racist acid throwing maniac apprehended

lol

 

Skip must be off duty!!

 

That too is a theory. I just remember when Dr. Leakey's theory was first scrutinized, by an Asian anthropologist. Leakey's daughter defended it intensely, immediately condemning it as an attack on her father's name. Even then people didn't like the idea that science isn't "settled". Particularly with regard to human lineage.

 

No, I was just curious. You remind me of a previous member, but I know that couldn't be true. Because they were banned.

 

Now people in sub Sahara Africa have no trace of Neanderthal in their DNA or any other ancient chimp. Hmmmm, that is most of Africa. I believe the opposite is true, into Africa and stop at the Sahara, instead of out of Africa. These chimps were sane enough to not cross the Sahara. Also out of Africa theory is a hypothesis, not a theory. Calling it a theory gives it too much credit. A hypothesis is a suggested idea, a theory is a proven and well tested fact. Science is definitely showing that the out of Africa hypothesis could very well not be true. Today, the non African human populations shares more genetic ancestry with archaic humans than the African populations does, which is non existent in sub Sahara Africa.

 

Theories are not facts. If they were facts, we would call them facts.

 

Why is skin color so important to you? Shave a chimp in Africa and their skin is white. Shave a gorilla and it’s skin is black. Are you offended when crushed bones of a Neanderthal are given a hair colour of red, , facial features that they truly can’t piece together, but give it features anyways, or blotchy skin in a lighter tone?

Earlier you mentioned Lucy. What a joke Lucy is. A puzzle put together with pieces that don’t belong together. At least 7 different species put together to create something that never existed, which is proven today. Pieces added to it found in completely different locations, miles apart and at deeper depths, which was documented.

 

You are correct, it isn’t a fact, but a theory, in science is backed up by tested and substantiated test bringing together a unifying explanation of a bunch of proven, verified factors or facts. The out of Africa hypothesis does not have that. It is a hypothesis. So many will give it the title of theory. A hypothesis is simply a suggested explanation which is what out of Africa explanation is.

 

And it is the likeliest theory at this point. Which is why the scientific consensus goes with it as long there's not another equally or more convincing theory (or facts of course).

 

The thing is; the facts make the theory possible and even likely, but does not prove it with certainty.

 

And you reveal that you can at times be a pretentious know-it-all

I was responding to the other poster's comment that "a theory is a proven and well tested fact."

In fact, I do know what a theory is. My point is that even well established theories such as the theory of relativity, of evolution, etc., are not set in stone. They are, to date, our best explanations of a certain phenomenon. The role of science is to attempt to disprove existing theories and to develop new theories to explain novel (or newly discovered) phenomena.

 

There are many indigenous people in North America who also object to the out of Africa theory, and believe that it is discounting their oral traditions stretching back to time immemorial. Just because someone does not interpret a set of facts in the same way as you does not automatically mean that they hold racist views.

 

You attribute a skin colour to the first humans. This is incorrect. Make them all purple for all I care, but there is no need to make it one or the other when in fact, you do not know, neither do I. It can’t be one or the other imo. OOA is a hypothesis, not a theory. Lucy, the most famous one, has bones put together that do not belong together, this is also a know today.

Read about skin colour and learn something.
Genetic Study Shows Skin Color Is Only Skin Deep | Smart News | Smithsonian

 

isn't that semantic. Are you saying they are two different things?

I'm not familiar with the hypothesis, but I feel like our origin is a combination of evolution and migration. (is that what we are talking about? lmao! )

 

It's interesting. I've studied two disciplines, sociology and anthropology, that seem to have different view points on it; though I don't remember OOA... In Sociology we learned that race is a farcical term, perpetrated and propagated by colonialists or something. In Anthro, they discuss skeletal remains in terms of being negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and probably several others but I only remember those three (I'm not the best student! ). And so there seem to be relevant aspects to both of these arguments. On the one hand, you can't tell genetically one race from another; not in terms of DNA evidence, and no matter what kind of microscope you're using. On the other hand, there can be skeletal indications of ethnic origins.

What's baffling to me is when posters here try to use these facts as evidence to sort of foster the notion of race or racism or whatever else. Just because someone looks different than one, doesn't make them any less likable!

 

May I enquire as to your qualifications?

 

Holy shit dude, not everyone is out to get you. I'm currently working toward my MA in Sociology and was just curious as to what your academic background is.

If you look back, you may notice that I have not once argued with you about the out of Africa theory, or claimed that racism isn't a problem in the US.

Make more friends with honey and all that.

 

Of course all scientific theories are open to constant challenge by scientists. That's what science is all about. Darwin's theory of evolution is one pre-Cambrian rabbit away from being discredited. So far, no pre-Cambrian rabbits. The big bang theory, still accepted by most scientists, has long been under attack by this or that scientist--thus far, without moving the needle. Seems to me that in order to be "discredited" a scientific theory has to be refuted to the satisfaction of most scientists in the field. It's my understanding that so far OOA hasn't been so refuted and is still accepted by the overwhelming majority of paleontologists.(see Post #32). Folks who are arguing that it has remind me of the ones at the Discovery Institute who say the same thing about Darwin's theory, or the climate change deniers.

As for the indigenous people in North America (of whom I happen to be one) who object to OOA because they think it's "discounting their oral traditions stretching back to time immemorial", that's not much of a basis for challenging a scientific theory. So does Genesis. My Chickasaw people and the Choctaw believe that we came out of a hole in the earth, much to the surprise of our neighbors, at Nanih Waiya , a mound built around the third century C.E. So far, that theory hasn't caught on in the scientific community.

 

My point was not that I thought that there were valid objections to the OOA theory - I honestly haven't studied it enough to know if any of the competing theories have any validity or not. I was just pointing out that not everyone who disagrees with OOA does so because they are racist and don't want to believe that their ancestors originated in Africa. Sorry, maybe I didn't make that clear.

 

That's because you seem to equate any notion or opinion pertaining to race as an attempt to discriminate. Some people simply find it likely a certain race or ethnicity is generally better in something than another. This is far from always done merely because people of that race or ethnicity are (perceived as) less likeable.

I am assuming you find it baffling because its often biased or unfair behavior?