View Single Post
  #54  
Unread 11-28-2017, 04:33 PM
Way Lyve
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 149 Post(s)
Tagged: 11 Thread(s)
Estimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 stars
Ranked Audio Record
337 Won / 49 Lost
Estimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 stars
Ranked Text Record
96 Won / 80 Lost
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOBLE View Post
This isn't convincing to me mostly because I'm familiar with what mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic says. First of all, these are not human bones that they found in Europe. They are the bones of an early hominid species that we may have evolved from. The oldest actual homo sapien bones ever found are still from east Africa, to my knowledge. Mitochondrial DNA is different from chromosomal DNA in that we get it solely through our mothers. In chromosomal DNA, it's half and half, 23 from our mom and 23 from our dad, but mtDNA is entirely maternal and it also has genetic markers to show periods at which a person's genetic ancestors underwent mutation. Africans show the earliest genetic markers on their mtDNA which is almost irrefutable proof they are the oldest people. Bones are more refutable, because just because the oldest bones we know of today are African doesn't mean we won't find older human bones tomorrow in China or Siberia or elsewhere. However, even if that were to happen, it wouldn't erase the evidence written in our blood (DNA). It's like how the rings on a tree stump when you cut it let's you know how old that tree is. This also doesn't explain the fact that Africans are the only people in the world with no Neanderthal or Denusovan DNA. All other humans have up to 5% Neanderthal DNA but Africans have none. If we developed in Europe, where Neanderthals were mostly found, it would make more sense that we would have all gotten Neanderthal DNA through admixture, but that's not the case.
What's the argument? I think I missed it. Cuz I never said it was an absolute. I said "might of". And I provided the proof asked for. Technically, im 100% correct. Everyone just seems bothered by this. And this isn't much less proof then the out of Africa theory. Besides, you may have an understanding but I seriously doubt on par with the team involved with the study. You're also biased or at least appear to be. So, you can self qualify but that's hardly proof.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

You just seem quite invested into the black superiority thing. You could be selling melanin merch online for all I know.

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

I've read in the past there was indications people migrated into Africa before and then to India. But the belief was they were originally from Africa. Maybe they weren't. With climate change its very likely people migrated into Africa from a northern area then back out while not mixing with other humanoids till after. There's probably several humanoid mixes that comprise the modern human (edit- humans that never left Africa nor mixed. I know you'll try to capitilize off my vagueness). I remember seeing something about Asians mixed with a different type of humaniod too.

Last edited by Way Lyve; 11-28-2017 at 04:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Unread 11-28-2017, 04:33 PM   #54
 
Way Lyve
Estimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 8.01/10 stars
Ranked Audio Record
337 Won / 49 Lost
Estimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 8.01/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 6.46/10 stars
Ranked Text Record
96 Won / 80 Lost
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Voted: 892 audio / 229 text
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 149 Post(s)
Tagged: 11 Thread(s)


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOBLE View Post
This isn't convincing to me mostly because I'm familiar with what mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic says. First of all, these are not human bones that they found in Europe. They are the bones of an early hominid species that we may have evolved from. The oldest actual homo sapien bones ever found are still from east Africa, to my knowledge. Mitochondrial DNA is different from chromosomal DNA in that we get it solely through our mothers. In chromosomal DNA, it's half and half, 23 from our mom and 23 from our dad, but mtDNA is entirely maternal and it also has genetic markers to show periods at which a person's genetic ancestors underwent mutation. Africans show the earliest genetic markers on their mtDNA which is almost irrefutable proof they are the oldest people. Bones are more refutable, because just because the oldest bones we know of today are African doesn't mean we won't find older human bones tomorrow in China or Siberia or elsewhere. However, even if that were to happen, it wouldn't erase the evidence written in our blood (DNA). It's like how the rings on a tree stump when you cut it let's you know how old that tree is. This also doesn't explain the fact that Africans are the only people in the world with no Neanderthal or Denusovan DNA. All other humans have up to 5% Neanderthal DNA but Africans have none. If we developed in Europe, where Neanderthals were mostly found, it would make more sense that we would have all gotten Neanderthal DNA through admixture, but that's not the case.
What's the argument? I think I missed it. Cuz I never said it was an absolute. I said "might of". And I provided the proof asked for. Technically, im 100% correct. Everyone just seems bothered by this. And this isn't much less proof then the out of Africa theory. Besides, you may have an understanding but I seriously doubt on par with the team involved with the study. You're also biased or at least appear to be. So, you can self qualify but that's hardly proof.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

You just seem quite invested into the black superiority thing. You could be selling melanin merch online for all I know.

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

I've read in the past there was indications people migrated into Africa before and then to India. But the belief was they were originally from Africa. Maybe they weren't. With climate change its very likely people migrated into Africa from a northern area then back out while not mixing with other humanoids till after. There's probably several humanoid mixes that comprise the modern human (edit- humans that never left Africa nor mixed. I know you'll try to capitilize off my vagueness). I remember seeing something about Asians mixed with a different type of humaniod too.

Last edited by Way Lyve; 11-28-2017 at 04:40 PM.
Offline  
Reply With Quote