Originally posted by Chrstna BarrettWhat the **** was this?
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?
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.
BBC recently reported on this too -