Neanderthal theory and race
10 Feb 2012, 11:37 am
There is no civilizations in indigenous African territories.
This lends to the credibility of Neanderthal admixture, and bearing Neanderthal genes, with requisite drive and capability to construct...civilization.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
10 Feb 2012, 9:03 pm
NarcissusSavage wrote:
There is no civilizations in indigenous African territories.
This lends to the credibility of Neanderthal admixture, and bearing Neanderthal genes, with requisite drive and capability to construct...civilization.
This lends to the credibility of Neanderthal admixture, and bearing Neanderthal genes, with requisite drive and capability to construct...civilization.
There are no advanced civilizations among the South American Primitive Indians and in many other areas of the world, where civilization was not an adaptation for survival. These individuals are also evidenced to share Neanderthal Heritage.
From the evidence as it exists, it is more likely that where a person is born plays a greater role in this than to whether or not their parent has a small amount of Neanderthal ancestory.
One could have 4 percent Neanderthal ancestory, but if they are born to a South American tribe, chances are they aren't going to see civilization, unless it engulfs them.
And on the other hand as already evidenced by Obama's indigenous African father, as well as many other indigenous Africans, when given the same ecological/cultural resources and advantages as other cultures, they have the drive and opportunity to accomplish the highest of goals.
The ancestors of Neanderthals have an origin in Africa as well as all other human beings. They all adapted to their environment for survival, in many different ways.
Neanderthal DNA plays or has played some role in this as well as every other genetic and environmental factor. But it is understood, from a scientific perspective, at least at this point, as one small part of the entire picture.
Civilization is impossible to evidence as a phenomenon specific to Neanderthal ancestory because there is currently no scientific method for a valid test of that hypothesis.
Neurodiversity and Autism, is already evidenced as not specific to neanderthal ancestory.
11 Feb 2012, 5:35 am
aghogday wrote:
There are no advanced civilizations among the South American Primitive Indians and in many other areas of the world, where civilization was not an adaptation for survival. These individuals are also evidenced to share Neanderthal Heritage.
Wrong. The American Indians had advanced civilizations, and also had domesticated local plants and animals, even in the absence of cultural exchange with the rest of the world. Africans south of Sahara never came to this point, not even with civilizations nearby.
We also must take into account that civilization require a productive environment so that larger amounts of people can gather in an area. This is why civilizations first appeared in Middle East, China and North Africa, as well as in Middle America (Inca). Cooler areas simply couldn't start civilizations because the habitat was not productive enough. Africa south of Sahara had the right conditions, had civilizations nearby, yet never developped civilizations on their own.
aghogday wrote:
The ancestors of Neanderthals have an origin in Africa as well as all other human beings. They all adapted to their environment for survival, in many different ways.
Wrong. This is an assumption without proof. We have several very old finds of Homo outside of Africa, for instance from Dmanisi (almost 2 million years), and the Hobbits that seems to have diverged at least this long ago. IOW, there is no evidence whatsoever that Homo migrated out of Africa the last 2 million years. The issue of the older ancestry is also not proved. The retroviral insertion in Pan does not exist in Homo or orangutans, meaning it is more likely that ancestors of Homo and orangutans shared habitat 3-4 million years ago and ancestors of Homo and Pan. Additionally, it seems highly unlikely that Australopithecus is the ancestor of Homo. Homo probably evolved from an aquatic ancestor in Eurasia.
Additionally, when relating neurodiversity to neurotypical humans (modern humans) in Aspie Quiz, neurodiversity is not about 400,000 - 500,000 years old (claimed divergence of Neanderthals and modern humans), but close to 2 million years. IOW, neurodiversity has the same age as Eurasian Homo, and does not relate to the age of Neanderthal. Rather, Neanderthals just inherited the neurodiversity traits from their ancestors in Eurasia. What Neanderthal probably contributed was the Aspie hunting traits, as these are not as diverse as the rest of the neurodiversity traits, and thus seem to be of younger origin.
aghogday wrote:
Civilization is impossible to evidence as a phenomenon specific to Neanderthal ancestory because there is currently no scientific method for a valid test of that hypothesis.
The evidences are there, but they are ignored. These evidences are actually stronger than the evidences for any type of migration out of Africa, which ortodoxy claims to be a fact.
11 Feb 2012, 6:39 am
aghogday wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
There is no civilizations in indigenous African territories.
This lends to the credibility of Neanderthal admixture, and bearing Neanderthal genes, with requisite drive and capability to construct...civilization.
This lends to the credibility of Neanderthal admixture, and bearing Neanderthal genes, with requisite drive and capability to construct...civilization.
From the evidence as it exists, it is more likely that where a person is born plays a greater role in this than to whether or not their parent has a small amount of Neanderthal ancestory.
One could have 4 percent Neanderthal ancestory, but if they are born to a South American tribe, chances are they aren't going to see civilization, unless it engulfs them.
And on the other hand as already evidenced by Obama's indigenous African father, as well as many other indigenous Africans, when given the same ecological/cultural resources and advantages as other cultures, they have the drive and opportunity to accomplish the highest of goals.
One man does not a civilization make....
You should separate the concept of individual person from a larger group, when we discuss the behavior of a group; it does not have complete overlap into the behavior of an individual, and vice versa. Besides, flourishing inside a civilization is hardly the same as building one from the ground up. A civilization takes hoards of people, and generations to build. I don't care what one man does; it pales in comparison to the scope of this discussion.
Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans haven't built civilizations, in all of human history. It speaks volumes.
I know, it is politically incorrect, I know people want to look the other way and ignore the truth of it, but the evidence is pretty clear and obvious if you’re willing to look at it. You don't have to, we all have the right to pull the cover over our heads and pretend we are protected from whatever scares us.
RDOS replied with some of my other issues with your post, so I'll skip those, he worded them fairly well. But do look into South American history please, your knowledge in that department has some rather significant flaws. Big giant nasty holes, which you somehow filled with incorrect assumptions/presumption/false data. (Hint, Civilization in South America is alive and thriving...has for a lil while)
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
11 Feb 2012, 6:59 am
rdos wrote:
Wrong. The American Indians had advanced civilizations, and also had domesticated local plants and animals, even in the absence of cultural exchange with the rest of the world. Africans south of Sahara never came to this point, not even with civilizations nearby.
We also must take into account that civilization require a productive environment so that larger amounts of people can gather in an area. This is why civilizations first appeared in Middle East, China and North Africa, as well as in Middle America (Inca). Cooler areas simply couldn't start civilizations because the habitat was not productive enough. Africa south of Sahara had the right conditions, had civilizations nearby, yet never developped civilizations on their own.
We also must take into account that civilization require a productive environment so that larger amounts of people can gather in an area. This is why civilizations first appeared in Middle East, China and North Africa, as well as in Middle America (Inca). Cooler areas simply couldn't start civilizations because the habitat was not productive enough. Africa south of Sahara had the right conditions, had civilizations nearby, yet never developped civilizations on their own.
In your haste to rob racists of their ammunition by embracing neanderthal theory you would actually give them ammunition that defies common sense. There were several African powers that over the last 2000 years achieved levels of societies recognised as civilisation in every usual criterion except for one single technicality, written language.
The Nok culture is considered a civilisation. In Africa there was agriculture, iron tools, state formation and it's likely that this was all developed independently from the middle east. There are some experts who even credit Egyptian hieroglyphs with being an independent invention even though the Egyptians were so close to Sumer. So much more were the Africans separated by the Sahara. It's no great shock writing was developed independently. This event only happened a handful of times anywhere on earth in China, Sumer, Indus Valley, South America & maybe Egypt.
If you really want to fight racism then stop claiming, with neanderthal theory, that Africans didn't have civilisation. If I wasn't suspicious of your motives before I am now.
11 Feb 2012, 7:08 am
NarcissusSavage wrote:
Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans haven't built civilizations, in all of human history. It speaks volumes.
What about the Ashanti Empire, the Ghana Empire, Songhai Empire and the Mali Empire? Do they not count as civilisations?
11 Feb 2012, 7:09 am
NarcissusSavage wrote:
Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans haven't built civilizations, in all of human history. It speaks volumes.
I know, it is politically incorrect, I know people want to look the other way and ignore the truth of it, but the evidence is pretty clear and obvious if you’re willing to look at it. You don't have to, we all have the right to pull the cover over our heads and pretend we are protected from whatever scares us.
I know, it is politically incorrect, I know people want to look the other way and ignore the truth of it, but the evidence is pretty clear and obvious if you’re willing to look at it. You don't have to, we all have the right to pull the cover over our heads and pretend we are protected from whatever scares us.
Don't be ignorant. Read a book. Failing that, here, use wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture
Nok Civilisation;
The Nok culture appeared in Nigeria around 1000 B.C. and vanished under unknown circumstances around 500 AD in the region of West Africa. This region lies in Northern and Central Nigeria. Its social system is thought to have been highly advanced. The Nok culture was considered to be the earliest sub-Saharan producer of life-sized Terracotta. It has been suggested that the Nok civilization eventually evolved into the later Yoruba civilization of Ife based on similarities seen in the artwork from these two cultures.
The refinement of this culture is attested to by the image of a Nok dignitary at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. The dignitary is portrayed wearing a "shepherds crook" affixed with an elastic material to the right arm. The dignitary is also portrayed sitting with flared nostrils, and an open mouth suggesting performance. other images show figures on horseback, indicating Nok culture had tamed the horse.
Iron use, in smelting and forging for tools, appears in Nok culture in Africa at least by 550 BC and more probably in the middle of the second millennium BC (between 1400 BC and 1600 BC depending on references).
11 Feb 2012, 10:00 am
Dan_Undiagnosed wrote:
In your haste to rob racists of their ammunition by embracing neanderthal theory you would actually give them ammunition that defies common sense. There were several African powers that over the last 2000 years achieved levels of societies recognised as civilisation in every usual criterion except for one single technicality, written language.
That's not exactly a technicality, but an important element that makes it possible to analys these cultures today. Also remember that American Indians, in the absense of cultural exchange with other civilizations, had written language. Unfortunately, the spaniards managed to destroy much of these evidences so we sill have a very rudimentary understanding of American Indian culture and achievements.
Dan_Undiagnosed wrote:
The Nok culture is considered a civilisation. In Africa there was agriculture, iron tools, state formation and it's likely that this was all developed independently from the middle east.
From the description, I fail to see how this could securely be proved to be a civilization. I mean, figurines date back to the stone age (30,000 years) in Europe, so that is no evidence of civilization. The use of terracota and iron (long known by that time), also does not qualify as civilization.
Dan_Undiagnosed wrote:
There are some experts who even credit Egyptian hieroglyphs with being an independent invention even though the Egyptians were so close to Sumer. So much more were the Africans separated by the Sahara. It's no great shock writing was developed independently. This event only happened a handful of times anywhere on earth in China, Sumer, Indus Valley, South America & maybe Egypt.
To use Egypt is of course totally invalid, as it was founded by Caucasians. The use of of North Africa as a whole is invalid as well.
Dan_Undiagnosed wrote:
If you really want to fight racism then stop claiming, with neanderthal theory, that Africans didn't have civilisation. If I wasn't suspicious of your motives before I am now.
It's unproductive to deny reality, and it doesn't work to fight racism.
Dan_Undiagnosed wrote:
The dignitary is also portrayed sitting with flared nostrils, and an open mouth suggesting performance. other images show figures on horseback, indicating Nok culture had tamed the horse.
It's not. The horse is not native to Africa, and there are no evidences whatsoever for horse DNA from Subharan Africa. I'd accept it if it was a zebra, or some other native animal, but no native African animal has been tamed. From south America we have lamas that were tamed, so American Indians managed to do this, but not Africans south of Sahara.
11 Feb 2012, 10:13 am
NarcissusSavage wrote:
One man does not a civilization make....
You should separate the concept of individual person from a larger group, when we discuss the behavior of a group; it does not have complete overlap into the behavior of an individual, and vice versa. Besides, flourishing inside a civilization is hardly the same as building one from the ground up. A civilization takes hoards of people, and generations to build. I don't care what one man does; it pales in comparison to the scope of this discussion.
You should separate the concept of individual person from a larger group, when we discuss the behavior of a group; it does not have complete overlap into the behavior of an individual, and vice versa. Besides, flourishing inside a civilization is hardly the same as building one from the ground up. A civilization takes hoards of people, and generations to build. I don't care what one man does; it pales in comparison to the scope of this discussion.
Very well worded. Civilizations require some necesary conditions (high population densities), but also a diverse genome with both neurotypical and neurodiversity traits. In the absense of neurotypical or neurodiversity traits, civilizations cannot form even if other conditions would allow them. Note that I wrote in the absense of neurotypical or neurodiversity traits. That's the reason why we also see no signs of civilizations in Neanderthal. They lacked the neurotypical component to advance to this stage.
So the reason we don't see civilization in Africa is not because the individuals of Africa are subhuman, stupid or less able, but because they lack neurodiversity. They have all that is required on the neurotypical side, but lack enough individuals with neurodiversity traits.
Also note that 80-90% of the individuals of Eurasia are neurotypical, and so when speaking about majorities, there actually are no real difference between Africa and Eurasia. The difference that makes civilizations possible lie in a minority group.
11 Feb 2012, 11:13 am
rdos wrote:
Civilizations require some necesary conditions (high population densities), but also a diverse genome with both neurotypical and neurodiversity traits. In the absense of neurotypical or neurodiversity traits, civilizations cannot form even if other conditions would allow them. Note that I wrote in the absense of neurotypical or neurodiversity traits. That's the reason why we also see no signs of civilizations in Neanderthal. They lacked the neurotypical component to advance to this stage.
So the reason we don't see civilization in Africa is not because the individuals of Africa are subhuman, stupid or less able, but because they lack neurodiversity. They have all that is required on the neurotypical side, but lack enough individuals with neurodiversity traits.
Also note that 80-90% of the individuals of Eurasia are neurotypical, and so when speaking about majorities, there actually are no real difference between Africa and Eurasia. The difference that makes civilizations possible lie in a minority group.
So the reason we don't see civilization in Africa is not because the individuals of Africa are subhuman, stupid or less able, but because they lack neurodiversity. They have all that is required on the neurotypical side, but lack enough individuals with neurodiversity traits.
Also note that 80-90% of the individuals of Eurasia are neurotypical, and so when speaking about majorities, there actually are no real difference between Africa and Eurasia. The difference that makes civilizations possible lie in a minority group.
You've defined your own pre-requisites for civilisation. Based on....what? We also see no signs of civilisation from Homo Sapiens from 30,000 years ago, so the fact that there weren't any Neanderthal civilisations then says nothing at all.
11 Feb 2012, 11:26 am
It's useful to take this one step further.
Not only are neurodiversity-traits required to form civilizations, but they are also essential for maintaining civilizations, and are a big factor in the success of any culture. What that means is if neurodiversity traits are discriminated against, for instance by diagnosing many neurodiverse people with disorders, we expect such cultures to decline and eventually, if it continues, to revert back to tribalism.
It is also the case that if neurodiverse people are selected out of the population, neurodiversity will not persist as a natural variation in neurotypicals. Neurodiversity simply cannot persist in a population that behaves like neurotypicals, as all the neurodiversity traits are highly coupled to species-typical communication and social traits. If you select out the differences in social and communication behavior, which today are strongly discriminated against, you select out neurodiversity as well. The only way to keep neurodiversity is by accepting and accomodating diversity in social and communicational traits.
Some predictions thus can be made:
1. Countries that diagnose neurodiversity as disorders will lag behind countries that does not. Thus, we expect Eastern Asia to become more successful than Europe and the US in the near future, unless Eastern Asia moves in the same direction, or Europe / US stops discriminating against neurodiversity. This is already happenning, so has been proved to be correct.
2. As the population in Middle East got more neurotypical because of large influx from neurotypical Africa, and probably because of extensive discrimination of neurodiversity, Middle East no longer is leading in science and technology. IOW, the collapse of the ancient civilizations in Egypt and Middle East was due to declining levels of neurodiversity, and possibly increased discrimination against neurodiversity.
3. The best way of helping Africa and African descent outside of Africa, is to mix the populations with people with neurodiverse traits. IOW, integration and not segregation in their countries. We thus expect South Africa, which already has a large white minority, and thus has the neurodiversity traits, to become more successful than other African countries. We actually expect a large positive selection on neurodiversity (but not Caucasian neurotypical) phenotypes in South Africa.
4. Western countries will not become more diverse or successful by importing African or arabic descent. This is because these populations are less diverse than us, and this will lead to lower levels of neurodiversity in our countries. That's inproductive in every sense of the word. We should export individuals, and especially neurodiverse individuals, to these regions instead.
11 Feb 2012, 11:38 am
nemorosa wrote:
You've defined your own pre-requisites for civilisation. Based on....what? We also see no signs of civilisation from Homo Sapiens from 30,000 years ago, so the fact that there weren't any Neanderthal civilisations then says nothing at all.
We see a sudden explosion in material culture in the contact zone between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens 30,000 years ago, so this only proves the importance of neurodiversity in advancing culture and technology. This didn't happen in 100,000 years in the areas where modern humans originated, and it didn't happen in Neanderthal for 250,000 years either. Both of these populations were in stasis.
And it is easy to explain why civilization didn't appear until thousands of years later. The ice age conditions in Eurasia simply didn't support large populations, so thus one of the conditions for civilization didn't exist. It was not until the ice age ended the conditions existed, and then we also see civilizations form. However, the conditions for civilization had existed in Africa during the whole existance of modern humans, yet civilization never developped because neurodiversity was not present.
11 Feb 2012, 5:49 pm
rdos wrote:
aghogday wrote:
There are no advanced civilizations among the South American Primitive Indians and in many other areas of the world, where civilization was not an adaptation for survival. These individuals are also evidenced to share Neanderthal Heritage.
Wrong. The American Indians had advanced civilizations, and also had domesticated local plants and animals, even in the absence of cultural exchange with the rest of the world. Africans south of Sahara never came to this point, not even with civilizations nearby.
We also must take into account that civilization require a productive environment so that larger amounts of people can gather in an area. This is why civilizations first appeared in Middle East, China and North Africa, as well as in Middle America (Inca). Cooler areas simply couldn't start civilizations because the habitat was not productive enough. Africa south of Sahara had the right conditions, had civilizations nearby, yet never developped civilizations on their own.
aghogday wrote:
The ancestors of Neanderthals have an origin in Africa as well as all other human beings. They all adapted to their environment for survival, in many different ways.
Wrong. This is an assumption without proof. We have several very old finds of Homo outside of Africa, for instance from Dmanisi (almost 2 million years), and the Hobbits that seems to have diverged at least this long ago. IOW, there is no evidence whatsoever that Homo migrated out of Africa the last 2 million years. The issue of the older ancestry is also not proved. The retroviral insertion in Pan does not exist in Homo or orangutans, meaning it is more likely that ancestors of Homo and orangutans shared habitat 3-4 million years ago and ancestors of Homo and Pan. Additionally, it seems highly unlikely that Australopithecus is the ancestor of Homo. Homo probably evolved from an aquatic ancestor in Eurasia.
Additionally, when relating neurodiversity to neurotypical humans (modern humans) in Aspie Quiz, neurodiversity is not about 400,000 - 500,000 years old (claimed divergence of Neanderthals and modern humans), but close to 2 million years. IOW, neurodiversity has the same age as Eurasian Homo, and does not relate to the age of Neanderthal. Rather, Neanderthals just inherited the neurodiversity traits from their ancestors in Eurasia. What Neanderthal probably contributed was the Aspie hunting traits, as these are not as diverse as the rest of the neurodiversity traits, and thus seem to be of younger origin.
aghogday wrote:
Civilization is impossible to evidence as a phenomenon specific to Neanderthal ancestory because there is currently no scientific method for a valid test of that hypothesis.
The evidences are there, but they are ignored. These evidences are actually stronger than the evidences for any type of migration out of Africa, which ortodoxy claims to be a fact.
Civilizations rise and fall. I didn't say that there never have been any advanced civilizations among American Indians, I stated that there are Primitive South American Indians and others in the world that have adapted without civilization, whom have neanderthal ancestory. This doesn't mean that some of their ancestors were not involved with different levels of civilization in the past.
Narcisisus Savage stated there is no civilization among indigneous Africans. There is a history of civilization among indigenous Africans, just as there is a history of civilization in the South American Indians with the Mayans; they don't replicate our modern civilizations but they were advanced at the time they existed. Nor, do the current primitive cultures among South American Primitive Indians and other primitive people's of the world, replicate the civilizations of the early Mayans.
The modern disparity among civilization in the Sub Sarahan region of Africa, is a relatively modern phenomenon. Before the 1600's African/Subsarahan civilizations compared favorable to European Civilizations. The Article linked below gives a detailed history of the region if you care to learn more about the history of civilization among Sub Saharan Africans.
http://history-world.org/africa.htm
Quote:
African civilizations before the sixteenth century compared favorably
with those in Europe. Ethiopia, in East Africa, was already flourishing while
the Roman Empire was disintegrating. In the tenth century, and possibly two
centuries earlier, East African cities were trading by sea with Persia and
India. Shortly after, the Kingdom of Ghana rose in the western Sudan. [b]After
about A.D. 1200, when European states were becoming centralized monarchies,
comparable kingdoms were rising in sub-Sahara Africa, particularly in regions
drained by the Niger, Congo, and Zambesi rivers. Europeans arriving after the
1400s found well-organized governments and societies bound by strong
traditions.
with those in Europe. Ethiopia, in East Africa, was already flourishing while
the Roman Empire was disintegrating. In the tenth century, and possibly two
centuries earlier, East African cities were trading by sea with Persia and
India. Shortly after, the Kingdom of Ghana rose in the western Sudan. [b]After
about A.D. 1200, when European states were becoming centralized monarchies,
comparable kingdoms were rising in sub-Sahara Africa, particularly in regions
drained by the Niger, Congo, and Zambesi rivers. Europeans arriving after the
1400s found well-organized governments and societies bound by strong
traditions.
It is not my assumption that Humans and Neanderthals have have a common ancestor in Africa. It is evidenced in the archaelogical record, per current accepted scientific findings. And it is not my assumption that the origin of homo sapiens is in Africa, it is the predominant position held in the Scientific Community.
In other words, there is more evidence for it, than any other hypothesis that has been suggested, in the scientific community. You are suggesting competing hypotheses, but not the current predominant position of science on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Quote:
The last common ancestor between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals appears to be Homo rhodesiensis, named after an archaic Homo sapiens fossil, Broken hill 1 (Kabwe 1) discovered in the territory of Rhodesia in 1921.
Homo rhodesiensis arose in Africa an estimated 0.7 to 1 million years ago. The earliest estimates for Homo rhodesiensis reaching Europe are approximately 800 thousand years ago when a type of human referred to as Homo antecessor or Homo cepranensis already inhabited the region
Homo rhodesiensis arose in Africa an estimated 0.7 to 1 million years ago. The earliest estimates for Homo rhodesiensis reaching Europe are approximately 800 thousand years ago when a type of human referred to as Homo antecessor or Homo cepranensis already inhabited the region
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
Quote:
The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community.[6][7][8][9][10] There are differing theories on whether there was a single exodus or several. A multiple dispersal model involves the Southern Dispersal theory,[11] which has gained support in recent years from genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence. A growing number of researchers also suspect that "long-neglected North Africa", was the original home of the modern humans who first trekked out of the continent.[12][13][14]
The major competing hypothesis is the multiregional origin of modern humans, which envisions a wave of Homo sapiens migrating from Africa and interbreeding with local Homo erectus populations in multiple regions of the globe. Most multiregionalists still view Africa as a major wellspring of human genetic diversity, but allow a much greater role for hybridization
The major competing hypothesis is the multiregional origin of modern humans, which envisions a wave of Homo sapiens migrating from Africa and interbreeding with local Homo erectus populations in multiple regions of the globe. Most multiregionalists still view Africa as a major wellspring of human genetic diversity, but allow a much greater role for hybridization
The Dmanisi origin of man in Europe is an hypothesis, but there is no definitive evidence for it.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/homo-erectus-asia/
Quote:
According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago. The problem is that there’s absolutely no evidence that any species, either Homo or Australopithecus, was anywhere outside of Africa before Dmanisi. And there’s clearly not going to be anything older at the site, given that the oldest finds are already just above solid rock.
So, although the new data strengthen the case of those working at Dmanisi, who have been arguing for an origin outside of Africa, they’re not definitive, and the site won’t be able to provide any earlier evidence. We may be stuck waiting to see whether another site, either in Africa or elsewhere, coughs up older remains.
So, although the new data strengthen the case of those working at Dmanisi, who have been arguing for an origin outside of Africa, they’re not definitive, and the site won’t be able to provide any earlier evidence. We may be stuck waiting to see whether another site, either in Africa or elsewhere, coughs up older remains.
The Aquatic Ape theory of homo origin is not accepted within the scientific community, as explained below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
Quote:
While it is uncontroversial that both H. neanderthalensis and early H. sapiens were better suited to aquatic environments than other great apes,[1][2] and there have been conjectures suggesting protohumans underwent some adaptations due to interaction with water,[3] the sort of radical specialization posited by the AAH has not been accepted within the scientific community as a valid explanation for human divergence from related primates. It has been criticized for possessing a variety of theoretical problems, for lacking evidentiary support, and for there being alternative explanations for many of the observations suggested to support the hypothesis. Morgan has also suggested that her status as an academic outsider has hindered acceptance of the hypothesis.
These are interesting competing hypotheses but they aren't evidenced well enough to have gained significant acceptance within the scientific community.
Since it is already cleary evidenced that Sub-Sarahan Africans had the same general level of civilization as Europeans did before1600, it is clear that Neanderthal heritage is not a requirement for civilization.
And, again, it is evidenced that conditions associated with neurodiversity exist in indigenous African countries today, so it is evidenced that these neurodiverse conditions are not specific to neanderthal heritage.
11 Feb 2012, 6:00 pm
NarcissusSavage wrote:
aghogday wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
There is no civilizations in indigenous African territories.
This lends to the credibility of Neanderthal admixture, and bearing Neanderthal genes, with requisite drive and capability to construct...civilization.
This lends to the credibility of Neanderthal admixture, and bearing Neanderthal genes, with requisite drive and capability to construct...civilization.
From the evidence as it exists, it is more likely that where a person is born plays a greater role in this than to whether or not their parent has a small amount of Neanderthal ancestory.
One could have 4 percent Neanderthal ancestory, but if they are born to a South American tribe, chances are they aren't going to see civilization, unless it engulfs them.
And on the other hand as already evidenced by Obama's indigenous African father, as well as many other indigenous Africans, when given the same ecological/cultural resources and advantages as other cultures, they have the drive and opportunity to accomplish the highest of goals.
One man does not a civilization make....
You should separate the concept of individual person from a larger group, when we discuss the behavior of a group; it does not have complete overlap into the behavior of an individual, and vice versa. Besides, flourishing inside a civilization is hardly the same as building one from the ground up. A civilization takes hoards of people, and generations to build. I don't care what one man does; it pales in comparison to the scope of this discussion.
Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans haven't built civilizations, in all of human history. It speaks volumes.
I know, it is politically incorrect, I know people want to look the other way and ignore the truth of it, but the evidence is pretty clear and obvious if you’re willing to look at it. You don't have to, we all have the right to pull the cover over our heads and pretend we are protected from whatever scares us.
RDOS replied with some of my other issues with your post, so I'll skip those, he worded them fairly well. But do look into South American history please, your knowledge in that department has some rather significant flaws. Big giant nasty holes, which you somehow filled with incorrect assumptions/presumption/false data. (Hint, Civilization in South America is alive and thriving...has for a lil while)
Please see my last post. I was responding to your wording that sounded to me like you were suggesting that civilizations in the Sub-sarahan don't exist today, and using that as evidence that neanderthal ancestry was the driving force for civilization.
As per my last post, the level of civilization before 1600 in European countries was generally equivalent to that of those in the Sub-Saharan region. Civilizations have risen and fallen throughout the course of history.
There are many causes for this, as the article I linked, provides historical evidence for, but Neanderthal ancestry as evidenced, is definitely not a requirement for civilization, among homo sapiens.
11 Feb 2012, 6:51 pm
rdos wrote:
It's useful to take this one step further.
Not only are neurodiversity-traits required to form civilizations, but they are also essential for maintaining civilizations, and are a big factor in the success of any culture. What that means is if neurodiversity traits are discriminated against, for instance by diagnosing many neurodiverse people with disorders, we expect such cultures to decline and eventually, if it continues, to revert back to tribalism.
It is also the case that if neurodiverse people are selected out of the population, neurodiversity will not persist as a natural variation in neurotypicals. Neurodiversity simply cannot persist in a population that behaves like neurotypicals, as all the neurodiversity traits are highly coupled to species-typical communication and social traits. If you select out the differences in social and communication behavior, which today are strongly discriminated against, you select out neurodiversity as well. The only way to keep neurodiversity is by accepting and accomodating diversity in social and communicational traits.
Some predictions thus can be made:
1. Countries that diagnose neurodiversity as disorders will lag behind countries that does not. Thus, we expect Eastern Asia to become more successful than Europe and the US in the near future, unless Eastern Asia moves in the same direction, or Europe / US stops discriminating against neurodiversity. This is already happenning, so has been proved to be correct.
2. As the population in Middle East got more neurotypical because of large influx from neurotypical Africa, and probably because of extensive discrimination of neurodiversity, Middle East no longer is leading in science and technology. IOW, the collapse of the ancient civilizations in Egypt and Middle East was due to declining levels of neurodiversity, and possibly increased discrimination against neurodiversity.
3. The best way of helping Africa and African descent outside of Africa, is to mix the populations with people with neurodiverse traits. IOW, integration and not segregation in their countries. We thus expect South Africa, which already has a large white minority, and thus has the neurodiversity traits, to become more successful than other African countries. We actually expect a large positive selection on neurodiversity (but not Caucasian neurotypical) phenotypes in South Africa.
4. Western countries will not become more diverse or successful by importing African or arabic descent. This is because these populations are less diverse than us, and this will lead to lower levels of neurodiversity in our countries. That's inproductive in every sense of the word. We should export individuals, and especially neurodiverse individuals, to these regions instead.
Not only are neurodiversity-traits required to form civilizations, but they are also essential for maintaining civilizations, and are a big factor in the success of any culture. What that means is if neurodiversity traits are discriminated against, for instance by diagnosing many neurodiverse people with disorders, we expect such cultures to decline and eventually, if it continues, to revert back to tribalism.
It is also the case that if neurodiverse people are selected out of the population, neurodiversity will not persist as a natural variation in neurotypicals. Neurodiversity simply cannot persist in a population that behaves like neurotypicals, as all the neurodiversity traits are highly coupled to species-typical communication and social traits. If you select out the differences in social and communication behavior, which today are strongly discriminated against, you select out neurodiversity as well. The only way to keep neurodiversity is by accepting and accomodating diversity in social and communicational traits.
Some predictions thus can be made:
1. Countries that diagnose neurodiversity as disorders will lag behind countries that does not. Thus, we expect Eastern Asia to become more successful than Europe and the US in the near future, unless Eastern Asia moves in the same direction, or Europe / US stops discriminating against neurodiversity. This is already happenning, so has been proved to be correct.
2. As the population in Middle East got more neurotypical because of large influx from neurotypical Africa, and probably because of extensive discrimination of neurodiversity, Middle East no longer is leading in science and technology. IOW, the collapse of the ancient civilizations in Egypt and Middle East was due to declining levels of neurodiversity, and possibly increased discrimination against neurodiversity.
3. The best way of helping Africa and African descent outside of Africa, is to mix the populations with people with neurodiverse traits. IOW, integration and not segregation in their countries. We thus expect South Africa, which already has a large white minority, and thus has the neurodiversity traits, to become more successful than other African countries. We actually expect a large positive selection on neurodiversity (but not Caucasian neurotypical) phenotypes in South Africa.
4. Western countries will not become more diverse or successful by importing African or arabic descent. This is because these populations are less diverse than us, and this will lead to lower levels of neurodiversity in our countries. That's inproductive in every sense of the word. We should export individuals, and especially neurodiverse individuals, to these regions instead.
I already had to swallow hard when I came across the word "aryan" in your OP. I knew that something like this was coming sooner or later. The idea that we should breed our oh so superior genes into African populations as a twisted means of development aid has nothing to do with science and is openly racist. So is your comment that the West has nothing to gain by "importing African or Arabic descent".
Our glorified neurodiversity leads to many crippling conditions that don't quite jive with your notions of genetic superiority. And race does not exist (you might want to read the statement of the American Anthropological Association on the topic of human races). It is not even a scientific term and can't be found in the zoological taxonomy.
If you want to prove human speciation or subspeciation, good luck trying to class and categorize the most diverse species on this planet. I think you will only find that "race" is a gradual spectrum of traits that blend into each other and don't tell you anything about the abilities or intelligence of an individual (much unlike the environment that individuals grow up in). Anyway, I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't imply that some people are genetically inferior to others, because frankly, it makes me want to throw up.
Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 11 Feb 2012, 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
11 Feb 2012, 7:02 pm
aghogday wrote:
The modern disparity among civilization in the Sub Sarahan region of Africa, is a relatively modern phenomenon. Before the 1600's African/Subsarahan civilizations compared favorable to European Civilizations. The Article linked below gives a detailed history of the region if you care to learn more about the history of civilization among Sub Saharan Africans.
That quite beside the point, as this is thousands of years after Egypt and Sumeria. We expect that genes and ideas from ancient Egypt would somewhat introgress into Africa. The major point is that civilization, if it can be found at all, started much later in Sub Sahara than we expect based on opportunity, especially since this opportunity existed in Africa ever since modern humans formed.
aghogday wrote:
It is not my assumption that Humans and Neanderthals have have a common ancestor in Africa. It is evidenced in the archaelogical record, per current accepted scientific findings. And it is not my assumption that the origin of homo sapiens is in Africa, it is the predominant position held in the Scientific Community.
It's an assumption, since it lacks evidence. If it is the predominant position is beside the point, as paleoantropology seems to have become politicized.
aghogday wrote:
The Dmanisi origin of man in Europe is an hypothesis, but there is no definitive evidence for it.
The dates are real, so that is not in dispute. Additionally, the divergence dates proposed for Homo florensis are real. Both these findings makes the migration of Homo out of Africa suspect, as we here have evidence of pre-Homo that shouldn't exist.
aghogday wrote:
Since it is already cleary evidenced that Sub-Sarahan Africans had the same general level of civilization as Europeans did before1600, it is clear that Neanderthal heritage is not a requirement for civilization.
You have certainly not proved that point. If there existed any civilization at all, it is recent, and thus it is not disproved that Neanderthal heritage is required for civilization.
aghogday wrote:
And, again, it is evidenced that conditions associated with neurodiversity exist in indigenous African countries today, so it is evidenced that these neurodiverse conditions are not specific to neanderthal heritage.
That's not proved either. You cannot use case reports to prove that. You need a prevalence report, which is still lacking.
Last edited by rdos on 11 Feb 2012, 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| The Neanderthal Autism Link? | Ancient Man |
26 Apr 2024, 10:29 pm |
| White House Wants a Standard Moon Time for New Space Race |
04 Apr 2024, 7:39 pm |
| Aspergers theory, it's a big question mark for me |
11 Feb 2024, 8:42 am |
