'Out of africa' theory 'definitive'

The topics of Race & Religion are discussed in this section.
t
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 61
Joined: September 22nd, 2004, 5:28 pm

'Out of africa' theory 'definitive'

Unread post by t » July 21st, 2007, 12:11 pm

Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, "Definitive" Study Says
James Owen
for National Geographic News

July 18, 2007
We are solely children of Africa—with no Neandertals or island-dwelling "hobbits" in our family tree, according to a new study.

Scientists who compared the skulls and DNA of human remains from around the world say their results point to modern humans (Homo sapiens) having a single origin in Africa.

The study didn't find any evidence to suggest that human species living elsewhere in the world contributed to our direct ancestors' make-up.

A team led by Andrea Manica at the University of Cambridge, England, combined analysis of global genetic variations with comparisons of more than 6,000 skulls from more than a hundred ancient human populations.

The team found that loss of genetic diversity was very closely mirrored by reduced physical variation the farther away people lived from Africa. (Explore our human roots.)

Only Out of Africa

The new data support the single origin, or "out of Africa" theory for anatomically modern humans, which says that these early humans colonized the planet after spreading out of the continent some 50,000 years ago.

In the past, experts have also argued a "multiregional" theory, which held that Homo sapiens arose from different human populations in different areas of the world.

"The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much-heated debate," lead author Manica said.

"We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area."

Previous studies have found that genetic differences in human populations can be explained by distance from Africa.

The new study also looked at 37 measurements from male and female skulls from around the world. The chosen skulls were all less than 2,000 years old, making them better preserved and more likely to give accurate measurements than older skulls.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... gin_2.html - for Page 2

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » July 21st, 2007, 12:34 pm

Currently, modern scientific thought asserts it to be probable but certainly not definitive. There is much ongoing research being conducted in this area. National Geographic has always projected a prejudiced bias and has repeatedly published errors over the years and while considered to be a popular publication is not considered to be a scholarly publication.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 21st, 2007, 12:48 pm

Old Shatterhand wrote:National Geographic has always projected a prejudiced bias and has repeatedly published errors over the years and while considered to be a popular publication is not considered to be a scholarly publication.
Watch out someone, someone is gonna jump on you "It's only because they said Africa"

Seriously, no real scientist every say "definitively." They say within a (some percentage)% confidence interval. National Geographic is more disappointing every year. I saw a "study" they did on the Last Supper and """the Holy Grail""" :roll: based on the area's culture and said "This IS the cup Jesus drank out of" and showed a typical era cup; then they said, "This MUST HAVE BEEN the food he ate" and showed typical era Passover food. No serious scholarly work would word things that way; they would only say it would be very likely that the meal was something like that; not that is WAS that, especially when it came to something completely unspecified like cup style.

But anyways, yes, we do know that the first modern man came from Southern Africa. I made an earlier post about that since that the location that the first completely abstract, luxury art came from (i.e. it was not for survival and they did not believe it would bring them luck - it was art merely for the sake of art). There were studies in the area aroudn the cave it was found and determined that the main contribution was the fishing lifestyle. Fish were always plentiful and took little time to catch which gave people time to sit around and think beyond necessity. Fish also contributes to healthy brain growth.

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » July 21st, 2007, 7:45 pm

No doubt, "Science" is constantly subject to rearrangement and change as our collective knowledge increases.

It's funny, during the early part of the century little black kids were taught by Europeans that everyone 'evolved' from ape like creatures called Neanderthals. We are now learning what was being taught is specific to European history only! The misconception by Europeans confusing their history with ours (black people) was partly based on the Neanderthal remains found in three caves in Israel. In two nearby caves they found modern skeletons (descendants of the transitional people from Ethiopia). At that time the Neanderthal remains was believed to be much older than the modern skeletons they found in nearby caves.

However, in 1988 when scientist used new techniques to predate these fossils. Researchers found that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years older than most of the Neanderthals. Meaning modern humans from Africa and Neanderthals co-existed in these caves.

Researchers like Dr. Rosalind Harding suggest that the Cro-Magnon man from Africa interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

The black population that remained in Africa and their descendants African Americans, etc., was largely "uncontaminated" by the Neanderthal influence!



Image

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 21st, 2007, 8:09 pm

Tre wrote:However, in 1988 when scientist used new techniques to predate these fossils. Researchers found that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years older than most of the Neanderthals. Meaning modern humans from Africa and Neanderthals co-existed in these caves.
Yup
Researchers like Dr. Rosalind Harding suggest that the Cro-Magnon man from Africa interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

The black population that remained in Africa and their descendants African Americans, etc., was largely "uncontaminated" by the Neanderthal influence!
Well according to the article, no one alive is descended from Neanderthals.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 21st, 2007, 8:12 pm

Human descent is a field with constant debate, and is often driven by political, social, and religious agendas rather than true research. And even the research is changing with new ideas and rejection of previous ones. It's a fascinating field but a very unstable and for now unreliable one.

Remember not that long ago in history, humans KNEW that the world was flat. The entire planet. Maybe hundreds of years from now humans will look back at our ideas of "human evolution" and "race" and such and wonder how we were so stupid.

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » July 21st, 2007, 11:00 pm

MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:However, in 1988 when scientist used new techniques to predate these fossils. Researchers found that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years older than most of the Neanderthals. Meaning modern humans from Africa and Neanderthals co-existed in these caves.
Yup
Researchers like Dr. Rosalind Harding suggest that the Cro-Magnon man from Africa interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

The black population that remained in Africa and their descendants African Americans, etc., was largely "uncontaminated" by the Neanderthal influence!
Well according to the article, no one alive is descended from Neanderthals.
LoL no, according to the article the black man that remained in Africa and his direct descendents (part of the African Diaspora) are not descended from Neanderthals??

It's funny 'MiChuSuh' how you just totally ignored the word black in that sentence!

When scientist talk about humans leaving Africa they are talking about the original black man from Ethiopia!

In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!

Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"

I do agree with you that science is not definitive. Science deals with evidence! Evidence is supportive but never definitive. It's not like religion that offers no evidence, but simply ask you to believe!

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 21st, 2007, 11:22 pm

Tre wrote:
MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:However, in 1988 when scientist used new techniques to predate these fossils. Researchers found that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years older than most of the Neanderthals. Meaning modern humans from Africa and Neanderthals co-existed in these caves.
Yup
Researchers like Dr. Rosalind Harding suggest that the Cro-Magnon man from Africa interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

The black population that remained in Africa and their descendants African Americans, etc., was largely "uncontaminated" by the Neanderthal influence!
Well according to the article, no one alive is descended from Neanderthals.
LoL no, according to the article the black man that remained in Africa and his direct descendents (part of the African Diaspora) are not descended from Neanderthals??

It's funny 'MiChuSuh' how you just totally ignored the word black in that sentence!

When scientist talk about humans leaving Africa they are talking about the original black man from Ethiopia!

In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!

Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"

I do agree with you that science is not definitive. Science deals with evidence! Evidence is supportive but never definitive. It's not like religion that offers no evidence, but simply ask you to believe!
Ya... I like how you ignore the actual article that I was referring to:
t wrote:
Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, "Definitive" Study Says
James Owen
for National Geographic News

July 18, 2007
We are solely children of Africa—with no Neandertals or island-dwelling "hobbits" in our family tree, according to a new study.

Scientists who compared the skulls and DNA of human remains from around the world say their results point to modern humans (Homo sapiens) having a single origin in Africa.

The study didn't find any evidence to suggest that human species living elsewhere in the world contributed to our direct ancestors' make-up.

A team led by Andrea Manica at the University of Cambridge, England, combined analysis of global genetic variations with comparisons of more than 6,000 skulls from more than a hundred ancient human populations.

The team found that loss of genetic diversity was very closely mirrored by reduced physical variation the farther away people lived from Africa. (Explore our human roots.)

Only Out of Africa

The new data support the single origin, or "out of Africa" theory for anatomically modern humans, which says that these early humans colonized the planet after spreading out of the continent some 50,000 years ago.

In the past, experts have also argued a "multiregional" theory, which held that Homo sapiens arose from different human populations in different areas of the world.

"The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much-heated debate," lead author Manica said.

"We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area."

Previous studies have found that genetic differences in human populations can be explained by distance from Africa.

The new study also looked at 37 measurements from male and female skulls from around the world. The chosen skulls were all less than 2,000 years old, making them better preserved and more likely to give accurate measurements than older skulls.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... gin_2.html - for Page 2
^^ Now where in that article does it say anything about "black"??? Oh, that's right, nowhere. Don't get so wrapped up in your own thinking that you assume every post is about you and your article.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 21st, 2007, 11:35 pm

Tre wrote:When scientist talk about humans leaving Africa they are talking about the original black man from Ethiopia!

The first modern man came from southern Africa along the coast, much further south and west of Ethiopia.
Tre wrote:In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!
Not only is this irrelevant to the discussion, but it is just wrong. And very narrow minded.
Tre wrote:Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"
And the British used to call black Africans "Turks" and confused the Huns with the Mongolians (who look nothing alike). So we both agree that Europeans knew nothing outside their land, what's your point?
I do agree with you that science is not definitive. Science deals with evidence! Evidence is supportive but never definitive. It's not like religion that offers no evidence, but simply ask you to believe!
No..... scientific hypotheses start with evidence which leads to hypothesis which form stronger theories which are then proven with fundamental truths or already proven theories. And if any of the fundamental truths or proven theories turns out to be flawed, then all the theories based on them are re-examined. As is the case when situation which contradicts the theory arises.

And evidence and proof are two completely separate concepts. For example, I can give evidence that "Everything that goes up must come down" which is just flat out wrong. It has countless pieces of evidence to support it, but as soon as someone shoots a rocket into outer space my theory falls flat on its ass.

And what does any of this have to do with the topic? I think you just skimmed my post and quickly decided that I was an American and one who knows nothing about Africa and was brainwashed by the white man. This is what I hate about forums, people just jump to conclusions with no """evidence"""

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » July 22nd, 2007, 2:16 am

MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:
MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:However, in 1988 when scientist used new techniques to predate these fossils. Researchers found that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years older than most of the Neanderthals. Meaning modern humans from Africa and Neanderthals co-existed in these caves.
Yup
Researchers like Dr. Rosalind Harding suggest that the Cro-Magnon man from Africa interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

The black population that remained in Africa and their descendants African Americans, etc., was largely "uncontaminated" by the Neanderthal influence!
Well according to the article, no one alive is descended from Neanderthals.
LoL no, according to the article the black man that remained in Africa and his direct descendents (part of the African Diaspora) are not descended from Neanderthals??

It's funny 'MiChuSuh' how you just totally ignored the word black in that sentence!

When scientist talk about humans leaving Africa they are talking about the original black man from Ethiopia!

In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!

Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"

I do agree with you that science is not definitive. Science deals with evidence! Evidence is supportive but never definitive. It's not like religion that offers no evidence, but simply ask you to believe!
Ya... I like how you ignore the actual article that I was referring to:
t wrote:
Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, "Definitive" Study Says
James Owen
for National Geographic News

July 18, 2007
We are solely children of Africa—with no Neandertals or island-dwelling "hobbits" in our family tree, according to a new study.

Scientists who compared the skulls and DNA of human remains from around the world say their results point to modern humans (Homo sapiens) having a single origin in Africa.

The study didn't find any evidence to suggest that human species living elsewhere in the world contributed to our direct ancestors' make-up.

A team led by Andrea Manica at the University of Cambridge, England, combined analysis of global genetic variations with comparisons of more than 6,000 skulls from more than a hundred ancient human populations.

The team found that loss of genetic diversity was very closely mirrored by reduced physical variation the farther away people lived from Africa. (Explore our human roots.)

Only Out of Africa

The new data support the single origin, or "out of Africa" theory for anatomically modern humans, which says that these early humans colonized the planet after spreading out of the continent some 50,000 years ago.

In the past, experts have also argued a "multiregional" theory, which held that Homo sapiens arose from different human populations in different areas of the world.

"The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much-heated debate," lead author Manica said.

"We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area."

Previous studies have found that genetic differences in human populations can be explained by distance from Africa.

The new study also looked at 37 measurements from male and female skulls from around the world. The chosen skulls were all less than 2,000 years old, making them better preserved and more likely to give accurate measurements than older skulls.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... gin_2.html - for Page 2
^^ Now where in that article does it say anything about "black"??? Oh, that's right, nowhere. Don't get so wrapped up in your own thinking that you assume every post is about you and your article.
How do I know that the first humans 'OUT OF AFRICA' was black since the article did not specifically mention it??

Well DNA sequences from African populations differ more than each other than do sequences from Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans. Because black African populations had more time to accumulate mutational differences among their genes than other groups. This lets us know that black African populations are the oldest. If black African populations are the oldest and modern humans first evolved and migrated out of Africa/Ethiopia, what other color would they be?

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » July 22nd, 2007, 11:21 am

MiChuhSuh wrote:The first modern man came from southern Africa along the coast, much further south and west of Ethiopia.
I disagree, but how does this change my argument that the first modern humans from Africa were the black humans already indigenous to the area. Why make arguments in order to segment culturally and racially the self-obvious sameness of the black populations of Ethiopia and the rest of Africa, if the conclusion is still the same? Africa=black man, Black man=Africa!

In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!
MiChuhSuh wrote:Not only is this irrelevant to the discussion, but it is just wrong. And very narrow minded. .
The present day modern capital of Africa is at Addis Ababa, the City of the Black Lion and the seat of the African Union.
It's like if I told you that people in other countries consider Washington DC the United States.
And you argue back well Washington DC is not the United States and the United States is not Washington?
ok LoL?
MiChuhSuh wrote:And the British used to call black Africans "Turks" and confused the Huns with the Mongolians (who look nothing alike). So we both agree that Europeans knew nothing outside their land, what's your point? .
In ancient Rome, Africa was venerated and the focus and hub of Africa was seen as Ethiopia. Ethiopia was seen as the home of the gods!

Image
My point is in ancient times the Romans considered themselves separate from the Europeans who they dubbed as barbarians. The Romans was less bias concerning Africa.

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » July 22nd, 2007, 2:53 pm

I thought Rome was in Italy?

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 22nd, 2007, 3:38 pm

Tre wrote:In ancient Rome, Africa was venerated and the focus and hub of Africa was seen as Ethiopia. Ethiopia was seen as the home of the gods!

Image
:shock:
Clearly you have never stepped foot in Ethiopia.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » July 22nd, 2007, 3:47 pm

A Ghost wrote:I thought Rome was in Italy?
It is and that map is at least from the 19th century. Ancient maps of the world or better what was know of it in Europe looked like this:

Image

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 22nd, 2007, 3:57 pm

^ And if you go to the Sahara you can still see the Blonde and Burnette brothers blowing sand in your face to this very day

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » July 22nd, 2007, 4:24 pm

To add my 2 cents on the issue. The out of Africa theory makes the most sense to me and i think that the first humans were dark skinned and came from the Kenyan plateau. I do not claim that this has got to be the ultimate truth, its just the most convincing theory to me.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 22nd, 2007, 4:40 pm

Agreed that this makes the most sense so far. Not sure which region that "humanity" itself sprung from however. But "modern man", based on the most recent evidence, most likely came from southern coastal Africa.

perongregory
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5147
Joined: February 12th, 2004, 9:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Unread post by perongregory » July 22nd, 2007, 4:50 pm

MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:In ancient Rome, Africa was venerated and the focus and hub of Africa was seen as Ethiopia. Ethiopia was seen as the home of the gods!

Image
:shock:
Clearly you have never stepped foot in Ethiopia.
what does that have to do with anything? The title of Africa = Ehiopia back in the day.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 22nd, 2007, 5:37 pm

Tre wrote:In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!

Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"
perongregory wrote:what does that have to do with anything? The title of Africa = Ehiopia back in the day.
~ AFRICA id+ | " SOUTH LAND " or CARTHAGE |
note AUSTRALIA also for SOUTH LAND
~ AFRICAN id+ | NATIVE from AFRICA |
~ AFRICANUS ancient author see> below
~ AFRICUS or AFER means SOUTH WIND
probably from
Phoenician AFER = LAND OF CARTHAGE
lat AFER AFRICA
gr APHRIKE same
http://consultsos.com/pandora/africa.htm
Africa
L. Africa (terra) "African land," fem. of Africus, from Afer "an African." Africanas "Africans" was in O.E. There are isolated instances of African-American from at least 1863 (Afro-American is attested from 1853), but the modern use is a re-invention first attested 1969 (in reference to the African-American Teachers Association) which became the preferred term in some circles for "U.S. black" (n. or adj.) by the late 1980s.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none



AFRICISM: A Response to Semantic Racism
by Aloysius M. Lugira
Prior to opinions so far enunciated about the origins of the name Africa, to the opinion of this presentation, the name by the Roman derivation seems to be the most plausible. This may be traced back to the Punic Wars (264-146 B.C.E.). During this period one is made aware of the existence of a people known as Afri inhabiting the southern Mediterranean shores around the city of Carthage. The Punic Wars end by the destruction of Carthage and the annexation of its territory by Rome. The region becomes a Roman province. Latin becomes the official language of the province. Africa, as it were, is proactively and geontologically coined to designate the province. The procedure of coining this name takes the name Afer, singular, and Afri, plural, by which the autochthons of this region were known, agglutinates it with the suffix -ca­ to make a qualificatory adjective. Africa which is brought together with the word for land and forms an intelligible phraseology of Africa terra, to mean the land of the Afri. In his Latin-German Dictionary under the word Africa, Dr. William Freund notes that “the Romans received this name from the Carthaginians as designating their country (1850). While the silenced terra in the phrase Africa terra helps to emphasize the existence of the totality of the continent, terra incognita, draws attention to the fact that there is part of the totality of the land which was unknown. But the semantically racist translation ended by creating what is called the “Dark Continent.” The restricted sense of Africa means the ancient Roman province. In an extended sense, by metonymy the name Africa covers the whole quarter of the globe south of the Mediterranean Sea. The coverage however, is not only terrestrial, it can also be noted as spiritual. Africa is also understood in the form of Africus. As such according to a note by Dr. William Freund in the dictionary mentioned above, the classical world has known Africus as the god in manifestation of the south west wind. So connected the root of Africus i.e. Afric- appropriately contributes to the generation of the name Africism.
http://www2.bc.edu/~lugira/africism2.htm

So according to and Afro-centrist scholar, the word Africa started with the ancient Romans who used it to refer to Nothern Africa.

So what are your sources?

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 22nd, 2007, 5:38 pm

perongregory wrote:what does that have to do with anything?
To answer your question, it has nothing to do with anything. This was about human evolution and Tre started talking about random stuff.

A Ghost
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5404
Joined: September 21st, 2005, 6:47 pm
Location: Niagara Falls, New York

Unread post by A Ghost » July 22nd, 2007, 6:05 pm

Sentenza wrote:
A Ghost wrote:I thought Rome was in Italy?
It is and that map is at least from the 19th century. Ancient maps of the world or better what was know of it in Europe looked like this:

Image
LOL @ Eurocentric maps......

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » July 23rd, 2007, 2:07 am

MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!

Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"

So according to and Afro-centrist scholar, the word Africa started with the ancient Romans who used it to refer to Northern Africa.

So what are your sources?

huh? I never said ancient Romans specifically used the word, or dispute that the word started with them. I said Ethiopia was used in Roman times as a reference to the entire continent of Africa. This is according to Herodotus.
Herodotus had the benefit of information available from those who travelled more freely after peace was made between Persia and the Athenian Empire in 448 B.C. But one area in particular came to be thought of as the land of the Ethiopians-Nubia, now part of the Sudan.

Also, Hanno the Carthaginian explorer discovered in his voyage in the early fifth century B.C., that Ethiopians might be found in West Africa as well as in East Africa, the name Ethiopia was applied to any dark-skinned indigenous people of Africa!

Str8UpMenace
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 118
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 6:02 pm

Unread post by Str8UpMenace » July 23rd, 2007, 2:13 am

MiChuhSuh wrote:^ And if you go to the Sahara you can still see the Blonde and Burnette brothers blowing sand in your face to this very day
what ? first off your wrong and where did u hear this from? the only people who might have brunnete or blonde are arabs or berbers who might have mixed with europeans or have europeans decendency and you will only mostly find these people on the northern coast of africa. brothers?

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 23rd, 2007, 11:08 am

Str8UpMenace wrote:
MiChuhSuh wrote:^ And if you go to the Sahara you can still see the Blonde and Burnette brothers blowing sand in your face to this very day
what ? first off your wrong and where did u hear this from? the only people who might have brunnete or blonde are arabs or berbers who might have mixed with europeans or have europeans decendency and you will only mostly find these people on the northern coast of africa. brothers?
I was making fun of this map that was just posted. Does anyone else here know what context means?
Image

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 23rd, 2007, 11:33 am

Tre wrote:
MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!

Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"

So according to and Afro-centrist scholar, the word Africa started with the ancient Romans who used it to refer to Northern Africa.

So what are your sources?

huh? I never said ancient Romans specifically used the word, or dispute that the word started with them. I said Ethiopia was used in Roman times as a reference to the entire continent of Africa. This is according to Herodotus.
Herodotus had the benefit of information available from those who travelled more freely after peace was made between Persia and the Athenian Empire in 448 B.C. But one area in particular came to be thought of as the land of the Ethiopians-Nubia, now part of the Sudan.

Also, Hanno the Carthaginian explorer discovered in his voyage in the early fifth century B.C., that Ethiopians might be found in West Africa as well as in East Africa, the name Ethiopia was applied to any dark-skinned indigenous people of Africa!

I'll let you speak for yourself

Tre wrote:
MiChuhSuh wrote:The first modern man came from southern Africa along the coast, much further south and west of Ethiopia.
I disagree, but how does this change my argument that the first modern humans from Africa were the black humans already indigenous to the area. Why make arguments in order to segment culturally and racially the self-obvious sameness of the black populations of Ethiopia and the rest of Africa, if the conclusion is still the same? Africa=black man, Black man=Africa!

In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!
MiChuhSuh wrote:Not only is this irrelevant to the discussion, but it is just wrong. And very narrow minded. .
The present day modern capital of Africa is at Addis Ababa, the City of the Black Lion and the seat of the African Union.
It's like if I told you that people in other countries consider Washington DC the United States.
And you argue back well Washington DC is not the United States and the United States is not Washington?
ok LoL?
MiChuhSuh wrote:And the British used to call black Africans "Turks" and confused the Huns with the Mongolians (who look nothing alike). So we both agree that Europeans knew nothing outside their land, what's your point? .
In ancient Rome, Africa was venerated and the focus and hub of Africa was seen as Ethiopia. Ethiopia was seen as the home of the gods!

My point is in ancient times the Romans considered themselves separate from the Europeans who they dubbed as barbarians. The Romans was less bias concerning Africa.
lol I dare you to go to Eritrea and say that Ethiopians are the center of Africa. Or do you even know about that country?

Now can we PLEASE get back on topic? None of this has anything to do with the article. Other than arguing how dark the first humans were. They were definitely not white, and no one is saying that they were white, so I don't see why this was even brought up. And the first modern man came from southern coastal Africa, which is nowhere near Ethiopia, Abyssinia, or whatever other ancient name you want to use for that country. Get a map. And visit Africa at least once in your life.

User avatar
Tre
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 426
Joined: May 8th, 2005, 6:19 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Unread post by Tre » July 23rd, 2007, 12:18 pm

MiChuhSuh wrote: Now can we PLEASE get back on topic? None of this has anything to do with the article. Other than arguing how dark the first humans were. They were definitely not white, and no one is saying that they were white, so I don't see why this was even brought up. And the first modern man came from southern coastal Africa, which is nowhere near Ethiopia, Abyssinia, or whatever other ancient name you want to use for that country. Get a map. And visit Africa at least once in your life.
All I did was add a colour connotation to the original humans "Out Of Africa"
You believe the color of the first humans "Out Of Africa" is irrelevant and unimportant, I disagree!
Tre wrote: How do I know that the first humans 'OUT OF AFRICA' was black since the article did not specifically mention it??

Well DNA sequences from African populations differ more than each other than do sequences from Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans. Because black African populations had more time to accumulate mutational differences among their genes than other groups. This lets us know that black African populations are the oldest. If black African populations are the oldest and modern humans first evolved and migrated out of Africa/Ethiopia (or even southern coastal Africa) , what other color would they be?

.
I've answered your questions. Can you answer mine??

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 23rd, 2007, 4:53 pm

Tre wrote:All I did was add a colour connotation to the original humans "Out Of Africa"
You did waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than that.
Tre wrote:I've answered your questions. Can you answer mine??
Dude, I didn't even have questions lol. You are fighting with an imaginary opponent. I just responded because you randomly started making claims about Ethiopia and Egypt which were non-nonsensical and that is a pet peeve of mine.

And what was your question?

P.S. What country are you from? (colour)

perongregory
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5147
Joined: February 12th, 2004, 9:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Unread post by perongregory » July 23rd, 2007, 6:48 pm

MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:All I did was add a colour connotation to the original humans "Out Of Africa"
You did waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than that.
Tre wrote:I've answered your questions. Can you answer mine??
Dude, I didn't even have questions lol. You are fighting with an imaginary opponent. I just responded because you randomly started making claims about Ethiopia and Egypt which were non-nonsensical and that is a pet peeve of mine.

And what was your question?

P.S. What country are you from? (colour)
what claims did he make about Ethiopia and Egypt that were non-sensical?

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » July 23rd, 2007, 8:13 pm

Not really funny more like mindlessly dogmatic. Read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas S. Kuhn sometime. Here's a link to the gist of it summarized http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html

And what they taught in the early part of the century, as you might know, is far worse than what you are sharing (by today's understanding). But I see you are still mired in the failing multi-regional hypothesis. Keep going.

Tre wrote:No doubt, "Science" is constantly subject to rearrangement and change as our collective knowledge increases.

It's funny, during the early part of the century little black kids were taught by Europeans that everyone 'evolved' from ape like creatures called Neanderthals. We are now learning what was being taught is specific to European history only! The misconception by Europeans confusing their history with ours (black people) was partly based on the Neanderthal remains found in three caves in Israel. In two nearby caves they found modern skeletons (descendants of the transitional people from Ethiopia). At that time the Neanderthal remains was believed to be much older than the modern skeletons they found in nearby caves.

However, in 1988 when scientist used new techniques to predate these fossils. Researchers found that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years older than most of the Neanderthals. Meaning modern humans from Africa and Neanderthals co-existed in these caves.

Researchers like Dr. Rosalind Harding suggest that the Cro-Magnon man from Africa interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

The black population that remained in Africa and their descendants African Americans, etc., was largely "uncontaminated" by the Neanderthal influence!



Image

Old Shatterhand
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1318
Joined: March 5th, 2006, 4:18 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Old Shatterhand » July 23rd, 2007, 8:19 pm

There are various camps of scientists in the origin of humanity arena. You are asserting the beliefs of one camp. There are others. Research continues and will continue into the foreseeable future. Models change and new ones arise. Already there is a new model being studied which puts the origin of humanity North of Africa and away from the recent single-origin hypothesis.
Tre wrote:
MiChuhSuh wrote:
Tre wrote:However, in 1988 when scientist used new techniques to predate these fossils. Researchers found that the modern humans from two of the caves were actually 80,000 to 100,000 years older than most of the Neanderthals. Meaning modern humans from Africa and Neanderthals co-existed in these caves.
Yup
Researchers like Dr. Rosalind Harding suggest that the Cro-Magnon man from Africa interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

The black population that remained in Africa and their descendants African Americans, etc., was largely "uncontaminated" by the Neanderthal influence!
Well according to the article, no one alive is descended from Neanderthals.
LoL no, according to the article the black man that remained in Africa and his direct descendents (part of the African Diaspora) are not descended from Neanderthals??

It's funny 'MiChuSuh' how you just totally ignored the word black in that sentence!

When scientist talk about humans leaving Africa they are talking about the original black man from Ethiopia!

In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!

Before the dominance of European imperialism, Ethiopia in Roman times was still in use as a reference to the entire continent of Africa rather than to the modern-day country by that name. The Ethiopian in hagiography means "the African"

I do agree with you that science is not definitive. Science deals with evidence! Evidence is supportive but never definitive. It's not like religion that offers no evidence, but simply ask you to believe!

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 23rd, 2007, 8:25 pm

First the map
Tre wrote:Image
Then this
In ancient times Africa was Ethiopia, and Ethiopia was Africa!
^ And he would get his ass beat by Eritreans, they are like Ethiopia's Palestine
In ancient Rome, Africa was venerated and the focus and hub of Africa was seen as Ethiopia. Ethiopia was seen as the home of the gods!
And this. Carthage and Egypt were Rome's focus in Africa. They traded but they were not the "hub of Africa" to the Romans. The only link they had after 100 AD was the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and even they split with Roman Catholics in 451 AD.

Then on Egypt:
Tre wrote:Satan can be traced back to the theology of the Metu Neter of the Africans of Kemet. The god Set, also rendered Sat and Sut, the Egyptian deity who personifies evil, we get the origin of the biblical Satan. From Set, it grew into Set-an, and ultimately Satan.
Set and Satan weren't associated until European Christians compared the two. Satan is derived from Semitic stn which the Hebrews pronounced and wrote as saytan and which Arabs pronounce as shaitan.
To get from Set to Satan you would have to do some fancy footwork. The closest you could get is that the Hyskos associated Set with Baal, and Baal was seen as a false god by the Jews, and later as an evil and false demon by the Jews. However, they recognized Baal as a separate entity from Satan, and even after the rabinical tradition of Beelzebub came around, they still called him "the prince of demons" who was still seperate from Satan. Which is still not good enough since it doesn't change the fact that Satan is still originated from a different word then Set.

Shakespeare was the first to make the direct connection between the two for sounding the same in Othello.

And the other names of Set are
Setekh: "the one of the wrappings"
Sutekh: "the one from the South"

Not only that, but the association of Set with evil was not established until after the Hyskos invaded and took over Egypt and made Set their main god. Since Set was already associated with foreign people they demonized him and made the story of him killing Osiris after they got the Hyskos out.

I saw a video on youtube which made similar claims about Egyptian words and names based on how things sound in English, which is the most ignorant way of making these assumptions; saying that Set is Set-en and that the time period "hour" derived from "Horus." It reminds me of the NGE saying that ALLAH means "arm, leg, leg, arm, head". Absolute rubbish, that only works in English and makes no sense whatsoever in Arabic.

MiChuhSuh

Unread post by MiChuhSuh » July 23rd, 2007, 8:27 pm

my last post was a response to perongregory since some people here have the reading comprehension of a five year old

Post Reply