IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: I have decided to block Mogley52 because of his persistent spamming. In principle I believe resolutely in free speech but chronic spamming represents an abuse of free speech. I felt that I had to take this step.
@atticana You really don't need to justify it, nobody has a duty to provide a platform for other people to preen themselves on. You are not censoring him you are just not being abused. Would somebody have a right of reply if you flew a flag over your house or had a tattoo? Would you let them fly their flag on your flagpole or have the name of their girlfriend on your back? Blocking somebody on your channel is not sending them to the gulag, is just stopping being a doormat.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
@RutinaRottis Within the lifetime of a particular individual yes. But what evidence do you have that this change in skin colour will be passed on to any offspring?
@atticana You should think different dog breed's, those deviation between different breed are created by human interfiering of normal evolution mostly in under 200 years. I assume that you still acree that all mammals do have similar evolution prosess?
@RutinaRottis Yes, and the evolution of dogs has been 'directed' by a higher intelligence, namely that of human beings. My belief is that the evolution of human beings has also been directed by a higher intelligence, namely that of God.
@gregrutz Africa was once the only place where mankind dwelled, because it was warm enough to survive. Naturally to survive they had sun-blockage to protect from UV-radiation, called; melanin! Until only small groups managed to leave the African continent and move into Eurasia and Asia, via the Arabian belt (Yemen and Oman).
@takfam07 I don't know what you try to emply here, but West Africa has many different phenotypes, your list seems somewhat outdated and baised. In West Africa you will find thin noses, small lips, light skin, no to very little prognathism, curly and straight hair. You list is somewhat laughable and pseudo babble.
To the extent you find thin noses, lips and straight hair in West Africa, it would be from more recent European admixture. The "diversity" in West Africa comes mostly from the arrival of Arabs and Europeans from the Middle Ages to present. But even then, this is much more the exception than the rule. In West Africa, dark black skin, smaller crania, kinky, crispy hair, broad, flat noses with flared nostrils, thick lips and jutting lower faces are the order of the day. Nothing wrong with that.
@takfam07 It always nice to mention what groups and regions we are speaking of. For Egypt it's the Nile Delta with most admixture. The Horn it's some groups in the North. Added to that is early Levantine were identical Horners.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 What's the difference between eternal punish and eternal torment? What's the difference between whipping you forever or locking you in a dark closet forever. Sure, the first billion years may seem okay in the closet, and, hey, screaming in tune to Michael Jackson sounds fun. But then a trillion years, another trillion. What kind of twisted thing punishes you forever--that's not punishment, that IS torture.
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
I don't agree/think what you've said is correct. That said you have a right to raise these questions, please write a paper and submit it for peer review.
I can see where this is going. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you have no actual understanding of evolution, anthropology or genetics.
You know, I have an open mind. I'm more than willing to listen to any idea, no matter how ridiculous it is. Once. I'll listen once.
After that, I reserve the right to completely ignore any and all ignorant bullshit.
@atticana Exactly! I'm glad you understand. You are a pompous ass, who thinks his opinion so important that you don't need any actual knowledge or understanding of what you're talking about, and I have no time to waste on such people.
Stop making shit up, find out what other people have already said in the past before you chime in with your lame-brained bullshit that has been refuted before, and then if you have something new to add, by all means do.
@atticana Um, okay. I don't have a response for that. I happen to be a grown man. I've long since lost the skills necessary to respond to such an insult.
@TheSmackerlacker 'I'm starting to feel genuinely disgusted. Never speak to me again.' You are such a drama queen! Do me a favour pal and just piss off!!!
@atticana Hmm. I don't understand how you compared evolution, black history, and politics into one video. But it sounds like you're just trying to hide a bit of racism with "evolution doesn't have ALL their pieces". Why does being a descendant from Africa make you and I so different (I'm black)? The evidence is in the civilization patterns of BCE times--Egypt then Mesopotamia then the Mediterranean. You should be proud that we, as a species, can point and say "We started there & here we are."
@atticana I Beg to DIFFER, EGYPT IS MUCH YOUNGER THAN (NUBIA)! Even Naqada period predates Mesopotamia already.lol
Fore-bearers of all of these are Napta Playa and the Maa Confederation of the ancient Sahara. Natufians and other groups took this along with them, via the Levant into the Crescent!
@atticana I meant the more "advanced" civilizations. I believe humans--those that you can identify indistinguishably as human--matured at around Middle Africa. But it is fair to say Mesopotamia, if you want to talk about civilization with rules. In fact, civilization really stays in the Middle East for quite awhile, so these people were either the descendants of migratory African hunter-gathers, or present-day Pakistan.
Either this guy is a troll or the biggest moron I have ever seen. There is no argument even being made. No scientist in the world believes what he says they believe.
You're a fucking moron. All the science is available if you were willing to look ,and smart enough to understand it. Genetics proves it. You talk as if there are only Africans and Nordic but any idiot should be able to see the gradual change in people from sub Sahara, through the Middle East, Central Asian, Mediterranean and Europe.
Lol, it doesn't take very long to change skin color, evolutionarily speaking. All that such a process entails is the altering of melanin levels in the skin, and this could happen in relatively few generations. The rest follows, in keeping with the natural selection factors in each environment.
@njanovic1980 He is and so are all people except those who are of exclusively sub-Saharan-African descent. To argue from a position of superiority it helps to actually be superior.
@njanovic1980 Up until a few months ago that attitude represented the state of human knowledge, but subsequently the chief proponent of the Out of Africa theory has conceded that contrary to all the work he has done in his scientific career since graduating Neanderthals do have living descendants, and he was one of them all along.
Would it be a complete surprise for you to know that you did provide a shred of empirical evidence that could even remotely support whatever the fuck you were ranting about. Not surprisingly, you haven't been taught that science is a sticker for testing emplirical evidence.
Stop demonstrating your stupidity to everyone, and work on getting yourself an education.
Some of the homo Sapeins managed to leave Africa during the upper Paleolithic in multiple streams. This were tropical adapted. While living in the cold environment becoming cold adapted in limb portions. The oldest bones are tropical like ancient Africans. A sudden arise is again of tropical adapted Africans at the Holocene period. Hence Natufians for example.
Now, why did mankind arose in Africa and not anywhere else. It's because Africa was climatically right. And outside was the great glacial ice age. The early Homo Sapien Sapien was tropical adapted in limb portions. This is how we know that they arose in Africa. The neanderthaler was cold adapted and a different not of Human origin.
Sir, you sound somewhat funny. Oldest human remains are found at Omo Kibish. The same place where people live with genetically the oldest Hg A B. as mankind moved out of Africa genetic mutations occurred. Leading to phycial change. The Andaman became on of the oldest to expel from Africa as a direct subset. Another branch is the Indian type as a direct subset.
Europeans carry genetic downstreams. As they were the one who inhabited Europe last. And only recent.
Most African blacks today can thank white-skinned settlersfor their existence. It was white European immigrants who mastered the African environment, making possible the tremendous BLACK population explosion over the past century.
However, whenever whites LEAVE, black Africa contracts back into subsistence-level, prehistoric, unplanned, whimsical living.
@takfam07 Interesting comments with which I would broadly agree. Personally I think that the white man should have stayed out of Africa altogether, which would have been the best thing both for the white man and the Africans themselves.
@atticana Sure, no problem. BTW, you said that 'as a religous person, I believe that this racial diversification was divinely ordained.' Personal question, are you a young earth or old earth creationist?
@atticana Cool man. Its a much easier position to support. Young earth folk like venomfangx make the mistake of taking the bibes allegory (6000 years, lol) in a literal sense, which is clearly absurd.
Mind, I'm not part of any particular faith. I myself lean more towards pantheism, that is to say, I don't think of god as being 'a bearded superman in the clouds' (as thunderf00t puts it), but thats just my personal stance. BTW, have you ever read william z ripleys book on racial studys?
@gregrutz Actually it's insulting to say we "evolved from black people." It implies that blacks are more archaic, less evolved, closer to our apelike Australopithecine forbearers. Rather, it sounds more plausible that humans who migrated out of Africa 80-100,000 years ago developed into Caucasoids and Mongoloids. The ones who STAYED in sub-Saharan Africa developed into Negroids. But our common African ancestors preceded all these racial categories. Perhaps they looked like Khoisan.
@takfam07 "It implies that blacks are more archaic, less evolved, closer to our apelike Australopithecine forbearers." As unpalatable as you may find it - they are.
There are many different phenotypes in Africa, due to different situ-development stages. Some ethnic groups with so called "caucasoid" traits dont have any admixture from out sode of Africa at all.
The reason why you will find people outside of Africa with certain traits is because they are linked to those subsets who left Africa.
@Xpresion101 Part 1: "The populations of Egypt and Oman exhibit by far the highest number of DNA groups and haplogroups (a mean of 9.5 groups and 20 haplogroups), followed by East Africa--Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda (a mean of 3 groups and 8 haplogroups). There is a considerable decline in diversity from east to west along a Central African corridor to Benin. The West Africans average only two groups and three haplogroups."
-"Levant vs. Horn of Africa," The American Society of Human Genetics, 2004
@Xpresion101 Part 2: So yes, there is considerable genetic diversity in Africa--within SOME populations, but not others. West Africans have relatively little genetic diversity. So in their undiluted form, West African phenotypic traits are what we might deem quintessential Negritude--smaller crania, black skin, broad, flat nose with wide nostrils, thick lips, and lower facial projection. Variations found in their modern descendants (AfroAms) are mostly due to more recent European admixture.
@takfam07 Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist: There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa.
Why is this?
Because modern humans originate in Africa and lived only in Africa for much of our genetic history.
Today Africans make up only a fraction of the population but still retain the majority of genetic diversity.
@gregrutz This is partially treu. But those with Hg A and B are the oldest carries. These people stem from the region called Omo Kibish, where we find a continues evolution into modern man. Odd is that these people have several phenotypes.
@gregrutz "We evolved from the same black people that the Africans came from, dummy" Perhaps, but there's no reason to belive that those first Africans were of today's negroid ethnicity.
@atticana I actually take this video-blog-channel nonsense as a joke. I only subscribed to this channel because it makes laugh how some people are fucking stupid.
The ratio of dislikes to likes... indicates to me that Webot Voting is PC, an artificial construct. So is PC "whiteman's ancestor is a black African"... or PC "we descended from apes". hehe.
The differentiation between tortoiseshell and tabby cats is greater then then genetic variation between Caucasian and Negro men.
You claim that we all assume that we "evolved" from the modern inhabitants of Africa is nonsense, we all share a mutual ancestor, an African ancestor.
Good lord man! Blather on about your biased thoughts and feelings all you want ... but the science is out there. Yes there are transitional fossils, many of them. You might also want to read about our shared DNA.
First you use if-then arguments that are meaningless. Then you ask then-why questions. And the whole way you are ignoring massive genetic studies involving tens of thousands of people from around the word that traced mitochondrial eve back to Africa.
I want everyone to watch "The Vice Guide to Liberia". I want everyone to compare Haiti today and Japan today as well. There are over 3,000 genetic differences between Blacks and Whites by the way. Science has proven that all humans EXCEPT Africans can be tied to the Neanderthal. That means the rest of us are not African by any sort of the means. Africans came from something else. It is what is is. I don't hate anyone, there are just differences
@atheistexchristian Neanderthal Man never set foot in Africa. Denisova Man didn't either. Sorry...get your facts straight! And I don't deny that early humans were in Africa...what I say is that there is no reason to suppose that these early humans were Negroid types.
@atticana Just because there are some (2 to 4 %) Neanderthall genes in Europeans does NOT mean we are not all descended from the first humans that came out of Africa about 100 000 yrs ago. You have failed to understand the Genetics.
This is just a "No Transitional Fossil" argument re-adapted to "No transitional racial type" wheras there is plenty of evidence of all sorts of such gradients of peoples of different colour and facial features, both in antiquity and today. Watch some BBC documentaries, look up "Dr Alice Roberts" and you will find we ARE all decended from Africans who were almost undountedly darker skinned than Europeans today. This is not Political Correctness, just observed scientific evidence.
@NoFaithNoPain 'there is plenty of evidence of all sorts of such gradients of peoples of different colour and facial features, both in antiquity and today. ' That is quite simply wrong. And I have watched BBC documentaries, most of which were composed primarily of speculation. And your claim that the earliest humans were dark-skinned is pure speculation on your part.
@atticana I am afraid you are very wrong. White skinned early Humans would not do very well in Africa so its quite obvious they were black. I know this is probably a shock to you, but it is far more than speculation. The different fossils showing half african and half european features are there. None of the evidence is 100% conclusive, except the evidence that shows that we are ALL from Africa, Neanderthall ancestry or not, unless you have some evidence of your own to put forward.
@NoFaithNoPain 'White skinned early Humans would not do very well in Africa' Oh really? So how do you explain the striking sucess of white settlers in South Africa and Rhodesia? They flourished and had no difficulties because of the climatic conditions. So your argument is utterly disproven by recent historical evidence.
@atticana You have not disproven anything and I find that extremely premature and arrogant of you to say so. How do you explain there is not a single white minority government left, or the white populations skin cancer rates or the fact that black Africans can walk twice as far on half the water (Rhodesian Army found this) These adaptions to environment take thousands of years to make an effect not the 200 since Europeans have been in Africa.
@xfubar It's got so many dislikes for many reasons. One reason being that people (as a majority) generally dislike anything that uses old terms like "negroid" and meaningless terms like "black African" in a video based exclusively on supposition on the part of the video maker.
Besides several strawman arguments where made by atticana. In other words what atticana claimed to be a commonly held belief ended up being something he made up himself in order to refute it.
@nanaforiod So you think that black African is a meaningless term do you? In that case why are most of my critics on this video indignantly asserting that we are indeed all descended from black Africans? And words like 'negro' and 'negroid' date from the time when factuality rather than political correctness was the dominant theme in discussions about race.
@atticana Negroid is racist slang and has been used as such for hundreds of years. Now when you use the word negroid to describe dark skinned and do not use a similar word to define light skinned person there is clearly a double standard.
Your strawman is that common knowledge is we descended from "black Africans". Common knowledge is actually that our species originated in Africa and spread from there.
@rahotep101 Actually, no, no it doesn't. Ask a majority of anthropologists, the idea that at least 3 different species independently evolved and now magic the ability to cross-breed is frankly bonkers.
I don't even think you believe that yourself. You know that it just means "black African" or "nigger". It is a label used to lock people into sections based on appearance in an attempt to account for natural differences in appearances based on location boundaries.
@rahotep101 That is what the term negroid was coined to explain. It is based on the theory that though we are all human we all evolved separately and that explains the 3 (the later 5) perceived phenotype or groupings of human beings based on appearance.
If you use negroid in this sense, you are scientifically wrong.
If you use negroid as a replacement for "black" or "nigger" and as a description, you are racist.
@nanaforiod I think you have got your wires crossed somewhere along the lines, and you are quite wrong. One can be black without being negroid, as certain Ethiopians exemplify. Your seem to have been misled about a lot of things, probably by people who should know better. Negroid is not a term of abuse, but a perfectly valid description, and it remains. Get used to it. You don't get to control the English language.
@rahotep101 Did you read what I said about negroid as a description? It's the equivalent to calling a group of people big noses with greedy claw arms and red hair "day walkers". They may have a name for themselves and they may even have all of the afore mentioned symptoms but they are not a subspecies or a "race". It is just an appearance they got from mom and pops and a couple ancestors down the line. Race is basically the highschool photos of our erectus of ancestors. (Puns McGee over here:)
@nanaforiod But the constant insistence that 'we are all Africans', plentifully in evidence in this comment section, is being used as a tool of cultural negrification and to justify permitting high levels of immigration from Africa into Europe...'well, as we're all Africans anyway.'
If you are talking about "negro culture" then you should know that there is no such thing. Cuture is 70 percent location and 30 percent genetic.
If you are talking about a big negro pity party,I'm sure some black people feel entitled to compensation just like some white people feel longing for the master race.
There is actually nothing wrong with emigration. I don't really know what this fear of immigrants is about.... Nobody needs to "justify" it.
@nanaforiod Negrification is indeed a real thing. Just go to places like Detroit, Watts, Harlem or the South Side of Chicago. The cities of South Africa are now undergoing negrification. And 'negro culture' is just another way of saying black culture, which of course is a reality. Try standing up at the Black Music Awards and telling the audience: 'There is no such thing as black culture'.
@nanaforiod And on the subject of 'strawman arguments' I can hardly take such criticism seriously from someone who maintains SIMULTANEOUSLY that there is no such thing as race, but supports affirmative action programmes to help disadvantaged racial minorities! Such mental incoherence adds little to the credibility of your criticisms.
@atticana This is classic deflection. What does my assertion that there is no real difference between races and it is therefore not a useful separation of people since we are all the same species have to do with you building strawman arguments?
Affirmative Action is flawed and really has not place in the 21st century but it exists for lack of a better system. A system that would make the quality of education better in minority and/or poor neighborhoods.
@nanaforiod 'A system that would make the quality of education better in minority and/or poor neighborhoods.' What minorities? If race doesn't exist?!
@atticana Do you know what minority even means? It basically means a group of people (social) who are under represented because they are a small percentage of a given population. A minority group is not a race because in theory a perceived race that is a minority in one place can be considered a majority in another.
In common usage "minority" can refer to a skin color (again not "race"), lingual group or a certain religious denomination.
Minority is not another word for "negroid" (visa versa).
@nanaforiod Oh you are hilarious! You favour social programmes to help supposedly disadvantaged racial minorities and yet try to pretend that race does not exist! Mental incoherence.
@atticana I'm pretty sure I didn't say I favored social programs that helped "disadvantaged racial minorities". I think you inserted "racial" in a sly attempt to tailor my comment to fit your own definition of "minorities".
@nanaforiod Many affirmative action programmes are intended to benefit 'disadvantaged racial minorities'. So, if you truly believe that there is no such thing as race then you cannot logically support such programmes. AND I assume that you are also against Black History Month, which is a racially-based concept. AND I also assume that you are against the Black Music Awards?
This is a joke right? No one is this dumb.... Read a science book, we all hail from Afrika. The truth lies in our DNa
neohippe1 2 hours ago
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: I have decided to block Mogley52 because of his persistent spamming. In principle I believe resolutely in free speech but chronic spamming represents an abuse of free speech. I felt that I had to take this step.
atticana 7 hours ago
@atticana You really don't need to justify it, nobody has a duty to provide a platform for other people to preen themselves on. You are not censoring him you are just not being abused. Would somebody have a right of reply if you flew a flag over your house or had a tattoo? Would you let them fly their flag on your flagpole or have the name of their girlfriend on your back? Blocking somebody on your channel is not sending them to the gulag, is just stopping being a doormat.
MartinJWillett 6 hours ago
Nut Job.
leland61 13 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 1 day ago
Skin color is just one of adaptation's for different amount of the sunshine. Why its is so difficult to understand?
RutinaRottis 1 day ago
@RutinaRottis Within the lifetime of a particular individual yes. But what evidence do you have that this change in skin colour will be passed on to any offspring?
atticana 1 day ago
@atticana You should think different dog breed's, those deviation between different breed are created by human interfiering of normal evolution mostly in under 200 years. I assume that you still acree that all mammals do have similar evolution prosess?
RutinaRottis 11 hours ago
@RutinaRottis Yes, and the evolution of dogs has been 'directed' by a higher intelligence, namely that of human beings. My belief is that the evolution of human beings has also been directed by a higher intelligence, namely that of God.
atticana 7 hours ago
It must really bother you that your ancestors were from Africa. LOL
gregrutz 1 day ago 2
''We are NOT all descendants of African Negroes'' CORRECT, You got one thing right.
African Nigroes and White Man both came from the same people living in Africa many years ago. A common ancestor.
You figure out what their skin color was, darky.
gregrutz 1 day ago
@gregrutz Africa was once the only place where mankind dwelled, because it was warm enough to survive. Naturally to survive they had sun-blockage to protect from UV-radiation, called; melanin! Until only small groups managed to leave the African continent and move into Eurasia and Asia, via the Arabian belt (Yemen and Oman).
Xpresion101 1 day ago
@takfam07 I don't know what you try to emply here, but West Africa has many different phenotypes, your list seems somewhat outdated and baised. In West Africa you will find thin noses, small lips, light skin, no to very little prognathism, curly and straight hair. You list is somewhat laughable and pseudo babble.
Xpresion101 2 days ago
To the extent you find thin noses, lips and straight hair in West Africa, it would be from more recent European admixture. The "diversity" in West Africa comes mostly from the arrival of Arabs and Europeans from the Middle Ages to present. But even then, this is much more the exception than the rule. In West Africa, dark black skin, smaller crania, kinky, crispy hair, broad, flat noses with flared nostrils, thick lips and jutting lower faces are the order of the day. Nothing wrong with that.
takfam07 1 day ago
@takfam07 It always nice to mention what groups and regions we are speaking of. For Egypt it's the Nile Delta with most admixture. The Horn it's some groups in the North. Added to that is early Levantine were identical Horners.
Xpresion101 2 days ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 2 days ago
@Mogley52 What's the difference between eternal punish and eternal torment? What's the difference between whipping you forever or locking you in a dark closet forever. Sure, the first billion years may seem okay in the closet, and, hey, screaming in tune to Michael Jackson sounds fun. But then a trillion years, another trillion. What kind of twisted thing punishes you forever--that's not punishment, that IS torture.
TheOkami1113 2 days ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 2 days ago
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 2 days ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 2 days ago
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 2 days ago
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 2 days ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 2 days ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 2 days ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 2 days ago
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 2 days ago
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 2 days ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 2 days ago
Morons like you must be slaughtered.
Lauxesa 2 days ago
@Lauxesa Fanatic!
atticana 2 days ago
@atticana of what?
Lauxesa 2 days ago
@Lauxesa Saying that people who you disagree with should be slaughtered sounds pretty fanatical to me!!!
atticana 2 days ago
@atticana I don't think that people that disagree with me should be taken out of the gene pool but morons like you should.
Lauxesa 2 days ago
I don't agree/think what you've said is correct. That said you have a right to raise these questions, please write a paper and submit it for peer review.
peetrymy 5 days ago
I can see where this is going. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you have no actual understanding of evolution, anthropology or genetics.
You know, I have an open mind. I'm more than willing to listen to any idea, no matter how ridiculous it is. Once. I'll listen once.
After that, I reserve the right to completely ignore any and all ignorant bullshit.
TheSmackerlacker 5 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker Pompous ass!
atticana 5 days ago
@atticana Exactly! I'm glad you understand. You are a pompous ass, who thinks his opinion so important that you don't need any actual knowledge or understanding of what you're talking about, and I have no time to waste on such people.
Stop making shit up, find out what other people have already said in the past before you chime in with your lame-brained bullshit that has been refuted before, and then if you have something new to add, by all means do.
TheSmackerlacker 5 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker Pompous booby!!!
atticana 4 days ago
@atticana Um, okay. I don't have a response for that. I happen to be a grown man. I've long since lost the skills necessary to respond to such an insult.
TheSmackerlacker 3 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker It's not an insult but a statement of fact. You are pompous! Climb down off your perch mate!
atticana 3 days ago
@atticana Is that all you got? That is your response? I must be arrogant, because I don't agree with you? Are you really that stupid?
I'm starting to feel genuinely disgusted. Never speak to me again.
TheSmackerlacker 3 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker 'I'm starting to feel genuinely disgusted. Never speak to me again.' You are such a drama queen! Do me a favour pal and just piss off!!!
atticana 3 days ago
@atticana Hmm. I don't understand how you compared evolution, black history, and politics into one video. But it sounds like you're just trying to hide a bit of racism with "evolution doesn't have ALL their pieces". Why does being a descendant from Africa make you and I so different (I'm black)? The evidence is in the civilization patterns of BCE times--Egypt then Mesopotamia then the Mediterranean. You should be proud that we, as a species, can point and say "We started there & here we are."
TheOkami1113 3 days ago
@TheOkami1113 With respect, my dear fellow, civilisation did not begin in Egypt. It began in Mesopotamia and spread outwards from there.
atticana 2 days ago
@atticana Sorry for you, but it began in the South of Egypt. With influxes from the Sahara region. 17Ky AGO!
Xpresion101 2 days ago
@Xpresion101 I beg to differ. Civilisation in the true sense of the word began in Mesopotamia approximately 3,500 years ago.
atticana 1 day ago
@atticana I Beg to DIFFER, EGYPT IS MUCH YOUNGER THAN (NUBIA)! Even Naqada period predates Mesopotamia already.lol
Fore-bearers of all of these are Napta Playa and the Maa Confederation of the ancient Sahara. Natufians and other groups took this along with them, via the Levant into the Crescent!
Xpresion101 1 day ago
@atticana For starter, by Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved November 22, 2010 (received for review August 23, 2010)
Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert
and Met-Museum
Wadi Kubbaniya (ca. 17,000–15,000 B.C.)
In Egypt, the earliest evidence of humans can be recognized only from tools found scattered over an ancient surface, sometimes with hearths nearby.
Xpresion101 2 days ago
@atticana I meant the more "advanced" civilizations. I believe humans--those that you can identify indistinguishably as human--matured at around Middle Africa. But it is fair to say Mesopotamia, if you want to talk about civilization with rules. In fact, civilization really stays in the Middle East for quite awhile, so these people were either the descendants of migratory African hunter-gathers, or present-day Pakistan.
TheOkami1113 2 days ago
Either this guy is a troll or the biggest moron I have ever seen. There is no argument even being made. No scientist in the world believes what he says they believe.
PirateJake123 5 days ago
WTF!!! that's all I'll say.
thelewa7 6 days ago
You're a fucking moron. All the science is available if you were willing to look ,and smart enough to understand it. Genetics proves it. You talk as if there are only Africans and Nordic but any idiot should be able to see the gradual change in people from sub Sahara, through the Middle East, Central Asian, Mediterranean and Europe.
spoddie 6 days ago
Lol, it doesn't take very long to change skin color, evolutionarily speaking. All that such a process entails is the altering of melanin levels in the skin, and this could happen in relatively few generations. The rest follows, in keeping with the natural selection factors in each environment.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 week ago
382 dislikes people instantly deny it, as they are programed to do. good job j€vvs
MrBalkanSoldier 1 week ago
does it matter where we come from?? its fuckin history, people focuse on the future
KriticusPospolitus 1 week ago
Thought you had to be in US to be this fucking stupid
rosskren 1 week ago
The human genome, I guess that shit just doesn't matter then huh?
God damn, you people are embarrassing.
hawanja 1 week ago
@hawanja I think this guy is one of the only surviving descendants of the neanderthal.
njanovic1980 1 week ago
@njanovic1980 He is and so are all people except those who are of exclusively sub-Saharan-African descent. To argue from a position of superiority it helps to actually be superior.
MartinJWillett 6 days ago
@MartinJWillett It was said tongue in cheek, perhaps learn not to take everything so literally.
njanovic1980 6 days ago
@njanovic1980 Up until a few months ago that attitude represented the state of human knowledge, but subsequently the chief proponent of the Out of Africa theory has conceded that contrary to all the work he has done in his scientific career since graduating Neanderthals do have living descendants, and he was one of them all along.
MartinJWillett 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Holy shit!! Where is your fucking arm chair?
Would it be a complete surprise for you to know that you did provide a shred of empirical evidence that could even remotely support whatever the fuck you were ranting about. Not surprisingly, you haven't been taught that science is a sticker for testing emplirical evidence.
Stop demonstrating your stupidity to everyone, and work on getting yourself an education.
yourtreat2 1 week ago
Further more.
Some of the homo Sapeins managed to leave Africa during the upper Paleolithic in multiple streams. This were tropical adapted. While living in the cold environment becoming cold adapted in limb portions. The oldest bones are tropical like ancient Africans. A sudden arise is again of tropical adapted Africans at the Holocene period. Hence Natufians for example.
Xpresion101 1 week ago
Now, why did mankind arose in Africa and not anywhere else. It's because Africa was climatically right. And outside was the great glacial ice age. The early Homo Sapien Sapien was tropical adapted in limb portions. This is how we know that they arose in Africa. The neanderthaler was cold adapted and a different not of Human origin.
Xpresion101 1 week ago
Sir, you sound somewhat funny. Oldest human remains are found at Omo Kibish. The same place where people live with genetically the oldest Hg A B. as mankind moved out of Africa genetic mutations occurred. Leading to phycial change. The Andaman became on of the oldest to expel from Africa as a direct subset. Another branch is the Indian type as a direct subset.
Europeans carry genetic downstreams. As they were the one who inhabited Europe last. And only recent.
Xpresion101 1 week ago
Racist, conservative Christians going on their ignorant rant that the bible is the beacon of truth. Ignorance pervasive in all mono-theisms.
kangsan2014 1 week ago
This man never actually studied evolution properly. Racists are in denial.
kangsan2014 1 week ago
Niggers were the original humans. It took a couple million years for our skin to adapt to our environment.
stonedhippopotamus 1 week ago
Most African blacks today can thank white-skinned settlersfor their existence. It was white European immigrants who mastered the African environment, making possible the tremendous BLACK population explosion over the past century.
However, whenever whites LEAVE, black Africa contracts back into subsistence-level, prehistoric, unplanned, whimsical living.
takfam07 1 week ago
@takfam07 Interesting comments with which I would broadly agree. Personally I think that the white man should have stayed out of Africa altogether, which would have been the best thing both for the white man and the Africans themselves.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana This was an interesting video, and props for having the balls to go against the PC grain.
TheJamesrocket 5 days ago
@TheJamesrocket Thanks for your supportive comment.
atticana 4 days ago
@atticana Sure, no problem. BTW, you said that 'as a religous person, I believe that this racial diversification was divinely ordained.' Personal question, are you a young earth or old earth creationist?
TheJamesrocket 4 days ago
@TheJamesrocket Old earth, very much so.
atticana 3 days ago
@atticana Cool man. Its a much easier position to support. Young earth folk like venomfangx make the mistake of taking the bibes allegory (6000 years, lol) in a literal sense, which is clearly absurd.
Mind, I'm not part of any particular faith. I myself lean more towards pantheism, that is to say, I don't think of god as being 'a bearded superman in the clouds' (as thunderf00t puts it), but thats just my personal stance. BTW, have you ever read william z ripleys book on racial studys?
TheJamesrocket 3 days ago
@TheJamesrocket Thanks for subbing and for your positive feedback. And no, I have to confess that I haven't heard of this William Z. Ripley guy.
atticana 2 days ago
@takfam07 Yes Leopold did wonders in the Congo, such a benevolent guy he was.
njanovic1980 6 days ago
@takfam07 We evolved from the same black people that the Africans came from, dummy. All humans came out of Africa.
gregrutz 4 days ago
@gregrutz Actually it's insulting to say we "evolved from black people." It implies that blacks are more archaic, less evolved, closer to our apelike Australopithecine forbearers. Rather, it sounds more plausible that humans who migrated out of Africa 80-100,000 years ago developed into Caucasoids and Mongoloids. The ones who STAYED in sub-Saharan Africa developed into Negroids. But our common African ancestors preceded all these racial categories. Perhaps they looked like Khoisan.
takfam07 4 days ago
@takfam07 "It implies that blacks are more archaic, less evolved, closer to our apelike Australopithecine forbearers." As unpalatable as you may find it - they are.
SmippeHyrst 4 days ago
@takfam07 Ridiculous nonsense. AGAIN.
There are many different phenotypes in Africa, due to different situ-development stages. Some ethnic groups with so called "caucasoid" traits dont have any admixture from out sode of Africa at all.
The reason why you will find people outside of Africa with certain traits is because they are linked to those subsets who left Africa.
Xpresion101 2 days ago
@Xpresion101 Part 1: "The populations of Egypt and Oman exhibit by far the highest number of DNA groups and haplogroups (a mean of 9.5 groups and 20 haplogroups), followed by East Africa--Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda (a mean of 3 groups and 8 haplogroups). There is a considerable decline in diversity from east to west along a Central African corridor to Benin. The West Africans average only two groups and three haplogroups."
-"Levant vs. Horn of Africa," The American Society of Human Genetics, 2004
takfam07 2 days ago
@takfam07 Again, why?
Geneticist Sarah Tishkoff: Non-Africans are recently descendant from a small population of East Africans.
Throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained a large effective population size.
Physiologically Africans have always been diverse as well.
There is no such thing as a single African phenotype, or 'pure' race, and there never has been.
Xpresion101 1 day ago
@Xpresion101 Part 2: So yes, there is considerable genetic diversity in Africa--within SOME populations, but not others. West Africans have relatively little genetic diversity. So in their undiluted form, West African phenotypic traits are what we might deem quintessential Negritude--smaller crania, black skin, broad, flat nose with wide nostrils, thick lips, and lower facial projection. Variations found in their modern descendants (AfroAms) are mostly due to more recent European admixture.
takfam07 2 days ago
@takfam07 Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist: There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa.
Why is this?
Because modern humans originate in Africa and lived only in Africa for much of our genetic history.
Today Africans make up only a fraction of the population but still retain the majority of genetic diversity.
Xpresion101 1 day ago
@gregrutz Your claim that the first people were black is pure supposition on your part. Noboy knows for sure what they were like.
atticana 4 days ago
@atticana Yes you are right, It was just a guess that Africans would be black. We do find lots of white people living near the equator.
IDiot.
gregrutz 4 days ago
@gregrutz This is partially treu. But those with Hg A and B are the oldest carries. These people stem from the region called Omo Kibish, where we find a continues evolution into modern man. Odd is that these people have several phenotypes.
Xpresion101 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "We evolved from the same black people that the Africans came from, dummy" Perhaps, but there's no reason to belive that those first Africans were of today's negroid ethnicity.
SmippeHyrst 4 days ago
You fools this is a piss take channel
sowhatsnew205 1 week ago
@sowhatsnew205 It most certainly is not.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana I actually take this video-blog-channel nonsense as a joke. I only subscribed to this channel because it makes laugh how some people are fucking stupid.
seth666ish 1 week ago
@atticana You sir, are a genious..
sowhatsnew205 1 week ago
@sowhatsnew205 That would have been so much better a retort without the superfluous O in genius.
MartinJWillett 1 week ago
@MartinJWillett haha
sowhatsnew205 1 week ago
Awesome I so agree, something deep within tells me I did NOT come from a negro, They're trying to sell us a box of rocks.
emmalee57 1 week ago
whyte ppl & blk ppl
fountainherz 1 week ago
The ratio of dislikes to likes... indicates to me that Webot Voting is PC, an artificial construct. So is PC "whiteman's ancestor is a black African"... or PC "we descended from apes". hehe.
westernciviliznation 1 week ago
The differentiation between tortoiseshell and tabby cats is greater then then genetic variation between Caucasian and Negro men.
You claim that we all assume that we "evolved" from the modern inhabitants of Africa is nonsense, we all share a mutual ancestor, an African ancestor.
farnium 1 week ago
@farnium Where did you dig that factoid from and is there any cereal left in the packet?
MartinJWillett 1 week ago
@farnium
Google: 'feline allele variation' followed by 'human genetic drift' or somesuch.
farnium 1 week ago
If you watch this guys other videos though it can be taken as racist since he's trying to separate himself from any relation to African descendants.
xfubar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fucketa the oldest humanoid skull founded was in Georgia (caucasian country), not in Africa
FailLeviathanSailor 1 week ago
Comment removed
FailLeviathanSailor 1 week ago
Welcome to the red line club, lol. I don't think a divine being was behind out all, but I think you're on to something.
HeyRuka 1 week ago
Good lord man! Blather on about your biased thoughts and feelings all you want ... but the science is out there. Yes there are transitional fossils, many of them. You might also want to read about our shared DNA.
Freak0id 1 week ago
@Freak0id It's a great shame that you didn't pay attention to what I actually said. Your comments prove that you did not.
atticana 1 week ago
First you use if-then arguments that are meaningless. Then you ask then-why questions. And the whole way you are ignoring massive genetic studies involving tens of thousands of people from around the word that traced mitochondrial eve back to Africa.
nikescar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want everyone to watch "The Vice Guide to Liberia". I want everyone to compare Haiti today and Japan today as well. There are over 3,000 genetic differences between Blacks and Whites by the way. Science has proven that all humans EXCEPT Africans can be tied to the Neanderthal. That means the rest of us are not African by any sort of the means. Africans came from something else. It is what is is. I don't hate anyone, there are just differences
TheWaterlily2012 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheWaterlily2012 1 week ago
How did you manage to buy a camera? Do you have a helper?
AveragePope 1 week ago
@AveragePope Yaaawwwwwwwn.
atticana 1 week ago
Sorry....get your facts straight. ALL our descendants come from Africa. Get used to it !
atheistexchristian 1 week ago
@atheistexchristian Neanderthal Man never set foot in Africa. Denisova Man didn't either. Sorry...get your facts straight! And I don't deny that early humans were in Africa...what I say is that there is no reason to suppose that these early humans were Negroid types.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana Just because there are some (2 to 4 %) Neanderthall genes in Europeans does NOT mean we are not all descended from the first humans that came out of Africa about 100 000 yrs ago. You have failed to understand the Genetics.
NoFaithNoPain 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheistexchristian wiki "human evolution"
Sivels 1 week ago
This is just a "No Transitional Fossil" argument re-adapted to "No transitional racial type" wheras there is plenty of evidence of all sorts of such gradients of peoples of different colour and facial features, both in antiquity and today. Watch some BBC documentaries, look up "Dr Alice Roberts" and you will find we ARE all decended from Africans who were almost undountedly darker skinned than Europeans today. This is not Political Correctness, just observed scientific evidence.
NoFaithNoPain 1 week ago 2
@NoFaithNoPain 'there is plenty of evidence of all sorts of such gradients of peoples of different colour and facial features, both in antiquity and today. ' That is quite simply wrong. And I have watched BBC documentaries, most of which were composed primarily of speculation. And your claim that the earliest humans were dark-skinned is pure speculation on your part.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana I am afraid you are very wrong. White skinned early Humans would not do very well in Africa so its quite obvious they were black. I know this is probably a shock to you, but it is far more than speculation. The different fossils showing half african and half european features are there. None of the evidence is 100% conclusive, except the evidence that shows that we are ALL from Africa, Neanderthall ancestry or not, unless you have some evidence of your own to put forward.
NoFaithNoPain 1 week ago
@NoFaithNoPain 'White skinned early Humans would not do very well in Africa' Oh really? So how do you explain the striking sucess of white settlers in South Africa and Rhodesia? They flourished and had no difficulties because of the climatic conditions. So your argument is utterly disproven by recent historical evidence.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana You have not disproven anything and I find that extremely premature and arrogant of you to say so. How do you explain there is not a single white minority government left, or the white populations skin cancer rates or the fact that black Africans can walk twice as far on half the water (Rhodesian Army found this) These adaptions to environment take thousands of years to make an effect not the 200 since Europeans have been in Africa.
NoFaithNoPain 1 week ago
I love how many dislikes this video has just because it challenges a common belief.
xfubar 1 week ago 4
@xfubar It's got so many dislikes for many reasons. One reason being that people (as a majority) generally dislike anything that uses old terms like "negroid" and meaningless terms like "black African" in a video based exclusively on supposition on the part of the video maker.
Besides several strawman arguments where made by atticana. In other words what atticana claimed to be a commonly held belief ended up being something he made up himself in order to refute it.
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod So you think that black African is a meaningless term do you? In that case why are most of my critics on this video indignantly asserting that we are indeed all descended from black Africans? And words like 'negro' and 'negroid' date from the time when factuality rather than political correctness was the dominant theme in discussions about race.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana Negroid is racist slang and has been used as such for hundreds of years. Now when you use the word negroid to describe dark skinned and do not use a similar word to define light skinned person there is clearly a double standard.
Your strawman is that common knowledge is we descended from "black Africans". Common knowledge is actually that our species originated in Africa and spread from there.
nanaforiod 1 week ago
Comment removed
rahotep101 1 week ago
Comment removed
rahotep101 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nanaforiod 'Negroid' is not racist slang. It describes skull shape, not skin colour.
rahotep101 1 week ago
@rahotep101 Actually, no, no it doesn't. Ask a majority of anthropologists, the idea that at least 3 different species independently evolved and now magic the ability to cross-breed is frankly bonkers.
I don't even think you believe that yourself. You know that it just means "black African" or "nigger". It is a label used to lock people into sections based on appearance in an attempt to account for natural differences in appearances based on location boundaries.
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod Where did I say they were different species?
rahotep101 1 week ago
@rahotep101 That is what the term negroid was coined to explain. It is based on the theory that though we are all human we all evolved separately and that explains the 3 (the later 5) perceived phenotype or groupings of human beings based on appearance.
If you use negroid in this sense, you are scientifically wrong.
If you use negroid as a replacement for "black" or "nigger" and as a description, you are racist.
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod I think you have got your wires crossed somewhere along the lines, and you are quite wrong. One can be black without being negroid, as certain Ethiopians exemplify. Your seem to have been misled about a lot of things, probably by people who should know better. Negroid is not a term of abuse, but a perfectly valid description, and it remains. Get used to it. You don't get to control the English language.
rahotep101 1 week ago
@rahotep101 Did you read what I said about negroid as a description? It's the equivalent to calling a group of people big noses with greedy claw arms and red hair "day walkers". They may have a name for themselves and they may even have all of the afore mentioned symptoms but they are not a subspecies or a "race". It is just an appearance they got from mom and pops and a couple ancestors down the line. Race is basically the highschool photos of our erectus of ancestors. (Puns McGee over here:)
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod But the constant insistence that 'we are all Africans', plentifully in evidence in this comment section, is being used as a tool of cultural negrification and to justify permitting high levels of immigration from Africa into Europe...'well, as we're all Africans anyway.'
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana Negrofication is not a real thing.
If you are talking about "negro culture" then you should know that there is no such thing. Cuture is 70 percent location and 30 percent genetic.
If you are talking about a big negro pity party,I'm sure some black people feel entitled to compensation just like some white people feel longing for the master race.
There is actually nothing wrong with emigration. I don't really know what this fear of immigrants is about.... Nobody needs to "justify" it.
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod Negrification is indeed a real thing. Just go to places like Detroit, Watts, Harlem or the South Side of Chicago. The cities of South Africa are now undergoing negrification. And 'negro culture' is just another way of saying black culture, which of course is a reality. Try standing up at the Black Music Awards and telling the audience: 'There is no such thing as black culture'.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana First of all what is your definition of Negrification? As there is no such word, I really don't know how to interpret it...
The process of making things blacker?
I think you are talking about African American culture though it is impossible to distinguish from American culture. Slave culture?
nanaforiod 6 days ago
@nanaforiod And on the subject of 'strawman arguments' I can hardly take such criticism seriously from someone who maintains SIMULTANEOUSLY that there is no such thing as race, but supports affirmative action programmes to help disadvantaged racial minorities! Such mental incoherence adds little to the credibility of your criticisms.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana This is classic deflection. What does my assertion that there is no real difference between races and it is therefore not a useful separation of people since we are all the same species have to do with you building strawman arguments?
Affirmative Action is flawed and really has not place in the 21st century but it exists for lack of a better system. A system that would make the quality of education better in minority and/or poor neighborhoods.
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod 'A system that would make the quality of education better in minority and/or poor neighborhoods.' What minorities? If race doesn't exist?!
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana Do you know what minority even means? It basically means a group of people (social) who are under represented because they are a small percentage of a given population. A minority group is not a race because in theory a perceived race that is a minority in one place can be considered a majority in another.
In common usage "minority" can refer to a skin color (again not "race"), lingual group or a certain religious denomination.
Minority is not another word for "negroid" (visa versa).
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod I think I also mentioned it had something to do with country of birth before...
nanaforiod 1 week ago
@nanaforiod Oh you are hilarious! You favour social programmes to help supposedly disadvantaged racial minorities and yet try to pretend that race does not exist! Mental incoherence.
atticana 1 week ago
@atticana I'm pretty sure I didn't say I favored social programs that helped "disadvantaged racial minorities". I think you inserted "racial" in a sly attempt to tailor my comment to fit your own definition of "minorities".
nanaforiod 6 days ago
@nanaforiod Many affirmative action programmes are intended to benefit 'disadvantaged racial minorities'. So, if you truly believe that there is no such thing as race then you cannot logically support such programmes. AND I assume that you are also against Black History Month, which is a racially-based concept. AND I also assume that you are against the Black Music Awards?
atticana 6 days ago