Stefan Molyneux Exposed.

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

An examination of the detailed morphology of molar teeth from two fossils of G. freybergi published in 2017^[11] suggests that it may be a hominin, that is sharing ancestry with Homo but not with the Chimpanzees (Pan). This 

 

Im Not sure that means there's direct relationship here, it looks like not.

 

Proto-homins and Proto-chimps actually inter-bred apparently.

 

So basically chimps are considered the last "ape" break before the Homo genus.

 

And I should point out that Michael Soule - the conservation biologist - stated that evolution for "large mammals" ended in the 1970s due to lack of habitat.

 

Modern civilized humans are causing the fastest mass extinction of life on earth due to global warming.

 

So soon the Earth will be warmer than it's ever been in the last 2 billion years.

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-grassy-earliest-homo.html#jCp

 

So homins led to Homo genus that is around 2.8 million years old. AKPOFGS

 

Family, Genus, Species:

 

 

Quote

 

Hominini - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

The Hominini is a taxonomical tribe of the subfamily Homininae; it comprises three subtribes: Hominina, with its one genus Homo; Australopithecina, comprising ...

 

 

 

http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-ancient-human-dna-details-dawn-of-neanderthals-1.19557

Quote

 

And its age suggests that the early predecessors of humans diverged from those of Neanderthals between 550,000 and 765,000 years ago — too far back for the common ancestors of both to have been Homo heidelbergensis, as some had posited.

Researchers should now be looking for a population that lived around 700,000 to 900,000 years ago, says Martinón-Torres. She thinks that Homo antecessor, known from 900,000-year-old remains from Spain, is the strongest candidate for the common ancestor, if such specimens can be found in Africa or the Middle East.

 

 

So what is interesting is that the 2013 discovery was just the mitochondrial DNA and based on the morphology they thought it was neanderthal but the mitochondial DNA made them think is was Denosivan.

 

So now the proved based on the male line bone DNA that it was neanderthal and so then they state:
 

Quote

 

an as yet unknown species from Africa migrated to Eurasia and bred with Neanderthals, replacing the mitochondrial DNA lineages.

 

 

Crazy.

 

Just shows that the "subspecies" of "inter-breeding" of Homo Sapien humans - is not that easy to tell the difference. For example - some scientists claim orangutans as the ancestors of homonins, not chimps. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html

Quote

 

the DNA evidence cited by many scientists only looks at a small percentage of the human and chimp genomes.

What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals.

By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.

The finding, which has the potential to spark a radical rethink of human origins, is being met with caution.

 

 

Quote

In addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by voidisyinyang

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

 

The goal is never to completely define anything, that would be impossible in the realm of thought, language, and ideas.

 

You're discriminating against an extent of discrimination and limiting yourself functionality. 

 

So once one adds historical locality to human characteristics they are overly flawed? But not when they just observe characteristics? 

 

"The people in Europe have brown hair." That observation is flawed and evil? What about the functionality behind such observations, what if you had a hair company and offered a product that dyed brown hair blonde? 

 

 

You define the limits of the application of terms.

 

I don't get your last point at all - I am probably being dense

[MooNiNite]

Just now, Apech said:

 

You define the limits of the application of terms.

 

I don't get your last point at all - I am probably being dense

 

"Well the whole point for me is that I don't have one because I think the flaw is basically trying to divide people in this way."

 

You're saying it is flawed to divide people by historical locality and physical characteristics. 

[MooNiNite]

Ideas are tools, it is intent that is accusingly destructive or productive. 

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

Well the whole point for me is that I don't have one because I think the flaw is basically trying to divide people in this way.

 

I accept to certain extent the descriptors such as skin colour - for instance if I was to rob a bank the police report would probably say - caucasian, male, brown eyes ... etc.  which would be accurate enough to identify me but not accurate enough to define me if you see what i mean.

 

I looked for your picture here but didn't find you.

https://bankrobbers.fbi.gov/robbers-container

Were you wearing a disguise?

[voidisyinyang]

19 minutes ago, Brian said:

I looked for your picture here but didn't find you.

https://bankrobbers.fbi.gov/robbers-container

Were you wearing a disguise?

 

So the racialist dog breeding lies will end here: https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/genetic-variation-between-dog-breeds-the-reality-of-human-differences/

Quote

 

In a 2004 paper in Science, Parker et al. showed that very accurate classification is possible (410 of 414 dogs were correctly assigned to their breed).  They also showed by Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA, a technique often used for estimating genetic variability using microsattelites and repeats, although it can also be used for SNPs) that 27% of genetic variance is between breeds.  Using SNP data, they calculated an Fst distance between the breeds of 0.33.  A recent paper on a genome-wide SNP analysis on 919 dogs from 85 breeds, showed by AMOVA that 65.1% of genetic variance was within breeds, 31.1% between breeds, and 3.8% between breed groups (they defined 10 different groups:  Spaniels, Retrievers, etc.).  They also that as few as 20 diagnostic SNPs can be used to accurately classify dogs into their breeds.

 

How does the genetic variation in dogs compare to that of humans?  AMOVA analysis of humans shows that approximately 85% of variance is between individuals, 5% is between populations in the same racial group, and 10% is interracial (btw, this number is also close to the updated Fst measurement of Xing et al.).  The average Fst distance between human races is approximately 0.15.

 

So, we can see that dog breeds are actually much more variable than human races.  The myth of limited genetic diversity prevalent in racialist circles (to which I also fell victim) needs to be dispelled.

 

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, MooNiNite said:

 

"Well the whole point for me is that I don't have one because I think the flaw is basically trying to divide people in this way."

 

You're saying it is flawed to divide people by historical locality and physical characteristics. 

 

 

No by race.  Historical locality is nationality, physical characteristics are whatever they are i.e. descriptive.

[MooNiNite]

53 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

No by race.  Historical locality is nationality, physical characteristics are whatever they are i.e. descriptive.

Historical locality is closer to race than nationality. 

[Apech]

9 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

Historical locality is closer to race than nationality. 

 

Really?  Explain.

[Stosh]

What could possibly be a less descriptive grouping than nationality? Heck ! All americans arent even in the same country , share no genetic commonality as individuals, nor physical character, religion language age size or Anything else! 

Groupings are bogus . 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

What could possibly be a less descriptive grouping than nationality? Heck ! All americans arent even in the same country , share no genetic commonality as individuals, nor physical character, religion language age size or Anything else! 

Groupings are bogus . 

 

 

Swingers prefer groupings tho'

[Stosh]

Ok, got me there,lets group those, but thats IT. 

[Brian]

So let's do an experiment -- let's build long-distance running teams.  I'll randomly select from a pool of healthy young men of Nilotic ancestry and you randomly select from a pool pool of healthy young men randomly chosen from around the planet.  Shall we say 20 on each team and three months of training?  Then the top fifteen runners from each team run a marathon, lowest combined time is the winning team.

 

Or, let's have a pulling contest -- I'll take a pair of Belgian draft horses and you get two randomly selected members of the species Equus ferus caballus.  Sound reasonable?

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, Brian said:

So let's do an experiment -- let's build long-distance running teams.  I'll randomly select from a pool of healthy young men of Nilotic ancestry and you randomly select from a pool pool of healthy young men randomly chosen from around the planet.  Shall we say 20 on each team and three months of training?  Then the top fifteen runners from each team run a marathon, lowest combined time is the winning team.

 

Or, let's have a pulling contest -- I'll take a pair of Belgian draft horses and you get two randomly selected members of the species Equus ferus caballus.  Sound reasonable?

 

The human race is not a sprint but a marathon .... is that your point?

[Brian]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

The human race is not a sprint but a marathon .... is that your point?

Exactly!

[MooNiNite]

When making points, try not to poke anyone.

 

-Zen Wisdom

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Recent studies 

"The common lineage of great apes and humans split several hundred thousand years earlier than hitherto assumed, according to an international research team headed by Professor Madelaine Böhme from the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment at the University of Tübingen and Professor Nikolai Spassov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The researchers investigated two fossils of Graecopithecus freybergi with state-of-the-art methods and came to the conclusion that they belong to pre-humans. Their findings, published today in two papers in the journal PLOS ONE, further indicate that the split of the human lineage occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean and not - as customarily assumed - in Africa.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-million-year-old-pre-human-balkans.html#jCp"

Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?
 

An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia

"Scientists found that teeth from African specimens were a different shape or morphology than those from Eurasian samples. The researchers wrote that teeth toward the front of the mouth from Eurasians had more "morphological robusticity," such as a triangular, shovel shape. Their back teeth were smaller and had smoother chewing surfaces; the rear teeth from African samples were larger and the chewing surfaces on them more pointy and jagged.
 

"The continuity of the 'Eurasian dental pattern' from the early Pleistocene until the appearance of upper Pleistocene Neandertals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and the African continents were relatively independent for a long period and that the impact of Asia in the colonization of Europe was stronger than that of Africa," https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

Humans share 50% DNA similarity with bananas and 80% with cows. Consuming cows is near cannibalism? Small percentages makes big differences.

So it has been established that Neanderthal, Denisovan and Homo Sapian are different species, there is also Cro Magnon 
 

Quote

 

Cro-Magnon (ⁱ/kroʊˈmænjən/ or US: /kroʊˈmæɡnən/; French: [kʁomaɲɔ̃]) is a common name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) that lived in the European Upper Paleolithic.^[1] Current scientific literature prefers the term European early modern humans (EEMH), to the term Cro-Magnon, which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.^[2] The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43–45,000 years before present that have been discovered in Italy^[3] and Britain,^[4] with the remains found of those that reached the European Russian Arctic 40,000 years ago.^[5][6]
 

Cro-Magnons were robustly built and powerful. The body was generally heavy and solid with a strong musculature. The forehead was fairly straight rather than sloping like in Neanderthals, and with only slight browridges. The face was short and wide. The chin was prominent. The brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern humans.^{[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon}

 

 

A number of different species. Chimpanzees, bonobos, two species of gorilla and two species of orangutan.

2 gorilla species here 



"In biology, races are genetically distinct populations within the same species; they typically have relatively minor morphological and genetic differences." 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Golden Dragon Shining

[cold]

20 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Oh dear I've come back

But first someone name a race and explain what it is and then we can discuss defining characteristics.

 

 

 

Well the Preakness, the Belmont and the Kentucky Derby for instance are well known races

A key characteristic is they are run by horses.

Other characteristics include that they are run on dirt tracks, and the horses are thoroughbreds.

 

One thing perfectly clear is this race thing ain't black or white

 

 

[Marblehead]

32 minutes ago, cold said:

 

One thing perfectly clear is this race thing ain't black or white

 

 

True.  Green people must be considered too.

 

[Brian]

27 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

True.  Green people must be considered too.

 

Martians are people too, you know...

[voidisyinyang]

13 hours ago, Golden Dragon Shining said:

Recent studies 

"The common lineage of great apes and humans split several hundred thousand years earlier than hitherto assumed, according to an international research team headed by Professor Madelaine Böhme from the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment at the University of Tübingen and Professor Nikolai Spassov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The researchers investigated two fossils of Graecopithecus freybergi with state-of-the-art methods and came to the conclusion that they belong to pre-humans. Their findings, published today in two papers in the journal PLOS ONE, further indicate that the split of the human lineage occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean and not - as customarily assumed - in Africa.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-million-year-old-pre-human-balkans.html#jCp"

Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?
 

An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia

"Scientists found that teeth from African specimens were a different shape or morphology than those from Eurasian samples. The researchers wrote that teeth toward the front of the mouth from Eurasians had more "morphological robusticity," such as a triangular, shovel shape. Their back teeth were smaller and had smoother chewing surfaces; the rear teeth from African samples were larger and the chewing surfaces on them more pointy and jagged.
 

"The continuity of the 'Eurasian dental pattern' from the early Pleistocene until the appearance of upper Pleistocene Neandertals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and the African continents were relatively independent for a long period and that the impact of Asia in the colonization of Europe was stronger than that of Africa," https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

Humans share 50% DNA similarity with bananas and 80% with cows. Consuming cows is near cannibalism? Small percentages makes big differences.

So it has been established that Neanderthal, Denisovan and Homo Sapian are different species, there is also Cro Magnon 
 

A number of different species. Chimpanzees, bonobos, two species of gorilla and two species of orangutan.

2 gorilla species here 



"In biology, races are genetically distinct populations within the same species; they typically have relatively minor morphological and genetic differences." 

 

Quote

 

So it has been established that Neanderthal, Denisovan and Homo Sapian are different species, there is also Cro Magnon 

 

 

Dude - you need to study what I posted. They are NOT different species - that are different "subspecies" -

 

In other words - they are all Homo Sapiens. Humans are Homo Sapien Sapiens (subspecies).

 

Quote

They are considered either a distinct species, Homo neanderthalensis, or more rarely as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (H. s. neanderthalensis).

 

http://www.nature.com/news/how-china-is-rewriting-the-book-on-human-origins-1.20231

 

Quote

They show that, between roughly 900,000 and 125,000 years ago, east Asia was teeming with hominins endowed with features that would place them somewhere between H. erectus and H. sapiens, says Wu

Quote

 

hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu.

Support for this idea also comes from artefacts in China. In Europe and Africa, stone tools changed markedly over time, but hominins in China used the same type of simple stone instruments from about 1.7 million years ago to 10,000 years ago.

 

Quote

But the continuity-with-hybridization model is countered by overwhelming genetic data that point to Africa as the wellspring of modern humans. Studies of Chinese populations show that 97.4% of their genetic make-up is from ancestral modern humans from Africa, with the rest coming from extinct forms such as Neanderthals and Denisovans⁵. “If there had been significant contributions from Chinese H. erectus, they would show up in the genetic data,” says Li Hui, a population geneticist at Fudan University in Shanghai. Wu counters that the genetic contribution from archaic hominins in China could have been missed because no DNA has yet been recovered from them.

 

Quote

The researchers propose that the first hominins that left Africa 1.8 million years ago were the eventual source of modern humans. Their descendants mostly settled in the Middle East, where the climate was favourable, and then produced waves of transitional hominins that spread elsewhere. One Eurasian group went to Indonesia, another gave rise to Neanderthals and Denisovans, and a third ventured back into Africa and evolved into H. sapiens, which later spread throughout the world. In this model, modern humans evolved in Africa, but their immediate ancestor originated in the Middle East.

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by voidisyinyang

[silent thunder]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Martians are people too, you know...

I can grok that...

[Brian]

Just now, silent thunder said:

I can grok that...

From one stranger to another...

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

From one stranger to another...

 

 

You're very literary these  days Brian.

[Brian]

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

You're very literary these  days Brian.

I fell asleep in a library.