Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > General Discussion
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old September 13th, 2010 #1
dtklamf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
dtklamf
Default Blacks, Whites and Asians have different ancestors & did not come from Africa

Blacks, Whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientist

Geographer claims the races evolved from different ancestors.



A public claim by a fellow of the prestigious Royal Geographic Society that humans did not all come from Africa — and that blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors — has been dismissed by world experts as “dangerous”, “wrong” and “racist”.

In a paper widely trumpeted and due for release in book form, Akhil Bakshi, the leader of a recent major scientific expedition supported by India’s prime minister, claims that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are not only separate races but separate species, having evolved on different continents. Responding to the claims — developed while Bakshi led the Gondwanaland expedition from India to South Africa — Professor Lee Berger, a leading palaeoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, immediately insisted that, there were no fundamental differences between the races and that all humans had the same genetic and physical roots in Africa.

The prevalent scientific theory of modern humans — the “Out of Africa” model — is that they left Africa just 55000 years ago and replaced the last remnants of other ancient hominids living in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

The old biological racial distinctions of “Caucasian”, “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” have recently been abandoned by mainstream scientists — removed, for instance, from the US National Library of Medicine in 2003.



Bakshi has become a self-declared champion of a minority scientific view called “multiregionalism”, which claims that modern humans evolved from separate hominid populations. Hominids encompass all humans and the ancient family of human-like ancestors, including large-brained ancient ancestors and unsuccessful species such as Neanderthals.
However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist — has linked to this model a theory that these populations evolved according to the genetic material left behind when the prehistoric supercontinents, the northern Laurasia and the southern Gondwanaland, broke up. An influential figure in India, Bakshi is also a filmmaker and author who has led four major scientific expeditions since 1994. Bakshi admitted to the Sunday Times that “some of my points may prove to be wrong, and may be seen as politically incorrect.

He claims indigenous “Negroid” populations occur in places like Australia, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the Andaman Islands not because they moved there from Africa, but because all these land masses were once part of Gondwanaland — and that all evolved separately. Whites, according to Bakshi, are from Laurasia and blacks are from Gondwanaland. He argues that, 60000 years ago, humans could not have crossed vast oceans and deserts to reach remote places like Australia and North America, and they must therefore have evolved there.

“His is a highly confused argument which jumps enormous levels, which are quite impossible to link,” Tobias said.
However, he added that the true picture of modern humanity’s precise departure from Africa was far from clear- cut.

http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/09...e-from-africa/
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #2
Mr. Bowmont
Senior Member
 
Mr. Bowmont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,113
Mr. Bowmont
Default

Nigga dat stuff be racist, nah wut i mean. We be all comin' frum muh people, muh dick muh dick.



I wonder how many lemmings simple push this aside and say 'no, thats impossible because it would mean we are not all the same and thats not true!'
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #3
ray bateson
baппed
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: A:\
Posts: 3,367
ray bateson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bowmont View Post
I wonder how many lemmings simple push this aside and say 'no, thats impossible because it would mean we are not all the same and thats not true!'
All the fucking proof is obviously in that picture.

What, you say?...still not 'going there'? I guess it'll take death-by-nigger to learn your lesson.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #4
Stronza
Senior Member
 
Stronza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,323
Stronza
Default

The old biological racial distinctions of “Caucasian”, “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” have recently been abandoned by mainstream scientists — removed, for instance, from the US National Library of Medicine in 2003.

There you go. That's all you need to know. Quit your debating now.
__________________
“Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer.”
― Joseph Sobran
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Are these the two main theories? "Out of Africa" and "multiregionalism"? Are there others? Besides "seeded by aliens"?

I believe that long ago in a galaxy, far, far away, an alien bought a human wildflower seed mix packet, and then spilled it on our hapful planet. But that's just my belief. I cannot back it with anything prooficious.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

If leftists actually believed that races don't exit, they wouldn't be so fired up to mix them.

What leftists say is not what they believe. They lie to themselves and others. They are destructive, malicious, dangerous people. They are, really, sick cultists bent on imposing their morality, their insane fundamentalism, on everybody else.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #7
Mr. Bowmont
Senior Member
 
Mr. Bowmont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,113
Mr. Bowmont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ray bateson View Post
All the fucking proof is obviously in that picture.

What, you say?...still not 'going there'? I guess it'll take death-by-nigger to learn your lesson.
I know you have a crush on me, but save it for PMs.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #8
Julian Lüchow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 888
Julian Lüchow
Post

There is a lot of good info regarding how bogus the OOA theory really is. Fuerle has done extensive writing on this subject in his "Erectus Walks Amongst Us" text, but there are actually many scholarly articles to be found on the subject too. I wish Sandor and psychologicalshock still posted here because they had access to much information on this subject which people w/o university accounts cannot find.

Some things off the top of my head though, races of Eurasian Homo sapiens have DNA which both predates the ethnogenesis of Negroids and is not found in them. Similarly, the claims of a 'mitochondrial eve' in human evolution have been proven false. The entire Boasian tradition of anthropology set out to distort the truth of human origins/behavior/abilities, from the outset with malice aforethought; they immediately declared the racial explanations 'wrong' and therefore off limits to inquiry, substituting mendacious 'environmental' hypotheses. And so on.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #9
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Chinese skull discovery may cause human origins rethink

12:22 24/01/2008HONG KONG, January 24 (RIA Novosti) -

Chinese archaeologists have uncovered a 100,000- year-old fossilized human skull in central China which may throw new light on the origins of the human race, national media said on Thursday.
The well-preserved skull was found in the central Chinese province of Henan, and Chinese scientists say it could disprove the widely-held theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa.

The majority of Chinese scientists share the multiregional theory of human origin, which says that humans evolved separately in different regions.

The opposite theory, the Out-of-Africa model, says that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, and that some prehistoric humans left the continent about 60,000 years ago. This theory is supported by the small number of older human fossils found in other regions as compared to on the African continent.

The Chinese media has already dubbed the finding as "the greatest discovery in China after the discovery of the Peking Man and Upper Cave Man skulls in Beijing early last century."

However, paleontologists say that no conclusions can be drawn until the discovery has been carefully studied.

"More astonishing than the completeness of the skull is that it still has a fossilized membrane on the inner side allowing scientists to track the nerves of our Paleolithic ancestor," an archaeologist with the Henan cultural relics and archaeology research institute said.

The skull was well-preserved due to the nearby presence of hard water, containing high amounts of calcium ions.

Besides the skull, archaeologists also found about 30,000 animal fossils and stone and bone artifacts at the site.


http://en.rian.ru/science/20080124/97644883.html
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #10
ray bateson
baппed
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: A:\
Posts: 3,367
ray bateson
Default

Save it, bowmont. The rhetorical 'you' isn't always referring to you. But fewer people than ever seem able to understand that part of speech.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #11
Alexander M.
Senior Member
 
Alexander M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,236
Alexander M.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Are these the two main theories? "Out of Africa" and "multiregionalism"? Are there others? Besides "seeded by aliens"?

I believe that long ago in a galaxy, far, far away, an alien bought a human wildflower seed mix packet, and then spilled it on our hapful planet. But that's just my belief. I cannot back it with anything prooficious.
I recall reading an article about this theory online. Hope I can find it.
__________________
Experience molds perception.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #12
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ray bateson View Post
Save it, bowmont. The rhetorical 'you' isn't always referring to you. But fewer people than ever seem able to understand that part of speech.
lol

A few years ago on several different occasions, I would have conversations with a person of the Pro-Life/Ron Paul bent. Nice guy, but very low IQ. Fancied himself a Bible scholar. Damned his mother and son to Hell because they didn't meet his standards, as determined "through careful reading of The Word". He could talk a fair game, but after a while you realized he was borderline illiterate and had a religion/politics fetish.

Anyway, on one occasion we were talking about something (politics, probably) and I used the "rhetorical you" several times, as normal people will. He got really confused and frustrated. He started protesting stridently that he didn't do such and such.

It was only later that I realized (or accepted) just how stupid the guy is, and that he didn't understand the usage of "you" in context.

Later, I tried to substitute constructions with "one" instead of "you" but he seemed even more confused. He basically can't understand ideas, even though he's a perpetual moralizer.

It's so bizarre to deal with White people who give the appearance of literacy, but don't know or understand their own native tongue.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; September 13th, 2010 at 05:03 PM.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #13
Warlord
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Are these the two main theories? "Out of Africa" and "multiregionalism"? Are there others? Besides "seeded by aliens"?

I believe that long ago in a galaxy, far, far away, an alien bought a human wildflower seed mix packet, and then spilled it on our hapful planet. But that's just my belief. I cannot back it with anything prooficious.
The two mainstream theories were the Africa and the multiregionalism ones. The multiregionalism threatens too many political apple carts, which is one reason why it isn't popular with out ruling elites. I don't think that there is any evidence of a lost continent in the Pacific (Lemuria or Mu), which is what the theosophists believe in.

Generally, the theory is that we evolved from a common ancestor (not from apes who also evolved from that ancestor). The question is whether that ancestor developed into one human race with the various races radiating from this or if the ancestor developed our current races separately in different locations (which is why interbreeding is still possible).

There is the Eric von Danikin/Sitchkin alien development, the theosophists "root race' theory, the "Adam and Eve" religious belief and the idea that we are living in one complex computer program (a more recent one).

The Warlord
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Kowalczyk View Post
There is a lot of good info regarding how bogus the OOA theory really is. Fuerle has done extensive writing on this subject in his "Erectus Walks Amongst Us" text, but there are actually many scholarly articles to be found on the subject too. I wish Sandor and psychologicalshock still posted here because they had access to much information on this subject which people w/o university accounts cannot find.

Some things off the top of my head though, races of Eurasian Homo sapiens have DNA which both predates the ethnogenesis of Negroids and is not found in them. Similarly, the claims of a 'mitochondrial eve' in human evolution have been proven false. The entire Boasian tradition of anthropology set out to distort the truth of human origins/behavior/abilities, from the outset with malice aforethought; they immediately declared the racial explanations 'wrong' and therefore off limits to inquiry, substituting mendacious 'environmental' hypotheses. And so on.
Good post. Has there ever been a book on the systematic queering of anthropology? I know it forms the matter of chapters here and there, but is there one book detailing the jewing of anthro?
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #15
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

There's a neanderthal theory (or group of loosely related hypotheses). Not really a stand alone theory, and if true (to whatever degree), probably more a complement than competitor to the standard two.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
The question is whether that ancestor developed into one human race with the various races radiating from this or if the ancestor developed our current races separately in different locations (which is why interbreeding is still possible).
I fail to grasp this distinction. Can you elucidate?

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 13th, 2010 at 05:20 PM.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The only thing that can be said with certainty is that more discoveries will be made, hence current theories are tentative. What are never tentative are the conclusions expressed by anthros in response to the latest bone fragment discovery.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
very low IQ. Fancied himself a Bible scholar.
Low-IQ bible scholars are legion, the big book o' bullshit is catnip to the underbrained.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #19
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default Sitchkin

Warlord- The jew's name is sitchin. . .

LR I thought it was your post, sorry.

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; September 13th, 2010 at 06:10 PM.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #20
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
LR-

The jew's name is sitchin. . .
Yeah, I caught that in The Warlord's post, too.

- - - - -

Regarding cillian's post on the Chinese discovery. . .

The interesting take-away to me is how the Chinese are pumping a competing theory for (what I believe to be) political purposes. They don't appear interested in participating in the jewing & cyclical White mania of "the West".

They're not creative, and their (White constructed) litany of "scientific discoveries" is off the coattails of Whites both ancient and contemporary. I doubt they could reach an accurate anthropological conclusion if a mummy sat up and told them. But by Confucius, they do know they're not niggers.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; September 13th, 2010 at 05:56 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.
Page generated in 0.16222 seconds.