Posted on 05/21/2014 12:18:44 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The debate is over. Scientists agree. 97% of all biologists agree. This story is propoganda.
Guess they knew something modern humans don’ t.
“ka”?
“Ka” means thousands of years.
This is just racist. All Africans that left, left in chains, bound for America several hundred years ago. Just ask Mooschelle.
And one day humanity will return.
Not as long as mooslims roam free.
Thank you.
It seems likely to me for a variety of reasons.
First of all, covering distances over the generations: Imagine a tribal people of small family groups that raise kids who go to adulthood, these kids strike out to form their own groups. How far would a population spread in several generations? Let’s say 10 miles per generation, as these people are hunters and gatherers and would need a territory large enough to support themselves. Such distances are common for animals such as cougars, wolf packs, etc. Now after a couple of millennium, and assuming 20 years per generation, the spread of the species would be very large—thousands of miles—all without roaming more than ten miles from the birth home for each individual.
The continuing spreading of the African Rift. Madagascar split off first, and then Arabia later. The Rift is still very much a work in progress and 100,000 years ago the Red Sea would have been much narrower. Also, repeated world glaciation would have dried up the sea. In the last full glaciation 20,000 years ago, the world sea level fell 400 feet. Walking rather than swimming into the Arabian peninsula would have been possible. However, even if a water barrier still remained, it has been proven that Australian Aborigines used boats to get to Australia about 50,000 years ago.
Finally, the genetic variances in us humans point to separate evolutionary pressures due to environmental factors that took time. Light skin for Northern Eurasians. Wide flaring nostrils and tight curly hair for those in steamy equatorial climates. Resistance or susceptibility to certain diseases or genetic adaptations (sickle cell—malaria, cystic fibrosis—tuberculosis) that point to repeated exposures over time.
Actually if you read this story it DOESN'T contain the rhetoric used by the Global Warming conmen that you quote above. They are careful to say "one group" of scientists and the article also discusses ongoing disputes and theories -- which you would never see in an article on man-made global warming. This is the way science is SUPPOSED TO BE reported. There is no claim to finality or asertion that "the debate is over" in this.
I am as annoyed as you are with leftists and statists attempting to use flawed scientific arguments to advance their ends, but that's not what is going on in this article. You have every right to disagree with their premises and conclusions, but save your criticism of the scientific methods for places where science really IS being abused. By lumping all scientific conclusions that you disagree with into the same pot you are propping up the real charlatans and a the same time you are providing ammo to the leftists who claim all conservatives are anti-science.
"Following the prehistoric breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana, Madagascar split from India around 88 million years ago, allowing native plants and animals to evolve in relative isolation."
“Let’s say 10 miles per generation, as these people are hunters and gatherers and would need a territory large enough to support themselves.”
Might the plains Indians, before the arrival of horses, have some similarities to these people? If so, a band might need a lot more than ten miles.
“By lumping all scientific conclusions that you disagree with into the same pot you are propping up the real charlatans and a the same time you are providing ammo to the leftists who claim all conservatives are anti-science.”
That’s a really good point, and I think we should all be more aware of it.
When you say, “They all do it,” you are disadvantaging those who do not do whatever it is, and advantaging those who do. (Assuming that “whatever it is” is a bad thing, and that “all” is very unlikely to be true.)
Evil has enough advantages without just handing him one.
My understanding is that in a few million years, East Africa will be an island similar to Madagascar, while the rest of Africa drifts north to upheave the Mediterranean Sea to form the Mediterranean Mountains.
Yes, in a climate less populated with animals to hunt, and fewer nuts, berries, tubers, etc., to gather. The hunting territory would have to be much larger.
Not a paleoclimatologist here, so I don’t know off the top of my head what sorts of climes they would have passed through.
Ice Age world map with the ocean levels reduced by about 320 feet. Notice no Persian Gulf and an Isolated Red Sea. I believe the Red Sea would have completely dried up. The Mediterranean may have been been in sections and dried to some low levels.
Passage through the Straits of Malacca would have been blocked until about 7,000 years ago when the seas rose enough to allow passage.
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.
