https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AoRsa0Q5pA0&feature=youtu.be#

This explanation of our origins, which is backed up by genetic testing, totally debunks the two bogus myths about race,

1. that there is no scientific basis for race and
2. White race is the one and only pure race

1. Eurasians are 2-4% Neanderthal
Asians/Native Americans are an additional 3-5% Denisovan and
Africans are neither.
2. The first Homo Sapiens were Africans.
So was the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Everybody else is part Neanderthal/Denisovan or both. Meaning, we are all hybrids, mutts, not purebreds, except Africans, who are the only modern humans who are pure Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And even Homo Sapiens Sapiens are hybrids of Homo Sapiens Idaltu and the 15 other species of homos who lived with them in Africa before being consolidated into one species.
Thankfully we really do have genetic diversity, otherwise we would have all died out by now.

PROUD MUTT HERE!!!!!!!!!

Also, I hope if more people know this, that the wonderful end of white supremacy will occur!!! When white supremacy beliefs end, I will throw a party in my house!

I’ll bring my Lynyrd Skynyrd albums.

HA HA! Lynyrd Skynyrd is a talented band though, not gonna lie. “Cause I'm as free as a bird now
And this bird you can not change”

You can move to Liberia or Ethiopia today.

Neither country was ever colonized by Europeans.
Italy was in Ethiopia for about 5 years ('36-'41) but they left.

Enjoy your Wakanda celebration and new lifestyle, free of Europeans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_settlement_in_Africa_map1962.png

Check this map out! It doesn’t say Liberia or Ethiopia has no whites, but each have a very small white population. Also, a lot of humanitarian workers in those countries are white. I may see white people in those countries.

Even though this map dates from 1962, it does still imply that the statement “no whites in Ethiopia and Liberia” is false.

I am white myself.

Just move there already.

Don’t have much money. I’d go broke.

It’s not like I can use my parent’s money either...

> Neither country was ever colonized by Europeans.
> Italy was in Ethiopia for about 5 years ('36-'41)
> but they left.

Those two sentences are contradictory. Italy was in fact an Italian colony, ruled over by a colonial viceroy and deemed part of the Italian Empire in Africa.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2019 06:54PM by Lot's Wife.

I like to watch racist heads explode when I tell them that all humans came from Africa.

That will be fun to watch!

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like to watch racist heads explode when I tell
> them that all humans came from Africa.

A political statement masquerading as science.

I don't "come from Africa". I don't doubt if you go far back enough I have ancestors who lived in Africa, but that doesn't make me African. No doubt some of my remote ancestors lived in what is now Italy or Kazakhstan, but that doesn't make me Italian or Kazakh.

When people make the statement, "we're all African", like you did, they are (un)consciously doing three things:

* Culturally appropriating Africanness and uhuru, i.e. "we're just as African as you".

* Undermining the claims of various groups to indigeneity within non-African areas, such as Native Americans, i.e. "we have as much right to take your land as you and you're no more from here than us."

* Denying the variety, or if you prefer "diversity" of mankind, i.e. "there is no difference between us, so why are you complaining?"

Thus there is actually a quite colonial mentality behind this platitude, particularly in regards to Africa itself.

Technically you are correct. I should have said human ancestors. Is this why you are superior to Africans ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2019 07:49AM by Dave the Atheist.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Technically you are correct. I should have said
> human ancestors. Is this why you are superior to
> Africans ?

How can I be superior to Africans, when according to you, I am one? How does that work? Isn't that a bit like saying I am superior to men, when I am a man. There is a gaping big hole in your logic.

My body is adapted to deal with conditions in a subarctic to temperate, damp climate. So that includes a big nose and light skin to collect Vitamin D from sunlight. This gives me some advantages if I live in those conditions. It also gives me disadvantages in hot dry climates with strong sun etc. This is what is called evolution. These benefit me in some environments and not others.

They do not help me much in Africa, which tends to be hot and sunny.

Atheist Dave to Arrente person: "You're an African."
Arrente: "But my ancestors have been in Australia for sixty thousand years."
Dave: "You're African."
Arrente: "Does that mean I don't belong here?"

* Arrernte - excuse the spelling mistake, mate.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like to watch racist heads explode when I tell
> them that all humans came from Africa.

Sometimes the racist heads don't explode because the substances inside them are inert. It's like trying to get a fission reaction from lead.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dave the Atheist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I like to watch racist heads explode when I
> tell
> > them that all humans came from Africa.
>
> Sometimes the racist heads don't explode because
> the substances inside them are inert. It's like
> trying to get a fission reaction from lead.

The only heads exploding are those dealing with the cognitive dissonance arising from their doublethink.

ILLOGICAL DOUBLETHINK #1
a) Race doesn't exist.
b) We must fight racism.

The illogic here arises from the denial of human diversity (which is ironically racist in itself), versus the notion that this non-existent notion must be protected. The two statements are contradictory. If there is no race, why speak of racism? You might as well speak of prejudice against other non-existent things.

LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE #2
a) Race exists.
b) We must fight racism.

This acknowledges and accepts human diversity, while fighting to preserve it unlike #1, which ultimately denies it.

This is the sensible and logical view, and falls in line with evolution instead of pretending that is something that only happens to other species.

LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE #2
a) Race doesn't exist.
b) We can't fight what doesn't exist.

This is a poor relation to #2, and neither acknowledges human diversity, nor does it deal with the issues arising from it. But it is still more logical than #1.

Wheeeeee! I love the feel of the wind in my face!!! Faster, faster!!!!

Dogs are all dogs.

That doesn't mean that there aren't different breeds of dogs.

A St. Bernard is not a Cocker Spaniel or a Golden Retriever.

A Golden Retriever is not a Chesapeake Bay Retriever or Chihuahua. A Beagle is not identical and interchangeable with a German Shepherd.

Mutts have their own unique and lovable qualities. Some mutts eventually become the founding fathers and mothers of established breeds.

> Some mutts eventually become the founding fathers
> and mothers of established breeds.

And their successors in those breeds frequently suffer from profound genetic problems: hip trouble in big dogs, diabetes in others, structural apnea in some terriers and other breeds.

There is a price to pay, in the coin of health, for narrowing the gene pool.

Wolves or other wild ancestors of domesticated canines did not just spontaneously begin delivering golden retrievers. There were no doubt numerous intermediate combinations along the way, until something approximating a golden retriever came along and mated with something else that approximated a golden retriever, eventually leading to a stable breed that became...as to all important characteristics...what we know now as a golden retriever.

Different combinations of mutts would not necessarily be a narrowing of the gene pool, but rather could be an expanding. Mutts by definition already signify a diversity of genetic ancestry.

Obviously, some combinations of traits are going to be more successful and some less successful. Many of the show dog breeds have significant genetic problems and often because they were intentionally bred for appearances and without concern for long-term health or heartiness.

Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wolves or other wild ancestors of domesticated
> canines did not just spontaneously begin
> delivering golden retrievers. There were no doubt
> numerous intermediate combinations along the way,
> until something approximating a golden retriever
> came along and mated with something else that
> approximated a golden retriever, eventually
> leading to a stable breed that became...as to all
> important characteristics...what we know now as a
> golden retriever.

You omit the fact that all dog breeds were bred by people. It wasn't a Golden Retriever bumping into another Golden Retriever. It was artificial breeding undertaken by humans. Let dogs breed at will and in a few generations they all look roughly like Dingoes and have substantially healthier genetics.


------------------
> Different combinations of mutts would not
> necessarily be a narrowing of the gene pool, but
> rather could be an expanding. Mutts by definition
> already signify a diversity of genetic ancestry.

That is precisely my point. Mutts are healthier than narrowly bread dogs. In effect, a mutt represents a step back to the larger gene pool. But the moment you start breeding an animal for specific characteristics, you introduce a higher degree of collateral genetic problems.


------------
> Obviously, some combinations of traits are going
> to be more successful and some less successful.
> Many of the show dog breeds have significant
> genetic problems and often because they were
> intentionally bred for appearances and without
> concern for long-term health or heartiness.

What is true for show dogs is true, to a lesser extent, for the normal products of breeding. This isn't a normal process of natural selection: it is an artificial process whereby the standard for survival is appeal to human preferences.

Remove the humans and the various breeds will disappear within a decades. What remains will be an animal without the genetic defects people introduced.

the result of human interventions is an oversimplification. There have been natural hybrids that have emerged without any human intervention. North American gray wolves are known to trace back to a naturally occurring coyote-wolf hybrid.

And not all breeds are particularly defective genetically. Golden retrievers have longer lifespans than wolves. There is no strong evidence indicating that wild dogs are generally healthier across the board than domesticated dog breeds. Beagles have average lifespans that are double and triple the lifespans of wild canine species. Dingos in the wild have very short lifespans. Kept and protected, they're still shorter than beagles.

I would hate to see beagles disappear...or collies, or labs, or german shepherds or chihuahuas. Who knows what would happen to such breeds if humans left the scene? But for now humans have not left the scene.

Foxes have very short lifespans and are not particularly healthier than stable breeds. In healthy, stable, populous breeds all you really have to do is avoid mating between closely related siblings and cousins. Plus, inbreeding is not uncommon in the wild. In fact avoidance of inbreeding (among cousins (1st, 2nd, 3rd) is often a feature of human intervention.

Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the result of human interventions is an
> oversimplification.

All dogs are the result of human intervention. That is the definition of "dog."


-------------
> There have been natural
> hybrids that have emerged without any human
> intervention. North American gray wolves are
> known to trace back to a naturally occurring
> coyote-wolf hybrid.

Suggesting that certain wolves and other wild animals are "naturally occurring. . . hybrids" is fine--we all know that--but it has nothing to do with dogs, which are defined as the result of human breeding for characteristics that appeal to humans.


---------------
> And not all breeds are particularly defective
> genetically. Golden retrievers have longer
> lifespans than wolves.

And if you take any form of hare or rabbit from the wild and rear it in captivity, with decent housing and food, its life span increases from 2-3 years to 10-12 years. It is therefore not surprising that many pets live longer than the same species, or breed, in the wild.


-----------------
> There is no strong
> evidence indicating that wild dogs are generally
> healthier across the board than domesticated dog
> breeds. Beagles have average lifespans that are
> double and triple the lifespans of wild canine
> species.

You can't glean meaningful information about genetics from the lifespans of domesticated versus wild animals. The domestic ones almost always live longer by virtue of being reared by humans and protected from the tribulations of life in the wild.


------------
> Dingos in the wild have very short
> lifespans. Kept and protected, they're still
> shorter than beagles.

That might be true. It still doesn't address the question of whether human intervention in in the breeding of DOGS generally increases genetic abnormalities in DOGS.


----------------
>
> I would hate to see beagles disappear...or
> collies, or labs, or german shepherds or
> chihuahuas. Who knows what would happen to such
> breeds if humans left the scene? But for now
> humans have not left the scene.

All of this may be true, but it is irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.


--------------
> Foxes have very short lifespans and are not
> particularly healthier than stable breeds.

I don't know if foxes are less healthy than stable breeds of dogs. But foxes aren't dogs. And they live in the wild, which shortens their lifespans considerably.


-----------
> In
> healthy, stable, populous breeds all you really
> have to do is avoid mating between closely related
> siblings and cousins.

If that were true, you wouldn't have genetic abnormalities that bedevil certain breeds of dogs. And yet the problems are well-known.

https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/ss/slideshow-dog-breed-health-problems


-----------------
> Plus, inbreeding is not
> uncommon in the wild. In fact avoidance of
> inbreeding (among cousins (1st, 2nd, 3rd) is often
> a feature of human intervention.

Are you seriously arguing that human breeding has rendered dogs healthier than they would otherwise be? Because that is NOT a well-accepted idea.

> Remove the humans and the various breeds will
> disappear within a decades. What remains will be
> an animal without the genetic defects people
> introduced.

A lot of breeds will become extonct because they are unfit for survival, ezpecially the toy or long hair breeds. Also great Danes or wolf hounds due to size.

Some breeds are better equipped for survival than others. Huskies and German shepherds are basically wolves. Some sheepdogs have high intelligence and would be well equipped in that respect. Other dogs are physically agile or atrong.

But not your average sonufabitch!

So they’ll be changing the temple film to have a black Adam and a black Eve?

They did that with Adam and Eve in Amazon's "Good Omens" (take that, white privilege!). It was a pretty good and expensive series but yes that bit took me back to the temple. You can buy anything in this world with money.

Neanderthal Pride parade!!

(OK, we'll let the Denisovans tag along)

P.S. Can't believe no one's linked to this yet: :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JF_H0-fJQ

Woof!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2019 11:47AM by Lethbridge Reprobate.

My question is,
where is any hint of the narrative told by our DNA in the so-called "Word of God"?

Kori, religionists are looking at you, they see your lips moving, but then they shrug their shoulders and say, "I can't heeeaaarrr you!"

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kori, religionists are looking at you, they see
> your lips moving, but then they shrug their
> shoulders and say, "I can't heeeaaarrr you!"

Definition of delusion: Maintaining erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Erroneous belief: We all came from Adam and Eve, who were the first "humans" and lived 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

Evidence to the contrary: DNA test prove Eurasians interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, both sub species of Humans who predated Modern Humans by at least 200,000 years, and both went extinct about the same time we domesticated dogs, 35,000 years ago.

I can’t heeeaaarrr you!

"Whaaattt?"

My ExMo Son thinks its racist to ask what race he is on college applications, so when he is forced to answer he checks the African American box, despite having blue eyes and blonde hair, since he figures we are 97% African and only 3% Neanderthal, which isn't one of the choices.
So one day he got a call from the Financial Aid office telling him to stop by and pick up the scholarship he had received. He said, I didn't apply for a scholarship. They told him this one didn't require him to apply, he just got it based upon his application. He went to pick it up and told them his name. The clerk found his file and said, "Uh, you don't LOOK African American!"
He said, loudly so everybody in the office could hear,"Oh My GOD, That's the most racist thing I have EVER heard!"
She looked side to side and handed him the envelope. He opened it up and it had a $5,000 check made out to him. He had worked hard and saved up tuition $ already so he thought, man I had my eye on a really nice $5k video camera for awhile. So he bought it and put himmself through college as a wedding videographer with it.
People say that took much needed $ away from other less privaleged minorities, but like he said, "Hey Man, I'll argue my case all the way to the Supreme Court if you want to go there."

A woman has been in the news over the past few years for claiming "African-American" status on applications and such when she wasn't. It didn't turn out well for her.

It was wrong for your son to do what he did, no matter how he justified it. He knew that check box didn't apply to him as far as racial status goes, so in an effort to be tricky or funny or something he checks it? Then he plays the racist card when he's called out on it? Then he keeps the money?

Wow. I wouldn't hire him if I knew that bit of info. What else will he falsify thinking its clever to do so?

Kori,

Your son may be in some legal jeopardy. It wasn't intentional fraud because he wasn't applying for money, but now that he knows he is intentionally continuing to enjoy the fruits of fraud.

I'd have an attorney chime in if I were you.

It's not a problem until the matter is prosecuted. If the statute of limitations has passed, the only people who care are those who want to use it against you.

No one worries about the fact that they drove 90 mph for 15 minutes to get to work on time.

There's a city in the South East of the USA where a notorious bully was shot by someone in order to protect a third party. There were at least 40 people who either saw the shooting or who turned to see why a gun had gone off and saw enough to be able to conclude that Mr. X shot the unarmed bully.

When the police arrived, everyone they spoke to denied knowing who the shooter was. The police knew they were being lied to. Apparently, there is now an element of pride among the townspeople regarding this event.

Who among you can cast the first stone? Oh sure, sometimes we can't wait to cast the first stone, but...

And seriously, what's the last law, statute or ordinance that you broke and felt no guilt?

> And seriously, what's the last law, statute or
> ordinance that you broke and felt no guilt?

Was that you at the stop sign last night? Well, it wasn't me and you can't prove it was.

Seriously, you wouldn't worry about the university coming after Kori's son? I mean, he'll probably get more checks as the terms march on. Each of those would be under false pretenses, no?

I would probably have it in the back of my mind, until the statute ran...

I have been taught to see how laws are observed, rather than how they're written. I credit mormons and mormonism.

There is truth in that: decades of parsing scripture to render it palatable is great preparation for all that sophistry you esquires get up to.

Oh, it was much more blatant than that.

On a scouting trip up to Cold Creek Canyon, the leadership turned a blind eye to the rougher element of the scouts netting over 50 trout, when netting was prohibited and the daily limit was five 12" fish. The rowdy ones filled a bushel basket.

I broke the law right up there next to murder and paid no consequence except having to wait six months to go on a mission. I didn't have to forego partaking of the sacrament, nor stop preparing and blessing the sacrament.

In the mission field, the law in Mexico was that non-immigrating foreigners had to leave the country every six months and get a new visa before reentering. The mission leadership was ever so proud that they could get our visas renewed without us having to follow the law. Wheee!

How many of you have had a bishop or SP who did great work and then it was discovered that he'd been boinking his secretary for a couple of years?

Everyone one of us has laws we think it's okay to break. If there were a ghawd, I might be feeling a bit nervous...

>> "It's not a problem until the matter is prosecuted."

That may be true, but its a matter of character before that.

schrodingerscat said "My ExMo Son thinks its racist to ask what race he is on college applications...."

So he should not have checked any box or checked "other" if that was an option. If he thinks its racist to ask, he should not have specified a race, especially one that he knows he does not belong to in the context of a college admissions application. And then he keep the money? Not impressed.

elderolddog, I'm confused by your take on this. Which laws should be applied and which one's shouldn't? I'm not so deluded as to think that it's black and white, but this wasn't speeding to get into work, or the efforts to defend against a bully. Distaste for a poorly worded question lead to $5000 (at least) gained via fraudulent means, no attempt was made to clarify the situation, in fact, it sounds like a joke was made. While it might not have had a direct impact, it could make things more difficult for people who do need these types of grants. schrodingerscat's son acted for flagrant self gain.

As for schrodingerscat, any shred of respect I might have had is gone. Based on your post, I'm sure you don't mind, you even sound proud, and that's your prerogative. But, your blatant disrespect for something that was obviously about helping minority groups (i.e. not about race) is very disheartening. It shows your privilege that you think it's OK to do this. I didn't often agree with your posts on theology, but I wouldn't have guessed that you'd be OK with something like this. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by what people will stoop too.

i'm inclined to offer another 5k for proof it's a true story-

Its sounds true to me in the context of "the acorn doesn't fall from the tree."

What little respect I had left for the cat in the box poster is gone.

I tend to agree. I don't think it is clever, cute or funny to undermine resources intended to help others who are truly disadvantaged.

I'm pretty squeaky clean when it comes to obeying the law. But I am a very laissez-faire kind of guy when it comes to judging others.

The way Kori presented the story, it sounded like a one-time deal, way in the past, that was not premeditated. That being my take on it, I just shrugged my shoulders.

There have been maybe five times a cashier gave me too much change. I always (self-righteously) made a point of correcting the cashier and returning the money I was not entitled to. But once, I was really hurting for money and when she gave me too much change, I didn't say a thing, other than a hallelujah. Hypocrite me.

Of my five children, two would have taken that check and one of them wouldn't have let me know, because he knows I would not have let him keep it. The other son would have mentioned it and I would have made him return it. ...maybe... what if he desperately needed the money???

Judge not lest ye be judged. All fine and dandy, but also, don't take chances that could result in consequences you would absolutely detest, like dying or going to jail.

I simply don't pretend to have an absolutely impeccable, unyielding moral standard or stance.

>> "I simply don't pretend to have an absolutely impeccable, unyielding moral standard or stance.'

No one is claiming that. We are just saying it was wrong to check the box and it was wrong to keep the money.....because, well....it was.

Can we live with ourselves after doing something "wrong?"....sure, but its still wrong.

I got yer back on this. Rules are easy to live by if you're not greedy.

It seems kind of weird to stiff the poor and then brag about it.

It reminds me of work-arounds to rules and thinking how smart it was to not have to follow the rule.

I hope I would feel ashamed or embarrassed. However, like you said, none of us are perfect and judging is probably just as bad. There's no telling how we justify things.

Do you know when 100% of the populace will accept this?

When we're invaded by six-foot tall, ten-legged hairy spider-type aliens who like to eat human babies, raw.

Then any human who helps save your babies will be honored and revered, no matter the skin color.

Plus it would help the over-population issues...

Welcome to cliché corner. There is only one human SPECIES - get it right! A race is a SUBdivision of a species and you can't divide one by one.

There is one human species, thus we are just as much African as we are European or South Asian.