons for you.

Making a statement and not backing it up is not a contribution. Okay chief?

Originally posted by KidRock
I already did chief.



Not surpised you missed the point..it wasnt drawn out in crayons for you.

no writing on my computer with crayons would be silly.
I still miss your point

Not that I want to appear negitive about this debate..........but why does it matter what "colour" the humans started as?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
no writing on my computer with crayons would be silly.
I still miss your point

I know you missed the point..nobody expects you to get it

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Making a statement and not backing it up is not a contribution. Okay chief?

Read a book and there is your evidence.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Not that I want to appear negitive about this debate..........but why does it matter what "colour" the humans started as?

Interestingly the phenotype matters little as you are as likely to share as many sequences with someone of a distincly different race as someone who share your phenotype. suprising but true.

If blacks were the first color on earth and whites evolved from them wouldnt that make caucasians/asians/hispanics more evolved then the black race?

Originally posted by KidRock
I know you missed the point..nobody expects you to get it



Read a book and there is your evidence.

Please tell me what book - hey good comeback

"River out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins is a good place to start It would support the theory humans started in Africa and were black.

Originally posted by KidRock
If blacks were the first color on earth and whites evolved from them wouldnt that make caucasians/asians/hispanics more evolved then the black race?

Ha see refer back to page one I said people would argue that this means that whites are more evolved I did I did!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by KidRock
Read a book and there is your evidence.

I am guessing this is a technique that you are trying to employ to be both cryptic and superior. Is negative attention that important to your identity?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Interestingly the phenotype matters little as you are as likely to share as many sequences with someone of a distincly different race as someone who share your phenotype. suprising but true.

Lets not use the word "Race" there is only one!

Originally posted by KidRock
If blacks were the first color on earth and whites evolved from them wouldnt that make caucasians/asians/hispanics more evolved then the black race?

No Its a beneficial mutation for environment, you do understand the concept of horses for courses?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I am guessing this is a technique that you are trying to employ to be both cryptic and superior. Is negative attention that important to your identity?

Lol you just keep makeing me laugh when you talk about the "negative attention" that I want. I could care less about it. The funny thing is you are the ones all giving it to me.

Originally posted by KidRock
Lol you just keep makeing me laugh when you talk about the "negative attention" that I want. I could care less about it. The funny thing is you are the ones all giving it to me.

Is Connecticut in the south of the US?

Originally posted by KidRock
I know you missed the point..nobody expects you to get it



Read a book and there is your evidence.

What Book? Mein Campf?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Lets not use the word "Race" there is only one!

Well we are all Human and of the same species, interestingly some extreme areas are not far of being unable to produce viable young with other humans so, at times only just. But we are similar in all the impportant ways.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
No Its a beneficial mutation for environment, you do understand the concept of horses for courses?


Yeah, the white colored humans evolved and adapted to their surroundings while blacks stayed the same. If the whites moved northword into Europe and created civilization while the dark skinned humans didnt evolve.

Originally posted by KidRock
Lol you just keep makeing me laugh when you talk about the "negative attention" that I want. I could care less about it. The funny thing is you are the ones all giving it to me.

you love it

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, the white colored humans evolved and adapted to their surroundings while blacks stayed the same. If the whites moved northword into Europe and created civilization while the dark skinned humans didnt evolve.

Don't you have some bedsheets to clean or while spout this rubbish all evening?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Is Connecticut in the south of the US?




http://www.mikebentley.com/usamap.gif


1st grade geography is fun! This here is a map Grand Moff Gav..with that map all you have to do is look up the state and find where it is on the map. See? Easy!

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, the white colored humans evolved and adapted to their surroundings while blacks stayed the same. If the whites moved northword into Europe and created civilization while the dark skinned humans didnt evolve.

Egypt is in Africa

as is Gonder

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Egypt is in Africa

as is Gonder

Amazing

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, the white colored humans evolved and adapted to their surroundings while blacks stayed the same. If the whites moved northword into Europe and created civilization while the dark skinned humans didnt evolve.

What a completely retarded outlook that is, really. If you are so simple as to equate the cultural evolution of one society with the evolutionary superiority of whatever race, then perhaps you'd be best to avoid such discussions and either through on your swastika armband and white hood, or go off in the corner with some crayons and solouring books.

Originally posted by KidRock
Amazing

Egypt is the cradle of Science

Gonder was an Ethiopian City that put Europe to shame at the same time.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
W swastika armband and white hood,

Why would I do that?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Egypt is the cradle of Science

Gonder was an Ethiopian City that put Europe to shame at the same time.

Great! I am glad to see how great Ethiopia has evolved over the years and is doing now.

Originally posted by KidRock
1st grade geography is fun! This here is a map Grand Moff Gav..with that map all you have to do is look up the state and find where it is on the map. See? Easy!

Sorry I didn't spot Connecticut and I do apologise for not knowing where your crappy home is sadly in Britain we don't spend 7 years idolising our nation we tend to learn about others!

Originally posted by KidRock
Great! I am glad to see how great Ethiopia has evolved over the years and is doing now.

Ethiopia is vast

http://www.ethiopiatravel.com/Gondar_eng.htm

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Sorry I didn't spot Connecticut and I do apologise for not knowing where your crappy home is sadly in Britain we don't spend 7 years idolising our nation we tend to learn about others!

Lol done trolling?

and yes you should be sorry.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Ethiopia is vast

http://www.ethiopiatravel.com/Gondar_eng.htm


And one of the poorest and poverty ridden country.

Originally posted by KidRock
And one of the poorest and poverty ridden country.

It's changing, some of it is still ver poor, but not all of it anymore.

Originally posted by KidRock
Great! I am glad to see how great Ethiopia has evolved over the years and is doing now.

Sorry that was funny

Ahem Originally posted by KidRock
Amazing

It seams despite your "knowledge" of geography you don't know to much about History..

Originally posted by KidRock
Lol done trolling?

and yes you should be sorry.

Well where is it then? Tell me you know its 1st Grade geography in the US!

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Well where is it then? Tell me you know its 1st Grade geography in the US!

Northeastern US.

Originally posted by KidRock
Where is what?

Connecticut

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Connecticut

South of boston on the map.

Originally posted by KidRock
And one of the poorest and poverty ridden country.

So what's your point? America has the highest relative poverty rate among developed nations.

Oh so its Conn I see.

Back to topic now we have found the most "evolved human" lives South of Boston

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So what's your point? America has the highest relative poverty rate among developed nations.

And lets not get started on your education system.

Oh staying on the Geography theme am I right in thinking Canada is a Kingdom?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Back to topic now we have found the most "evolved human" lives South of Boston

Yep

Originally posted by KidRock
Yep

Originally posted by KidRock
Yep

He can't be that evolved otherwise he would have reached a stage of indifference and he wouldn't care about colour or creed!

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
He can't be that evolved otherwise he would have reached a stage of indifference and he wouldn't care about colour or creed!

He is American humanities next step in evolution think about it Mickey Mouse and Ron Jeremy all rolled into one.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
He can't be that evolved otherwise he would have reached a stage of indifference and he wouldn't care about colour or creed!

I dont care about color. When did I say I did?

Originally posted by KidRock
I dont care about color. When did I say I did?

.................................. you may not have said it but you implied it!

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
.................................. you may not have said it but you implied it!

so first I am some redneck who hates all other races..but now I never said it I only imply it?

Originally posted by KidRock
so first I am some redneck who hates all other races..but now I never said it I only imply it?

You implied it, but youy trollin so who cares - not that I know anything about trollin

Well im not racist..sorry

Originally posted by KidRock
so first I am some redneck who hates all other races..but now I never said it I only imply it?

Are you telling me that when you typed all those posts you didn't think that they would make you sound racist?

Originally posted by KidRock
Well im not racist..sorry


Thank-you all we needed to hear!

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Thank-you all we needed to hear!

I knew he wan't really, he looks for reaction and sometimes it's pretty funny what happens in response

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Thank-you all we needed to hear!

No problem.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I knew he wan't really, he looks for reaction and sometimes it's pretty funny what happens in response

Still think he wears bedsheets though...........

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Still think he wears bedsheets though...........

You do?

Originally posted by KidRock
You do?

I said nothing......................

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
I said nothing......................

You should look into that.

Originally posted by KidRock
You should look into that.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav

topic, please

So black people and white people.........

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Oh staying on the Geography theme am I right in thinking Canada is a Kingdom?

You are wrong in thinking that

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are wrong in thinking that

So what is it then?

OMG.. I don't want to bash or something but it looks like Kidrock has some kind of replying disease..

Originally posted by overlord
OMG.. I don't want to bash or something but it looks like Kidrock has some kind of replying disease..

How so?

Sorry dude.. But the last page was just filled with unnecessary chatting around.

Originally posted by KidRock
How so?

ironic again

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
ironic again

Topic please..stop trolling.

Originally posted by KidRock
Topic please..stop trolling.

Originally posted by KidRock
Topic please..stop trolling.

ironic again

To return to topic. Iraq probably holds the cradle of life and either people were originally arab looking as seen in the biblical point of view or humans were still black after evolving to human.

But in either case it just wasn't white.

Originally posted by overlord
To return to topic. Iraq probably holds the cradle of life and either people were originally arab looking as seen in the biblical point of view or humans were still black after evolving to human.

But in either case it just wasn't white.

If I had to make a guess I would think eastern Asians were the first type around.

Originally posted by KidRock
If I had to make a guess I would think eastern Asians were the first type around.

No African genesis according to oldest fossils.

Originally posted by KidRock
If I had to make a guess I would think eastern Asians were the first type around. Yes, it's actually what I guess too but apperantly it has been proven wrong, so unless we were mormon cult followers we wouldn't completely ignore the historical discoveries.

Originally posted by KidRock
If I had to make a guess I would think eastern Asians were the first type around.

So you just "guess" despite evidence you just "guess"?

Originally posted by overlord
Yes, it's actually what I guess too but apperantly it has been proven wrong, so unless we were mormon cult followers we wouldn't completely ignore the historical discoveries.

I dont believe their is evidence to support Africa birthed the first humans. If there is evidence it may be false. Eastern Asians or middle easterners are the best bet.

Originally posted by KidRock
I dont believe their is evidence to support Africa birthed the first humans. If there is evidence it may be false. Eastern Asians or middle easterners are the best bet.

Why? Back the statement up (Im not having a go I want to hear your reasons for that view)

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Stolen


Is White the new (genetically mutated) Black?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss_technology


Quote:
Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.



That is so cool! I wonder when I'll be able to check Genetically Mutated African American on a Census form.
Of course, someone better get in touch with the churches about updating their
Adam frescos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png.



Well it depends on how you define the term "mutation." In a broad sense, the term mutation could be used to classify all types of variation found within the human race. This includes various other physical differences we find among humans..such as hair color, eye color, weight, height, etc.

However, I don't like to categorize various differences in races as "mutations"..because, it seems a bit racist. Particularly since nothing limits us as human beings to producing fertile offspring despite our minor physical differences.

Anyway, moving on...it's an interesting study..that's my two cents worth.

Originally posted by KidRock
No You're one of the lizardmen!

So, ARE whites more evolved than blacks?
Technically, this says they are.

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
So, ARE whites more evolved than blacks?
Technically, this says they are.

No - it means they are adapted to a different environment, not more evolved.

Humanity started in Asia??? There is a lot of fossil evidence that supports the theory that humanity evolved on the African sub continent, with (relatively) comprehensive fossil records that show the progress from hominid to early human.

Now it's true there have been some fossils discovered in the Australasian region that predate many of the African fossils. However, and this is an important point - at this time they are not considered to be a true part of the human evolutionary tree. Lack of more fossils, and the existence of a far more comprehensive fossil record in the Africa region mean scientists and historians would be hesitant to say "we found early hominid remains in Asia that predate African hominid remains, ergo that's were humanity began." Now it also must be noted that the evolution of the human was not a straight line, at times there were dozens of sub branches and deviations and occasionally other things will pop up that seem like it belongs, but doesn't. Such things I guess could be considered anything from close cousins to our species, to distant, distant relatives. It is quite possible, as I have heard it, that the Asian fossils might well be one of these off shoots from the homo family line.

As well as this archaeologists have done a very good job at tracking the exodus of African hunter gatherers from Africa to all over the world - no such thing has been, or can be, done in relation to the Asias as simple there is a significant lack of such evidence to show that there was evolution and subsequent migration of significant numbers of early human tribes in that region.

Now as to the Middle East, Biblical creation is set there (Garden of Eden and all that) but our evolutionary beginning is not. However this area has a name - Mesopotamia, and is known by historians as the "Cradle of Civilisation" - archaeologists can, and have tracked the migration of hunter/gather family groups from Africa outwards. Now after a long time people came to "the fertile crescent" so called because it was extremely well suited for agriculture, which is one of the most vital things for the development of any early civilisation, and more complex forms of human interaction. With advanced food production comes surplus, with surplus comes the requirements for more advanced management, and less people have to gather food (as distinct from hunter/gatherers where everyone must work on food collection) as there is food for more, meaning attentions turn to other things (artistry, construction etc) - the tribes settle, hierarchies form, often on the back of religions and warrior classes, a settled people gradual begin to make advances in areas such as metallurgy and so forth - a rather simplified version of the progress from migratory hunter and gathers to settled agriculturalists (social evolutions such as this has been identified in all early middle eastern civilisations, the Sumerian's, Egyptians and so forth.) So the Middle East saw the beginning of civilisation, not the human species.



No, we are still the same species without any significant differences in genetic make up, skin pigmentation has been very much dependant on climate. Just as if people lived in lightless caves for long enough their descendant would probably become paler (as shown by studies done on certain lizard species - those that live in the sun, and those that ended up in caves, genetically the same species, one simply had to adapt to a new environment) but wouldn't somehow be genetically better or more advanced then those who live above ground (in fact they would be worse off in the sun.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
??? There is a lot of fossil evidence that supports the theory that humanity evolved on the African sub continent, with (relatively) comprehensive fossil records that show the progress from hominid to early human.

Now it's true there have been some fossils discovered in the Australasian region that predate many of the African fossils. However, and this is an important point - at this time they are not considered to be a true part of the human evolutionary tree. Lack of more fossils, and the existence of a far more comprehensive fossil record in the Africa region mean scientists and historians would be hesitant to say "we found early hominid remains in Asia that predate African hominid remains, ergo that's were humanity began." Now it also must be noted that the evolution of the human was not a straight line, at times there were dozens of sub branches and deviations and occasionally other things will pop up that seem like it belongs, but doesn't. Such things I guess could be considered anything from close cousins to our species, to distant, distant relatives. It is quite possible, as I have heard it, that the Asian fossils might well be one of these off shoots from the homo family line.

As well as this archaeologists have done a very good job at tracking the exodus of African hunter gatherers from Africa to all over the world - no such thing has been, or can be, done in relation to the Asias as simple there is a significant lack of such evidence to show that there was evolution and subsequent migration of significant numbers of early human tribes in that region.

Now as to the Middle East, Biblical creation is set there (Garden of Eden and all that) but our evolutionary beginning is not. However this area has a name - Mesopotamia, and is known by historians as the "Cradle of Civilisation" - archaeologists can, and have tracked the migration of hunter/gather family groups from Africa outwards. Now after a long time people came to "the fertile crescent" so called because it was extremely well suited for agriculture, which is one of the most vital things for the development of any early civilisation, and more complex forms of human interaction. With advanced food production comes surplus, with surplus comes the requirements for more advanced management, and less people have to gather food (as distinct from hunter/gatherers where everyone must work on food collection) as there is food for more, meaning attentions turn to other things (artistry, construction etc) - the tribes settle, hierarchies form, often on the back of religions and warrior classes, a settled people gradual begin to make advances in areas such as metallurgy and so forth - a rather simplified version of the progress from migratory hunter and gathers to settled agriculturalists (social evolutions such as this has been identified in all early middle eastern civilisations, the Sumerian's, Egyptians and so forth.) So the Middle East saw the beginning of civilisation, not the human species.

I stated a truncated synopsis of some of this earlier. Africa is almost certainly Mans genetic centre of diversity. Good post mate. Dawkins "River out of Eden" makes many of these points as does "The Origin of Humankind" by Richard Leakey and of course the now classic "Ascent of Man" by Bronowski.

Originally by Arabian Knights
So, ARE whites more evolved than blacks?
Technically, this says they are.


Well you could say that whites are more evolved than blacks..but mutations are also shown to be degenerative...

Take for example..the early Anglo Saxons..they were a very barberous race. If you do study up a bit on them and earlier European Tribes..you'll find that many consisted mostly of scavengers and hunter gatherers. It wasn't until later that they started to emulate/utilize the "technological" advances from other cultures in Asia and Africa. I believe much of what started the European Renaissance..were the advances found in these ancient cultures.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well you could say that whites are more evolved than blacks..but mutations are also shown to be degenerative...

Take for example..the early Anglo Saxons..they were a very barberous race. If you do study up a bit on them and earlier European Tribes..you'll find that many consisted mostly of scavengers and hunter gatherers. It wasn't until later that they started to emulate/utilize the "technological" advances from other cultures in Asia and Africa. I believe much of what started the European Renaissance..were the advances found in these ancient cultures.

Actually beneficial mutation is usually an accident which helps an organism to survive. Genetic Mutation fall s into several cats. Framshift, Addition and Deletion.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
of course the now classic "Ascent of Man" by Bronowski.



His daughter was one of my teachers at uni.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
His daughter was one of my teachers at uni.

Was she an Anthropologist? Where was that VVD, Its a stunning book even though its early seventies.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well you could say that whites are more evolved than blacks..but mutations are also shown to be degenerative...

Take for example..the early Anglo Saxons..they were a very barberous race. If you do study up a bit on them and earlier European Tribes..you'll find that many consisted mostly of scavengers and hunter gatherers. It wasn't until later that they started to emulate/utilize the "technological" advances from other cultures in Asia and Africa. I believe much of what started the European Renaissance..were the advances found in these ancient cultures.
Mutations can be either one of the two. But, obviously, the whites didn't fail at being human. So, it's the former.

Is it impossible to talk about race distinction/evolution without getting some sort of hate talk or reactionary posts?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Was she an Anthropologist? Where was that VVD, Its a stunning book even though its early seventies.

No, she's a Professor of Renaissance literature and history.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, she's a Professor of Renaissance literature and history.

Are you an historian? I loved history at school it was a toss up if I chose History or Science. Science won.

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
Mutations can be either one of the two. But, obviously, the whites didn't fail at being human. So, it's the former.

Is it impossible to talk about race distinction/evolution without getting some sort of hate talk or reactionary posts?

I wasn't being reactionary, you're being over sensitive. Do you agree that many Early European tribes could be accurately described as "hunter gatherers/barbarians/scavengers"?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Are you an historian? I loved history at school it was a toss up if I chose History or Science. Science won.

I'm not a historian, no.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I stated a truncated synopsis of some of this earlier. Africa is almost certainly Mans genetic centre of diversity. Good post mate. Dawkins "River out of Eden" makes many of these points as does "The Origin of Humankind" by Richard Leakey and of course the now classic "Ascent of Man" by Bronowski.



All good books, I ended up reading most of them when I did World History, from the Big Bang to the Industrial Revolution at uni, mainly as I chose evolution for my major project. Fascinating stuff, the dynamics and growth of humanity, and how it came about and changed over the years.




What's she like? I would have loved to have met her father, or had him as a teacher, so many great minds. Another author in this kind of area I'd like to meet would be Jared Diamond, he has some interesting theories, and a good writing style.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I wasn't being reactionary, you're being over sensitive. Do you agree that many Early European tribes could be accurately described as "hunter gaterer/barbaric/scavengers"?

hunter/ gatherers societies led to the domestication of many larger animals.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura


What's she like? I would have loved to have met her father, or had him as a teacher, so many great minds.

She was probably the most intelligent tutor I ever had. She's a world authority on Shakespeare and the Renaissance.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I wasn't being reactionary, you're being over sensitive. Do you agree that many Early European tribes could be accurately described as "hunter gatherers/barbarians/scavengers"?

Define "Early European" - are we talking about the tribes encounted by say the Roman Empire, or even earlier? Or perhaps later?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Define "Early European" - are we talking about the tribes encounted by say the Roman Empire, or even earlier? Or perhaps later?

I think he is a bit confused as 4500 years ago in the UK stone circles were being made.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
She was probably the most intelligent tutor I ever had. She's a world authority on Shakespeare and the Renaissance.

You get her and I get the guy who worked out how to put enzymes in washing powder without them causing itching still it made him a millionaire

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
She was probably the most intelligent tutor I ever had. She's a world authority on Shakespeare and the Renaissance.

She sounds wonderful, though I'd expect nothing less with such a notable pedigree in academia, and it's always good to get a great tutor who knows their stuff, and not someone who could be channeling Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter.



Thats might impressive, the mans a genius.... well actually, I don't even know his name (you mean there was a time when enzymes caused itching? A good life's work I guess to fix such a problem.) Don't tell him I said that though

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I wasn't being reactionary, you're being over sensitive. Do you agree that many Early European tribes could be accurately described as "hunter gatherers/barbarians/scavengers"?
No, no I don't agree.

And what does this have to do with whites of 2005?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
She sounds wonderful, though I'd expect nothing less with such a notable pedigree in acedemia, and it's always good to get a great tutor who knows there stuff, and not someone who could be channeling Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter.



Thats might impressive, the mans a genius.... well actually, I don't even know his name (you mean there was a time when enzymes caused itching? A good lifes work I guess to fix such a problem.) Don't tell him I said that though

The enzymes used to digest food in washing powder are in (or were in the seventies) little micro bubbles that don't actually leave and properly contact the cloth. The guys name was Martin Chaplain he was hilarious and used to buy his students a bear sometimes. He's written some books. But his not famous like Bronowsky.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The enzymes used to digest food in washing powder are in (or were in the seventies) little micro bubbles that don't actually leave and properly contact the cloth. The guys name was Martin Chaplain he was hilarious and used to buy his students a bear sometimes. He's written some books. But his not famous like Bronowsky.

He sounds like a top notch sort, any lecturer that'll have a beer with the students in good in my books. I think I'll have a look at some of his books, I imagine his area of expertise was chemistry or the like?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
He sounds like a top notch sort, any lecturer that'll have a beer with the students in good in my books. I think I'll have a look at some of his books, I imagine his area of expertise was chemistry or the like?

Enzymology, Food Science is his other big thing he developed some of the enzymes involved in novel Chocs. He wasn't the only one who stopped enzymes itching some others came up with different methods, his was the most used though.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Define "Early European" - are we talking about the tribes encounted by say the Roman Empire, or even earlier? Or perhaps later?

Well I was think more so of the tribes that invaded the Roman Empire between 4th and 6th centuries. I believe they were made up of mostly the Jutes and the Brits. "Nowadays"....Many Germans, Brits, and Scotts are actually considered to be descended from these people.

Very barberous uncivilized race, and nasty too. Many of the sexually transmitted diseases that we know of today, can actually be traced to these people. However as barberic as they were, they did manage to salvage what was left of the Roman Empire..and then claim centuries later that they were the originator's of many of Roman/Greeks technological advances. Geez..I feel like I'm in my European history class again...boy those were the days.

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
No, no I don't agree.

And what does this have to do with whites of 2005?

Well you need to study up on your history a bit...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well I was think more so of the tribes that invaded the Roman Empire between 4th and 6th centuries. I believe they were made up of mostly the Jutes and the Brits. "Nowadays"....Many Germans, Brits, and Scotts are actually considered to be descended from these people.

Very barberous uncivilized race, and nasty too. Many of the sexually transmitted diseases that we know of today, can actually be traced to these people. However as barberic as they were, they did manage to salvage what was left of the Roman Empire..and then claim centuries later that they were the originator's of many of Roman/Greeks technological advances. Geez..I feel like I'm in my European history class again...boy those were the days.

cultuarally vicious like the visigoths does not make them uncivilised Whobd they had excellent artisans and craftsmen.

In relation to the "whites of 2005"..I was just making a point about "evolution" being degenerative..clearly many of the peoples from ancient African/Arabic/Asian cultures, were more "advanced" than that of their "white barbarous" descendants.

Just look at many ancient Egyptians and Persians, and even the Nubains. At least they had discovered that "bathing" was something that wouldn't cause harm..long before any of the "barbarians"

So my thought process was..is it possible..that this "white gene" caused some sort of degenerative effect on those who later became known as "white"? What do you think?