Evolution of races

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Along the way we encountered other Hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

So is there a possibility humans evolved from different ape lines on different continents?

Actually, I have one question about that I can't quite resolve -- and that concerns orangutans. The great apes, as I understand it, evolved in Africa, and of course we are evolved out of them. Much of that history seems fairly well understood. But Pongids (the orangutans) are known only in Indonesia, Borneo, Malaysia and Sumatra.

Understanding how early humans migrated from Africa to the rest of the world seems fairly clear -- but how the heck did the pongids get so far away from Africa?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Put away political correctness and safe spaces. Sometimes its good to discuss controversial issues.

This thread isn't about who's better, or who's anything. its simply about different races, how they evolved and curiosity of what others think.

Whether you accept evolution or believe in creation.. IMO all race didn't arise simultaneously.

If its offensive to you skip on by. I don't expect much but .....

We evolved from apes. But did all races evolve simultaneously? Did one race evolve before the others?

On the other hand...

If you believe humans were created by a god, what race were they created as? Where did other races come from?

PS: IMO whites did not evolve first. So lets put that racism, white supremacy, or whatever BS to rest.
Oh and I'm not white, I'm Native American.

I believe skin colour it came about through climate where people born in hotter climates had darker skin. It makes sense if you look at places like Africa and Arabia as compared to Europe and England and the main reason the black races live now in cold countries is migration.

 

[rational experiences]

Stop your bad behaviours men.

It began with one man's baby life consciousness sacrificed the theist.

Monkey apes in science own god within DNA of any monkey or ape. God within theirs is ape God or monkey God. DNA equals. Inner and Outer.

Says the God owner human DNA within. That says I'm not a monkey or an ape.
.
As a natural human not in any cult I look see observe a monkey or an ape as a God within me is my owned humans DNA. I observe I'm not an ape no matter what false human preaching you use. I look see out of my humans DNA gods eyes.

My human Image within is human.
My outer image is human.
My heavenly image is also human.

Machines transmitting already own that proof.

A machine invented images.

Reasoned as a lying human theist designed the machine as a human not as a God. God being inferred as human owned biology DNA. We aren't machines.

Machines don't breathe or live.

Theist today says you have electricity within I want to give machine life. Electricity.

We own mineral bio chemical activity not electricity.

Which no machine owns.

So my brother the inventor says I will argue versus our natural father. A human.

Invented that status his preached human behaviour.

Brother argues brother says I'm right as I believe in father.

Our father isn't any ape or monkey.

So when you use terms not a humans life or consciousness it is a monkey or ape. A human isn't there as the theist.

That advice legal understood was humans pretending our destruction as they align advice to a machine reaction. In comparing values.

A human as dust. Notice term human is used in a man's words and is skeletal dusts as origin human.

Man's dusts builds a machine.

That reaction if in nature as laws we'd be bio converted into dusts. Just as he knows. As he used nuclear to combust life back to ashes. Shadows.

So today he uses the theme from darkness came humans life. As a spirit first. Themed dark spirit...about dark mass he wants contacts of.

Is not rational thought.

Oh you mean a human image left after a human god the scientist combusted them?

Error says the liar of course it's what I mean I own and use a self destructive human thinking ability first already our memory advised as the bible proved.

Owns no excuse today to have ever considered nuclear safe..

We named him life's destroyer.

As correct human you're just a human speaking using human words correctly. For survival on earth only.

As you scientist are self possessed.

Looking back warning.

As a man a human looked back at an ape he predicted his owned life destroyed. Removed exodus out of genesis as his humans DNA God.

Claimed by destruction of my life was why I invented now.

Using all his now human thoughts says as a confession man mutated human life by that past evidence.

My human evidence proved I did it. As apes monkeys lived by our side in nature.

Looking back told him he caused it to a human.

 

[rational experiences]

A scientist looked at black humans said they looked ape like actually.

Said so they must be the base human race next to apes.

Human family tribal were all the same human DNA race everywhere.

Fallout occurred in each nations ground fall varied. Human biology was inherited in the mutation...sexually created.

Why science could not trace it. As sex is between two varied human bodies.

Is what science ignored.

Science knows different species can have sex and reproduce a new species. They've done it themselves.

Heavy metal biology changes by attack and causes behaviours instincts to alter also.

Ask science what was all your real study motivated to reveal? God actually to access power for inventions.

Why they've never agreed that first humans were all the same race anywhere instead believe an ark shifted them by continent.

Gods stone ark saviour is ice. Men said migration was by ice bridges. How man plus beasts moved.

As some tribal islanders were found up in iced countries. As food got scarce. Happens in a snap freeze.

When you wait for the saviour versus a science attacked heavens.

 

[Colt]

Ok. Thats what I am asking. All races, black, yellow, white, brown all existed in Africa and then spread across the globe?

It may have been "into Africa". At some point the colored races (all coming from one family) tended to self-segregate and evolve independently of one another into tribal groups simply due to kinship and familiarity. The indigo races would have entered the African continent and spread out on the relatively land-locked expanse. Much like the red man migrated out of regions in Asian across the Bering Sea land bridge into North America where they enjoyed isolation for tens of thousands of years.

There are submerged races in the gene pool which became extinct due to warfare.

 

[Colt]

The Urantia Book revelation explains the evolution of humans. IMOP

 

[Guitar's Cry]

"Along the way we encountered other Hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

So is there a possibility humans evolved from different ape lines on different continents?

More like interbred. Considering viable offspring was produced, though, genetically we were closer than donkeys and horses or lions and tigers.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, I have one question about that I can't quite resolve -- and that concerns orangutans. The great apes, as I understand it, evolved in Africa, and of course we are evolved out of them. Much of that history seems fairly well understood. But Pongids (the orangutans) are known only in Indonesia, Borneo, Malaysia and Sumatra.

Understanding how early humans migrated from Africa to the rest of the world seems fairly clear -- but how the heck did the pongids get so far away from Africa?

One problem is a lack of fossil evidence for ancestors of the orangutans. That means we lack a lot of detail.

I found this:
Orangutan Evolution

"
Between 9 and 17 million years ago, apes from the genus Dryopithecus were living not just in Africa, but were the first known species’ of ape to have migrated in to Europe and Asia, giving clues to the migratory patterns of our ancestors (Palmer, 2010; Begun, 2004)). Although there are variations in the five species of this genus, like Proconsul, it resembled a monkey in many ways, but the bones in the forearm and elbow suggested it moved about in the tree tops like an orangutan or a gibbon. However, its skull formation is similar to the chimpanzee. Like all fossils, its evolutionary position is debated, but some scientists have claimed that Dryopithecus and its close relatives were the ancestors of all the extant great apes (Palmer, 2010).

During this period, between 8.5-12.5 million years ago, three species of the genus Sivapithecus were living in the rainforests of Asia. Sivapithecus was around 1.5 meters in height, and many of its physical attributes resembled those of a chimpanzee. However, like an orangutan, it had a concave face with projecting incisors and large canines (Palmer, 1999). Fossils of Sivapithecus species have been found in Turkey, China and Pakistan, and analysis of bone structure indicates they were adept at movement on both the ground and in the trees, and fed on a diet of savannah grasses and seeds (Palmer, 1999). The genus Sivapithecus is now acknowledged as being the direct ancestor of modern day orangutans (Fleagle, 1999), and scientists believe that this line, the lineage that descended to modern day orangutans, branched off from the line that descended to modern day gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobo’s and humans at around 12 million years ago (Palmer, 2010; Fleagle, 1999)."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One problem is a lack of fossil evidence for ancestors of the orangutans. That means we lack a lot of detail.

I found this:
Orangutan Evolution

"
Between 9 and 17 million years ago, apes from the genus Dryopithecus were living not just in Africa, but were the first known species’ of ape to have migrated in to Europe and Asia, giving clues to the migratory patterns of our ancestors (Palmer, 2010; Begun, 2004)). Although there are variations in the five species of this genus, like Proconsul, it resembled a monkey in many ways, but the bones in the forearm and elbow suggested it moved about in the tree tops like an orangutan or a gibbon. However, its skull formation is similar to the chimpanzee. Like all fossils, its evolutionary position is debated, but some scientists have claimed that Dryopithecus and its close relatives were the ancestors of all the extant great apes (Palmer, 2010).

During this period, between 8.5-12.5 million years ago, three species of the genus Sivapithecus were living in the rainforests of Asia. Sivapithecus was around 1.5 meters in height, and many of its physical attributes resembled those of a chimpanzee. However, like an orangutan, it had a concave face with projecting incisors and large canines (Palmer, 1999). Fossils of Sivapithecus species have been found in Turkey, China and Pakistan, and analysis of bone structure indicates they were adept at movement on both the ground and in the trees, and fed on a diet of savannah grasses and seeds (Palmer, 1999). The genus Sivapithecus is now acknowledged as being the direct ancestor of modern day orangutans (Fleagle, 1999), and scientists believe that this line, the lineage that descended to modern day orangutans, branched off from the line that descended to modern day gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobo’s and humans at around 12 million years ago (Palmer, 2010; Fleagle, 1999)."

Thank you so much for going to the trouble of doing my research for me. Really appreciated.

 

[jbg]

Genetically our species (Homo Sapiens) started out in Africa, and then exiting Africa eventually spread through the East and West. Along the way we encountered other Hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. Did we mate with them? Probably.

Either way as we traveled more northwards lighter skin tones became more advantageous than dark so as to synthesize vitamin D.

View attachment 70822

Put away political correctness and safe spaces. Sometimes its good to discuss controversial issues.

This thread isn't about who's better, or who's anything. its simply about different races, how they evolved and curiosity of what others think.

Whether you accept evolution or believe in creation.. IMO all race didn't arise simultaneously.

If its offensive to you skip on by. I don't expect much but .....

We evolved from apes. But did all races evolve simultaneously? Did one race evolve before the others?

On the other hand...

If you believe humans were created by a god, what race were they created as? Where did other races come from?

PS: IMO whites did not evolve first. So lets put that racism, white supremacy, or whatever BS to rest.
Oh and I'm not white, I'm Native American.

I assume that racial differences evolved in response to the environment favoring certain genetic attributes and disfavoring others. I think that relatively dark pigmentation may well have been favored in hot climates. Why, though, the deserts of Saudi Arabia did not favor as dark pigmentation as exists in the heart of Africa is a mystery.

Intellectual differences are easier to understand. Sub-Saharan Africa has, over the millennia, had Edenic conditions. Not much effort was required to obtain food. Lots of effort was needed to keep rival groups, and predators, at bay. This did not favor intellectual development.

The people who chose to migrate were likely bored by this existence. Thus, there was a move away from hunting-gathering. Also, as humans edged into areas populated by the gray wolf, an animal known as the "dog" co-evolved, allowing humans to concentrate on other pursuits. This was essential in areas where the harsher climate energized and also required ingenuity.

This is my stab at the subject.

 

[The Hammer]

Intellectual differences are easier to understand. Sub-Saharan Africa has, over the millennia, had Edenic conditions. Not much effort was required to obtain food. Lots of effort was needed to keep rival groups, and predators, at bay. This did not favor intellectual development.

There are/were no intellectual differences between humans, Neanderthals and denisovans. They were as intellectually capable as "modern" humans.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Put away political correctness and safe spaces. Sometimes its good to discuss controversial issues.

This thread isn't about who's better, or who's anything. its simply about different races, how they evolved and curiosity of what others think.

Whether you accept evolution or believe in creation.. IMO all race didn't arise simultaneously.

If its offensive to you skip on by. I don't expect much but .....

We evolved from apes. But did all races evolve simultaneously? Did one race evolve before the others?

On the other hand...

If you believe humans were created by a god, what race were they created as? Where did other races come from?

PS: IMO whites did not evolve first. So lets put that racism, white supremacy, or whatever BS to rest.
Oh and I'm not white, I'm Native American.

You are quite right. The human species started in Africa and then spread around the world. As advanced civilizations go, I believe the Chinese civilization is the oldest. All this is the result of evolution and migration. God did not create any race.

 

[jbg]

There are/were no intellectual differences between humans, Neanderthals and denisovans. They were as intellectually capable as "modern" humans.

I am not being racist by finding that hard to believe. Certain climate and environmental situations call for brains, other for brawn. Had man been allowed to stay in the Garden of Eden, there would have been no reason to develop reading and writing skills, much less advanced intellect. Brute strength, on the other hand, confers less advantage in so-called "advanced" societies such as ancient Greece or the Roman Republic. Racial differences would be a parallel response to climate conditions and sun exposure.

 

[Heyo]

I am not being racist by finding that hard to believe. Certain climate and environmental situations call for brains, other for brawn. Had man been allowed to stay in the Garden of Eden, there would have been no reason to develop reading and writing skills, much less advanced intellect. Brute strength, on the other hand, confers less advantage in so-called "advanced" societies such as ancient Greece or the Roman Republic. Racial differences would be a parallel response to climate conditions and sun exposure.

You're speculating. The reality is that intellectual differences, which were measured, could almost all be attributed to upbringing and education.

 

[metis]

I believe skin colour it came about through climate where people born in hotter climates had darker skin. It makes sense if you look at places like Africa and Arabia as compared to Europe and England and the main reason the black races live now in cold countries is migration.

Generally speaking, anthropologists tend to lean in the direction of protection from skin cancer [darker skin] versus absorption of sun for vitamin D purposes [lighter skin]. The heavily treed northwestern European landscape would favor the latter, and the open savannas-less treed areas would favor the former.

 

[The Hammer]

I am not being racist by finding that hard to believe. Certain climate and environmental situations call for brains, other for brawn. Had man been allowed to stay in the Garden of Eden, there would have been no reason to develop reading and writing skills, much less advanced intellect. Brute strength, on the other hand, confers less advantage in so-called "advanced" societies such as ancient Greece or the Roman Republic. Racial differences would be a parallel response to climate conditions and sun exposure.

You're not being racist. You're just being incorrect. Again, our ancestors were just as capable as we are.

Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern humans, scientists find

 

[jbg]

You're speculating. The reality is that intellectual differences, which were measured, could almost all be attributed to upbringing and education.

Does anyone really know? I remember from as early as 1966-7, when I brought home mimeographed (boy that dates me) bulletins from my elementary school (I was in Fourth Grade) reading them on the bus. There were debates about "nature v. nurture" as early as 1909, according my my New York Times "Timesmachine" (link) search. One article from January 13, 1946 (link) referred to the "
probably unresolvable, problem of 'nature versus nurture.'" Another article from the December 12, 1909 NY Times, entitled "NATURE VS NURTURE IN RACE PROGRESS" (link) states in part: "The scientific and educational world Is ,watching with deep interest the scheme which Prof. Karl Pearson F. R. S. and Prof. David Heron, M.A. of the University College, London, have drafted for the purpose of discovering, If possible, the extent to which nature and nurture respectively contribute to the character of the child." The article continues:

Practically all social legislation has been based on the assumption that better environment means race progress, whereas the link between the two Is probably that a genuine race progress will result In a better environment. The views of philanthropists and of those who Insist that the race can be substantially bettered by changed environment appeal to the sympathies,but thesereformers have yet to prove their creed. So far as investigations have gone they show that improvement In social conditions will not compensate for a bad hereditary influence; the problem of physical and mental degeneration cannot be solved · by preventing mothers from working, ·by closing public houses, or by erecting. model dwellings.

If these issues are unresolved for more than a century, on the basis of a search lasting less than a minute, do you really think we are going to resolve them on RF?

 

[Heyo]

Does anyone really know? I remember from as early as 1966-7, when I brought home mimeographed (boy that dates me) bulletins from my elementary school (I was in Fourth Grade) reading them on the bus. There were debates about "nature v. nurture" as early as 1909, according my my New York Times "Timesmachine" (link) search. One article from January 13, 1946 (link) referred to the "
probably unresolvable, problem of 'nature versus nurture.'" Another article from the December 12, 1909 NY Times, entitled "NATURE VS NURTURE IN RACE PROGRESS" (link) states in part: "The scientific and educational world Is ,watching with deep interest the scheme which Prof. Karl Pearson F. R. S. and Prof. David Heron, M.A. of the University College, London, have drafted for the purpose of discovering, If possible, the extent to which nature and nurture respectively contribute to the character of the child." The article continues:

​

If these issues are unresolved for more than a century, on the basis of a search lasting less than a minute, do you really think we are going to resolve them on RF?

Why do you cite the oldest article, not what we currently know?

 

[jbg]

Why do you cite the oldest article, not what we currently know?

In order to show that this issue has been under discussion and unresolved for more than a century.

 

[Heyo]

In order to show that this issue has been under discussion and unresolved for more than a century.

But today nobody argues any more that it is one or the other. The discussion is mostly in the frame from 40 to 60% for both sides.