And that too!

Macdoc wrote:

Keep on dreaming Agrippina. The various races started as one race in Africa

More shite in this odious thread

There are no extant human races except one remaining.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus sediba New
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

The others that indeed ( tho not 100% that all were Africa continent based ) developed are gone....get over it.
There are numerous diverse subpopulations.

Fucking sickening this crap continues....on this board....should have locked and deep sixed ages ago

Hi Macdoc, before posting here can you please leave bigotry outside the door. Just saying...

Warren Dew wrote:

Moridin wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:The idea that all human ancestors came out of Africa within the last 200,000 years is a myth based on paying attention only to mitochondrial DNA and ignoring autosomal DNA. Neanderthals and Denisovans are among the ancestors of modern humans, and likely Asian Homo Erectus is as well.

That does not follow. There has been admixture between modern humans and those two groups, but from that it does not follow that out of Africa is wrong.

If some of our ancestors were already in Europe (neanderthals) and Asia (Denisovans) 200,000 years ago, it absolutely does follow, as I said, that not all of them were in Africa at that time. Some of them might have been in Africa, but not all of them.

This shows that your understanding of the Out of Africa model is enormously bad. That could have been fixed by reading the second paragraph of the wiki-article on the subject. The model says that:

Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,[2] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus

It does not, contrary to your false belief, that all humans species originated from Africa at the same time.

This shows, yet again, that race realists do not even have a basic grasp of the relevant scientific models or data for human phylogeography. They are prepared to deny well-supported science in order to cling to their desperate beliefs on race.

Moridin wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

Moridin wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:The idea that all human ancestors came out of Africa within the last 200,000 years is a myth based on paying attention only to mitochondrial DNA and ignoring autosomal DNA. Neanderthals and Denisovans are among the ancestors of modern humans, and likely Asian Homo Erectus is as well.

That does not follow. There has been admixture between modern humans and those two groups, but from that it does not follow that out of Africa is wrong.

If some of our ancestors were already in Europe (neanderthals) and Asia (Denisovans) 200,000 years ago, it absolutely does follow, as I said, that not all of them were in Africa at that time. Some of them might have been in Africa, but not all of them.

This shows that your understanding of the Out of Africa model is enormously bad. That could have been fixed by reading the second paragraph of the wiki-article on the subject. The model says that:

Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,[2] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus

It does not, contrary to your false belief, that all humans species originated from Africa at the same time.

Your own quote confirms what I said, especially the part about how "Out of Africa" claims that humans evolved "solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago". If we were "solely in Africa" from 200,000 years ago to 60,000 years ago, obviously we couldn't have been simultaneously in Siberia 200,000 years ago. Again, the Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA findings have disproven that "Out of Africa" theory.

But were the Siberian and African despite the DNA testing the very same humanoids?

My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the first humanoids, i.e. apes who left the trees and stood upright, and whenever that happened, left Africa and moved into northern areas. Then there were floods of others who did the same thing later, and they met up with the descendants of the earlier migrants, and that this went on for hundreds of centuries before we became the humans we are today. I don't know the numbers and timelines, but that's how I see it.

Warren Dew wrote:
Your own quote confirms what I said, especially the part about how "Out of Africa" claims that humans evolved "solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago". If we were "solely in Africa" from 200,000 years ago to 60,000 years ago, obviously we couldn't have been simultaneously in Siberia 200,000 years ago. Again, the Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA findings have disproven that "Out of Africa" theory.

There was some admixture of other lines during dispersal, a few per cent. This is now incorporated and has not changed the basic story.

I seem to remember that the very first human was discovered in Africa and was named Eve.

angelo wrote:I seem to remember that the very first human was discovered in Africa and was named Eve.

Are you talking about "Mitochondrial Eve"?

Veida wrote:

angelo wrote:I seem to remember that the very first human was discovered in Africa and was named Eve.

Are you talking about "Mitochondrial Eve"?

Yes I think so. The female of the species of course.

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

Mitchondrial Eve was not the first human. And she was not alone. Many humans just like her lived at the same time. She was just lucky that all humans living today are descendants of her.

Oh yes. Otherwise we would still have a tail and be more apelike.

The_Metatron wrote:Clearly, what most of us think about races is that there are different traits. They are pretty damned obvious in their extremes, but I think it's important to recognize those various differing traits lie along a spectrum.

Here's my question, sorry if it has been asked:

Is this thing we call race one of the first steps of speciation? It seems like an early indicator of population separation and isolation.

No, because there are no isolated human populations. There are populations that live in isolated areas, and there are classes or clans that tend toward isolation for social reasons, and there are subsets that that are obviously isolated from each other geographically (pygmies and Inuit for example), but human populations are not isolated from their neighbours, nor do they select exclusively from within their group such that the genepool of the groups is isolated to the extent of being able to develop independently - in genetic isolation as it were.

There are however classes of animals that qualify as subspecies of their family solely on the basis of morphological differences but which otherwise retain the ability to interbreed with the wider population of their species, but again this is a taxonomical distinction only and we tend to avoid talking about subsets of humans being 'subhumans' because that has a different and distinct connotation. There's also little utility in citing differences in human gene expression as being indicative of a subspecies becasue i) variation in gene expression are not significant difference markers in the usual taxonomical sense, and ii) defining the boundary between presumed subspecies of humans based on differences in gene expression of morphological characteristics begins to break down as soon as members of the presumed subspecies interbreed.

What we can say about variation in gene expression is that it can be used to define and describe a broad population group, but even here this is merely a forensic reference to individuals' genetic antecedence and obviously the members of those broad genetically-defined populations are found across an equally broad range of geographically distinct environments and social settings. Those who maintain that particular morphological differences divide and define subsets of humans into discrete subspecies groups called races are usually unable to i) define the descriptors of the discrete groups, and ii) parse which group which the offspring of two presumably distinct races belongs to without resorting to what's often called the the Ikowiso method.

Perhaps, but the issue crops up about which morphological features are legitimate indicators of race-group identity, and why?

The_Metatron wrote:There aren't isolated populations now. I'd think that in isolated populations though, the path towards speciation would start and would have the appearance of different races at first.

I don't know of any evidence that this has ever been the case for any currently extant populations of Homo sapiens, or their ancestors. All populations have had, from my admittedly ignorant pool-boy-who-reads-lots perspective, continuous interaction with neighbours.

Hell, the closest we had to a racial/speciation event was the Neandertal thing, and my ancestors happily fucked with them to the point that up to 5% of my DNA comes from them. Thank you, great-to-the-x-grandma, for my strong bones.

TIme scales make it difficult to get one's head around this shit, as does technical language. Homo neandertalis is generally considered a separate species from sapiens, but that depends on how one defines species, and by certain definitions relying upon the ability to interbreed successfully, makes little sense.

Given that, the fact that there isn't any evidence that I couldn't successfully breed with a willing female member of any given population of humans currently extant, combined with the lack of evidence for any genetic boundaries that could be reliably defined as anything approaching racial, I'd have to disagree, Metatron.

Caveat: I absolutely do not think Metatron is in any way advocating any form of racism. And I think it's fucking obvious he isn't.

What I'm arguing is that I see no evidence that populations were isolated in the past for sufficient time that racial traits (for want of a better term, since it's midnight and I'm drunk) to develop as a result of that isolation.

Think of it like gangs. Bear with me for a second. Maybe peer groups, rather than gangs. They aren't isolated. My peer groups aren't isolated from my son's peer groups. We share some interests. We are wildly divided on others. I don't consider 'musician' as a part of a defining class of 'people to emulate'. My kid has just grown out of thinking Beiber is awesome - and will deplore the fact that I acknowledge that he ever did. Heh.

We were never isolated, really. But we were always influenced by fashion. Fashion tells you that the ideal man is a warrior? The ideal woman is a maid? These ideas aren't genetic. They're viral. Some viruses have been with us for ever. Doesn't mean we don't need to keep fighting them.

Goldenmane wrote:Hell, the closest we had to a racial/speciation event was the Neandertal thing, and my ancestors happily fucked with them to the point that up to 5% of my DNA comes from them. Thank you, great-to-the-x-grandma, for my strong bones.

Exactly. If the continental separation between neanderthals and African humans was insufficient to cause speciation after hundreds of thousands of years, it's pretty clear that modern human races, with a small fraction of that time spent separated, are very far from any speciation event, and were even before modern travel lowered the geographic barriers.

TIme scales make it difficult to get one's head around this shit, as does technical language. Homo neandertalis is generally considered a separate species from sapiens, but that depends on how one defines species, and by certain definitions relying upon the ability to interbreed successfully, makes little sense.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is only considered a separate species by those who haven't kept up with the science in this area, and in particular haven't absorbed the implications of the archaic human autosomal DNA findings yet.

Warren Dew wrote:
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is only considered a separate species by those who haven't kept up with the science in this area, and in particular haven't absorbed the implications of the archaic human autosomal DNA findings yet.

I'd like to 'absorb the implications of the archaic human autosomal DNA findings' that provide this apparently unequivocal classification of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Do you have some authoritative references?

Pääbo's Nature article from 2006
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.long