Inventions by Black folks

[Rain Matrix 2021]

Originally Posted by Esso

that about sums up the stupidity of the opposing arguments

/thread

idk when i said it was created by south americans


the AZTECS ,


To re-write what i already said

"The earliest reference to peanut butter can be traced back to the Ancient Incas and the Aztecs who ground roasted peanuts into a paste. However, modern peanut butter, its process of production and the equipment used to make it, can be credited to at least three inventors.

In 1884 Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Canada patented peanut paste, the finished product from milling roasted peanuts between two heated surfaces. In 1895 Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (the creator of Kellogg’s cereal) patented a process for creating peanut butter from raw peanuts. He marketed it as a nutritious protein substitute for people who could hardly chew on solid food. In 1903, Dr. Ambrose Straub of St. Louis, Missouri, patented a peanut-butter-making machine."

Fuck ... Was about to start a christianity debate , kind of over this one. Especially if u niggas are just gonna put words in my mouth

[Rain Matrix 2021]

Originally Posted by Esso

that about sums up the stupidity of the opposing arguments

/thread

idk when i said it was created by south americans


the AZTECS ,


To re-write what i already said

"The earliest reference to peanut butter can be traced back to the Ancient Incas and the Aztecs who ground roasted peanuts into a paste. However, modern peanut butter, its process of production and the equipment used to make it, can be credited to at least three inventors.

In 1884 Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Canada patented peanut paste, the finished product from milling roasted peanuts between two heated surfaces. In 1895 Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (the creator of Kellogg’s cereal) patented a process for creating peanut butter from raw peanuts. He marketed it as a nutritious protein substitute for people who could hardly chew on solid food. In 1903, Dr. Ambrose Straub of St. Louis, Missouri, patented a peanut-butter-making machine."

Fuck ... Was about to start a christianity debate , kind of over this one. Especially if u niggas are just gonna put words in my mouth

[Esso]

Incas = ancient south americans

[Esso]

Incas = ancient south americans

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE;1137677


[url

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/human-ancestors-originated-europe-not-africa-u-t-part-international-team-studying-pre-human[/url]

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.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE;1137677


[url

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/human-ancestors-originated-europe-not-africa-u-t-part-international-team-studying-pre-human[/url]

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.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

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.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

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.

[Rain Matrix 2021]

Originally Posted by Esso

Incas = ancient south americans

Oh south america as in , Mexico Columbia

Cool . They're not black btw

https://www.letsbeef.com/battle_deta...n=tb&id=501956


Rain Matrix vs unethical

[Rain Matrix 2021]

Originally Posted by Esso

Incas = ancient south americans

Oh south america as in , Mexico Columbia

Cool . They're not black btw

https://www.letsbeef.com/battle_deta...n=tb&id=501956


Rain Matrix vs unethical