Haha, my sarcasm detector is deficient.no, I was being sarcastic. Maybe there was some cannibalism in either direction, nobody knows.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Haha, my sarcasm detector is deficient.no, I was being sarcastic. Maybe there was some cannibalism in either direction, nobody knows.
No, all modern Eurasians are direct descendants of Homo sapiens, with a little bit of neanderthal thrown in.
Not Middle Eastern neanderthals, or even all european neanderthals. There are a couple in europe that may have been light pigmented, the rest are agreed to be dark.The current consensus is that Neanderthals had blonde hair and blue eyes for hundreds of thousands of years
There were foragers 9000 years ago in france with blue eyesThen 6000 years ago the africans too became blonde and blue eyed in Scandinavia
I’m not sure whether to give you my congrats or condolences. :)
I’m not sure whether to give you my congrats or condolences. :)
My husband had in the 300’s too.
Europe was populated at the time, by neanderthals. African humans invaded the Mideast, and bred with Mideastern neanderthals. Then they spread to the rest of Eurasia.
None of this has to do with "civilization", which happened 100k years later
Is it not more likely that european populations of that time were already close to existing phenotypes and then bred with the neanderthals?
You can believe in fairy tales if you'd like. Some people find value in doing so.
You can believe in fairy tales if you'd like. Some people find value in doing so.
There's nothing to enlighten you about, the evidence is open for all to see.Perhaps we are waiting for you to enlighten us
I seriously doubt you mean this. It's not helpful to this discussion.because they are anti-African.
There's nothing to enlighten you about, the evidence is open for all to see.
The archaeological record of modern humans in Africa is the biggest, oldest and most diverse, despite the fact that all of Africa has a hot climate that doesn't fossilize well.
There is also a religious cohort of people who will never accept this, because they are anti-African. I don't bother addressing these people because it's just a waste of time and energy.
No, I genuinely mean it. I see various easily debunkable things like this all the time, simply because there's a market for it. Demographics are demographics.I seriously doubt you mean this.
There is no evidence that suggests otherwise--even the claim made by the other guy at the beginning doesn't make any sense: "The vast differences in skeletal structures, prevalance of genetic diseases, colored eyes, IQ, and mtDNA do not seem to support this theory"There's also a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise... Just because you assume that everyone who holds the opposite opinion as you is racist against Africans does not make your claim true
The truth is that we don't know for sure
I meant the anti-African part of it. You mean people won't agree with you because what you say has an African origin to mankind and just because of that they are against it?genuinely
No, I genuinely mean it. I see various easily debunkable things like this all the time, simply because there's a market for it. Demographics are demographics.
There is no evidence that suggests otherwise--even the claim made by the other guy at the beginning doesn't make any sense: "The vast differences in skeletal structures, prevalance of genetic diseases, colored eyes, IQ, and mtDNA do not seem to support this theory"
All of those are traits that are subject to selection, and can evolve differently in the span of 200,000 years. The only exception being mtDNA, which is passed directly from the mother. African mitochondrial DNA has far more genetic diversity than Asian/euro, and hence is just another piece of evidence in the huge arsenal of evidences for an African origin of humanity. The Occam's razor explanation here is that the guy has no idea what he's talking about, and has a personal problem with Africa's status of urheimat.
Nobody "knows anything for sure", but it's quite funny how we never see the same baseless "concerned doubt" concerning the origins of dinosaurs or sharks or other creatures, no? :^)
Yes. Given the amount of hyperscrutinization of the Out of Africa theory, and the relative paucity of such scrutinization on other origins of humanity, it's pretty safe to say that most of it comes from a place of supremacism.You mean people won't agree with you because what you say has an African origin to mankind and just because of that they are against it?
Aww, how fragile :^(Nice smiley face and smug remark you little ****, if you ever talked to me that way in person I would knock your head off