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

Looks like we're from Guangxi, China!

http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/200704/t20070423_17992.shtml

http://english.cas.cn/ST/RE/re_project/200911/t20091110_46982.shtml

http://english.ivpp.cas.cn/ns/es/200911/t20091103_46622.html




yQgcqtBICAU

Thoughts?

Always trying to keep the black man down...

i think you might be racist Lil B.

always something to do with race with you.

Yeah, that just doesn't work on me.

....

But nothing about this new discovery? Do we expect to find more in multiple areas of the world? How will this contribute to our understanding of evolution?

Is this one more solid leap away from the creationist theories?

sounds like another 1421

EDIT: for instance, the Chinese will say they invented golf

Originally posted by inimalist
sounds like another 1421

EDIT: for instance, the Chinese will say they invented golf

I heard about that. I think it was ''Chinese inventions'' documentary. I'll try and look for it on youtube.

I'm going to wait until they turn over the skeleton to a research group not from China.

Next week there will probably be evidence that the Big Bang took place ten miles outside of Tianjin.

People are made in China.

Originally posted by Robtard
Quatermass and The Pitt (aka Five Million Years to Earth) 1967

Oh that rings a bell, I vaguely remember watching quatermass as a kid probably re runs as Im not that old

That would be one series or film which would do well if they re did the stories.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I heard about that. I think it was ''Chinese inventions'' documentary. I'll try and look for it on youtube.

after looking it up, i might have picked a bad example

however, a lot of these "new revisions" of history comming from countries like China and India need to be taken with a grain of salt, because they tend to have major nationalist influences.

I forget the guy's name, but Russia had a similar stance on Evolutionary science during the cold war.

Originally posted by inimalist
I forget the guy's name, but Russia had a similar stance on Evolutionary science during the cold war.

This guy?
http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/30701.gif

Originally posted by inimalist
after looking it up, i might have picked a bad example

however, a lot of these "new revisions" of history comming from countries like China and India need to be taken with a grain of salt, because they tend to have major nationalist influences.

I forget the guy's name, but Russia had a similar stance on Evolutionary science during the cold war.

I will have to look up that on Russia, I had no idea about it. If you find anything, link me up, please.

I found the documentary about China's discoveries -

lxceQ9-6uHQ

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This guy?
http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/30701.gif

yes, it was star treck all along

damn those high teck star trek turtlenecks!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I will have to look up that on Russia, I had no idea about it. If you find anything, link me up, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

starved millions because the "capitalist" model of darwinean evolution was not applicable to Russia

Ok, so the conclusion of the majority is that this isn't believable...? If so, why?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, so the conclusion of the majority is that this isn't believable...?

not that it is unbelievable, as in, it wouldn't shatter all the conceptions I had about human evolution (though, the genetic migratory patters would need massive revisions, as it currently shows a definate migration accross Asia from West to East), but there is reason enough to believe that this is not entirely true without outside labs and teams being given access to the material for verification

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If so, why?

For the most part, the fact that much Chinese academia is also concerned with issues of nationalism mixed with the fact that I've heard a couple of people who observe Chinese academia claim it is both fraught with fraud, and recently even violence.

(the former claim from a science based podcast, the latter from a recent article in The Economist)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, so the conclusion of the majority is that this isn't believable...? If so, why?

I guess it's possible but it seems rather like an American scientist claiming she discovered that living in America makes people genetically superior.

The out of africa concept is pretty well established. Knocking it down should require a lot of evidence and confirmation from various groups.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I guess it's possible but it seems rather like an American scientist claiming she discovered that living in America makes people genetically superior. It doesn't?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It doesn't?

Not genetically.

Originally posted by inimalist
not that it is unbelievable, as in, it wouldn't shatter all the conceptions I had about human evolution (though, the genetic migratory patters would need massive revisions, as it currently shows a definate migration accross Asia from West to East), but there is reason enough to believe that this is not entirely true without outside labs and teams being given access to the material for verification



For the most part, the fact that much Chinese academia is also concerned with issues of nationalism mixed with the fact that I've heard a couple of people who observe Chinese academia claim it is both fraught with fraud, and recently even violence.

(the former claim from a science based podcast, the latter from a recent article in The Economist) Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I guess it's possible but it seems rather like an American scientist claiming she discovered that living in America makes people genetically superior.

The out of africa concept is pretty well established. Knocking it down should require a lot of evidence and confirmation from various groups.

Indeed.

What I do find interesting is that they claim modern humans evolved in numerous places on earth, one of them being found in China.

As I asked earlier, do you think we may find more of these across the world, and if we do, should revision of out of Africa concept come into question?
Would that reinforce the 'race' idea - ie that different races of humans exist?

Inimalist, I don't doubt Chinese academia is fraught with ridiculous nationalistic claims, especially when it comes to Asian history - I think Korean, Japanese and Chinese joint historical research centre would end in a bloodbath within first meeting.
I, however, do not read, nor trust The Economist - I have a thing against their supposed journalistic expertise.

Fun fact:
there are more people in china who speak english then people in the USA











because they have more people who speak english then our entire population

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Indeed.

What I do find interesting is that they claim modern humans evolved in numerous places on earth, one of them being found in China.

As I asked earlier, do you think we may find more of these across the world, and if we do, should revision of out of Africa concept come into question?

everything should always be in question, however, major theoretical issues come up if it turns out humans evolved in various places in parallel (humans as in modern humans, I don't think it is very controversial that some type of homo X might have evolved in parallel to homo sapien), such as, when did the normalization of genetics between these parallel groups occur? Because, even though there are instances of things appearing several times in evolutionary history (the eye being the most commonly cited), we are exactly alike accross races, with regard to genetic variance, and this would not be expected if people evolved in different places.

further, this map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Migration_map4.png

traces mitochondrial genetics of people, as they appear to have migrated out of Africa. Occam's Razor, at least without more evidence, still favors "out-of-africa", though, tbh, I'm not a geneticist. 753 could probably explain this with more detail than I.

(though, with the X map, I beleive there is controversy as to whether it crossed the bearing land bridge to Alaska or if they sailed West to Norse "Vinland"

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Would that reinforce the 'race' idea - ie that different races of humans exist?

In this parallel evolution situation, I'd almost assume they would have to be different species...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Inimalist,

inimalist

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't doubt Chinese academia is fraught with ridiculous nationalistic claims, especially when it comes to Asian history - I think Korean, Japanese and Chinese joint historical research centre would end in a bloodbath within first meeting.

oh, certainly. I don't want to sound dismissive, but all of those nations have huge problems when it comes to the acceptance of their own history. Not that this doesn't exist in the West, just that it is so much more... important?... for these asian nations to have an extremely nationalist understanding of their histories.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I, however, do not read, nor trust The Economist - I have a thing against their supposed journalistic expertise.

fair enough. I agree that have a definite bias, but as far as media aimed at english speaking fiscal conservatives go, it is probably the best. In this instance, there is certainly slant in the article, but no reason to question the basic fact that: people in china still settle issues of science with violence

here is a confirmation not from the Economist, including refrences from Time and the journal Science:
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=873

and the economist article:
http://www.economist.com/node/17199386

i am thinkin what about Pangaea as the possible reason we humans may have started off in the same place and just spread out and simply finished our natural development toward being homo sapian from the initial hominid.

that or it was aliens.

either one would account for early human remains that could be found spread out in the world.

also i dont trust china science, they seem to always come out with something like we did it 1st BS..

Originally posted by King Castle
i am thinkin what about Pangaea as the possible reason we humans may have started off in the same place and just spread out and simply finished our natural development toward being homo sapian from the initial hominid.

Pangea broke up hundreds of millions of years ago, whereas humans evolved severl hundred thousand years ago.

any human anscestor around on pangea was not a homonid, which only enter the record around 20 million years ago.

Originally posted by inimalist
Pangea broke up hundreds of millions of years ago, whereas humans evolved several hundred thousand years ago.

any human anscestor around on pangea was not a homonid, which only enter the record around 20 million years ago. so that just leaves aliens, chinese lies propaganda or its true.

actually i think it is very interesting but it could be explained by an the ice bridge and migration of whatever sapian/hominid it was.
http://maps-world.cn/map/world_map.GIF
not convince they evolved independedly from everyone else and we all just arrived at the same evolutionaty body.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Fun fact:
there are more people in china who speak english then people in the USA




because they have more people who speak english then our entire population

I've always wondered about that trivia fact. As in how loose is their definition of "speak". Do they mean just in a professional setting, enough to get by? Or can over 300 million Chinese actually hold a conversation in English on the same level as you or I can. I just have trouble visualizing that many Chinese nationals being able to casually discuss the weather or how their day went as easily as I or anyone else here can. I've met (and worked oddjobs with) some Chinese nationals over the years, and their pronounciation was always terrible or at least really hard to understand. People who were raised with Mandarin/Cantonese vowels just don't do well with English.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've always wondered about that trivia fact. As in how loose is their definition of "speak". Do they mean just in a professional setting, enough to get by? Or can over 300 million Chinese actually hold a conversation in English on the same level as you or I can. I just have trouble visualizing that many Chinese nationals being able to casually discuss the weather or how their day went as easily as I or anyone else here can. I've met (and worked oddjobs with) some Chinese nationals over the years, and their pronounciation was always terrible or at least really hard to understand. People who were raised with Mandarin/Cantonese vowels just don't do well with English.

For older generation I can see that happening.
Many younger Chinese are exposed to English these days from very early (including learning pinyin in school) and while they may have an accent, as far as younger generation goes....I wouldn't say all are difficult to understand.

Yes you're right about the difficulty of understanding, however that applies to everyone - those with English, Spanish or Italian (as some examples) as first language cannot for shit pronounce French words properly in order to say the correct thing - especially rue and roue, let alone some more complex languages.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

those with English, Spanish or Italian (as some examples) as first language cannot for shit pronounce French words properly in order to say the correct thing - especially rue and roue, let alone some more complex languages.

Are you sure about the last two? I know that first-language English speakers suck at learning anything, but Spanish, Italian and French are all in the same language family.

I was born in Mexico, so my first language was obviously Spanish, but I learned English pretty fast and without much trouble. But that's not just me; apparently Spanish is a very good "gateway" or "stepping stone" language.

It's considered the best really for English native speakers, as many of the words are similar phonetically, etc.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you sure about the last two? I know that first-language English speakers suck at learning anything, but Spanish, Italian and French are all in the same language family.

I was born in Mexico, so my first language was obviously Spanish, but I learned English pretty fast and without much trouble. But that's not just me; apparently Spanish is a very good "gateway" or "stepping stone" language.

While they're all Latin languages, French has tons of pronunciation weirdness that the other two do not.
Interestingly, German speakers as well as Finish can get French pronunciation much better than English, Spanish or Italians, mostly due to having certain vowels in their own language that correspond to that of French. For example, in Italian and French, there is only one U pronunciation - but the French have the one that's between y and u and the one that is normal u.

The problem in French is that it doesn't become an accent pronouncing it one way, but it changes the meaning of the word.
My example - rue means street, and it has that sharp between y and u sound, while roue means the wheel and it has that normal u sound.

Also, Spanish and to the lesser extent Italians have actually bothered to reform their language, took out ridiculous and unnecessary things out as the time went on, while French just haven't changed theirs a whole lot (if at all), coming up with tons of sounds that are, for non native speakers, such as myself, sometimes difficult to detect.

Spanish and Italians have an advantage of vocabulary when it comes to French - my class had a lot of hispanophones from S.America and they just could not deal with the sometimes weird pronunciation.
(mind you, neither could sinophones, or anglophones or anyone else that studied with me, for that matter)

P.S this is not a jab at French language or people - you know I love you all.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Fun fact:
there are more people in china who speak english then people in the USA


because they have more people who speak english then our entire population
How many of them are actually fluent conversationalists though? I can understand French to a point and can form some simple sentences thanks to my French speaking mother's influence but I wouldn't say I can "speak French". The same could probably be said for a lot of Chinese people with cursory knowledge of English.

Also is there a source for this?

is anyone else verifying the claims?

what are other scientist opinions?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How many of them are actually fluent conversationalists though? I can understand French to a point and can form some simple sentences thanks to my French speaking mother's influence but I wouldn't say I can "speak French". The same could probably be said for a lot of Chinese people with cursory knowledge of English.

Also is there a source for this? i dont know but theres much more than 300 million people(our population) in china who speak english

you would have too google the source, i heard it in high school once and people here have heard it also

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i dont know but theres much more than 300 million people(our population) in china who speak english

you would have too google the source, i heard it in high school once and people here have heard it also

I am inclined to believe it. I recently read that at the rate Evangelical Christianity is growing in China, very soon there will be more Evangelical Christians in China than whole of USA.

Originally posted by inimalist
sounds like another 1421

EDIT: for instance, the Chinese will say they invented golf

It makes a lot of sense to assume we all migrated out whenever we did and acquired different genes. For instance, if Africans migrated to the mid east, they would start to look like them. The ones in the U.S. have pride in their heritage. The U.S. is about as hot as the Middle East. In America, cultures outside of color differences keep their own culture. For instance an African American has his or her own heritage that determines facial expressions and the like.

The first article suggests people moved to Asia from Africa and from there moved to Europe and some later across the bridge to the U.S. and South America. Why if Native Americans are further do they share the most similarity to Africans? Evidence could show that Native Americans were nomads with European and Asian traits.

It's hard to keep my focus. My cell just beeped. The out of China theory is interesting, but most are say to be retarded or lacking communication genes. It makes me uncomfortable to automatically stereotype Mongologoids, which includes Asia, the Mid East, and aborigines, as having to be all the same. If someone is born with different genes, you don't actually have the right to refuse anything you do with others in the same situation. That could be considered for a religious debate.

I am mad knowing my race depends on what some stupid Chinese does. There's the idea that China is where Asians from the east originate, and then that everyone else comes from Africa. That proves my other belief to be correct, that blacks need to stop whining and accept their choices and work themselves to reach their own goals in the modern world.

People blame me whining when we have a right to talk. I say it's right in the first place not to be racist against Asians because they might wonder if I'm Asian though I don't look Asian.

The thing is that people may want to migrate to somewhere like the U.S. I already feel I possess a lot of European features at the root, but I don't overdo myself stereotypically.

This proves I was right to think that African Americans and Africans who are black should not blame others and act nasty around for instance Asians. I meet nasty black people all the time, and they start trouble. There are a lotta nice ones. I get problems though from other kinds of people as well but now is centered on black people. Babies who are African are born white, not red. Their parents could do things so they stay that way. For instance they might expose the baby to the sun and not have them spend as much time in the water, or bath. I don't even know if an African baby can be born black. Africans had a choice to look like they do or to connect with European, not blood bang the Asians.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Indeed.

What I do find interesting is that they claim modern humans evolved in numerous places on earth, one of them being found in China.

As I asked earlier, do you think we may find more of these across the world, and if we do, should revision of out of Africa concept come into question?
Would that reinforce the 'race' idea - ie that different races of humans exist?

Inimalist, I don't doubt Chinese academia is fraught with ridiculous nationalistic claims, especially when it comes to Asian history - I think Korean, Japanese and Chinese joint historical research centre would end in a bloodbath within first meeting.
I, however, do not read, nor trust The Economist - I have a thing against their supposed journalistic expertise. I think that it's not right that white people shrug their shoulders, or Europeans at what it means to have Asian blood|genes whatever.

I wonder if it used to be Asia and black people. Can anyone tell me how people are able to joke about Asian blood? Any stupid person can see that you do have to look at the person to see what you like. It's not a rule out on anyone with Asian genes! There are some attractive European-acting Asians, though maybe all this is more interesting before things in some ways got too modern.

There is no reason to believe that Europeans and Asians are least connected. What worries me is if blacks are more related to Europeans but still considered fairer. You could see black as different in that way, but it still is good to find out. I find that both Asian and European connects to black.

Right, China seems more normal, in the middle of the way the smaller countries on the different sides act. Life was so hard because if you're Chinese people will ignore you, even if you are half European. The thing to compare is Chinese and European. Why would I feel excluded? For less than 1% Native American or Jew last names like Shultz and Kifer?

Is this one of those bots that gathers up random phrases from the internet and splices them together into vaguely topical sentences?

I was thinking the same thing.

edit- I totally thought it first though.

I don't know guys. Give it another go, it has some really bitter racism...

almost too racist to be just some random collection, unless "anti-black" is a type of sentence it can search for

I guess.

Meh, there's all kinds of multiregional origins hipothesis. they're all rpetty weak. Recent out of africa remains solid, it's pratically undeniable now

Originally posted by Chrstna Barrett
It makes a lot of sense to assume we all migrated out whenever we did and acquired different genes. For instance, if Africans migrated to the mid east, they would start to look like them. The ones in the U.S. have pride in their heritage. The U.S. is about as hot as the Middle East. In America, cultures outside of color differences keep their own culture. For instance an African American has his or her own heritage that determines facial expressions and the like.

The first article suggests people moved to Asia from Africa and from there moved to Europe and some later across the bridge to the U.S. and South America. Why if Native Americans are further do they share the most similarity to Africans? Evidence could show that Native Americans were nomads with European and Asian traits.

It's hard to keep my focus. My cell just beeped. The out of China theory is interesting, but most are say to be retarded or lacking communication genes. It makes me uncomfortable to automatically stereotype Mongologoids, which includes Asia, the Mid East, and aborigines, as having to be all the same. If someone is born with different genes, you don't actually have the right to refuse anything you do with others in the same situation. That could be considered for a religious debate.

I am mad knowing my race depends on what some stupid Chinese does. There's the idea that China is where Asians from the east originate, and then that everyone else comes from Africa. That proves my other belief to be correct, that blacks need to stop whining and accept their choices and work themselves to reach their own goals in the modern world.

People blame me whining when we have a right to talk. I say it's right in the first place not to be racist against Asians because they might wonder if I'm Asian though I don't look Asian.

The thing is that people may want to migrate to somewhere like the U.S. I already feel I possess a lot of European features at the root, but I don't overdo myself stereotypically.

This proves I was right to think that African Americans and Africans who are black should not blame others and act nasty around for instance Asians. I meet nasty black people all the time, and they start trouble. There are a lotta nice ones. I get problems though from other kinds of people as well but now is centered on black people. Babies who are African are born white, not red. Their parents could do things so they stay that way. For instance they might expose the baby to the sun and not have them spend as much time in the water, or bath. I don't even know if an African baby can be born black. Africans had a choice to look like they do or to connect with European, not blood bang the Asians.

I think that it's not right that white people shrug their shoulders, or Europeans at what it means to have Asian blood|genes whatever.

I wonder if it used to be Asia and black people. Can anyone tell me how people are able to joke about Asian blood? Any stupid person can see that you do have to look at the person to see what you like. It's not a rule out on anyone with Asian genes! There are some attractive European-acting Asians, though maybe all this is more interesting before things in some ways got too modern.

There is no reason to believe that Europeans and Asians are least connected. What worries me is if blacks are more related to Europeans but still considered fairer. You could see black as different in that way, but it still is good to find out. I find that both Asian and European connects to black.

Right, China seems more normal, in the middle of the way the smaller countries on the different sides act. Life was so hard because if you're Chinese people will ignore you, even if you are half European. The thing to compare is Chinese and European. Why would I feel excluded? For less than 1% Native American or Jew last names like Shultz and Kifer? What the **** was this?

Originally posted by 753
Meh, there's all kinds of multiregional origins hipothesis. they're all rpetty weak. Recent out of africa remains solid, it's pratically undeniable now

are multiregion hypotheses even able to account for how similar all humans are genetically? like, wouldn't we expect very different types if humans if they arise in different places, not just the cosmetic ones we see?

if not, how would the genes eventually "standardize"? interbreeding?

Originally posted by inimalist
are multiregion hypotheses even able to account for how similar all humans are genetically? like, wouldn't we expect very different types if humans if they arise in different places, not just the cosmetic ones we see?

if not, how would the genes eventually "standardize"? interbreeding?

Yup, their cop out is interbreeding, specially through waves of subsequent migrations of modern humans out of africa later on.

Multiregionalists basically push the single origin out of africa back 2 million years and claim that homo erectus originated homo sapiens independantly several times, 3 to 5 depending on who you ask. Now, since it is absurd to believe these isolated populations would converge to modern humans who are so uniform both morphologically and genetically, an interbreeding explanation must be brought forward, but given the relative isolation of erectus back then (continents apart) and the speed and numbers of migrants between continents, it seems absurd that they'd be enough to maintain whole species homogeneous while it derived from erectus to sapiens on a planetary scale, specially considering how different sapiens are to erectus. Besides, multiregionalism is in essence an anagenetic explanation of species origin taken to the extreme and as Gould would tell us, the fossile record doesn't really corroborate anagenesis in any group.

Recent single origins has overheliming fossile and genetic evidence from y chromosomes and mythocondrial DNA. Its findings are consistant with our knowledge of cladogenesis, bottlenecks, genetic drift and migration of prehistoric humans.

Multiregionalist on the other hand pretty much cling to this one fossile found in portugal which they claim is a lost link between erectus and sapiens (misciginated with neanderthal), an interpetation that has been painfully criticized as forcing the data into the desired result, and to some interpetations of genetic data that show a supposed lack of bottleneck events affecting the entirety of the genome as they believe would be expected if the single origin is correct.

ha, wicked, I'm only half retarded when it comes to genetics then!
thanks

BBC recently reported on this too -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11618814