[ArtAllm]

@Prosthetic Conscience,

I supported my arguments with hard scientific facts and asked specific clearly defined questions. You just ignored everything and went on with your dogmatic diatribe.
To say that the history of evolution and extinction of different varieties has nothing to do with the topic of this thread is just the usual tactic to stifle a discussion, it is easier than refute the arguments of opponents. Of course it is on-topic, because genocide means extinction of specific genes.

You saying that I have to read a biology book and learn how evolution works is a little more than the pot calling the kettle black.

[Suntzu]

Recorded human history is around 10,000 years, a blink of a eye in evolutionary time. Welfare societies screw the system up. Folks who would die without societie's help suddenly sit around (or lay around) and procreate. What happens when the parasite kills the host?

[noir]

Bill Gates once urged America to take in a million migrants like Germany.

Bill Gates warns that Germany's open door policy to migrants will overwhelm Europe and urges leaders to 'make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via current routes


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urope.html

[ArtAllm]

Recorded human history is around 10,000 years, a blink of a eye in evolutionary time. Welfare societies screw the system up. Folks who would die without societie's help suddenly sit around (or lay around) and procreate. What happens when the parasite kills the host?

What happens with a high-tech society if the IQ of the population deteriorates (due to a demographic change)?

This question is a no- brainer, but there are grown up people who have a dream about a technological progress that will continue when the Europeans are replaced with low-IQ-people from the Third World.

Is it difficult to understand that Europe will degenerate to the level of the Third World?

Demography is Destiny!

So there will be a reset, and after this nobody will care about the "western progressive principles" any more, these people will become the first victims of their own stupidity.

There will be a Balkanization, a bottle neck effect, and the strongest will eventually win.

That is my prediction for the future.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@ArtAllm, no, you've made many mistakes in the biology. You've continued to assume that evolution happens only when there is speciation. That's incorrect. If, for instance, resistance against a disease spreads among humans, that is evolution, though there is no separation of different species involved. If humans become taller on average because of inherited genes, that's evolution.

You've claimed things like "it is obvious that Homo Sapiens will split into different species again", and I've pointed out to you this is very unlikely, since there's nothing to keep populations of humans apart for the hundreds of thousands of years necessary for new species to form (for example, Aboriginal Tasmanians were genetically isolated from all other humans for about 8,000 years, but bred with Europeans when they arrived).

You said "if the present trend continues, then there will be only Black Africans in about 150 years." That's complete nonsense. I think you know that, but then we have to ask why you would use hyperbole like that, rather than being serious. You accuse others of having 'dogma' or 'ideology', and claim that anyone pointed out your errors is 'leftist'. It's not about any dogma or ideology - left or not - but about correcting your mistakes in basic science. But your hyperbole seems to be driven by hysteria about skin colour.

[ArtAllm]

@Prosthetic Conscience,
I have asked specific clearely defined questions, but you ignored them.
You have to see the evolution of life on our planet as a whole.

So I will repeat my questions.

Can you imagine an evolution of bacteria into mammals without speciation?
Yes or no?

Can you imagine an evolution of primitive mammals into Homo Sapiens without speciation?
Yes or no?

Can different forms of life survive without eating each others?
Yes or no?

Do you agree that it is only a coincidence, that Neanderthals and Hobbits became extinct.
Yes or no?

What would you do if Hobbits and Neanderthals survived?

Would you say that there is no difference between any sub-species of Homo, that Neanderthals and Hobbits are just "social constructs", and that all varieties of Homo should intermix, so that the differences disappear?
Yes or no?

Thank you for your answer.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@Prosthetic Conscience,
I have asked specific clearely defined questions, but you ignored them.
You have to see the evolution of life on our planet as a whole.

No, it is not necessary to look at the evolution of all life to decide if humans are going to form new species. Indeed, since humans are vastly more mobile than other species, and thus able to mix (as we do), and since our reproduction rates depend far more on society and behaviour than anything genetic, we are now a special case, and trying to apply what typically has happened with other species is unhelpful.

Can you imagine an evolution of bacteria into mammals without speciation?
Yes or no?

This is irrelevant. We're not talking about evolution and speciation over the billions of years that it took to get from bacteria to mammals. There was speciation in the 4 billion years of life on earth. But I can imagine evolution without speciation. It has happened, for instance, in the development of adult lactose tolerance in humans.

Can you imagine an evolution of primitive mammals into Homo Sapiens without speciation?
Yes or no?

Yes, I can imagine that, though speciation did happen. Such evolution would take tens of millions of years, and in that time, it's likely that speciation would happen at some time, because populations would become isolated. Depending on what point you count as 'primitive', it might be argued that the absence of certain species would have changed the evolutionary pressures on the ancestors of humans, so they might have evolved into something other than us.

Can different forms of life survive without eating each others?
Yes or no?

What the fuck? Are you just going to ask random questions? Anyway, the answer is 'yes'. Bacteria can survive without eating other life. Tell me what on earth this has to do with anything. Is it your homework or something?

Do you agree that it is only a coincidence, that Neanderthals and Hobbits became extinct.
Yes or no?

I don't know. I don't think anyone knows yet. So little is known about "Hobbits" that we don't know why they became extinct.

What would you do if Hobbits and Neanderthals survived?

I'd have a cup of tea. Again, what the fuck does this question mean? Do you expect me to change my life because of the existence of other species or sub-species?

Would you say that there is no difference between any sub-species of Homo, that Neanderthals and Hobbits are just "social constructs", and that all varieties of Homo should intermix, so that the differences disappear?
Yes or no?

'Should'? You accused me of following dogma, but you are now wanting yes or no answers to "all varieties of Homo should intermix". You're now demanding that I bring ideology into this, when you've been complaining that you think I already had, but that I shouldn't have. You've also tried to force two questions into one - whether there are difference between subspecies (a factual question), and whether they "should" intermix - a value judgement. And then demanded a yes or no answer as if it's one question. Your questions are badly formed, and should not be answered.

[ArtAllm]

No, it is not necessary to look at the evolution of all life to decide if humans are going to form new species.

Do you really believe that the real history of evolution is less important than your utopian dream?

Indeed, since humans are vastly more mobile than other species...

What?
Humans are more mobile than birds?

....and thus able to mix (as we do), and since our reproduction rates depend far more on society and behaviour than anything genetic, we are now a special case, and trying to apply what typically has happened with other species is unhelpful.

Any subspecies of a given species are able to mix, and they do this in a limited degree, but this was never an impediment to speciation.

Most individuals of a variety will mate with individuals of their own group. Only if there is no other alternative individuals engage in cross-breeding, and I provided proves in my previous posts about the evolutionary disadvantage of mixed offspring.

This is irrelevant. We're not talking about evolution and speciation over the billions of years that it took to get from bacteria to mammals. There was speciation in the 4 billion years of life on earth.

This is very relevant, and you know it.

But I can imagine evolution without speciation.

Do not confuse evolution with "Microevolution". You know that without speciation there would be no biodiversity and no humans.

It has happened, for instance, in the development of adult lactose tolerance in humans.

How is this relevant?
Most humans are still intolerant to lactose, I stopped drinking milk after getting older, because I lost the tolerance, though my genes did not change.

Such evolution would take tens of millions of years, and in that time, it's likely that speciation would happen at some time, because populations would become isolated.

Speciation can happen without isolation. Most animals live in clans, they usually do not mate outside of their clan, this is something hardwired.

According to your crazy theory, migratory birds could have never developed different species.

But, as Muhammed Ali pointed out: Blue birds fly with blue birds, red birds fly with red birds.

Anyway, the answer is 'yes'. Bacteria can survive without eating other life.

Only some kinds of bacteria.
But without bacteria eating plants and animals, no high organized life would be possible.

Speciation is the basis of existing biodiversity.
Any biologist would be alarmed if different varieties of a given species would cross breed, because this reduces the biodiversity of our planet.

Fortunately, the speciation drive is stronger than cross-breeding, and therefore the biodiversity on our planet will increase, though human activities and ideology may make this process a bit slower.

I don't know. I don't think anyone knows yet.
So little is known about "Hobbits" that we don't know why they became extinct.

That was not my question, you refused to answer my question, and this speaks volumes!

I had a discussion with a Soviet Commie about 35 years ago, and his arguments and logic were very similar to yours.

This guy sincerely believed, that Communism will eventually win on the entire planet. He believed that all different ethnic groups and races of the Soviet Union will blend into Homo Sovieticus, and then the Homo Sovieticus will blend with the Homo Americanus and Homo Chinesius, and at some point there will be no races on our planet, there will be only a homogeneous mixture of Proletariat.

He himself was married to an Asian woman and he was convinced that everybody will follow suit.

But we know that the SU collapsed due to ethnic/racial conflicts.

It seems that some crazy people now extrapolate the old and discredited Soviet experiment to Western countries. Except Israel, this country can have "Jews only" migration and citizenship laws, and refuse to register a marriage between Jews and non-Jews, and even demand from non-Jewish workers in Israel to sign a "no-sex-contract".

Some Rabbis believe, that Jews cross breeding with non-Jews is like a Holocaust, and nobody calls these Rabbis "racists".

[noir]

Some Rabbis believe, that Jews cross breeding with non-Jews is like a Holocaust, and nobody calls these Rabbis "racists".

Once the spouse convert there is no problem with that. The "Holocaust" is when they lost to Jewry all together. Jewry is only 12-13 million people around the world. Each drifting is meaningful. You are talking about the entire White/Arian race. It's not the same.

[ArtAllm]

Once the spouse convert there is no problem with that. The "Holocaust" is when they lost to Jewry all together. Jewry is only 12-13 million people around the world. Each drifting is meaningful. You are talking about the entire White/Arian race. It's not the same.

A convert or somebody with non-Jewish blood cannot marry a Cohen in Israel.
The bloodline of Cohens seems to be something very sacred and cannot be diluted.

Irina Plotnikov cannot marry the man she loves, Shmuel Cohen, even though she is Jewish according to halakha (Jewish religious law). A rabbinic court in Jerusalem ruled recently that even though Plotnikov is Jewish, she is not eligible to marry a Cohen since her father is not Jewish. According to Jewish tradition, people with the surname Cohen are descendants of the priests that served in the Temple in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.
http://www.haaretz.com/not-jewish-enoug ... n-1.150715

These black people respect Jewish religious laws, but they do not have "Jewish blood", and therefor they do not get Israeli citizenship:

When the first Black Hebrews arrived in Israel in 1969, they claimed citizenship under the Law of Return, which gives eligible Jews immediate citizenship.[49] The Israeli government ruled in 1973 that the group did not qualify for automatic citizenship because they could not prove Jewish descent and had not undergone Orthodox conversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Heb ... and_racism

BTW, there are only 8 million Swedes, and now their country is flooded with people from the third world, and they are told by the controlled media that losing their Swedish identity and mixing with people from the Third World is something "progressive".

People, like Barbara Spectre, an Israeli citizen, advocate a "multicultural mode" for Sweden, but she would never advocate for Israel what she advocates for Sweden and the rest of Europe.

[noir]

Also a Jewish divorcee can't marry Cohen (priesthood) either. It's 3500 years law. Of course those who don't marry according to religion, can do whatever they want.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Any subspecies of a given species are able to mix, and they do this in a limited degree, but this was never an impediment to speciation.

The degree to which subspecies mix with other subspecies is crucial to whether speciation happens. If they mix enough, you won't get separate species, because genes flow over a few generations to many individuals in a group.

Most individuals of a variety will mate with individuals of their own group. Only if there is no other alternative individuals engage in cross-breeding, and I provided proves in my previous posts about the evolutionary disadvantage of mixed offspring.

This is your belief, but it's not true. No, you didn't provide any proof, or evidence; you just assumed there's an "evolutionary disadvantage". If something in the environment provides sufficient pressure that a more extreme variation breeds more successfully, then it will prosper. But that needs certain environmental conditions. Extremes can also be a disadvantage.

Do not confuse evolution with "Microevolution".

'Microevolution', an annoying term popularised by creationists trying to deny speciation altogether, is a form of evolution. You asked me about evolution; you did not give a definition of 'microevolution', and you didn't try to exclude it. Until now.

How is this relevant?
Most humans are still intolerant to lactose, I stopped drinking milk after getting older, because I lost the tolerance, though my genes did not change.

It's an example of recent human evolution. If you want to read about it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048992/

Speciation can happen without isolation. Most animals live in clans, they usually do not mate outside of their clan, this is something hardwired.

It requires genetic isolation. Usually, that's geographic isolation, but it does sometimes happen because of extended sexual selection. This idea that "most animals live in clans" is just made-up nonsense.

According to your crazy theory, migratory birds could have never developed different species.

It's standard biology, not my theory.

Any biologist would be alarmed if different varieties of a given species would cross breed, because this reduces the biodiversity of our planet.

No, biologists do not worry about it. Racists do, though.

Fortunately, the speciation drive is stronger than cross-breeding, and therefore the biodiversity on our planet will increase, though human activities and ideology may make this process a bit slower.

There is no "speciation drive". There is no hidden purpose or direction to evolution. It just happens.

That was not my question, you refused to answer my question, and this speaks volumes!

You asked me about the extinction of "Hobbits", and I said no-one knows enough. I did answer your question.

It seems that some crazy people now extrapolate the old and discredited Soviet experiment to Western countries. Except Israel, this country can have "Jews only" migration and citizenship laws, and refuse to register a marriage between Jews and non-Jews, and even demand from non-Jewish workers in Israel to sign a "no-sex-contract".

Some Rabbis believe, that Jews cross breeding with non-Jews is like a Holocaust, and nobody calls these Rabbis "racists".

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Soviet Union. Humans have been able to spread all over the world, thanks to boats, and so have been mixing with no significant isolation. Making up spoof Latin like "Homo Sovieticus" doesn't achieve anything at all. Modern trade has increased the movement of people around the world (yes, we're more mobile than any bird, living across the world, with a high percentage of our population travelling it). If any ideology is involved in this, it's capitalism.

It always come back to Jews with you in the end though, doesn't it? You can't bear to live with them.

[Suntzu]

Probably why sub-Saharan Africans are almost indistinquishable from Chinese.

[ArtAllm]

'Microevolution', an annoying term popularised by creationists trying to deny speciation altogether, is a form of evolution. You asked me about evolution; you did not give a definition of 'microevolution', and you didn't try to exclude it. Until now.

Oh boy, you lack basic knowledge.

Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

How on earth can there be any biodiversity without speciation?
Is this rocket science?

It requires genetic isolation. Usually, that's geographic isolation, but it does sometimes happen because of extended sexual selection. This idea that "most animals live in clans" is just made-up nonsense.

Nothing heard about the theory of multiregional origin of modern humans and about parapatic sympatric speciation?

Allopatric speciation works more quickly, but it is not the only mechanism of speciation.

ArtAllm:
According to your crazy theory, migratory birds could have never developed different species.

It's standard biology, not my theory.

Is it not obvious that migratory birds are more mobile than humans, and that there speciation does not work like an allopatric speciation?


Racism is not a scientific term, it is a meaningless ideological term, created by leftist misanthropes, like the Bolshevik Trotzki, and Bolsheviks killed more human beings than any other totalitarian regimes.

How on earth can there be any biodiversity without speciation?
Is this rocket science?

I asked you if you would also advocate cross breeding with Hobbits, if they were still there.

And please try to understand this picture:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregi ... ern_humans


BTW, Jews claim to be Whites, so why are you so afraid to talk about Jews? Are Jewish whites "more equal" than non-Jewish whites?

They talk 7/24 about Jews in any Western MSM outlet, Jews are mentioned more often, than any other ethnic or religious group, though they are less than 1% of the population in any host country. And the MSM always presents Jews as innocent victims, even if they talk about Palestine.

So on the one hand we have MSM, constantly talking about Jews in a positive context, but if you point you finger to the "racism" (according to leftist definition) of Whites, who happen to be Jews, then all these "anti-racists" suddenly change their tactics, they do not mind the so called "racism" of Jews.

It is OK when CNN says that Trump's government is too white, to hate White people seems to be kosher.

But if you say that Jewish Withe's in Trumps government are hugely over-represented, then you are a "wicked racists", though Judaism is not a race, but just a religion.

Sorry, but your "anti-racism" is not convincing, it seems to me that you just hate non-Jewish white people and hope that they will disappear due to miscegenation.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

That picture is wrong. It implies that humans all independently evolved. If they did it would be extremely unlikely that we'd all be able to procreate and make viable babies, and do, very frequently. The theory makes no sense with a cursory knowledge of human evolution.

[noir]

@ArtAllm


Same as Gobbles media

[Igor Antunov]

Something caught my little eagle eye. A brief interjection if I may good sirs and madams.

They talk 7/24 about Jews in any Western MSM outlet, Jews are mentioned more often, than any other ethnic or religious group, though they are less than 1% of the population in any host country.

Jeez, I wonder why that is...



The simplest explanation is usually the most sensible, i.e Jews run the mainstream media establishment in the west.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

How on earth can there be any biodiversity without speciation?
Is this rocket science?

The quote you used yourself points it out: "Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules." There is biodiversity between organisms as well as species. We see it in humans - eg skin colour, lactose tolerance, sickle cell disease and malaria resistance ...

Is it not obvious that migratory birds are more mobile than humans, and that there speciation does not work like an allopatric speciation?

No. There are no species of birds that breed across the entire world, while humans do, and a human can cross the world in a day now, and has been about to go to new continents within months for hundreds of years.

Racism is not a scientific term, it is a meaningless ideological term, created by leftist misanthropes, like the Bolshevik Trotzki, and Bolsheviks killed more human beings than any other totalitarian regimes.

Whoever claimed it's a scientific term? It's a term in general use, like "leftist" that you've been throwing around for pages, without any logic. "Racism" dates back to 1902, actually, in "Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Lake Mohonk Conference of the Friends of the Indian". It's pointless trying to say "someone else used it too, and they were evil, so nyah-nyah-nyah". The thing is, you're obsessed by race, and claim other races are inferior (eg in IQ). It fits you.

I asked you if you would also advocate cross breeding with Hobbits, if they were still there.

No, you never asked me this. It's a fucking stupid question to ask, by the way, so I wouldn't ask it, if I were you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregi ... ern_humans

That's a hypothesis, though not the generally accepted one. That does, of course, claim there has been extensive evolution in one species, in several places, entirely independently, but maintaining the ability to breed between all populations - so that would be a good example of significant evolution without speciation - which you're trying to deny.

And so we come to your obsession with Jews.

They talk 7/24 about Jews in any Western MSM outlet, Jews are mentioned more often, than any other ethnic or religious group

Obviously, this is a lie. Everyone, including you, knows this is false. Your obsession with Jews has suppressed any logic, regard for facts, or shame in you.

Sorry, but your "anti-racism" is not convincing, it seems to me that you just hate non-Jewish white people and hope that they will disappear due to miscegenation.

I have written nothing at all to indicate hatred of any ethnicity, let alone my own. Neither have I said I "hope" any ethnicity will disappear. I don't have such a hope. I don't think I've said much about what I think will happen with the relative amounts of any ethnicity, but I have said that I'm against a totalitarian policy designed to prevent sex between ethnicities. Let people have relationships with whomever they want,
and don't worry about the skin colours that result. What I have said, with reasons, is that it's incredibly unlikely that skin colours (or any human characteristic) will form the basis of new species.

[ArtAllm]

That picture is wrong. It implies that humans all independently evolved. If they did it would be extremely unlikely that we'd all be able to procreate and make viable babies, and do, very frequently. The theory makes no sense with a cursory knowledge of human evolution.

That was an idiotic statement, a dog and a wolf can also produce viable babies, but they do this only in very seldom cases. All Sub-Species of the Species Homo could easily interbreed, and they did this for two million years, though the interbreeding was limited, and the drive to speciation did prevail.

If the Hobbits and the Neanderthals did not die out, today Humans could easily mate with them and create viable and fertile posterity.

Are you really unable to understand simple pictures?

It is clear from the picture I pasted that there was always a limited gene flow between different varieties of the species Homo, that began 2 Million years ago, but the basic traits of different varieties did not disappear, because the trend to a speciation was much more stronger.

Europeans have Neanderthal genes, Chinese have some genes that stem from Dali Man that are unique to China. There is a continuity of some morphological features in Europeans, in Sub Saharan Africans and in Chinese, like the shape of the nose and other peculiarities of the scull, that can be traced back to the Pleistocene period.

Different varieties of Homo retained regional differences, that can be seen in certain morphological features. That is hard science, scientists point to fossil and genomic data, and to the continuity of archaeological cultures.

Sub Saharan Africans do not have any Neanderthal genes, Asians and Europeans have Neanderthal Genes.

Yes, there were primitive forms of Neanderthals, but this sup-species evolved into modern Europeans, the later forms of Neanderthals were more similar to modern Europeans, than today Mongolians or Sub Saharan Africans. Yes there was an admixture of later African influx, but it was limited, the "out of Africa" and "replacement" theory are already debunked. The oldest Homo were found in Europe, not in Africa.

... human species first arose around two million years ago and subsequent human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species.

This species encompasses all archaic human forms such as H. erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

The hypothesis contends that the mechanism of clinal variation through a model of "Centre and Edge" allowed for the necessary balance between genetic drift, gene flow and selection throughout the Pleistocene, as well as overall evolution as a global species, but while retaining regional differences in certain morphological features.[1] Proponents of multiregionalism point to fossil and genomic data and continuity of archaeological cultures as support for their hypothesis.
...
In 1998, Wu founded a China-specific Multiregional model called "Continuity with [Incidental] Hybridization".[11][12] Wu's variant only applies the Multiregional hypothesis to the East Asian fossil record which is popular among Chinese scientists.[13]
...
Multiregionalists argue that marked (+++) shovel-shaped incisors only appear in China at a high frequency, and have <10% occurrence elsewhere.
...
"Only two features appear to show a tendency as suggested by the Multiregional model: flatness at the upper face expressed by an obtuse nasio-frontal angle and flatness at the middle part of the face expressed by an obtuse zygomaxillay angle".
...
"Contrary to Brauer's recent pronouncement that there is a large and generally recognized morphological gap between the Neanderthals and the early moderns, the actual evidence provided by the extensive fossil record of late Pleistocene Europe shows considerable continuity between Neanderthals and subsequent Europeans."[24]

Frayer et al. (1993) consider there to be at least 4 features in combination that are unique to the European fossil record: a horizontal-oval shaped mandibular foramen, anterior mastoid tubercle, suprainiac fossa and narrowing of the nasal breadth associated with tooth-size reduction. Regarding the latter, Frayer observes a sequence of nasal narrowing in Neanderthals, following through to late Upper Palaeolithic and Holocene (Mesolithic) crania.
...
More recent claims regarding continuity in skeletal morphology in Europe focus on fossils with both Neanderthal and modern anatomical traits, to provide evidence of interbreeding rather than replacement.[54][55][56] Examples include the Lapedo child found in Portugal[57] and the Oase 1 mandible from Peștera cu Oase, Romania,[58] though the Lapedo child is disputed by some.[59]

Fossil remains of Graecopithecus found in Bulgaria and Greece have been dated to 7.2 million years ago, "several hundred thousand years older than the oldest known Africian hominid."[60]
...
Multiregionalists have responded to what they see as flaws in the Eve theory,[66] and have offered contrary genetic evidences.[67][68][69] Wu and Thorne have questioned the reliability of the molecular clock used to date Eve.[70][71] Multiregionalists point out that Mitochondrial DNA alone can not rule out interbreeding between early modern and archaic humans, since archaic human mitochondrial strains from such interbreeding could have been lost due to genetic drift or a selective sweep.[72][73]

Wolpoff for example states that Eve is "not the most recent common ancestor of all living people" since "Mitochondrial history is not population history".[74]
...
Recent analyses of DNA taken directly from Neanderthal specimens indicates that they or their ancestors contributed to the genome of all humans outside of Africa, indicating there was some degree of interbreeding with Neanderthals before their replacement.[102] It has also been shown that Denisova hominins contributed to the DNA of Melanesians and Australians through interbreeding.[103]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregi ... ern_humans

It is obvious that the Wiki-Editors did everything to uphold the already discredited "out of Africa" theory, according to which the earlier Sub Species of Homo were replaced by a later African influx.
Genetic and archaeological evidence supports the theory about the multi-regional-origin. How else can you explain the 2-million-year-continuity of the human scull shapes in Central Africa, Europe and in China?

I am sure that there will be more and more evidence that support the multi-regional-origin-theory, though the leftists will try to hide the truth as long as possible.

@ArtAllm


Same as Gobbles media

What do you mean with "Gobbles"?
Was that a variety of Homo?

Or are you referring to Joseph Goebbels?
Do you think that the most prominent Chinese scientists and experts in the evolution of Homo are admirers of Goebbels?

Sorry, but you are sooooooo [self censored].

The quote you used yourself points it out: "Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules." There is biodiversity between organisms as well as species. We see it in humans - eg skin colour, lactose tolerance, sickle cell disease and malaria resistance ...

Yes, but this supports my thesis, not yours. The first level of biodiversity is the diversity within a species, and then this diversity increases, and eventually we have different species that cannot interbreed any more. Thank you for making my point!

No. There are no species of birds that breed across the entire world...

Are you kidding? Of course there are a lot of migratory birds that are not separated by any geographically barrier, and some of them could easily interbreed, and they even do this some times, but the drive to speciation is stronger, that is why the biodiversity increases, not decreases, despite some hybridisation.
The same can be said about the fish, most of them are not separated by geographic barriers.

while humans do, and a human can cross the world in a day now, and has been about to go to new continents within months for hundreds of years.

The species Homo did interbreed in a limited degree for the last 2 million years. Why do you think that because today more humans can migrate, they will necessarily outbreed and destroy what was created by the Mother Nation in the last 2 million years?

Homo is as hard wired as any other living organisms, the tendency to marry within its own clan is stronger than outbreeding.

Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnocentrism is normal and rational, it is hard wired via chemistry, you cannot change it by propaganda. Yes, some individuals will outbreed, there are always deviations. Some individuals are sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex, some are attracted to children, some are attracted to members of an outgroup, and some are even zoophiles, but this will never be the norm, because of hard wired biological reasons!

The thing is, you're obsessed by race, and claim other races are inferior (eg in IQ). It fits you.

BS, I never said other races are inferior. How do you define inferiority? Africans are superior in some sports, like marathon, does that mean that Europeans are inferior? IQ is only one of many differences, and if an African has difficulties to compete in a Western society, and a modern European would have difficulties to compete in an archaic society, then this only means that they are different and are adapted to their own environment.

And so we come to your obsession with Jews.

I am just reacting to the obvious obsession with Jews that is a peculiarity of the Western media an politics. I am sure that Chinese, Japanese or Indians are not obsessed with Jews, they do not mention Jews 7/24 in all their media. So if I was a Chinese or an Indian, I would never talk about Jews.
As I live in a Western society, I have to react to the obsession of this society, speak it would be stupid if I ignored the 900 pound gorilla that is sitting in our western rooms

You constantly attack "racism", but you do everything to stifle any mentioning of Jewish racism.
So why should I care about you calling me a "racist"?
You do not have any moral superiority, your "anti-racism" is directed against white people that are not Jewish. Jews can have an ethno-centric state and Jews-only migration and citizenship laws, you will do everything to hide this and prevent any mentioning of this.

The non-Jewish whites are told that "diversity is our strength", while Israel becomes more and more Jewish!

So whose strength is diversity?

[ThirdTerm]

This graphic from the CARTA presentation below is based on recent scholarship on human genetics. Europeans and East Asians are around 2-3% Neanderthal and light skin mutations were introduced after our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals, which made us distinct from Africans.



There is also the Denisovan factor and Oceanians are around 6% Denisovan genetically, which may give them distinctive archaic looks. In addition, Native Americans and East Asians are 0.2% Denisovan and the frequency of Denisovan alleles is less than 0.1% among Europeans. The Denisovans used to live in northern Spain as the fossil from a well-studied site in northern Spain called Sima de los Huesos has a closer link to Neanderthals than to Denisovans.

This symposium brings together researchers at the forefront of ancient DNA research and population genetics to discuss current developments and share insights about human migration and adaptation. Recorded on 04/29/2016. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [7/2016] [Science] [Show ID: 30971]

The team’s finding, published online in Nature this week (M. Meyer et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12788; 2013), does not necessarily mean that the Sima de los Huesos hominins are more closely related to the Denisovans, a population that lived thousands of kilometres away and hundreds of thousands of years later, than to nearby Neanderthals. This is because the mitochondrial genome tells the history of just an individual’s mother, and her mother, and so on.
http://www.nature.com/news/hominin-dna- ... ts-1.14294