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.
So, ARE whites more evolved than blacks?
Technically, this says they are.
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 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.
Is it impossible to talk about race distinction/evolution without getting some sort of hate talk or reactionary posts?
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
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.
His daughter was one of my teachers at uni.
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 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 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.
You get her and I get the guy who worked out how to put enzymes in washing powder without them causing itching erm still it made him a millionaire smile
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 😉