Anthropology

[phoenix]

where did people come from?

which were the original races?

why are the chinese/south east asians so different from pakistanis/indians - though they are all from asia?

(NB - i use the word race here in a scientific sense - recognize that its a loaded word - BUT PLEASE - no racial debate here please - lets keep this focussed on scientific logic and proof)

[rolling ball]

I think the Indians and Pakistanis are different from the Chinese/SEAs because their origins are more to the Middle Eastern than to the east.

As far as I can remember from my classes, there are Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negorids.

ah, just found something from my search of those keywords  http://www.***.com/ach_mist/races.html

[nualum]

Anthropologists generally agree that humans began in Africa. They then spread to other parts of the world, essentially by walking there.

Noticeable, sometimes sharp differences in physical appearance between groups living on the same continent could arise because for thousands of years groups tended to live in isolation and marry within the group. This kept the gene pool fairly narrow in range. This also explains how so many languages existed in fairly small areas. Each linguistic group lived in relative isolation and had limited interactions with outsiders.

[phoenix]

phil M,

your views?

[Horsesh*t]

The best documentary on this subject can be found in "The Journey of Man". Genetic markers trace us back to the bushmen of Namibia and South Africa. Some of these folks, our genetic ancestors, are still alive today. About 50,000 years ago, severe and prolonged drought conditions in Africa forced a series of migrations from the tip of Africa to many parts of the world. The migrations and inbreeding of perculiar mutations (due to isolation of groups over time) spawned a genetic tree whereby everyone of us can be traced to specific branches and offshoots, thanks to the Y Chromosome which unlike the X Chromosome is not sliced and diced when father passes gene to son.

The notable spots where genetic markers can be sampled to reveal settlement, passage and branching of the bushmen are India, Kazakhstan, Siberia. Most of the China tribes came from two branches in two separate migrations (northwards and southwards) directly out of Africa. Some China tribes branched off from the Kazakh/Siberian junctions. The Australia tribes journeyed from South Africa by foot eastwards hugging the coast all the way to India, South East Asia and finally to Oz. The receding of sea level by several hundred feet around 50,000 years ago coincided with the eastward migration. Genetic markers linking the aborigines of Australia with bushmen of Namibia are found in southern India. Northern India was populated by migrations directly out of Africa. Some in this branch settled in the fertile regions of Mesopotamia (Iraq) and their offsprings moved westwards to the Med and southern Europe. Northern and eastern Europeans came off a branch from Central Asia, in what is known today as Kazakhstan. That mother of all junction in Kazakhstan spawned further migrations of mutants not only to Europe, but also to Siberia where more branches proceeded to the Americas (via the Bering land bridge) and southwards to Mongolia and China. Japanese Ainu, Taiwanese Shantis and Polynesians came from branches in the Namibia-India-South East Asia-Australia migration.

Some loved it cold while some loved it hot. Some prefered north while some did not. There you go, in a nutshell. Did I miss anyone?  

[PhilM]

We Homo Sapiens Sapiens have only been around for about 100-120,000 years; there have recently been some good series on both Discovery and National Geographic Channel regarding our evolution. It seems whilst anthropologists agree we have evolved from Homo Sapiens there are two schools of thought as to how we did so.

The traditional school of thought sees Africa as the cradle of modern man with the entire world population having evolved from Homo Sapiens there and spread across the planet. Others believe modern man evolved from Homo Sapiens in Africa, Asia, and Europe at the same time. From what I have read and seen in documentaries it seems irrelevant which school of thought you belong to as both agree Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus in Africa who first evolved himself some 1.8 million years ago.

A recent documentary series that looked into genes found the largest diversity was found in Africa which tended to show it was where we origianted from, but ultimately all of mankind could trace their origins back to just five mothers. This did not mean there were only five original female humans simply that only the offspring of those five has survived through the past 100,000 odd years.

Regional differences are normally explained in several ways – the first the Darwinian theory the fittest evolve to survive in their given surroundings with climate, diet, lifestyle etc all affecting evolution. This is relatively easy to prove, go to any museum and look at clothes from just 200 years ago, most of us today are far to big to fit into them mainly due to diet, healthcare and our living conditions.

The other rationale (which some people find harder to accept) is that some of the differences came about through inter breeding with other humanoid species. It is argued there was inter breeding between Humans and Neanderthals, which goes to explain the heavy brow ridges of some individuals. In Asia it is argued Humans inter bred with Homo Erectus (No pun intended) as they have the same shovel shaped incisors as found in  Homo Erectus fossils.

Again through inter marriage there has been cross mutation of genes worldwide throughout recorded history, which have kept humans as a whole similar in structure, development etc. An exception to this is the aboriginal people of Australia who became isolated on their arrival there and thus kept their gene pool pure for 50,000 years without any outside influence.

Of course not all humans have evolved and developed at the same rate as this we photo shows: -
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushignoramus.htm?iam=momma_100_SKD&terms=homo+sapiens+sapiens

Sorry I could not resist that one! So interesting all of our studies show we all come from a common gene pool of five mothers yet many of us are stupid enough to behave in a racist manner to anyone who looks different to us!

[Imagine]

Is it possible for scientific logic and proof to co-exist next to Genesis 1 ?

[rolling ball]

Sure, time is relative. One day in God's term might be a million years for man. So the creation of man, might be a million years and I'm not sure Genesis mentioned wheter the creation of man is instantaneous, therefore it is possible that the creation of man is gradual. In scientific terms, we started from small organisms and evolved into man.

Come to think of it, if God created light on the first day and the definition of one day is from, for example, one sunrise to the next sunrise, how does anyone know that it takes one day to create light?

Another question that just popped into my mind, if God is the only perfect being in the universe, then isn't it  possible that the bible, written by man and translated into many languages, can have imperfection?

[nualum]

The sequence of evolution as generally understood in science and the sequence of creation in six days as described in Genesis are roughly equivalent. The hang-up for those who interpret the Bible literally is in the definition of "day."

If day is understood to mean an indeterminate amount of time, i.e. an aeon or age or phase, there is not much difficulty reconciling the two versions. If day is understood to mean a 24 hour period of time, either the scientific evidence has to be denied or its apparent contradiction has to be rationalized in some way.