Posted on 01/27/2011 4:03:33 PM PST by decimon
Hmmm, well, Ok. My understanding of the whole thing is; out of Africa’s primordial soup came humankind. Then it developed into some sort of upright humanoid. All this still in Africa. Then supposedly through some ‘magic’ they developed into three sub-races who counter mingled with each other. Neanderthals became a separate ‘whatever’ since there are no further links to them because none of us are dragging our knuckles on the ground. So, if non-African races (whoever or whatever they were) interbred with Neanderthals (whoever or wherever they came from since they were only found in the mountains of France/Switzerland/area) where did the basic race groups come from since none contain any Neanderthal genes or ‘looks’. They, the Neanderthals died out. What were they before and what became of the gene?
Miss that show. Not so much the last episode.
.
“Hey Africa, you’re out of beer. We’ll go get some- no, honest, we’ll be right back...”
“Blubba flubba goo goo moo moo gerkin.”
____________
On the other hand, gibberish is common in the asylum....
Neanderthals were not knuckle-draggers. They walked upright like you and I do. Take a look here, and at the reconstruction here. If the Neanderthals looked like the National Geographic reconstruction, then if you brought one up to current time and dressed him in modern clothes, he could sit next to you on the bus and you would not give him a second look.
You are lumping people together based upon superficial similarities INSTEAD of by their actual genetic relatedness.
You classification system is meaningless if you want to lump people together who are no more similar than the people you would separate.
If you will actually look at those differences, you will see that Indians, Europeans, and Japanese and Mongolian are all more similar to eachother (Caucasian and Mongoloid supposedly) than any of them are to a Philipino (another supposed Mongoloid).
Where would you put New Guinean people into your neat three boxes that are not actually based upon anything real?
And how did we GET three different races or forty two different races? Any number of different races?
What was the mechanism?
Ok, right. I saw those GEICO commercials. I’m not much into reconstructions after some scientists (or whatever you call them) created a whole dinosaur out of one molar. Call me a skeptic but I still have the Fred Flintstone/Barney Rubble idea of how they looked. Plus my grade school field trip to the Museum of Natural History in NYC and saw them.
I’ve yet to see a Mongolian Norwegian.
We are Eurasian. Mongolians, Europeans, and Indians all have more in common with each other than any does with an African or a Thai/Pacific Islander.
So if we are going with just three (ignoring our Australians again, why must you always ignore the Australians and New Guineans?) it would be ....
1)Africans
2)Eurasian Mongoloids(including American Indians), and
3)Pacific Islanders.
So what (again) is the mechanism that we would derive your these three races that you insist upon?
Humans ‘left Africa much earlier’
I still want to see the birth certificate.
Anyone with any intelligence and drive are gonna get the heck out of the ghetto.
“If they manufactured tools beyond stone axes they were human.”
Nope, chimps did that. see my earlier post. Although humans are the only species that uses micrometers, many animals use tools beyond a cutting tool...
“They are known to science as Neanderthals”
Also known as men, via feminists.
Today we know that Europeans are mostly descended of Ice Age survivors who holed up in three "refugia" (places not turned to desert or covered with ice sheets). That separation lasted from about 35,000 years ago to 15,000 years ago.
At least one subgroup broke off and moved to America about the peak of the ice some 20,000 years ago ~ and their descendants are still around ~ with their own unique identifying DNA sequence.
East Asians are descended from several different populations that holed up in Eastern "refugia". Further, even though Chinese and Europeans are the same people separated by about 35,000 years, they did swap girls across the vastness of Asia back during the Ice Age so we've all got 5% of each other's otherwise unique DNA sequences. The Chinese also divided into two groups, one of which is better known as the Ainu (who are closely related to the Jomon and Emeshi populations in Japan in earlier times).
The earliest people to leave the European refugia in the West went straight North to Norway and became genetically isolated from other Europeans until about 800 AD. Parts of that population moved on East over the top of Scandinavia and met up with other Europeans coming in from the South.
I think that gives you 5 distinctive "European races".
Then there are the people from the Middle East and North Africa who also moved into Europe, etc. over time.
The people in Africa are otherwise identifiably members of 13 other haplogroups! There the reasons for divergence and isolation had to do with the abominable climate in most of Africa, and physical barriers that made movement from one part to the other quite difficult until modern times 75,000 years later after the ancestors of the Europeans and Chinese had gone North!
There are mixed populations throughout South Asia ~ Indians, for example ALL (means 100%) have genes from both Persian and Andaman Islander type populations. The vast array of facial types and colors have arisen subsequent to that mixing.
All in all, as far as older definitions of "race" go, we probably have 40 or 50 of those!
My problem is trying to fit all that into such a short time span. Man developed over eons of time. To say such diverse races developed in just a couple of millennium is a bit of a stretch to me. To say a group went off to northern Europe and developed from Ice Age survivors (like what were they before) and say people of the Middle East? You have Scandinavians and then Middle Europeans developing all at the same time. Where did they come from? If initially all came from Africa, at what time did they start turning white? Where did the people who became Chinese come from? All had to come out of Africa as the current understanding suggests. If we are all decedents of Africa, then those of us in the US are all African-Americans. Right?
Speaking as someone with virtually no background in biology or genetics, here’s what I understand what I have read. Some of this may be erroneous and all of it is simple minded, but hopefully, it makes some sense.
The most accepted theory of human migrations is called “The Recent Out of Africa Theory”. Scientists determined from mitochondrial DNA that non-African populations are descended from one group of modern humans that left Africa about 50,000 yeas ago and that there were no more than about 550 females. This group represented the sole ancestors of all populations of non-sub-Saharan African modern humans.
Sometime after this one-time out of Africa exodus, one group left Southwest Asia and hiked into Central Asia. Their descendents are the various branches of the Caucasian and Mongoloid races. Another group settled in Southast Asia continued out into the Pacific. These became the Malayan, Melanesian, Polynesian , and Aboriginal Australian races.
Mutations are pieces of genetic material of an identifiable molecular structure that spontaneously form on a specific site in the DNA of some individual. They are thereafter passed on to his or her descendents . Mutations may, but usually don’t, have any effect on the physiology of the person posessing them. But since they are inherited they are useful determining the ancestral background of his descendents.
Another useful characteristic of mutations is that they accumulate in the DNA of an inbred population (such as, say, an isolated tribe) at a somewhat steady rate. Thus, geneticists believe, the number of mutations can be used estimating the time interval that has passed between specimens taken from a DNA samples taken from say, a particular group in different stages of a migration.
don’t tell me i’m not really black afterall....i can’t go back to being a white devil again...i just can’t
The same type of data and the underlying theory that shows that Japanese and Koreans share a more recent common ancestor than either has with an Australian also is the EXACT SAME type of information used to determine that humans and chimps shared a more recent common ancestor than either has with a gorilla.
You should stick to common. You excel at it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.