Interestingly Sforza don't consider the Khoisan, like Northern Africans, "black Africans". It amazes me how some in here quote his work liberally without any comprehension of what the racialist is actually saying.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^So with the exception of Doug; are we saying that the original Mongol was actually a Khoisan type African who acquired pale skin by virtue of crossbreeding with Whites?
As an aside: traditionally Mongols have been known as the "Yellow" race. As anybody in the west knows, when you cross a White with a Black, the offspring often has a yellowish skin tone.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Not claiming to be an expert or anything; But since you have set yourself up as the morality police, aren't you suppose to forgive me my transgressions and move on?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wednesday, January 03, 2001, updated at 14:49(GMT+8) Sci-Edu
Scientists Succeeded in Extracting DNA from Ancient Human Bones
As reported from the Molecular Anthropology and Human Colony Genetics Lab, Chinese scientists have successfully extracted DNA from ancient bones of Shanghai people, dating back to the period of 4,000-5,000 years ago. This marks a big stride forward for China to set its foot into the modern molecular biology field.
Molecular Anthropology and Human Colony Genetics Lab was co-founded by Shanghai History Museum and Genetics Institute of Fudan University. The two research departments have all along been engaged in DNA study of ancient human bones, and so far, a series of results have been achieved by them.
Prior to this, the lab researchers extracted DNA from ancient human bones of 3200 years ago in Hami area of Xinjiang. Sequencing test proved that Caucasus and Mongolian races had ever (always) lived together at that time in Hami.
Up to now, the lab has collected a great number of ancient human bone materials from various archaeological sites all over the country and will set up an ancient Chinese bones gene bank.
By PD Online Staff Li Yan
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^So with the exception of Doug; are we saying that the original Mongol was actually a Khoisan type African who acquired pale skin by virtue of crossbreeding with Whites?
As an aside: traditionally Mongols have been known as the "Yellow" race. As anybody in the west knows, when you cross a White with a Black, the offspring often has a yellowish skin tone.
No. What is being said is that Mongols are an ethnic group and that human features are the result of human adaptation to their environment. San people have the features they do because of the environment and the first Africans who settled South Africa did not look like the San. The first people of Central Asia did not look like Mongols either, but after exposure to the high winds of the steppes and the low UV environments their bodies adapted the features you see today. Environment is the reason for all human features and the adaptation of human body to various environments happened to the first populations of aboriginal blacks as they spread across the globe. Hence you can see black Asian features among the aboriginal populations of South Asia as well as the Pacific. Ancient aboriginal Mongols would have also been black as a result of this environmental adaptation and it does not mean that black San like people migrated to Central Asia. It means that aboriginal black populations in Asia adapted San like features because of their environments the same way that the first Africans in Southern Africa developed those features among the San, including lighter skin.
Just as the San are Africans who developed lighter skin and 'Asian' features as a natural process adaptation to the environment, so too did the aboriginal blacks of Asia. The only difference is that the environment of Northern Asia caused skin to become much lighter than that of the San.
You keep arguing that Mongols or Mongoloids are a race separate from Africans, but if that is the case then so are the San. If the San are not a race separate from other Africans then neither are Asians. They are simply the result of environmental adaptation among ancient populations in Asia. If you treat the San as Africans that adapted their features as a result of environmental conditions, then your whole argument of 'Mongoloids' and 'Caucasoids' as separate races or 'species' that developed separate from Africans is empty.
The mixing you see of white Northern Asians and aboriginal black populations in South Asia and the Americas is a much more recent event and has nothing to do with 'Mongoloids' or 'Caucasoids' being separate species. There were no 'Mongoloids' or 'Caucasoids' 20,000 years ago. Human mixing is a fact of life that existed even before there was a white skinned population. All humans are mixed, because every time two humans mate the result is a mixture of genes. Therefore, mixing is not unique to people of different skin colors. It is something that is more obvious than the other traits that are the result of any human mating. And this mixing of people of different skin complexions is not that old since such vastly different skin complexions are relatively new compared to the age of humanity which is 200,000 years old.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, Again you might not be thinking this thing all the way through. Are we trying to equate races that formed thousands of years ago to modern peoples. Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as did Mongoloids and caucasians. That developmental process is only partially known and understood. You are correct that, if the if the african source idea is correct then you would not have three separate species. Species would be a bad choice of words. You would , however, have three equally distinct groups of people. Twenty years from now they will have most of those snswers.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Evidence is of no consequence to Doug; he believes what he wants to believe. To him, the proven fact that White people and Mongols lived TOGETHER for thousands of years, has no meaning. And of course there was no cross-breeding, they all stayed exactly as they were.
He is very much like the Chinese themselves. According to John R. Moore on his site; "Black History" School textbooks in China have been teaching that the Chinese race evolved from Peking Man - Ha. BTW - Moore also has concluded that the Mongol race derived from slanty-eyed Khoisans.
posted
TheAmericanPatriot - I very much appreciate your sudden lucidity. But "Negroes DIDN'T developed FROM ancient africans - They WERE the ancient Africans. Mongoloids and caucasians developed from THEM!!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Evidence is of no consequence to Doug; he believes what he wants to believe. To him, the proven fact that White people and Mongols lived TOGETHER for thousands of years, has no meaning. And of course there was no cross-breeding, they all stayed exactly as they were.
He is very much like the Chinese themselves. According to John R. Moore on his site; "Black History" School textbooks in China have been teaching that the Chinese race evolved from Peking Man - Ha. BTW - Moore also has concluded that the Mongol race derived from slanty-eyed Khoisans.
The migrations out of Africa to the rest of the world did not come from South Africa and they were not Khoisan. The aboriginal blacks of Asia had a wide range of features, from India to South Asia into New Guinea and Australia. Among these aboriginal types were people with slanted eyes and these people have been there for over 50,000 years. They were not Africans. These people can still be found among the aboriginal people of South Asia and parts of the Pacific. Such features are simply a result of environmental factors and natural random genetic profiles. It is not a "racial type". The first people of the Americas were more like these aboriginals than the later migrants who were more like later populations in Central and East Asia.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TheAmericanPatriot - I wish to take advantage of your sudden lucidity, to investigate the mystery of the races in Ancient Asia from a White point of view.
As I have shown, modern Mongols are a hybrid of White and slanty-eyed Blacks. And of course, these slanty-eyed Blacks didn't jump directly TO China. They were also part of the Indus Valley population also.
As you know, the great remaining mystery of the races is; What are White people, and where did they come from (before they settled in Asia)?
Even though meninarmer has provided creditable proof that Whites are derived from Albinos; I am still not convinced, and here is why.
As you can see from this Qin soldier, as recently as 2,000 years ago, the Mongol race was still identifiably Negroid.
But the other day, I perused through pictures of the 54 minorities of China, and I could not find any group that was still "identifiably Negroid". Rather, I found pictures like this. (Ya I know, who says the pictures were accurate, Chinese lie just like White people do - and we already know they don't want to admit that they were originally Black).
These pictures suggest to me that in perhaps the majority of cases, Black genes have almost totally been overwhelmed by White genes in East Asia (China, Japan, Korea).
This further suggests a VERY large White population in China and East Asia, one much larger than the Black population.
When the White population in West and Central Asia is taken into consideration, (those that moved to Europe, and those that stayed behind), it amounts to a HUGE White, or mostly White population in the world.
With all due respect to meninarmer, I just don't see that large a White population deriving from a colony of Albinos.
Unless Whites have lied to us again, and the migration at 50,000 ya WAS the Albinos. With the slanty-eyed Khoisans coming MUCH later.
This scenario WOULD work. Whites have told us that the White race started with just seven breeding pairs. With a head start of thousands of years, Whites would have had a chance to multiply their numbers by the millions in Asia.
Thus when the NORMAL Blacks arrived "much later" they could have been easily absorbed by the Albinos already there. This NEW infusion of genetic material, could also explain why MODERN Whites and Mongols are no longer completely Albino.
posted
Mike, Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as everyone else did. Ancient Africans were not modern negroes.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mike, Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as everyone else did. Ancient Africans were not modern negroes.
I have always wondered why civilization started so late in China (1,500 B.C.), relative to Egypt and the Middle East. And why the Black Jomon and Ainu in Japan never did establish a true civilization.
Could it be that the people who established civilization in China, the Black Xia and Shang, were actually Indus Valley people? The timeframe seems to work.
But explaining the Black Jomon and Ainu in Japan is tougher. They were there since 35,000 B.C. So could it be that they too, were part of the 50,000 ya migration, and they left China to go to Japan before the later arriving Blacks brought civilization? (Maybe they just couldn't stand the Albinos - just kidding).
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mike, Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as everyone else did. Ancient Africans were not modern negroes.
Read a book.
TheAmericanPatriot: Never mind, I will read a book for you. (And in the future, try not to be such an a-hole).
Encyclopedia Britannica
Homo-sapiens:
The Genus and species to which all modern human beings (Homo-sapiens-sapiens), belong and to which are attributable fossil remains of humans in Africa, from 400,000 years ago or more. Homo sapiens are distinguished from other animals and from earlier humanoid species by characteristics and habits such as bipedal stance and gait, brain capacity averaging about 82 cubic inches, high forehead, small teeth and jaw, defined chin, construction and use of tools, and the ability to make use of symbols such as used in language and writing. Some of these features were possessed by the immediate ancestor, Homo erectus; but in the aggregate they are characteristic only of Homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens, “man the wise,” is the only currently existing species of the genus Homo. It is difficult, if not impossible, to follow the evolutionary steps that led to modern man in the fossil record. Charles Darwin himself defined the problem. “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creatures to man as he now exists, he wrote in The Descent of Man, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used.”
One of the things that makes discovery of a point of distinction so difficult, is that Homo-sapien is the product of an evolutionary process called mosaic evolution. Which postulates that humans did not evolve smoothly as a species, but that various populations evolved at different rates, according to environmental and genetic circumstances. And because fossils are the remains of individuals, who may differ even within populations, one fossil alone or even a few do not adequately describe how a population may have evolved.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: TheAmericanPatriot - I wish to take advantage of your sudden lucidity, to investigate the mystery of the races in Ancient Asia from a White point of view.
As I have shown, modern Mongols are a hybrid of White and slanty-eyed Blacks. And of course, these slanty-eyed Blacks didn't jump directly TO China. They were also part of the Indus Valley population also.
As you know, the great remaining mystery of the races is; What are White people, and where did they come from (before they settled in Asia)?
Even though meninarmer has provided creditable proof that Whites are derived from Albinos; I am still not convinced, and here is why.
As you can see from this Qin soldier, as recently as 2,000 years ago, the Mongol race was still identifiably Negroid.
But the other day, I perused through pictures of the 54 minorities of China, and I could not find any group that was still "identifiably Negroid". Rather, I found pictures like this. (Ya I know, who says the pictures were accurate, Chinese lie just like White people do - and we already know they don't want to admit that they were originally Black).
These pictures suggest to me that in perhaps the majority of cases, Black genes have almost totally been overwhelmed by White genes in East Asia (China, Japan, Korea).
This further suggests a VERY large White population in China and East Asia, one much larger than the Black population.
When the White population in West and Central Asia is taken into consideration, (those that moved to Europe, and those that stayed behind), it amounts to a HUGE White, or mostly White population in the world.
With all due respect to meninarmer, I just don't see that large a White population deriving from a colony of Albinos.
Unless Whites have lied to us again, and the migration at 50,000 ya WAS the Albinos. With the slanty-eyed Khoisans coming MUCH later.
This scenario WOULD work. Whites have told us that the White race started with just seven breeding pairs. With a head start of thousands of years, Whites would have had a chance to multiply their numbers by the millions in Asia.
Thus when the NORMAL Blacks arrived "much later" they could have been easily absorbed by the Albinos already there. This NEW infusion of genetic material, could also explain why MODERN Whites and Mongols are no longer completely Albino.
What's your thoughts?
Mike they evolved from aboriginal blacks. There were no "other" people in Asia when the aboriginal blacks got there. So there is no way to pretend that there was a separate migration of white people into Asia separate from the first blacks aboriginal populations. The development of white genes came about long after the settlement of North Asia and therefore such features in Northern Asia are not the result of mixing it is the result of evolution among black aboriginal populations. Only much later did the white Northern Asian Mongols and Chinese become dominant and begin to move South and conquer or assimilate the remaining populations of Asian blacks who have been there all along.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug - I am very sorry, but what you say lacks logic. Why don't you try this. Do as I did, set out your chronology step by step, and provide some bits of evidence to support your scenario. I mean, you can't just say stuff, and that makes it true.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug - I am very sorry, but what you say lacks logic. Why don't you try this. Do as I did, set out your chronology step by step, and provide some bits of evidence to support your scenario. I mean, you can't just say stuff, and that makes it true.
Actually Mike you are simply trying to support the views of the racialists who believe that humans come in distinct races and that all these races are the basis of the primary "traits" of racial "science". This does not follow logic it follows a racialist paradigm which is not based on science or fact. Therefore you are supporting the racialists not rejecting them and are a fraud in pretending to do otherwise. In fact you follow their methodology including using their "racial" terminology. So how does that make you anything but one of them?
Simply put, if all modern humans originate in Africa then where did whites and asians come from? You have not provided anything to answer the question all you have done is to talk about everyone else's ideas.
You keep trying to make claims like Mongoloids mixed with blacks, but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from? You cannot answer this and you wont answer this because in your mind there were alien featureless white bodies living in Northern Asia who were waiting for the incoming aboriginal blacks of Asia and so that they could create pods and clone their features.
You don't make any sense.
There were no other humans in Asia when the aboriginal blacks got there.
So either blacks were the first people of Asia and eventually evolved white skin in the Northern regions, or there were featureless white body aliens in the North who performed body snatching on the blacks to produce the features of modern Asians.
Which is exactly the kind of logic you believe in.
Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear. It has nothing to do with biology and anthropology and is simply a social phenomena based on superficial traits that have no real bearing on the concept of race.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug Quote: Simply put, if all modern humans originate in Africa then where did whites and asians come from? You have not provided anything to answer the question all you have done is to talk about everyone else's ideas.
You keep trying to make claims like Mongoloids mixed with blacks, but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from? You cannot answer this and you wont answer this because in your mind there were alien featureless white bodies living in Northern Asia who were waiting for the incoming aboriginal blacks of Asia and so that they could create pods and clone their features.
Damn Doug; you're not reading the posts, are you? I guess your tact is to ignore everyone so that they can't change your mind.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ True, there had to have been a beginning, and that beginning very likely carried much of the major physical deviation (skin color, eye flips, UV sensitivity,...) that we see today.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Like what and how??What environment thing led to a physical adaptation in the Human who experienced it?Don't bother trying to answer, I was just demonstrating your lack of thought.
I will bother to answer,environmental changes like climates,places and way of living(ie sedentary and nomadic ones)and alimentation.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from?
They came from Africa.
quote:Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear. It has nothing to do with biology and anthropology and is simply a social phenomena based on superficial traits that have no real bearing on the concept of race.
But human variation do exist.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from?
They came from Africa.
quote:Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear. It has nothing to do with biology and anthropology and is simply a social phenomena based on superficial traits that have no real bearing on the concept of race.
But human variation do exist.
You boys try to work out your silliness, let us know when you're done.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Like what and how??What environment thing led to a physical adaptation in the Human who experienced it?Don't bother trying to answer, I was just demonstrating your lack of thought.
I will bother to answer,environmental changes like climates,places and way of living(ie sedentary and nomadic ones)and alimentation.
Teacher to Puerto Rican kid: pr, What environment things are likely to lead to a physical adaptation in the Human being who experiences them?
Puerto Rican kid to Teacher: environmental changes like climates, places and way of living(ie sedentary and nomadic ones)and alimentation.
Teacher to Puerto Rican kid: pr here is your "F" go home, there is no point in hanging around here.
Big hearted me helping the Puerto Rican kid: Dickhead - It's a trick question! The only phenotype trait NOT found in Africa, but is found elsewhere, is PALE SKIN. Talk to meninarmer for a clue on how that might have happened.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear.
Race and racism is a little more than gang colors don't you think, you little simpleton?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Interesting that Native Africans are highly resistant to speaking on the terrible treatment of African Albinos in the past and present. The ill treatment goes well beyond racism and most of it borders on sheer ignorance and tribal superstition. With historic memories of these various atrocities, a definite ancient hatred and psychotic mindset would certainly become very realistic.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: It's a trick question! The only phenotype trait NOT found in Africa, but is found elsewhere, is PALE SKIN. Talk to meninarmer for a clue on how that might have happened.
Then why are there African Albinos if is not found in Africa?
PS: I don't need your compassion.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
prmiddleeastern - Normally we don't consider sick and diseased people, such as Albinos, as being typical of the population. HEALTHY Africans are NOT pale skinned.
I was only trying to help.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: prmiddleeastern - Normally we don't consider sick and diseased people, such as Albinos, as being typical of the population. HEALTHY Africans are NOT pale skinned.
But you do consider Europeans that, what a contradiction, and they aren't sick and diseased people.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I make no claim in understanding why White people are otherwise healthy. Egmond Codfried has a thread exploring this very subject (ARE WHITE'S A FIXED ALBINO RACE?), and of course meninarmer has provided a great deal of research and insight.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Well as meninarmer’s research has shown, they are not well adapted to the Earths environment, even in the northern latitudes, such as Europe and North America. So if it is true that all humans originate in Africa, and we know that Africans DON’T have pale skin and ARE well adapted to the Earths environment. Then the logical conclusion MUST be, that SOMETHING happened to White people that was of a deleterious nature. So whether you call it disease or loss of ability, you certainly CAN’T call it normal or healthy.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: So if it is true that all humans originate in Africa, and we know that Africans DON’T have pale skin and ARE well adapted to the Earths environment. Then the logical conclusion MUST be, that SOMETHING happened to White people that was of a deleterious nature. So whether you call it disease or loss of ability, you certainly CAN’T call it normal or healthy.
I call it variation.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Sorry, simple variation is when there is NO loss. Since White people LOST something, it cannot be called simple variation. Now of course you can still call it variable disease in degree by virtue of melanin levels, or something like that; If you really like the word that much.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
prmiddleeastern – If you really hate the Albino tag so much, why not come up with a competing theory? For instance you could look for examples in nature where creatures have lost their pigmentation. I watch nature programming all the time and there are several creatures which have done this.
Problem is; they were all in deep caves or deep Ocean where there was NO light. And unfortunately, they also lost their eyes. Okay, that was a bad example, but work on it, you might be able to come up with something.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, the trait in Albinism is much more than a decrease in skin pigment. It also involves a severe compromise of DNA repair mechanisms which repair cellular damage due to over exposure to solar radiation.
An example is, in a black or dark person, if they sun burn, their immunization system kicks in and begins repairing any damage done by over absorption of radiation/heat.
In Albinos and whites, this immunization feature is absent or compromised so sun burn damage is not repaired and progresses to skin cancer.
The sign of a compromised closed loop ADAPTIVE feedback system, which the human body comprises, is once the system adjusts to absorb greater amounts of solar radiation for the intent of creating more Vitamin D, the system is aware of the compromise and greater risk of susceptibility to sun burn. Therefore, as melanin density is decreased, immunization sensitivity is increased. Ideally, the boost in immunization promotes faster repair of DNA damage. In Albinos and Europeans, the Adaptive system totally fails, in that melanin densities are decreased while sensitivity to solar radiation impact and immunization is decreased as well. So, Adaptive feedback is not possible resulting in severe sun burn which cannot be repaired which ultimately become, skin cancer.
This condition could very well develop in creatures who have lived generations in caves.
Perhaps, this is the origin of the myth of Vampires who can only come out at night and burst into flames in sunlight.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic