Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 06:30PM

"The site of Stonehenge — that mysterious collection of British rocks that could have served as a calendar using the stars — was also a graveyard for the elite, according to new research.

A British group led by the University College London looked at 63 bodies surrounding the historical site. They determined these people were part of a group of elite families that brought their relatives to Stonehenge for burial over more than 200 years, starting from 2,900 BC.

The bodies were buried long before the rocks visible today were erected, though."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: StillAnon ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 06:39PM

Yeah, that's what Jack the Ripper WANTS you to believe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 06:44PM

What does Jack the Ripper have to do with Stonehenge?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Anonculous ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 09:04PM

Come on sheeple.
Jet fuel can't melt stone!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 06:56PM

If the bodies were buried long before the rocks,what's the point ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 08:29PM

Studies have proven that people prefer soft ground when digging graves.

It was in all the papers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 09:33PM

They're saying they had royalty even during Neolithic times...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 27, 2017 04:18AM

Stonehenge was a sacred location for centuries and probably millennia before the stones that survive till today were erected.

The site shows the remains (foundation holes and traces of wood) of a circle of wooden pillars from earlier times. I think there may have been two successive circles. There was then at least one set of smaller stones and finally the large ones were installed. There is also a series of related ancient monuments in the region (Salisbury Plain) that were connected by roads and visual lines also antedating the "modern" monument. Some archaeologists think that the stones were aligned with solar cycles, marking the equinoxes and solstices in a way that may have symbolized the annual death and rebirth of nature.

So it wouldn't be surprising to find burials in the area that date from very early. There are also related cairns, which are clearly burial sites. I don't know how they decided the corpses at Stonehenge were of the social elite, but it makes sense given that so many resources were invested in the successive monuments. Society wouldn't have done that for poor people, I suspect.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ziller ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 07:02PM

ziller can confirm this thred ~

ziller am elite OT ~

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MeM ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 07:19PM

That's 63 more bodies than have been found for the millions killed in BOM battles.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Shummy ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 09:06PM

Stonehenge was child's play for 10 foot giants.

What else would they have left for future generations of degraded dumbasses to ponder but square stones that won't roll?

So here we are now left with our own ageless Rolling Stones who sing silly crap that speaks not one word of our wonderous past.

Stay curious Amyjo.


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: donbagley ( )
Date: November 26, 2017 09:07PM

Knowing humans, one probably had to pay a tithe to enter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: November 27, 2017 09:54AM

I'm surprised JS didn't make some "prophecy" about Stonehenge being the altar that Noah made after the flood, or some other such nonsense...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: November 27, 2017 11:05AM

The article said it was also an ancient burial site. Amyjo's subject line said it was really an ancient burial site.

Note the distortion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: November 27, 2017 11:59PM

Thanks for pointing this out, as I had read it as 'accident burial site'... Almost as clear now!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 27, 2017 11:31AM

It was a burial site before it became Stonehenge.

It's a sacred burial grounds which makes me wonder if the stones were placed to honor the deceased, as part of the rituals the ancients lived by.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anonuk ( )
Date: November 27, 2017 12:10PM

these lands have been occupied for over half a million years

( boxgrove man remains )

and the oldest cro-magnon remains in europe are also in these lands

( )

So it makes sense that no matter where one looks, one will find evidence of burials wherever there has been nearby human habitation, or evidence of murders (such as the iceman found in the alps and some of the bog bodies).

History is not quite as we are told it is, but stonehenge was a meeting place, all henges and howffs were and circles were considered sacred spaces to celtic culture and earlier cultures too.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 28, 2017 02:24AM

It's reasonably easy to identify sacrificial and class-based ceremonial burials. The former, like the bog people, had their hands bound and their necks slashed. The elite were buried with goods and symbols of their status and near important cultic sites.

Mistakes are made, but the evidence for ceremonial burials around Stonehenge is pretty good. That is why they are different from the other corpses in the area.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: November 28, 2017 09:19AM

I did some tracking--since I knew the "timeline" of Neanderthals' existence--and they're pointing to Homo heidelbergensis as the most likely suspect.

You can read Wiki on the subject, but I ruined a brand new bullchip filter trying to assimilate some bifurcated dichotomous droolings from either a grad student trying to make a name for themselves or a PhD who hasn't and likely won't. Better...

Not a very big brain, BTW, and it's unknown whether they buried their dead although Nenderthals did.

Homo habilis anyone? Please remember that it is clear that human-like creatures are better understood as a "bush" rather than a single branch, and what we know is Homo sapiens "left" Africa 50-80,000 years ago, and there's some Neanderthal admixture--source origin unknown--found at ratios from 2-5% among humans without recent African ancestry.

Spare us the Eurocentricity, please (see Piltdown Man).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anonuk ( )
Date: November 28, 2017 12:17PM

you really do seem to dislike anything remotely european, even though it was the cradle of early american civilisation. I may be wrong about your intention, but that is how you come over to me. Hate your country's past all you want; you are only hating yourself.

Here are two articles that discuss two different pieces of evidence that call into question the 'out of africa' theory. Since the discovery of the second piece of evidence, some scientists are now speculating that two separate lines of human evolution evolved in different places in the world.

The point I was trying to make was that these islands (where stonehenge is, the area in point) have been inhabited for millenia and anywhere one digs, one is likely to find something.

It wasn't so long ago that the police got called in every time a skeleton was found, which was proving tedious. When more modern techniques were available that quickly prove the remains are not the victims of a recent murder it freed up the police and put the archaeologists to work (providing the site was not conveniently 'vandalised' and the remains destroyed).

The burials nearby stonehenge predate the 'monument' and only one grave has ever been found within stonehenge and that is from much later than the surrounding burials and definitely connected with the monument.

As a previous poster pointed out, with the millions of bom populations all living and dying in the US it is strange how there has been zero evidence found pertaining exactly to them, but there is plenty of evidence of older civilisations in other lands who ritually buried goods with or without their dead.

A good piece of real estate to one group is still a good piece of real estate when a new grouping evolves.

FYI cheddar gorge man shares his rather old mitochrondial dna with a fair number of local contemporaries.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 28, 2017 02:26PM

I agree with your general statements but think we should note that the articles you cite do not unambiguously support your point about human evolution.

The first article suggests that early homonids may have been pushed by climate out of Africa to perhaps southeastern Europe much earlier than people thought. That seems plausible, surely, but it simply means that there were two strains of proto-humans both of which emerged from Africa at different times.

The NYT article is more clearly incompatible with your position. It argues, reasonably, that "our species evolved in multiple locations across the African continent." At another point, it says, “We evolved on the African continent.” The conclusion the article reaches is "our species may have been evolving as a network of groups spread across the continent."

So yes, the research suggests that humans evolved in several different places but that all of them were in Africa. Perhaps--reaching to your first article--one or two of those regions of evolution may have been just beyond territorial Africa, but the evidence still strongly supports the "Out of Africa" hypothesis.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anonuk ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 05:18AM

I first read of these 'new' theories on, there are some other articles out there and, obviously, they are not really well publicised, just as physics does not really publicise the fact that some of those in that field are trying to design experiments to ascertain what preceded the 'big bang'.

I just like new information that calls existing beliefs into question - when all material is found and examined we get a bit closer to truth either by eventually disproving the 'new' theorems and being more sure of the existing ideas, or by re-writing some part of the historical 'record' which is incorrect. Is that not what science is all about?

I have been called out before for providing just british articles and this is why I included the nytimes article - more could be found if one was willing to do one's own research.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: November 28, 2017 09:28PM

That one's characteristic of LDS apologists as well; how about speaking to what I said?

Yes, here's what you wrote, and it's not born out by scientific facts or scientific consensus:

>>"These lands have been occupied for over half a million years."

It's pure hyperbole, and your source for the information on "Boxgrove Man" was a UK tabloid. Now if my opinion on British tabloids needs defending, you're going to need a pair of Yankee chest waders to navigate the provable manure I'll offer as supporting evidence. And I'll say the same thing about American tabloids; at least until Rupert Murdoch entered the picture, their reputation was such that authentic intellectuals generally spoke of them derisively.

Half-a-million years? Spare us the exaggerations, seriously. Alas, I couldn't pull up the Nature link (behind a paywall) on the actual age of "Boxgrove Man." However...

>Mark Roberts replied by pointing out that a variety of geochronometers have been used at Boxgrove. Thermoluminescence techniques gave dates of 175,000-230,000 years; electron-spin resonance gave 205,000-281,000 years; uranium series methods gave a lower limit of 350,000 years; aminostratigraphy with marine species gave 303,000-524,000 years and with terrestrial species the results were 303,000-339,000 years. "The fact is that the range of dates obtained was so varied that we used mammalian biostratigraphy, from a European database, to construct a more accurate and testable chronological model when combined with detailed lithostratigraphic data."

>Before leaving the issue of chronology, it is worth asking how it is possible to assess the accuracy of these various estimates of age. With some sites, only a few dating techniques are possible - and the dates are accepted as the best estimate. With Boxgrove, where many conflicting dates have been obtained, why is it that the higher figures obtained from the vole clock are given the greatest weight? Since the vole clock is calibrated by reference to European sites, can it be used with confidence in southern England? Are we so sure that these adaptive changes to dental anatomy occurred at the same time all over Europe?

>The Independent on Sunday (27 August 1995) referred to these early inhabitants of the Boxgrove area as "an extinct form of early man and `the ancestor of Neanderthal Man.'" There is a strong tendency to "fit" data into theoretical moulds, and where data is limited, the fitting process is relatively easy to do. However, it has little scientific merit. It would be more judicious to qualify carefully hypothetical genealogical relationships and to remind people that source data is scarce.

And since you've elected typical "shoot-the-messenger" tactics with that claim--an obvious projection, probably born of cognitive dissonance--that I "reject my European heritage" because I "hate my country's past," or whatever it was you claimeed, well, until you offer up some professional credentials, I'm going to evaluate them for what I think they're worth. Nada... The American Republic was born out of rejecting its "European political heritage," period, which is why we don't have monarchs. Sorry.

The DNA/molecular biology evidence supporting the Out-of-Africa theory is overwhelming, and Lot's Wife is also slightly incorrect in claiming, "the research suggests that humans evolved in several different places but that all of them were in Africa." The current state of the science makes no such suggestion, and we don't know "which ancestor" gave rise to Homo sapiens. Various "modern human features" are found in a number of "candidates," but that's all, and there's evidence to the contrary as well. We find characteristics in common with Homo erectus, but there was a reason why I brought up "Homo habilis." Alas, that reality seems to have eluded you. The timeline is such that there may well be "intermediate" forms between H. erectus and H. sapiens.

And what is clear from the data--and the geography--is that Homo heidelbergensis was not a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens; there was admixture from Neanderthals, but there's no evidence of Neanderthal genes in Africans. Those "hybrids" were latecomers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 04:47AM

I agree that "the DNA/molecular biology evidence supporting the Out-of-Africa theory is overwhelming." I said as much.

Where I have trouble is with your disputing my statement that "the research suggests that humans evolved in several different places but that all of them were in Africa." In my mind there is no contradiction between your statement and mine.

Moreover, I was restating the conclusions of the research summarized in the NYT article. Where did those scientists go wrong?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anonuk ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 05:40AM

why do you have to resort to name calling and politicising the discussion by bringing up rupert murdoch?

It is very rude, to me at least. I do not debate with argumentative people any more. It is the last bit of being mormon I need to rid myself of.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 11:53AM

anonuk Wrote:
> why do you have to resort to name calling and
> politicising the discussion by bringing up rupert
> murdoch?
> It is very rude, to me at least. I do not debate
> with argumentative people any more. It is the
> last bit of being mormon I need to rid myself of.

And yet, you started YOUR post with:
"you really do seem to dislike anything remotely european, even though it was the cradle of early american civilisation. I may be wrong about your intention, but that is how you come over to me. Hate your country's past all you want; you are only hating yourself."

Pot, meet kettle.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 07:58AM

I was convinced at one time that all homo sapiens originate from Africa, from reading reports that all DNA roads lead back to Africa.

Until I had my own tested this past year. Was very surprised there was not a single DNA trace to African origins.

It could trace I had a Native American ancestor dating back several hundred years. I was otherwise nearly 100% European, with less than 4% Neanderthal (earliest origins of 40-50,000 years ago) that were traceable. Some part of my ancestry is/was Ashkenazi Jewish. That is included in the European findings.

Now I'm beginning to change my views on sub-Saharan origins as characteristic for all homo sapiens. To suggest otherwise is pure speculation on someone's part. And further hyperbole IMO.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 10:17PM

The facts you describe in your post fits the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. Where is the contradiction?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 11:21PM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
> The facts you describe in your post fits the "Out
> of Africa" hypothesis. Where is the
> contradiction?

I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion, given that I have zero sub-Saharan DNA in my genetic makeup. It makes sense only if it can be proven factually across the board. But there is no proof across the board. It is still only a hypothesis, and a poor one at that. IMO it is junk science to make unproven assertions and call them factual, kind of like the fake news that's been making the circuit of late.

A scholarly scientific review of the Out of Africa theory has put that hypothesis to rest. Original Australians did not originate out of Africa, as is shown in the following reading, among other groups.

"DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa” Theory of Human Evolution

By Steven Strong with Andy Whiteley

Contributing Writers for Wake Up World

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

This article was inspired by a comment made recently by Australian historian Greg Jefferys. So before continuing a scientific assessment of DNA evidence, we will first open this discussion by outlining Greg Jefferys’ comments.

The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990’s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it.

It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann. In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion. In their seminal paper The Recent African Genesis of Humans, they even stipulated “that all humans today can be traced along maternal lines of descent to a woman who lived about 200,000 years ago, probably in Africa.”

So how is it that their “probably” has morphed into our collective “definitely”?

Over time, even the two researchers came to discover that the research of Original Mitochondrial DNA was fundamentally flawed. Both separately conducted further tests on Mitochondrial DNA found within the blood of full-descent Original people, arriving at the same conclusion, both recanted their previous assumptions by acknowledging that Homo sapien sapiens originated in Australia.

Professor Alan Wilson came to Australia in 1987 and 1989 to personally supervise the collection of Original blood from a variety of locations throughout Australia. With a mutation rate of 70% from the samples analysed, which is manifestly higher than any other race, Wilson was compelled to admit that:

… it seems too far out to admit, but while Homo erectus was muddling along in the rest of the world, a few erectus had got to Australia and did something dramatically different – not even with stone tools – but it is here that Homo sapiens emerged and evolved.

Rebecca Cann was more expansive and specific in declaring that the Original “Mitochondrial DNA puts the origin of Homo Sapiens much further back and indicates that the Australian Aborigines arose 400,000 years ago from two distinct lineages, far earlier than any other racial group.” The notions of a “far earlier” time frame when estimating when, and the existence of “two lineages” in Australia when grappling with who, are constant themes that can be found within many other reports investigating the make up of the genes and chromosomes of Homo sapien sapiens.

The very recent mapping of the Original Genome only reinforces the stance taken by both Cann and Wilson twenty years earlier, and highlights the inconsistencies and illogicality of any and every Out-of-Africa theory. A Danish genetic research team, led by Dr. Eske Willerslev, found that Original people came into existence at least 70,000 years ago, 40,000 years before both the European and Asian race first appeared. They assumed that because Africans made their way across the entire Asian continent and never stopped or settled, and remained in transit until reaching Australia “some 50,000 years ago.” Once ensconced in this foreign land where they managed to keep “the whole continent to themselves without admitting any outsiders”, their genes should be very African.

The problem being, as they openly admit, such a premise is “based on a mixture of statistics and best guesses”, and more importantly as Wilson and Cann came to realise, “we really can’t put geography in there.” Granted, they did concede that “the Aborigine occupation of Australia presents a series of puzzles” and especially so in relation to “the nature of their stone tools found in Australia” which “are much simpler than the Upper Paleolithic tools… at the same era.” Professor Richard Klien (Paleoanthropologist Stanford University) highlighted the contradictory nature of the stone tool technology in Australia when observing that “I don’t understand why they looked so primitive.”

Basically this means that the people who invented and sailed the first boat capable of carrying many people over 100 kilometres of open sea, regressed markedly in technology once arriving on these new shores. Or perhaps in ancient days until quite recent times, no-one ever sailed to, but from, Australia, which would explain why the Original technology was so unlike anything outside their home base.

Noted by Dr. Savolainen from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, even the arrival of the only dog to reach Australia until the British invasion is an “enigma”.

We would humbly suggest that proclaiming any genetic absolutes, when dealing with Australian history, is risky business and best left to the Original Elders.

What only complicates the convenient versions of history is the totally unexpected addition to the ever-expanding hominid family: the Denisovans. Just after the release of a paper on the mapping of the Original Genome from a piece of hair collected 100 years ago, the first news of a new species of hominid – called the Denisovans – reached the public arena. All evidence found – especially in relation to the mtDNA extracted from the little finger of a Denisovan woman believed to be 80,000 years old – widens the geographic boundaries and time-scales of this recurring “enigma”. First and foremost, the resulting mtDNA of this sub-species of modern humans was compared against every race and tribe on the planet, and the closest genetic match was, as we would have predicted, the Australian Original people.

Thirty thousand years before the first Africans supposedly entered Australia, Original, not African, genes turn up in Siberia. The real issue at stake is that the Denosovans are considered a lesser species of early human, placed somewhere below Neanderthals, while the Original people, according to every model, are fully Homo sapien sapiens. So how is it possible that this regression took place? And did so, so far from home?

Some commentators proposed that this contact was not due to Original people sailing from Australia, but the Denisovans sailing to Australia. But alas, to for the Denisovans to have done so is in opposition to every accredited theory on the rise of Homo sapien sapiens, where they alone mastered the art of sailing to other continents in numbers large enough to genetically sustain their founding populations. Apparently, the Denisovans, who are well down the Hominid tree, were able to communicate, construct a boat of sizeable proportions, and navigate a successful voyage of thousands of kilometers on the open seas. This hypothesis just doesn’t make sense. What does sound more logical was that Homo sapiens were actually sailing from Australia and bestowing wisdom, culture and genes, with the Denisovans gratefully receiving all of these gifts.

Now the plot thickens and unravels.

An article in the New York Times on 4th December 2013 lays claim to a “baffling 400,000 year old clue to human origins”. On this occasion, humanity’s indirect ancestry was traced back to Spain during pre-Homo sapien sapiens times, and once again Denisovan genes are at play. So it appears the same hominid who is most closely linked to the Original genes of Australia was wandering around the Spanish countryside some 400,000 years ago, well before any African Homo sapien could be claimed to have stepped in, on or outside African soil.

“Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries”. The femur bone found in cave was analysed by Dr. Matthias Meyer (geneticist Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology). When Meyer and his colleagues “drilled into the femur, they found ancient human DNA inside, just as they hoped”.

But past this point, nothing went according to their script. Much to their surprise, the DNA they recovered – the oldest yet by over 100,000 years – “most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans”, originally thought to be 80,000 years old and confined to the Northern Asian region. This finding was the cause of great consternation. “Everyone had a hard time believing it at first” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down”. Not surprisingly, their further research only confirmed the original results.

As Meyer quite rightly observed: “right now, we’ve basically generated a big question mark”.

As was the case with the Genome studies of Original hair, “the new finding is hard to reconcile with the [accepted] picture of human evolution”. None of what they found fits into any traditional version of human ascension, and according to Dr. Luis Asauaga (Paleoanthropologist, Universdad Complutense de Madrid) this discovery demands that “we have to rethink the whole story”.

And that last statement by Dr. Asauaga really sums up the case for the entire Out-of-Africa theory: it is a “story”, it was never a fact. From the very beginning it was always a “probably” at best. But this is only one half of the story… all of the evidence we have presented relates to women’s side of the genetic pool, and until the male’s Y-Chromosome is factored into this ancient narrative, any “rethink” of the “whole story” is incomplete.

What really does reinforce Greg Jeffreys’ contention that the genetic evidence is in stark contradiction to any Out-of-Africa theory, is that time after time the many Y-Chromosome papers released over the last decade stand united in their denial of any African input. And this is by no means a recent occurrence, as evidenced by a paper released in 1999 by Australian researchers Vandenburg and colleagues. As it was with other studies, the results were as inconvenient as they were unexpected. Vandenburg found that “Australian Y-chromosome diversity is surprisingly limited”. In contrast with the Genome researchers’ assumption that Australian was literally sealed off genetically until their land was stolen in 1788, Vandenburg made note of “two haplotypes unique to Australian Aboriginals”. But if indeed Africans sailed to Australia and were immediately isolated genetically, this just should not happen – every Original haplotype should have close to an identical African match.

Further information added to the African inconsistencies, while also reinforcing an observation offered by Rebecca Cann in relation to mtDNA evidence that suggested the first Original Homo sapien sapiens were sourced from “two lineages”. The results gathered “were compared with other worldwide populations” which “produced 41 unique haplotypes”. Instead of an even spread amongst so many haplotypes, in Australia a far more intense clustering was present in that “most (78%) of Australian haplotypes fell into two clusters, possibly indicating two original, separate lineages of Aboriginal Australians”. To that end, since at least two Original haplotype groups have no African counter-part, there can be no African involvement, mtDNA or Y-chromosomes in either of the “two lineages”.

As such, a very recent paper on Y-chromosomes released in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in Australia, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa”.

Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that:

“the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262 …”

There are 11 more entries in this list of non-starters, all missing from both Europeoids and “all non-African groups,” which obviously includes the Original Australians. With the Original people exhibiting an intense clustering into two groups, haplogroups not present in any African genes and an absence of dozens of African genetic markers, it is very difficult nigh on impossible to sustain any link between Africa and Australia.

The researchers are adamant that their extensive study “offers evidence to re-examine the validity of the Out-of-Africa concept”. They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.

We regard the claim of “a more plausible explanation” as a gross understatement, since there is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes. In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.

The only remaining uncertainty relates to the identity of this “more ancient common ancestor”. All that can be stated with confidence is that humanity’s ancestor did not reside in Africa, but “probably” Australia.

When an Original Elder of high standing recently declared that “all peoples of the world come from us”, it seems he had a large body of genetic science standing beside him."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 11:47PM

> Amyjo said:

> I don't see how you can arrive at that
> conclusion, given that I have zero sub-
> Saharan DNA in my genetic makeup.

Everybody on the earth today traces back ancestry to Africa 50,000 years ago. The ancestry DNA searches only extract data for ancestors dating back a few hundred years. It's that simple.

"Although some DNA tests probe into deeper ancestry, back thousands of years, the autosomal test that you took from 23andMe generally shows more recent ancestry, quite reliably over the last 100 to 200 years—in your case, since the time of slavery, when this “admixing” most likely occurred. Given this information, the African DNA identified in your test is not from ancient ancestors (after all, 50,000 or so years ago, all of our ancestors were Africans, but that ancient DNA has largely disappeared) but, rather, from more recent ancestors, people whose actual identities you could find if you could construct a detailed family tree of ancestors who lived in the last couple of centuries."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 01:19AM

This is correct, of course. The one thing I would add is that the Neanderthal DNA goes back much further than a few hundred years but it also originated in Africa.

The companies include it because 1) it is easy to identify in HSS, and 2) people get excited about it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 04:36AM

50,000 years ago may be wrong, though, EOD. I think there was an earlier wave of Hss who left Africa; and the Neanderthals and some other homonids were even earlier. So maybe all modern DNA derives from Africa at 200,000 BCE? Perhaps earlier? Someone here probably has a good idea of the consensus.

In any case, your point remains true. All modern DNA is African plus various accretions of mutations.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 12:31AM

They lived in Europe, probably evolving from Homo heidelbergensis...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 01:30AM

I've read articles that say the Neanderthals did come out of Africa, and a Wiki entry I just read also says they did come out of Africa. So did the Australian Aborigines, though they hate losing their personal belief that didn't.

Personally I don't really care and maybe the controversy will never be resolved, but at least you're not quoting sources which have preconceived notions and 'fit' their 'science' to meet their goals.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 04:54AM

Google "human dispersal out of Africa" and there are a number of good sources. The standard view is that modern humans left Africa about 60,000 years ago but there is some evidence that an earlier wave, or waves, at 80,000 to 100,000 years ago may have left a small population in Papua New Guinea, which accounts for a small percentage of the Australian genome--perhaps 4%, or just a bit more than the Neanderthal contribution. In either case, all of the homonid DNA ultimately came from Africa, with some speciation (if that word does not overstate the differences) occurring thereafter.

My understanding of Neanderthals is similar to EOD's: that they left through the Middle East, much as modern humans would later do. Ultimately, though, all of the various hominids trace their genetic heritage, minus subsequent mutations, to Africa. That is why, obviously, Neanderthals and modern humans could interbreed when they encountered one another. They weren't very different.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 01:38AM

The debate is not over whether hominids all arose in Africa--the DNA evidence is clear on that--but rather when and how they did.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: December 02, 2017 12:32AM

I awoke yesterday to an e-mail from another RFM regular who elected to forward this information to me simply because he felt it wasn't worth the time posting this factual information, that people here only wanted to argue...

I won't deny that I may be drawn to a "good argument," but that claim about the "debunking" of the Out of Africa Theory isn't even a good argument.

Per Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion; you're not entitled to your own facts.

/joe friday voice on

>>I saw a claim on RFM "A scholarly scientific review of the Out of Africa theory has put that hypothesis to rest. Original Australians did not originate out of Africa"

(link to this thread)

>>I don't even want to get into it on RFM but wanted to pass on to you a little about those so-called scholars.

>>Steven Strong is a secondary school teacher with a background in Archaeology and Education. No molecular science degree, no advanced degree in archaeology or anthropology.

>>He claims that "Australia has been visited in the past by the Ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, etc., along with the distinct possibility of an even more ancient Extra-terrestrial presence."

(Wow, Erich von Däniken, Gavin Menzies, and some others all rolled into one, and they even brought their own spaceship)

>>Andy Whiteley is a former corporate manager turned writer, editor and co-founder of Wake Up World. No advanced degree in molecular science, etc.

>.They are just crank writers, no different than [Rodney] Meldrum. Wake Up World is like Epoch Times, just a bunch of pseudo garbage.

#giving these yayhoos directions to a $#!% Talkers Anonymous meeting...

A question and a statement for AmyJo: Q: When are you going to give up the adolescent drama in your life?

And the statement: If you would avail yourself of readily accessible peer reviewed material, you wouldn't be subjected to "sneer review."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 01:56AM

"The Misuse of Genetics in Pseudoscience"

Jennifer Raff is a molecular biologist and anthropologist who writes a blog,, discussing the issues arising from the use of genetics in science and pseudo-science. In this video she addresses the issue of genetic testing and points out the impossibility of using tests of modern individuals to draw any definitive conclusions about ancient peoples.

11:20 mark: Limitations of Genetic ancestry testing…

39:26 mark, present day patterns of genetic variation

>Reasons for doing genetic ancestry testing

>Serious Problems:

42:00 mark: What can ancestry testing tell you?

>It can't tell you where everyone who shares your DNA currently lives.

>In some cases, present day patterns of genetic variation reflect what was there in the past. [thus no generalization is possible, and it is the "testing of the past" that tells us what was extant at that time]

>Ancestry testing cannot tell you who you are.

>The database chosen matters. We know for sure they do not have complete coverage of people on the globe. The results are probablistic.

>No genetic sequence is diagnostic of a population.

>Ancestry testing is fun, and it can be really helpful. Remember,howeer, it's a commercial endeavor [as a opposed to a scientific one].

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: November 28, 2017 11:05AM

What does our Fearfull Leader (D.T.) say about this?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2017 11:06AM by GNPE.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 01:43AM

He says Stonehenge was one of his earliest real estate projects.

He succeeded "bigly."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hockeyrat ( )
Date: November 28, 2017 10:08PM

Makes sense if the area was sacred and had an energy field around it or something, that they'd bury royalty or elite people there.
The stones were probably added centuries, to mark it.
There supposed to be lots of energy felt in that area, like a ley line or something ( new age thought)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 08:28AM

It's a power point (energy) in that part of the world? Interesting. That's one place I'd love to visit.

Niagara Falls is one in upstate NY. Energy supplies draw from it for both Canada and the US.

Whenever I've visited there am drawn to the Falls not just for its spectacular scenery and beauty. It has a calming effect on people, and emits energy at the same time.

It too was a sacred spiritual site for Native American Indians. They would go there to meditate and for a sanctuary (of nature.)

So in that sense, Stonehenge and Niagara Falls both share that in common. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Soft Machine ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 07:46AM

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 08:04AM

Both have been sacred spiritual sites for millenia to the earliest inhabitants to those parts.

With Niagara Falls there is measured energy when you consider the power grids connecting it to the Northeastern United States and to Canada.

The Niagara River is one of the world's major sources of hydroelectro power.

It emits high levels of energy around it because of this natural energy source in abundance.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2017 08:04AM by Amyjo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 30, 2017 01:23PM

Tom, you rationalist, you!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 10:30PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: November 29, 2017 11:20PM

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hockeyrat ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 12:39AM

Remember the movie " Spinal Tap", where they ended up with a tiny miniature Stonehenge prop , instead of the large one ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: December 01, 2017 10:03AM

No, but I'll watch it this weekend.

In 1984 when it was released I was an active TBM undergrad in college. R rated movies was off my radar list (mostly.) I did make rare exceptions.

Like for Orwell's 1984. That was a "must see."

The Stonehenge prop has got to be funny.


Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In

Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **      **  ********   **     **  **     **  **        
 **  **  **  **     **   **   **   ***   ***  **    **  
 **  **  **  **     **    ** **    **** ****  **    **  
 **  **  **  ********      ***     ** *** **  **    **  
 **  **  **  **           ** **    **     **  ********* 
 **  **  **  **          **   **   **     **        **  
  ***  ***   **         **     **  **     **        **