Africans aren’t pure humans

[European blood]

Last year when discussing the possible admixture of Neandertals with the ancestors of modern non-Africans I joked that Sub-Saharan Africans were “pure humans.” This was tongue-in-cheek in part because the results from the Neandertal genome shifted my assessment of the probability of archaic admixture within Africa as well.

In other words, there may never have been a pure “human” type which expanded and assimilated archaic ancestry on the margins of its range. Species Platonism may be very misleading for our particular lineage. Rather, what it means to be human has always been in flux, a compromise between extremely different ancestral components.


For years some groups of researchers have been arguing that there is population structure within Africa itself which hints at admixture events before (or after?) the “Out of Africa” event. Genome blogger Dienekes Pontikos has been discussing this possibility for several years as well.

With the possibility of archaic admixture outside of Africa it was inevitable that people would revisit their earlier exploration of ancient African admixture and the modern patterns of variation which that might explain. Finally one of the groups working on this has come out with something in PNAS, Genetic Evidence for Archaic Admixture in Africa.

Unfortunately it’s not on the website, and I’m not privy to the embargoed copy, so I can’t say much. ScienceDaily and Nature have lengthy write-ups. The details are pretty straightforward. The authors infer using computational methods that there is a 1-2% admixture in Africans of a population which diverged from the mainline of the human ancestral tree ~700,000 years ago. The hybridization occurred on the order of ~40,000 years before the present. The proportions are highest in Central Africans.

I assume that this means Pygmies. And I would further bet that the admixture is highest in the Eastern Pygmy populations, such as the Mbuti. The lead author also cautions that this may not be the last word on admixture. No doubt. There are other groups breathing down his neck.

If this is true then a assimilation model of the expansion of H. sapiens sapiens looks more and more plausible. The time period of admixture is pretty much what other scholars are estimating for Neandertals, and presumably Denisovans. I’m not smart enough to figure out how this could be a statistical artifact, but perhaps that explains the congruence?

Otherwise, if this is true then you had several repeated events of expansion of one particular lineage (what I term “Neo-Africans”) which demographically swamped the indigenous populations, but still retained a faint, but discernible stamp of their distinctive genetic content. But this may not be exceptional. It may have happened before the emergence of Neo-Africans, and I believe it happened after them (e.g., the rise of agriculturalists). It’s possibly one instance of a rather banal dynamic in the evolution of Homo.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/09/africans-arent-pure-humans-either/


Out of Africa? New theory throws doubt on assumption all humans evolved from the continent


Homo erectus was thought to have co-existed alongside Homo sapiens in Asia for 5,000 years

But scientists now believe it disappeared from Asia at least 100,000 years before arrival of Homo sapiens

New evidence supports 'multi-regional' hypothesis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009746/Modern-mans-ancestor-Homo-erectus-extinct-108-000-years-earlier-previously-thought.html


DNA study deals blow to theory of European origins


A new study deals a blow to the idea that most European men are descended from farmers who migrated from the Near East 5,000-10,000 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012

[Boudica]

Once again, another thread where all I have to see is the title and completely agree.

[Kadu]

Africans aren’t pure humans


You seem to have forgotten the word "either", for the title of the article is "Africans aren’t pure humans either".

[Logan]

I suppose it depends upon ones definition of human. I don't imagine that Darwin has been proved wrong.
http://animationsa2z.com/attachments/Image/monkey/monkey28.gif

[Mercury]

Yes, we do need the definition of Human. I never heard that the Neanderthals weren't Human.

[StonyArabia]

It's strange that Eurasians have Neanderthal or Denosvan admixture, now Africans to have something. They could all be hoaxes done by evolutionists and what not to sell their crap of science!

[Boudica]

I say this in a completely non racist way, SERIOUSLY :D. They LOOK like primates. They honestly do. If you compare their face and body structure to that of a gorilla it is VERY close. Their noses are like theirs, their ears (ones which are flattened at the top), and the ridge that they have on the back of their heads many times are identical to the things that a Gorilla has. They are unevolved. Just think about it, they stayed in a habitat where the creatures which were part of our evolution inhabited, there was bound to be breeding with them (probably still is ;)), which would of course slow down their evolution process.

[Quasimodem]

Link to the study (re: the second link): http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021562

Abstract:


Homo erectus was the first human lineage to disperse widely throughout the Old World, the only hominin in Asia through much of the Pleistocene, and was likely ancestral to H. sapiens. The demise of this taxon remains obscure because of uncertainties regarding the geological age of its youngest populations. In 1996, some of us co-published electron spin resonance (ESR) and uranium series (U-series) results indicating an age as young as 35–50 ka for the late H. erectus sites of Ngandong and Sambungmacan and the faunal site of Jigar (Indonesia). If correct, these ages favor an African origin for recent humans who would overlap with H. erectus in time and space. Here, we report 40Ar/39Ar incremental heating analyses and new ESR/U-series age estimates from the “20 m terrace" at Ngandong and Jigar. Both data sets are internally consistent and provide no evidence for reworking, yet they are inconsistent with one another. The 40Ar/39Ar analyses give an average age of 546±12 ka (sd±5 se) for both sites, the first reliable radiometric indications of a middle Pleistocene component for the terrace. Given the technical accuracy and consistency of the analyses, the argon ages represent either the actual age or the maximum age for the terrace and are significantly older than previous estimates. Most of the ESR/U-series results are older as well, but the oldest that meets all modeling criteria is 143 ka+20/−17. Most samples indicated leaching of uranium and likely represent either the actual or the minimum age of the terrace. Given known sources of error, the U-series results could be consistent with a middle Pleistocene age. However, the ESR and 40Ar/39Ar ages preclude one another. Regardless, the age of the sites and hominins is at least bracketed between these estimates and is older than currently accepted.I haven't read it yet, though.

[Logan]

I say this in a completely non racist way, SERIOUSLY :D. They LOOK like primates. They honestly do. If you compare their face and body structure to that of a gorilla it is VERY close. Their noses are like theirs, their ears (ones which are flattened at the top), and the ridge that they have on the back of their heads many times are identical to the things that a Gorilla has. They are unevolved. Just think about it, they stayed in a habitat where the creatures which were part of our evolution inhabited, there was bound to be breeding with them (probably still is ;)), which would of course slow down their evolution process.

Good points. We are not the same. It is true, that they did get too friendly with the monkeys.

[Magister Eckhart]

I've said it on a number of occasions, and it bears repeating: Out-of-Africa is not science, it's politics, and science is therefore useless to combat it. All of these studies, all of this statistics work, all of this computation-- it's all meaningless to the anthropological community that has decided three things and will not be changing its mind unless society does the same. 1. There is no such thing as race. 2. All of us are Africans, and any belief otherwise is scientific racism. 3. Attempts to revise this theory are efforts on the part of white supremacists to re-assert outmoded ways of anthropological thought.

[Frederick]

Yes, we do need the definition of Human. I never heard that the Neanderthals weren't Human.

Yes. In fact the scientific term of the Neanterthal does agree to be them "Human":

"Homo" = Human
Full name of Neanderthal:

"Homo neanderthalensis" = Neandertal style humans

[Ibericus]

I've said it on a number of occasions, and it bears repeating: Out-of-Africa is not science, it's politics, and science is therefore useless to combat it. All of these studies, all of this statistics work, all of this computation-- it's all meaningless to the anthropological community that has decided three things and will not be changing its mind unless society does the same. 1. There is no such thing as race. 2. All of us are Africans, and any belief otherwise is scientific racism. 3. Attempts to revise this theory are efforts on the part of white supremacists to re-assert outmoded ways of anthropological thought.
Yes I agree, a shame there is always politics behind. Scientists are not the free explorers that we think, they are conditioned.

[Treffie]

I say this in a completely non racist way, SERIOUSLY :D. They LOOK like primates.

Bit of a generalisation there. Nigerian Igbo, Somalis and other African Horners tend to look much more gracile - almost European-like.

Igbo
http://migrationstoriesofnigerianigbo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/chiwetel-ejiofor.jpg?w=243&h=323

Somali
http://migrationstoriesofnigerianigbo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/somali-woman2.jpg?w=243&h=367

[billErobreren]

Are we suggesting that balcks aren't fully evolved homo sapiens? :D fiendishly naughty.
I always thought they looked closer to bonobos(love these guys) than us.
http://cdn.wanderlust.co.uk/contentimages/userimages/Kathryn/congo%20bonobo%20baby.jpg?maxwidth=440&maxheight=262
http://www.chezplj.ca/blogimages/babybonobo.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20100824/0013729ece6b0ddd7bd907.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ki2IPI9h77Y/TAeogRLoJII/AAAAAAAAAtE/QHaXpNXh4FY/s1600/bonobohair2.jpg

Now had I not been fascinated or not known of these adorable creatures I would have assumed this lady below had a baby with a skin condition

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mvNaIDtcZmc/ShL53qADSrI/AAAAAAAABSc/Z-U7CDZ1Plo/s400/bonobo+07+2.jpg

[Equilibrium]

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n534/crivenki/imouttahere.gif

[Lithium]

http://indyhiphop.com/files/2011/01/e1.jpg
I completely agree with the statements in this thread. It is not the most accurate example but personally for me it is ridiculous that creatures like this one^ are competing with Europeans and Asians.

[Tony]

Yes, we do need the definition of Human. I never heard that the Neanderthals weren't Human.
They were actually Homo that is Hominidae that is "somewhat humans" but not really Humans like us.

Bit of a generalisation there. Nigerian Igbo, Somalis and other African Horners tend to look much more gracile - almost European-like.

Igbo
http://migrationstoriesofnigerianigbo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/chiwetel-ejiofor.jpg?w=243&h=323

Somali
http://migrationstoriesofnigerianigbo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/somali-woman2.jpg?w=243&h=367
Many horners are not to be considered SSA but a mixture of Caucasoids (semites) and SSA.

Intersting enough almost every ancient hominid fossil has been found out in Eastern Africa, very close to the region today inhabitated by horners, and none in the Central-Western Africa, the core of pygmies and bantus...


I've said it on a number of occasions, and it bears repeating: Out-of-Africa is not science, it's politics, and science is therefore useless to combat it. All of these studies, all of this statistics work, all of this computation-- it's all meaningless to the anthropological community that has decided three things and will not be changing its mind unless society does the same. 1. There is no such thing as race. 2. All of us are Africans, and any belief otherwise is scientific racism. 3. Attempts to revise this theory are efforts on the part of white supremacists to re-assert outmoded ways of anthropological thought.
I agree but nonetheless who cares in the end, even if I descended by SSA I wouldn't care, I also descent from bacteria, reptiles, and primitive mammals, so what?
It's more important the present and the direction I'm gonna go, indeed evolution, not de-evolution to come back to become similar to my assumed ancient negro brotha.

[Damião de Góis]

http://indyhiphop.com/files/2011/01/e1.jpg
I completely agree with the statements in this thread. It is not the most accurate example but personally for me it is ridiculous that creatures like this one^ are competing with Europeans and Asians.

So you think there should be an appartheid in sports? In football too?

I don't agree at all with the statements in this thread by the way.

[Lithium]

So you think there should be an appartheid in sports? In football too?

I don't agree at all with the statements in this thread by the way.

There should be a separation between the races in the sports IMO

[Wanderlust]

not their biggest fan either, but I find the article a bit exaggerating..

[Tony]

There should be a separation between the races in the sports IMO

I agree, if we have separated sport contests genderwise, healthwise (paraolympics) agewise (the world cups for elders) why can't we also set up different competitions for different races?

in the early 1900s they had something like this, they were called Anthropological Games, it lasted 2 or 3 Olimpiads if I remember well, then they were cancelled.

[Baron Samedi]

We get it guys.... you don't want to be considered close genetically to "dem Africans". No seriously... WE GET IT!

[Troll's Puzzle]

I've said it on a number of occasions, and it bears repeating: Out-of-Africa is not science, it's politics, and science is therefore useless to combat it. All of these studies, all of this statistics work, all of this computation-- it's all meaningless to the anthropological community that has decided three things and will not be changing its mind unless society does the same. 1. There is no such thing as race. 2. All of us are Africans, and any belief otherwise is scientific racism. 3. Attempts to revise this theory are efforts on the part of white supremacists to re-assert outmoded ways of anthropological thought.

the irony :pound:

[Mordid]

You are a staggering idiot!!!
http://www.readthesmiths.com/articles/Images/Humor/Fail/fail.jpg

[_______]

they r apes n we r reptiles :rolleyes:

[Agrippa]

What's more important - and I agree on that with Dienekes, is, that African is a huge continent, always was and it is highly unlikely that no differentiation happened before "Out of Africa", whenever it happened.

And most of the "non-Africans" stem obviously not primarily from populations closer to the Khoisanids or Bambutids, but Aethiopoids-East Africans.

So even "Out of Africa" doesn't mean "all the same" for Homo sapiens FROM THE START - the possible admixture with DIFFERENT archaic populations would just add to that and make it even more important, yet one has always to keep in mind:
Africa is a big continent, that our ancestors (most of them at least) came directly and rather late from Africa, doesn't mean they were (then) the same as the ancestors of Negrid in the narrower sense (without Eurasian admixture), Bambutid (African Pygmies) or Khoisanid (Khoikhoi and San).

Also, don't forget, some of the most primitive people being "non-Africans" too and the main developments, which made more progressive advances possible, happened AFTER Out of Africa took place and there were most likely back-migrations and in any case cultural influences going back to Africa - Negrids for example seem to be more of a mixed kind (and more progressive!) than the archaic strate of Bambutids and Khoisanids.

The more progressive they are, the more genes, the closer they are to Eurasians, coming to a progressive scale from:
Aethiopid
Nilotid
Sudanid, Kafrid
Palaenegrid (more archaic admixture)
Sanid, Bambutid

So "African" is not the same - even less so if looking at "white Africa" = Northern Europid/Caucasoid Africa.

[WilliamWallace]

this is a senseless racist thread.

[Nameless Son]

It's just a coincidence that they look like other primates. A strange coincidence, I admit, but they are definitely human lol.

[Tony]

they r apes n we r reptiles :rolleyes:
they rapes reptiles.

Btw deep inside everyone is a bit reptilian.

Triune brain

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_GrARb_B4saaSXbvRGwkXvPCEre01X 3BU2LFZTUxa_7ZVWE7EzQ

http://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/3brains.jpg

[Boudica]

they rapes reptiles.

Btw deep inside everyone is a bit reptilian.

Triune brain

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_GrARb_B4saaSXbvRGwkXvPCEre01X 3BU2LFZTUxa_7ZVWE7EzQ

http://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/3brains.jpg
:eek:

[Frederick]

They were actually Homo that is Hominidae that is "somewhat humans" but not really Humans like us.

They wear clothing, they made tools.
And modern humans could breed with them and make offsping.

They seemed to believe in an afterlife and had religion.

Thats "Human" enough to be fully "Human", for me.

In fact, Neanderthals are really what one could call another human RACE (besides our).

A sausage dog is not "somewhat dog" (while German shepheard is "fully dog"), even sausage dog is a real, full dog.

[Magister Eckhart]

the irony :pound:

I'm afraid I'm missing it. :confused:

[askra]

if they are not pure humans, what are they? half equines? 1/3 swines? 3/4 ovis? may be they are neither mammals? :confused:

[Peyrol]

There should be a separation between the races in the sports IMO

I don't agree, but about Mario Balotelli you're 100% right.

A ghanese-born "italian" can't play in our National Football Team in the same way as Del Piero or De Rossi...:laugh:

[Damião de Góis]

I don't agree, but about Mario Balotelli you're 100% right.

A ghanese-born "italian" can't play in our Nationa Football Team in the same way as Del Piero or De Rossi...:laugh:

That's a different thing. I don't want foreigners in my national team either. But i really don't think africans aren't humans or that there should be an appartheid in sports...

[billErobreren]

they r apes n we r reptiles :rolleyes:

reptiles?....but I like being being a primate:(

I have no problem saying it, I'm a goddamn monkey:D

[Jon Snow]

this is a senseless racist thread.

:nopity00:


I don't agree, but about Mario Balotelli you're 100% right.

A ghanese-born "italian" can't play in our National Football Team in the same way as Del Piero or De Rossi...:laugh:

Lol, Balotelli is such a cunt.

Anywho, with each passing day the "race is only skin deep" mouth-breathers are proved more thoroughly, unmistakably wrong; and this is a development which may prove to be of surprising import in the near future.

Every racial group on the planet besides SSAs is host to 1-4% Neanderthal ancestry. Think on that for a moment--no really, just sit back and think about how significant that is.

[Hevneren]

Africans are equally as human as everyone else. Non-Africans have Neanderthal DNA, but that doesn't make us any less human. I really don't buy into theories that state that Africans are inferior because they're "lower on the evolutionary ladder", since a) that's not how evolution works and b) there's no actual evidence to prove that Africans are - as a whole - inferior to non-Africans by birth.

All human beings are one species, otherwise we wouldn't be able to interbreed. Interbreeding between two species like cats and dogs is impossible, yet it's very much possible among Asians, Middle Easterners, Africans, Native Americans and Inuits, and Pacific Islanders. Everyone of these groups can produce offspring with everyone else. We wouldn't have so many mixed multiracial people in this world if all of us clothed bipedal primates weren't one species.

Now, the fact that we are one species, doesn't mean there can't be genetic variations within our species, and if left isolated for tens or hundreds of thousands of years longer we might start to see distinct human subspecies. In fact, research suggests that certain medications like heart medicine and medicine for cholesterol, may in fact be administered differently to black and white people in the future, since there are actually variations in how black and white people react to these medications. Variations are not huge among human populations, but they're present.

[Jon Snow]

Africans are equally as human as everyone else. Non-Africans have Neanderthal DNA, but that doesn't make us any less human. I really don't buy into theories that state that Africans are inferior because they're "lower on the evolutionary ladder", since a) that's not how evolution works and b) there's no actual evidence to prove that Africans are - as a whole - inferior to non-Africans by birth.

You're right in that Africans are not inferior to any other group in a vacuum. They are certainly inferior to us in the context of our societies, but of course the inverse applies as well. Just one of many reasons why we need separation.


All human beings are one species, otherwise we wouldn't be able to interbreed. Interbreeding between two species like cats and dogs is impossible, yet it's very much possible among Asians, Middle Easterners, Africans, Native Americans and Inuits, and Pacific Islanders. Everyone of these groups can produce offspring with everyone else. We wouldn't have so many mixed multiracial people in this world if all of us clothed bipedal primates weren't one species.

I'm no anthropologist or biologist, but AFAIK defining a species by the ability of it's members to successfully interbreed is something of an archaic and overly vague definition. I could be wrong, but I remember reading something to that effect more than once.


Now, the fact that we are one species, doesn't mean there can't be genetic variations within our species, and if left isolated for tens or hundreds of thousands of years longer we might start to see distinct human subspecies. In fact, research suggests that certain medications like heart medicine and medicine for cholesterol, may in fact be administered differently to black and white people in the future, since there are actually variations in how black and white people react to these medications. Variations are not huge among human populations, but they're present.

Humans are trending toward speciation evolutionarily; globalism, unfortunately, is preventing that trend from becoming a reality.

[Tony]

You're right in that Africans are not inferior to any other group in a vacuum. They are certainly inferior to us in the context of our societies, but of course the inverse applies as well. Just one of many reasons why we need separation.

They're also inferior in a primitive environment, negroes are to us what Gorn was to Captain Kirk, to put it shortly, pure brutal primeval force against smartness.

IDD3-2_wLR8

Ironically enough the alien race who chose to make the two fight are the Metrons, the angels (sic.)in the Jewish tradition...
sunconsciuos thinking at work I assume...:coffee:

[Nameless Son]

They're also inferior in a primitive environment, negroes are to us what Gorn was to Captain Kirk, to put it shortly, pure brutal primeval force against smartness.

Real life doesn't have motifs like that, sorry. Are you living in star trek perhaps?

[Magister Eckhart]

They're also inferior in a primitive environment, negroes are to us what Gorn was to Captain Kirk, to put it shortly, pure brutal primeval force against smartness.

IDD3-2_wLR8

Ironically enough the alien race who chose to make the two fight are the Metrons, the angels (sic.)in the Jewish tradition...
sunconsciuos thinking at work I assume...:coffee:

If there's "smartness" on display in this post, I must confess it has eluded my detection.

Granted, I do agree that the Negro is in general brutish and savage, but you're not helping our side of this debate by referencing Star Trek and making thinly-veiled references to Jewspiracies.

[Eldritch]

If Star Trek clips won't do it, watching crap like this should remove all doubt:

8VemaGUdV0Q

[Jägerstaffel]

If Star Trek clips won't do it, watching crap like this should remove all doubt:

8VemaGUdV0Q

What... the hell?

[GeistFaust]

The question here is what defines pure human of course there are marginal differences genetically which generally distinguishes humans from animals. I think more or less a physical being that manifests itself in the form of the human body should be considered essentially human more or less. There are going to be a variety of genetic structures and orientations due to natural selection and natural variation in humanity that lead to an exponential divide between humans genetically. In this case it seems that a certain gene pool never found its way into Africa and rather circumvented it.


I don't think this negates their humanity per se and to say they are not pure humans is fallacious and not capable through scientific proof. Science only deals with the different varieties and levels of humanity from the most primitive to the most progressive types. Africans more or less that is depending on which subset or group they belong to the Negroid culture setting are more or less human although definitely less advanced humans. We could deduce the correlation is because of a lack of Nethanderal infusion into their gene pool. But than again even though this differences may make huge differences in the general advancements and the potential to advance in Negro societies and culture one has to wonder if their is an environment cause as well. The environment of and genetics both in a sense influence each to one extent or another and shape the different aspects of a people from.



The Negro people have never developed a complex or structured system of society but more or less have resided in historical stagnance. I think this correlates and indicates that they are less human than European humans but I think it would be fallacious to say that European humans are pure humans. This is because how do you adequately define pure and than attach that value or evaluation to a limited being. To me its a fallacious application and if we wish to evaluate the genetic or anthropological disposition of people its best to understand things based on ranges and degrees of advancement or primitivism. This is approach is the essential and fundamental factor to correlating the relation between all people as co-existing units in different environments.

[Jon Snow]

If Star Trek clips won't do it, watching crap like this should remove all doubt:

8VemaGUdV0Q

These fine ladies and gentlemen would no doubt have turned out to be chemists, architects, and neurosurgeons if it weren't for the prevalence of insidious, systemic white racism that forces them to ook and eek and rape women at a rate that is literally beyond belief. :sad:

[Loki]

This is a retarded thread.