[Mensch]

What is it about the thought of a common and recent African ancestor, that seems to bother you so much?

[TopQuark]

What is it about the thought of a common and recent African ancestor, that seems to bother you so much? O do not mean to speak for Pharmboy, but I do not think that the though itself is troublesome: it is the way the so-called scientists are going about it. Rather than a hypothesis, which the findings may reject, they seem to have an agenda of proving that which is already popular with the public. When you hear someone at this day and age saying "we are all the same under the skin," you know why he undertook this "research." One is curious how much of information that is contrary to the "findings" has been discarded to arrive the proper conclusion.

[Pharmboy]

What is it about the thought of a common and recent African ancestor, that seems to bother you so much?

That, sir, is a softball. I have been in science my whole life and have a great deal of respect for data. When politics drives pronouncements based on contradictory data it ceases to be science. Stephen Jay Gould is the mother of all anthropology/evolution liars. They disregard contradictory evidence (and there is much).

Further, I infer from your question that you think I have an ulterior motive in lambasting this lunacy, i.e., I am a racist. You, perhaps are a liberal. Read more on the subject starting with the site I linked.

You do not sound like a mensch to me.

[samtheman]

What is it about the thought of a common and recent African ancestor, that seems to bother you so much?

Mensch. Thank you for asking this question.

[hgro]

"What is it about the thought of a common and recent African ancestor, that seems to bother you so much?"

Are you speaking of Idi Amin? You pick your ancestors and I'll pick mine.