300,000 Year Old Human Remains Found In Morocco

Explicit versus Implicit discrimination

What if embracing diversity, having the four corners of the globe come together, breed together so everyone ends up light brown is just a sneaky long term way of making sure we get rid of all the blacks, jews, arabs and mexicans?

 

I wasn't objecting to the veracity of the dolphin sex portions of your post. Just the incoherence of how we got to dolphin sex.

What is wrong: Radioactive dating can be exposed to air. There are many forms of radioactive dating. Uranium-Lead dating can establish the age of the earth +- .1%. Potassium can be used for radioactive dating. Carbon dating is closer to 75,000 years because the radioactive halflife is 5730 years. Which means half is eliminated... not a hard limit. 60,000 years ago is about 57,983 BCE, not 1200 AD. The source is the journal Nature, not National geographic. It does descibe the remains as homo sapien. Closley related species can breed.

 

35% oxygen in the earths atmosphere 300 million years ago which lead to gigantism in dinosaurs

Down to 15 % at the first great extinction at the start of triassic period

Back up to 27% after the second great extinction

21% today

That is, 21% is that goldilocks range for the metabolism of the ATP molecule (the bodies most important enzyme) to give us the right brain to body ratio


Its flawed thinking to think its just about genetics, your genes dont determine how all those chemicals in your body react

If somehow the oxygen in the atmosphere went from 21% to 25% tomorrow, within a couple generations we would all be twice the size and a lot dumber, and all probably die out

 

In My Experience......The Bigger The Body......The Smaller The Brain......



Cheers Glen.

 

Without human intervention the jackass and a horse would not be fucking and the mule born from this unnatural union results in a sterile mule. So how is this applicable?

Seems to me you see proving Puffs point?

 

Whaddayamean "no one"? I <3 my Monkey Cousins!! Even the Denisovans were cool. Too bad they tasted like bacon, tough luck for them eh'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeNYZ93ww_I

 

*sigh*

http://www.denverpost.com/2007/07/25/mules-foal-fools-genetics-with-impossible-birth/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095806

Puff is both too stupid and too racist to debate. If you can make a coherent point of Puff's post without claiming that Africans are't human, I might entertain you further.

Since you're also making inaccurate claims without evidence...

Just read a book or two.

 

The baby mule or whatever it was died.

The owner of the mules would not allow for genetic testing either.

So we are just suppose to believe what some human tells us because he has a measure of education in a specific field?

What exactly has puff said that you deem racist? I don't see racist at all. I see someone who is willing to question psuedo science and not blindly follow what some scientist or archeologist says.

Willing to point out that other animals in this world share DNA, lived at the same time but did not mate with each other.

Saying that chimps are not human is a fact. Puff might have something against chimps, but not people. Yet as puff pointed out before, leaky wanted to redefine chimps as humans because they used a blade of grass to stick in a hole,

I do not believe puff is stupid or racist. just because you say so this does not make it a fact. You will have to back up that statement with quotes from puff that are racist to prove this. Try not to take them out of context in an attempt to validate your hateful statements,

Just because someone has a different view and has science to negate your science does not make a person stupid.

What is stupid is when you simply take a statement from a scientist as fact,

Could be argue that NASA is stupid to spend money on human dolphins sex.

By your standards humans are suppose to accept everything that they read as the rule even though there are questions that need to be asked. Don't question, just accept it?

The blank slate theory also known as tabular rasa was popularized by john Locke back in the 17th. Century, It said that individuals are born without mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. This has been debunked and is considered psuedoscience

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Yet today Modern research suggests that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with innate instincts of course, also play a very important role.

Today this is being revisited with the whole social construct theory.

There was also a theory that was once accepted that the origins of life came from inanimate objects, spontaneous generation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

So what exactly makes puff stupid and racist? Is it stupid to question atheory? They are suppose to be questioned.

 

Annnnnnnd............ the same old thread repeats itself again.


Hey kids, can y'all have a reasonable discussion on prehistoric human kind and evolution, without getting all hypersensitive and calling people racist?

 

I have to say it surprises me that things like this get people so worked up.

 

Has the family been notified?

 

i thought that is why they put it in the news

 

In the end, aren't we are all Pangaean's?

 

Saying Africans aren't human is racist, full stop.

 

Well, technically we are three different races

With Sub Saharan africans being the "purest" of homo sapiens sapiens (homo sapiens were our immediate predecessor, we are not classed as homo sapiens)


You and I and anyone Eurasian has a little bit of Neanderthal, its not exactly the same

A bit of conjecture about it, the Neanderthal Genome project only completed in 2010


But basically anyone not sub saharan african isnt quite "human"

 

Ok, I went this whole thread without reading the initial article from Nature

So it seems:

1. It would be a fallacy to claim they were homo sapiens, Doesnt seem to be a whole lot of consensus from those at the forefront of investigations. But as usual the mainstream media just goes with whats going to get the most attention

2. The dating goes up to near 350,000 years old

3. No DNA recoverable from these bones, So we cant tweak current genome mapping with data from this site



If anything, it shows how ridiculous trying to find a missing link, a single ancestor is. These guys were almost homo sapiens, but not quite, up to 150,000 years difference between these guys in North West Africa and the ones in each africa East Africa, that alone is a difference of 10,000+ generations, with everything in between and before evolving back and forth all on the same land mass. You could subclass every subclass of homosapiens towards infinity

 

Just in case somebody missed our fruitful discussion earlier on...

https://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/481999-scientists-say-mankind-began-in-europe/

 

Also, just on the genome mapping itself, that has some basic flaws that may never be overcome


They actually map the DNA of mitochondria in cells from current living humans, nothing to do with DNA from your chromosomes

Mitochondrial DNA is only transmitted along female lineage, which presents problems when counting number of generations as the length of a female generation isnt the same as a male one. Females might live longer but the distance between birth and procreation in age is usually 2/3 of what it is compared to males...and at varying lengths throughout history.

So they can only give a rough guess of how far back in years certain changes appeared, which presents problems when matching with other data sets

Genome mapping is only fairly recent, the last couple of decades, dependant on the computers and algorithms of the time

Then on top of that, they have been throwing out and branches of the tree where that mitochondria seems to have mutated too quickly, which may be the most important part


The genome mapping over the last couple decades may indeed be worthless, still dependant on a whole lot of incorrect assumptions, and bias introduced


There is still a margin of error of about 70,000 years of when everyones common ancestor came out of sub saharan africa, which in itself is just dependant on how detailed we classify that ancestor, before or even after that who knows

Its still just a lie of context, It may be true to say everyone alive today has a common ancestor that came from one region in africa, but thats not the same as saying that ancestor was the one thing, 20 different sub sub species of homo sapiens sapiens that evolved back and forth over 100,000 years whilst zig zagging across the continent whilst mixing with other sub sun species....then one of them worked out how to build a canoe

 

Ok. I appologize if I took what you said out of context.

 

Thass a pretty broad canvas you paintin' there, Puffy