>out of africa theory
Out of africa theory
Jacob Lopez
Luke Richardson
Noah Turner
Something I don't get about the theory of evolution:
>species starts out as a homogeneous group
>becomes very genetically diverse and specialized
>then goes back towards being a homogeneous group with little genetic diversity
Doesn't make sense to me.
Evan Adams
It's just like chimps user.
I don't get why people here don't take the opportunity to use evolution as part of their agendas.
Chimpanzees evolved from advanced primates around the same time as human, but weren't effected by never had to use the same amount of intelligence to survive and thus became lesser beings compared to humans.
Black people never needed to evolve further because again, they didn't need higher levels of intelligence to survive. As you go further north, the more advanced humans become, meaning they're biologically superior to all others within the primate species.
Nolan Allen
>atheist think this is the same species
Jose Evans
Pardon me.
>adjusts tie and tucks shirt in
So are you claiming
>files for tax return
Really claiming
>checks stock portfolio
That it's really possible that
>drives daughter to violin recital
Indeed quite possible that
>eats chinese takeaway
Our ancestors were of royal lineage?
John Jackson
Atheist here, no I do not.
Joshua Butler
kek, kys meme flag
Caleb Thomas
>takeaway
Turn off the meme flag Brit.
Anthony Turner
She's cute, are there any nudes of her?
Matthew Jenkins
There's good reason to doubt it now, but what's offensive about Out of Africa theory?
Doesn't it make perfect sense that the least evolved and most ape-like humans still live in the place where humans originated, and the development of higher forms happened in a harsher climate where more cooperation and ingenuity were needed?
John Peterson
Someones fucking insecure, are you really that mad that millions and millions of years a go your very distant ancestor came from the continent now known as Africa?
Jack Rivera
If you're of Western European heritage, yes. You're a descendant of Charlemagne.
Alexander Kelly
Humans are BILLIONS of years old and are NOT NATIVE to Earth. Here is merely SOME evidence (though DEFINITELY not ALL of the evidence) suggesting not only a human presence on Earth BILLIONS of years ago, but also suggesting complex human civilisations on Earth BILLIONS of years ago:
* A human skull fragment from Hungary dated between 250,000 and 450,000 years ago
* A human footprint with accompanying paleoliths (stones deliberately chipped into a recognisable tool type), bone tools, hearths and shelters, discovered in France and dated 300,000 to 400,000 years
* Paleoliths in Spain, a partial human skeleton and paleoliths in France; two English skeletons, one with associated paleoliths, ALL at least 300,000 years old
* Skull fragments and paleoliths in Kenya and advanced paleoliths, of modern human manufacture, in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, dated between 400,000 and 700,000 years
* Neoliths (the most advanced stone tools and utensils) in China of a type that indicate full human capacity, dated to 600,000 years
* Hearths, charcoal, human femurs and broken animal bones, all denoting modern humanity, in Java, dated to 830,000 years
* An anatomically modern human skull discovered in Argentina and dated between 1 million and 1.5 million years years (eoliths -chipped pebbles, thought to be the earliest known tools- at Monte Hermoso, also in Argentina, are believed to be between 1 and 2.5 million years old).
* A human tooth from Java yielding a date between 1 and 1.9 million years years
* Incised bones, dated between 1.2 and 2.5 million years, have been found in Italy
* Discoveries of paleoliths, cut and charred bones at Xihoudu in China and eoliths from Diring Yurlakh in Siberia dated to 1.8 million years
* Eoliths in India, paleoliths in England, Belgium, Italy and Argentina, flint blades in Italy, hearths in Argentina, a carved shell, pierced teeth and even two human jaws all bearing a minimum date of 2 million years (end of part 1)
Eli Anderson
(start of part 2) Curiously enough, several of the very earliest artifact discoveries display a truly extraordinary level of sophistication. In Idaho, for example, a 2-million-year-old clay figurine was unearthed in 1912. But even this discovery does not mark an outer limit. Bones, vertebrae and even complete skeletons have been found in Italy, Argentina and Kenya. Their minimum datings range from 3 million to 4 million years. A human skull, a partial human skeleton and a collection of neoliths discovered in California have been dated in excess of 5 million years. A human skeleton discovered at Midi in France, paleoliths found in Portugal, Burma and Argentina, a carved bone and flint flakes from Turkey all have a minimum age of 5 million years.
How far back can human history be pushed with discoveries like these? The answer seems to be a great deal further than orthodox science currently allows. As if the foregoing discoveries were not enough, we need to take account of:
* Paleoliths from France dated between 7 and 9 million years
* An eolith from India with a minimum dating of 9 million years
* Incised bones from France, Argentina and Kenya no less than 12 million years old
* More paleolith discoveries from France, dated at least 20 million years ago
* Neoliths from California in excess of 23 million years
* Three different kinds of paleoliths from Belgium with a minimum dating of 26 million years
* An anatomically modern human skeleton, neoliths and carved stones found at the Table Mountain, California and dated at least 33 million years ago
But even 33 million years is not the upper limit. A human skeleton found in Switzerland is estimated to be between 38 and 45 million years old. France has yielded up eoliths, paleoliths, cut wood and a chalk ball, the minimum ages of which range from 45 to 50 million years.
There's still more.
Joshua Kelly
(start of part 3) In 1960, H. L. Armstrong announced in Nature magazine the discovery of fossil human footprints near the Paluxy River, in Texas. Dinosaur footprints were found in the same strata. In 1983, the Moscow News reported the discovery of a fossilised human footprint next to the fossil footprint of a three-toed dinosaur in the Turkamen Republic. Dinosaurs have been extinct for approximately 65 million years.
In 1983, Professor W. G. Burroughs of Kentucky reported the discovery of three pairs of fossil tracks dated to 300 million years ago. They showed left and right footprints. Each print had five toes and a distinct arch. The toes were spread apart like those of a human used to walking barefoot. The foot curved back like a human foot to what appeared to be a human heel. There was a pair of prints in the series that showed a left and right foot. The distance between them is just what you'd expect in modern human footprints.
In December 1862, The Geologist carried news of a human skeleton found 27.5 m (90 ft) below the surface in a coal seam in Illinois. The seam was dated between 286 and 320 million years. It's true that a few eoliths, skull fragments and fossil footprints, however old, provide no real backing for the idea of advanced prehistoric human civilisations.
But some other discoveries do.
In 1968, an American fossil collector named William J. Meister found a fossilised human shoe print near Antelope Spring, Utah. There were trilobite fossils in the same stone, which means it was at least 245 million years old. Close examination showed that the sole of this shoe differed little, if at all, from those of shoes manufactured today.
In 1897, a carved stone showing multiple faces of an old man was found at a depth of 40 m (130 ft) in a coal mine in Iowa. The coal there was of similar age.
Kayden Sanchez
(start of part 4) A piece of coal yielded up an encased iron cup in 1912. Frank J. Kenwood, who made the discovery, was so intrigued he traced the origin of the coal and discovered it came from the Wilburton Mine in Oklahoma. The coal there is about 312 million years old.
In 1844, Scottish physicist Sir David Brewster reported the discovery of a metal nail embedded in a sandstone block from a quarry in the north of England. The head was completely encased, ruling out the possibility that it had been driven in at some recent date. The block from which it came is approximately 360 million years old.
On 22 June 1844, The Times reported that a length of gold thread had been found by workmen embedded in stone close to the River Tweed. This stone too was around 360 million years old.
Astonishing though these dates may appear to anyone familiar with the orthodox theory of human origins, they pale in comparison with the dates of two further discoveries.
According to Scientific American, dated 5 June 1852, blasting activities at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, Massachusetts, unearthed a metallic, bell-shaped vessel extensively decorated with silver inlays of flowers and vines. The workmanship was described as 'exquisite'. The vessel was blown out of a bed of Roxbury conglomerate dated somewhat earlier than 600 million years.
In 1993, Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson reported the discovery 'over the past several decades' of hundreds of metallic spheres in a pyrophyllite mine in South Africa. The spheres are grooved and give the appearance of having been manufactured. If so, the strata in which they were found suggest they were manufactured 2.8 BILLION years ago.
Jack Peterson
(start of part 5) What are we to make of these perplexing discoveries? They cannot simply be dismissed. If even ONE of these discoveries is TRUE (and I believe that MANY if not ALL of these discoveries are TRUE), then it changes EVERYTHING that modern mainstream anthropologists THOUGHT they knew about the human species. (end)
Camden Lopez
A coin with curious and indecipherable inscriptions was discovered in Illinois in strata that would date it between 200,000 to 400,000 years ago. The finding was reported in 1871 by William E. Dubois of the (((Smithsonian Institution))). What makes this coin so significant is what Dubois said about it - he described the UNIFORM THICKNESS of the coin and concluded that it must have "passed through a rolling-mill; and if the ancient Indians had such a contrivance, it must have been pre-historic." Pic related (it's a depiction of the coin).
Evan Sullivan
Here is the Nampa figurine (placed next to a coin for size comparison). The Nampa figurine is a tiny figurine made of clay found in 1889, when workers were drilling near Nampa, in southwest Idaho.
“The record of the well shows that… they had penetrated first about fifty feet of soil, then about fifteen feet of basalt, and afterwards passed through alternate beds of clay and quicksand…down to a depth of about three hundred feet when the sand pump began to bring up numerous clay balls, some of them more than two inches in diameter, densely coated with iron oxide,” geologist of Boston Society of Natural History, George Frederick Wright (1838-1921) reported in his book “Origin and Antiquity of Man” (1912).
The Nampa figurine appears to be of a female human and was discovered at a strata dated to about 2 million years.
Cameron Cook
Dr. Peter Gariaev is a Russian scientist who took eggs that were laid by a frog and then zapped those eggs with a laser light that had gone through eggs laid by a salamander. When the 'frog' eggs hatched, salamanders emerged from them - not frogs. The only thing that is necessary to rewrite DNA is wave information, which means that evolution can occur not through millions of years but instantaneously.
The agricultural division of the Ciba-Geigy corporation (now Sygenta) discovered that existing plant seeds could be transformed into extinct varieties, simply by zapping them with a weak electrostatic current. This process generated stronger and faster-growing wheat, extinct fern species, and tulips with thorns. Italian scientist Pier Luigi Ighina energetically transformed a living apricot tree into an apple tree, actually causing the fruits on the branches to metamorphose from apricots into apples in only sixteen days. Ighina also zapped a rat with DNA-wave information from a cat, and this caused the rat to grow a cat-like tail in four days.
Oliver Nelson
>what is the Mitochondrial Eve
smelly dumb Sup Forumstard scum
>Humans are BILLIONS of years old and are NOT NATIVE to Earth
As anyone with a functioning brain will say: follow the data if it lead to that so be it.
Jaxson Harris
I believe that evolution is true, but that evolution is caused by a conscious, intelligent field of energy underlying the entire universe (which you can call 'God' if you want, but I won't, because that word has religious connotations that I would rather avoid) which cranks out life anywhere and everywhere. Also, humans are BILLIONS of years old and are NOT NATIVE to Earth. Start watching this video from 10:27 (ignore the whole 2012 thing, because Wilcock is still right about how evolution really works):
youtube.com
I also don't like the term 'intelligent design', because 'intelligent' is a loaded word and somewhat anthropomorphic. I prefer using the term 'self-aware design' or 'intentional design'. And what I'm advocating is not magic, as it can be described in a purely scientific way. There you go. Evolution is correct, but (((Darwinian evolution))) is false. Evolution is never random.
Cooper Thompson
What the fossil record indicates to us is quite creepy.
Plants first appear in the fossil record about 450 million years ago. There is no indication of them having developed out of any earlier form. They simply appear. What's more, every major form of plant arrives together. This can only be explained in orthodox evolutionary terms if none of the millions of intermediate stages which led to this dramatic development ever fossilised. The chances against this are ASTRONOMICAL.
The first flowering plants also appear in the fossil record fully formed. Although we have an abundance of fossils of the earlier, non-flowering species, not a single one of these can be described as an intermediate form on the evolutionary path to flowers. At one point, there were no flowering plants. At another, flowering plants were all over the place.
You find exactly the same bizarre pattern in the animal kingdom.
The earliest fish with spines and brains appeared some 450 million years ago. In all the many curious lifeforms discovered in the sea, they had no apparent evolutionary ancestors. According to orthodox doctrine, the cartilaginous skeleton found in certain fish - like the ray - gradually evolved into a bony skeleton. The fossil record shows cartilaginous fish appeared (without apparent ancestors) 75 million years AFTER bony fish.
Orthodox doctrine also insists fish with jaws gradually evolved from jawless varieties. The fossil record shows nothing of that sort. Fish with jaws suddenly appeared, with no discernible ancestry. Furthermore, these jawed fish somehow evolved into one jawless species - the lamprey - despite the fact that jawlessness is supposed to be a characteristic destined to be selected out of the life stream. (end of part 1)
Lincoln Anderson
(start of part 2) Darwinian theory suggests that lung-fish, capable of breathing both on land and underwater, eventually evolved primitive legs out of their gills and crawled onto a beach to become the first amphibians. Amphibians certainly exist. What isn't known to currently exist is a single intermediate fossil tracing the famous lung-fish gills-to-legs evolutionary sequence. Some 320 million years ago, fossils of fully a dozen orders of amphibians began to be laid down. All had well-developed limbs, shoulders and pelvic girdles. None showed the slightest sign of having evolved from fish or even from anything else that evolved from fish.
Fish species themselves show no signs of evolution. The shark who terrifies swimmers today is the same beast he was 150 million years ago. Oysters and mussels have been around unchanged for even longer - they appeared in their present form and were arguably just as delicious 400 million years ago.
Mammals appeared suddenly as well. The orthodox theory suggests that they evolved from a single, tree-dwelling, shrew-like creature that expanded into the niche left when the dinosaurs perished. There was indeed such a creature, but the fossil record gives no indication whatsoever that it evolved into anything. Instead, 10 million years after the dinosaurs disappeared, a dozen or so separate and distinct mammalian species turn up without warning in the fossil record... in areas as distinct as South America, Africa and Asia. There are no intermediate fossils showing a connection between these mammals and the earlier shrew. There are no fossils showing any inter-species evolution either. Among the fossil mammals that appeared so abruptly at that time are lions, bats and bears that you would recognise IMMEDIATELY if you were chased by them today. What's going on here? (end)
Liam Taylor
There's a book by Ellis Silver called 'Humans Are Not From Earth: A Scientific Evaluation Of The Evidence'. He says (among other things) that sunburn, our relatively high chance of experiencing back pain and pain during labour are types of evidence that Earth is not an optimal environment for human beings and that we come from elsewhere.
My theory regarding the origin of the human species is that the human species comes from elsewhere in the Milky Way galaxy and, at some point in the distant past, our earliest ancestors colonised vast swathes of the Milky Way galaxy (and are possibly still doing so) and both Mars and Earth were colonised by them along the way. There are pyramidal structures and a Sphinx-like object in various NASA photos of Mars. I also think that a fiercely destructive interplanetary war caused the destruction of a planet that used to exist between Mars and Jupiter, leaving only the asteroid belt that we know today. This war also sterilised Mars, turning what was once a lush, verdant, Earth-like planet into a cold, lifeless desert.
Luis Wilson
Base template homo sapiens originated in Africa then began a form of divergent evolution as they adapted to their new environments and sometimes interbred with other Homo genus like Neanderthals, erectus, etc.
Humans have a lot of physical plasticity so that's why the physical changes you see in humans only took the better part of 50,000+ years to achieve as opposed to fucking millions for other species.
Also the term "Race" is just a happy fun word to replace sub-species as no one can really pin down what the defining lines are like they can with birbs and shit.
Noah Price
It's true
Austin Jenkins
ahahahahaha
Luke White
>they can both breed and create fertile offspring, but they aint the same species
Josiah Davis
Aussie the way you take all these inconsistencies and contradictions in the fossil record and manage to determine that it's ayys and not God is astounding. All you're doing is taking the problems of the theory and kicking them down the road like a can.
>we can't reconcile these inconsistencies so everything must have originated on another planet
And conveniently, we have no idea where or what this other planet is so we're saved the trouble of explaining how life originated and evolved over there.
Connor Clark
>With little genetic diversity
See that's why it doesn't make sense to you, you put something silly in there.
Eli Wood
Explain. You think we are more genetically diverse now than we were 400 years ago? There are ethnic groups from back then that literally do not exist anymore. The reverse is not true.
Parker Nguyen
Mexicans weren't a thing until like 500 years ago.
Ethan Jackson
>and manage to determine that it's ayys and not God is astounding
What the ACTUAL FUCK are you talking about? I never dismissed 'God' in any way whatsoever in my posts (however you define the word 'God') and I'm saying that WE are aliens in the sense that Earth is NOT our original home. Stop obfuscating things. To have existed for BILLIONS of years means that we most likely developed the technology to become a spacefaring civilisation eons ago and that, in turn, suggests that we are not from Earth.
Lincoln Thompson
It's just a mix of two groups that already existed. In fact it displaced more than two groups because there were multiple tribes in Mexico that no longer exist. Mexico was more diverse before Spain showed up.
Jaxson Cruz
By saying that earth is not our original home, you're discounting the Christian God. There's nothing in the Bible that supports the idea that we are descended from an advanced space-faring civilization that was dropped off on earth billions of years ago like in that one episode of the Twilight Zone. You may not be discounting a vague undefined god that you've created in your own mind, I'll give you that.
Jack Hernandez
So what you are suggesting is that we wiz protheans and sheeit?
Xavier Watson
No one said they went back to being homogenous. Over time spent in seperate places without mixing, species diverge.
Hudson Russell
Africans should be gassed.
Blake Murphy
Ethnic groups don't matter. Their genes are still there, they're just mixed in with everyone else.
Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet.
Alexander Lopez
>By saying that earth is not our original home, you're discounting the Christian God.
I do not adhere to any religion, because I don't need to. I am a non-religious theist. I question everything and come up with my own conclusions based on evidence.
>You may not be discounting a vague undefined god that you've created in your own mind, I'll give you that.
And you are not discounting a vague, undefined god created by desert-dwelling (((Semites))), I'll give you that.
Ian Taylor
You don't like the Christian God, so you made your own one up? What reason do you have to think that you, through your own faculties and knowledge, are capable of discovering and defining God where 7 billion other were not? Do you believe you are important enough that your god will give you a personal revelation, one which he withheld from literally the entire remainder of humanity? Do you believe that you are a Muhammad or Joseph Smith?