PDA

View Full Version : We are not "out of Africa" Pt 2



steyr_m
14th October 2010, 03:05 PM
Hope this isn't a repost; but this has been touched upon a week or so ago.


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/whites-asians-did-not-come-from-africa/

Neuro
14th October 2010, 03:37 PM
This is his theory:
http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/09/critique-of-the-african-origin-theory/

He is suggesting that the black races developed from what was Gwondanaland, which was a continent that broke apart some 140 million years ago, long before there was mammals even. And that white races developed elsewhere independently.

I don't believe in the out of Africa theory, but this is just ridiculous! Probably controlled opposition unless he is a complete idiot!

Hellsbane
14th October 2010, 04:21 PM
Crockery. Although i do not subscribe to the current concepts of " Out of Africa ", i am educated enough to know we must share a common ancestry or we could not interbreed. You can not get that close in kinship if there never was a common ancestry or if each race evolved from a seperate and distinct species. The reason i do not agree with the current " Out of Africa " theory is because it refuses to accept that much earlier than 100k years ago human ancestors could have migrated to different regions and evolved seperately and indipendently. The current theory only accepts that modern humans evolved in Africa some 100k years ago and migrated out from there at that time. I mean, like, to them, there is no way in hell earlier ancestors could have moved out tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years before the arrival of the first modern humans, and evolved seperately in the other regions. I see no problem with that idea as much as we still share the same ancestory but developed into the modern human species seperately.

nunaem
14th October 2010, 04:37 PM
What I object to most about the 'out of Africa' theory is that it assumes all evolution except that related to skin color stopped as soon as people left Africa. It's just insane to think that skin color is the only development that white and mongoloid races made after diverging from the negroid race 50k-150k years ago. But insanity is typical of the Cult of Equality.

ShortJohnSilver
14th October 2010, 07:27 PM
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.


This is the part of the theory I will take most issue with. Pacific Islanders from Philippines etc. all the way to west coast of America, were able to navigate long distances without compass or other navigational aids. They were able to do this by close observation of the prevailing waves, which reliably go in a certain direction at a certain angle. When these waves hit an island they will reflect. As well, at night or with lower cloud cover, the reflection of light onto clouds will look different if those clouds are over water or over land.

Given this, and that the pyramid construction techniques are not fully explained, as another example, the theory seems pretty weak.