Genetic History of all Races

[Osmium14]

According to recent genetic studies, the first humans came out of Africa. This is a widely-accepted theory by all scientists today. It was about 60,000 years ago.

Africans / negroes - 60,000 years ago

Middle-Easterners to SouthEast Asians - 50,000 years ago - 41,000 years ago

East Asians (Chinese, Japanese) - during the period of 40,000 to 36,000 years ago.

Native Americans / "Indians" (not from India, but East Asians who diverged from Asia and into the Americas; I consider them to be part of the Asian race. They would later form the basis for the mixed-race "Latino/Hispanic" population) - 15,000 years ago

Whites / Europeans - 35,000 years ago

Europeans are the most recently evolved. This does not mean that Whites are the most intelligent, it just means that the White race is the newest.

All of this data has been confirmed by genetic markers and fossils. Just read Stanford geneticist Spencer Well's two books "Deep Ancestry" (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0792262158/ref=s9_asin_title_2/102-3581361-9941723) and "The Journey of Man." (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/069111532X/ref=s9_asin_title_1/102-3581361-9941723) The books are sponsored by National Geographic. You can find the books at any Barnes And Nobles or Borders bookstore near you.

1. Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells, p. 104-106, 96-102
2. Journey of Man by Spencer Wells, p. 66 and 120

[EdwardSmith]

To summarize the findings from the mitochondrial genetic markers, there are 3 main
mitochondrial 'macrohaplogroups', which are L, M, and N. Africans belong to macrohaplogroup L,
east asians belong to macrohaplogroup M, and caucasians and australoids belong to
macrohaplogroup N. Amerindians are a mixture of macrohaplogroups M and N.

[New Scientist]

According to recent genetic studies, the first humans came out of Africa. This is a widely-accepted theory by all scientists today. It was about 60,000 years ago.

Africans / negroes - 60,000 years ago

Middle-Easterners to SouthEast Asians - 50,000 years ago - 41,000 years ago

East Asians (Chinese, Japanese) - during the period of 40,000 to 36,000 years ago.

Native Americans / "Indians" (not from India, but East Asians who diverged from Asia and into the Americas; I consider them to be part of the Asian race. They would later form the basis for the mixed-race "Latino/Hispanic" population) - 15,000 years ago

Whites / Europeans - 35,000 years ago

Europeans are the most recently evolved. This does not mean that Whites are the most intelligent, it just means that the White race is the newest.

All of this data has been confirmed by genetic markers and fossils. Just read Stanford geneticist Spencer Well's two books "Deep Ancestry" (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0792262158/ref=s9_asin_title_2/102-3581361-9941723) and "The Journey of Man." (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/069111532X/ref=s9_asin_title_1/102-3581361-9941723) The books are sponsored by National Geographic. You can find the books at any Barnes And Nobles or Borders bookstore near you.

1. Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells, p. 104-106, 96-102
2. Journey of Man by Spencer Wells, p. 66 and 120

An arrow of time forward, doesnt prove superiority. Not by those time margins. Have you seen all the new research which shows, evolution has to work by backwards regressions to re-introduce stability ? ITs Been all over the popular science press.

...

[Osmium14]

An arrow of time forward, doesnt prove superiority. Not by those time margins. Have you seen all the new research which shows, evolution has to work by backwards regressions to re-introduce stability ? ITs Been all over the popular science press.

...

DUH! That's why I said, "this does not mean that Whites are the most intelligent,..." Did you even read the whole post, Sherlock? *********************

And it isn't for your reason, of "backwards regression," it's simply a fundamental law of evolution that "natural selection" favors the most reproductive, not the most intelligent or tallest or dumbest or fastest or any other factor. It's simply a matter of reproduction. Your theory about backwards regression is stupid.

Edited flames. Ebus

[New Scientist]

DUH! That's why I said, "this does not mean that Whites are the most intelligent,..." Did you even read the whole post, Sherlock? *********************




And it isn't for your reason, of "backwards regression," it's simply a fundamental law of evolution that "natural selection" favors the most reproductive, not the most intelligent or tallest or dumbest or fastest or any other factor. It's simply a matter of reproduction. Your theory about backwards regression is stupid.

Edited flames. Ebus

That is far too simple. Natural selection favours the most reproductive. That could sound like the most prolific.

Im not making things complicated here, but i feel confident i would just be defining the basics here.

K reproduction is not highly reproductive, but more stable over longer periods. Where as r is almost unquanitifiable in number terms, as the populations diverge and migrate. As a result r reproduction favours strong creative qualities and K reproduction favours intelligence based around networking, self preservation, efficient resource utilization. (racism being an example of an r strategy)


BTW what i said was, not "my reason" or or "my theory". Looks like its you who didnt read my post. IT comes across that you were in a hurry and decided to react using a blanket assumption.

ANALYSES EVERYTHING>>:argue:

[New Scientist]

Yep, nothing really new there except the fact you missed out the obvious reference in those statistics:

For at least 10,000 years we and Asians were Middle-Easterners, which means for 40,000 to 50,000 years (30k + 10k) we and Negroes have been separated.

That is a significant gap. Negroes are currently the highest expression of K in the human system. Unlike like other migrants, who try to start up businesses, the first thing many black guys want to do is get some hookers or hire a van and rape some local women. IT Must be exciting to be so randy when fully grown.

Sometimes i wish i was black. It makes me envious when i observe women part the seas for the promise of a night with an oversize thong.

//

[New Scientist]

According to recent genetic studies, the first humans came out of Africa. This is a widely-accepted theory by all scientists today. It was about 60,000 years ago.

Africans / negroes - 60,000 years ago

Middle-Easterners to SouthEast Asians - 50,000 years ago - 41,000 years ago

East Asians (Chinese, Japanese) - during the period of 40,000 to 36,000 years ago.

Native Americans / "Indians" (not from India, but East Asians who diverged from Asia and into the Americas; I consider them to be part of the Asian race. They would later form the basis for the mixed-race "Latino/Hispanic" population) - 15,000 years ago

Whites / Europeans - 35,000 years ago

Europeans are the most recently evolved. This does not mean that Whites are the most intelligent, it just means that the White race is the newest.

All of this data has been confirmed by genetic markers and fossils. Just read Stanford geneticist Spencer Well's two books "Deep Ancestry" (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0792262158/ref=s9_asin_title_2/102-3581361-9941723) and "The Journey of Man." (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/069111532X/ref=s9_asin_title_1/102-3581361-9941723) The books are sponsored by National Geographic. You can find the books at any Barnes And Nobles or Borders bookstore near you.

1. Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells, p. 104-106, 96-102
2. Journey of Man by Spencer Wells, p. 66 and 120

I just read what you posted to me that was deleted




...


//

[Osmium14]

Europeans and Africans are over 120,000 years separated by evolution. The reason for this is that you have to DOUBLE the time apart because in evolutionary chains both populations evolve separately.

So for every time period I mentioned in this thread, you have to times it by two (2x). This is genetics 101, but I figured everyone knew about it, but I guess not, so I'll mention it.