Posted on 07/27/2014 9:49:37 AM PDT by djf
Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.
(Excerpt) Read more at atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au ...
I did not mean to sound like I believed that but wanted to show that “scientific” theories are all over the place like evolution and global warming one mans proof is anothers folly.
The other thing that isn’t being recognized is that ‘out of africa’ theory goes way back to proto-humans. As far as I know, there is no fossil record of these proto-humans anywhere in the world, but Africa. I could be mistaken, but I don’t think there’s any record of Australopithecus in Russia.
There may have been multiple migrations, but the root of all humanity is the African continent.
I actually have some knowledge on this topic because I have had genetic analysis done on my self. I also happen to follow the literature, and can tell you the state of the art changes over time. In this particular case the authors have hypothesized a common ancestor not found in the paleontological record. Unless and until you find physical evidence of this species you’re not selling me on the theory.
Bucky Fuller says “Not so fast!! Take a look at Southeast Asia...”
The scientific method has not overthrown the "Law of Contradiction."
Academia needed an Afro Centric origin of man to debunk the bible and to lift black Africans to the top of the genetic heap.
Academia is bummed out and will never admit that black Africa is not the origin of man. They will go on teaching this as “fact” for as long as liberals and the government run the schools, which will be close to forever.
But that just shooting yourself in the foot..
by simple logic...
If you going around claiming your race is special because its was the “first man” your also claiming your the most “primitive man” dumb ass
... I would run as far away from that stupid ."first man/first race" bs as i could because is no honor
Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.
Interesting ideas, worth a look. Everything worthwhile in the current era comes from the oppressed Neandertal genetic remnant.
Jesus people, look at the site. It just on big conspiracy theorist site trying to prove that Atlantians run the world. Get a grip.
I'm R1b as are 68% of all Europeans.(The Irish are even higher)
As I understand it, the scientific group had an agreement with the associated Egyptians not to reveal any DNA results. The data was accidently released when the Discovery Channel realized that they'd inadvertly captured the groups DNA data from a picture of a blackboard.
List of haplogroups of notable people
Tutankhamun
An academic study which included DNA profiling of some of the related male mummies of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2010. Tutankhamun's Y-DNA haplogroup was not published in the academic paper,[29][30][31] however iGENEA, a Swiss personal genomics claimed to have reconstructed King Tut's Y-DNA profile based on screencaps from a Discovery Channel documentary about the study. iGENEA found that King Tut belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a2,[32][33][34] Members of the research team that conducted the academic study published in 2010 stated they had not been consulted by iGENEA before they published the haplogroup information and described iGENEA's claims as "unscientific." [31] After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond."
Image: JOHN GURCHE PORTRAIT OF A PIONEER With a brain half the size of a modern one and a brow reminiscent of Homo habilis, this hominid is one of the most primitive members of our genus on record. Paleoartist John Gurche reconstructed this 1.75-million-year-old explorer from a nearly complete teenage H. erectus skull and associated mandible found in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. The background figures derive from two partial crania recovered at the site.
I’ve always suspected that this stuff was a leftwing pseudo sience cave in to Afrocentrist PC bullshit. I never believed it..as a Christian I believe that God created the different races.
“There goes my chance for reparations.”
You win. Best comment yet!
Which means you have an investment in the status quo, therefore some measure of confirmation bias..
In this particular case the authors have hypothesized a common ancestor not found in the paleontological record.
That's not what the article is predicated on.
Planck didn't pull his famous dictum from thin air.
"King Tut Related to Half of European Men? Maybe Not
But Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tubingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, said that iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible."
But that doesn't mean some Europeans aren't related. I think the money quote is here.
"The haplogroup R1b1a2, which iGENEA claims includes King Tut, arose 9,500 years ago in the Black Sea region."
If King Tut is of that haplotype (not established) he may have been related to the Minoans who are also thought to descend from the same Black Sea pliestocene population. This mass migration has been speculated to be the result of a great flood.
As was said in the thread about the Minoans, some Europeans are decended from the same population. When it comes right down to it, none of this is earth shaking but it is interesting.
Was he talkative? Funny until drunk, and then bad-tempered? Did he have thyroid trouble? Was he about five feet tall when fully grown? Sarcastic and caustic when speaking to his children? Maudlin and sentimental when remembering his mother and the old days? Grouchy when old? Then he was probably Irish.
From what I remember the Egyptians considered the Minoans the other civilized people with the rest of humanity being barbarians. So it is not a stretch to think that Minoan and Egyptian royals would have intermarried.
I am Irish. Why are you so insulting?
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.
