re: DNA Testing Company Admits Giving White People Fake African Ancestry To Screw With Racist

I always knew there was a reason I liked Baklava.

quote:

---

Google it. This all came up earlier this year.

7.2 million year old fossils found in Greece and Bulgaria point to human ancestors being present far earlier in that region than believed.

This all comes from the University of Toronto.

---

Well that's all well and good except for all of the most reputable sources still say Africa is the Cradle.

National Geographic

Not enough evidence to support European Origin: Business Insider

Sorry but me before you rile up all the natives on here thinking that Europeans are the Cradle of human civilization and that Africans evolved on their own you're going to need extraordinary evidence

I'm sure it's already been said... but the irony is that the racists are the ones playing the jokes (by their standard of the word racist)...

Africa is a landmass, not a race.

quote:

---

Sorry but me before you rile up all the natives on here thinking that Europeans are the Cradle of human civilization and that Africans evolved on their own

---

If you consider that the DNA was previously linked to the earliest found fossils,and that man migrated from that point,but then find much earlier fossils,you still have to consider that the DNA originated from the oldest find,and then migrated from there.

quote:

---

7.2 million year old fossils found in Greece and Bulgaria point to human ancestors being present far earlier in that region than believed.

---

There are some deep problems with the theory that there was a "European" origin that was distinct from Africa and Eurasia. Firstly, during the Late Miocene period, Africa collided with Eurasia, specifically in West Asia/Anatolia, which made interchange from East Africa, which was drying do to shrinking rain forests, to Eurasia slightly easier. Europe was not a distinct entity in this regard, especially as I understand it, the waterways which would prevent migration during later periods did not yet exist. There was also a global fall in sea levels and a temporary drying up of the Mediterranean (called the Messianian salinity crisis).

Secondly, the interesting thing about the Graecopithecus is that they were fossil that "could" be related to later hominids, but more specifically, they were not related to the Pan genus. But early Homo migration has much more solid evidence of coming from East Africa, and the Graecopithecus finding doesn't dispute the later migrations. The Miocene period featured numerous migrations of ancestral apes, and the Graecopithecus finding does dispute the timeline, but doesn't dispute early Homo migrations, and thus isn't very conclusive in terms of determining the origin of the Homo genus, as the evidence for that genus is very much East African in origin.

I'm reading the two papers published about Graecopithecus right now (again) but from what I remember, the researchers didn't go so far as to suggest that early Homo hominids came from anywhere else other than East Africa. That people are so conclusive about the "European" origins of early Hominids while ignoring the genetic evidence for East Africa is very odd to me.

GumboPot

Link....CrackedChicks

quote:

---

heir source is “Morgan, who works for one of the major ancestry testing companies” so we don’t know which one…

---

insert JLaw yeah right, sure, gif

quote:

---

which made interchange from East Africa, which was drying (do to) shrinking rain forests, to Eurasia slightly easier. E

---

I think you meant " due to".
Do you really want to say,that during a land mass collision,migration would be easier,to one direction than another?

I also think that the theory that you subscribe to,leaves out 1 undeniable fact about human beings: That the marginal ones,get pushed outwardly.
If you think about this,you can get an idea of why great civilizations sprung up in some places,but not in others.

Maybe this is how Warran became Squatting Bitch.

quote:

---

I also think that the theory that you subscribe to,leaves out 1 undeniable fact about human beings: That the marginal ones,get pushed outwardly.

---

Are you suggesting that the groups who are "marginal" are the ones who leave? I don't think that has as much weight, even if it was true, with regards to pre-history, as prehistoric groups had very little ability to master their environment, which is a necessary function of civilization. Groups would go where there was resources, and would be pushed out by virtue of either being out-competed for existing resources (by the same or rival species) or from the absence or disappearance of resources.

chicksonright.com