phoneport: Who can really answer this question. Or is there some conspiracy theory behind all these and many more.

Why don't you tell us where you are going with your question?

You believe blacks were the original inhabitants of the earth before adam and eve were created?

tpia1:


Why don't you tell us where you are going with your question?

You believe blacks were the original inhabitants of the earth before adam and eve were created?

Lol at the bolded.

That statement is an original made in Africa.
Pitiful Africans.

I have always said that a fragmented mind = A fragmented reality.

Let me put simply for you my dear.
It is either you accept that the first humans evolved and originated from Africa, which about more than 90% of the world's leading scientists accepts,
or ,
You can simply believe that invisible god created caucasian Adam and Eve 6000yrs ago in the MiddleEast, a belief , which the not-so-enlightened mentally enslaved of humanity still hold on to.

Choose one.
It is really that simple.

tpia1:

You believe blacks were the original inhabitants of the earth before adam and eve were created?

Wasted neurons.

phoneport: Who can really answer this question. Or is there some conspiracy theory behind all these and many more.

Why don't you tell us where you are going with your question?

You believe blacks were the original inhabitants of the earth before adam and eve were created?

My question is for the op, not the apes, thanks.

Yes the first humans were black and African, if people would take the time to watch that video they would see there is no point arguing the issue.

Africans have by far the oldest DNA markers.

The first modern human evolved 200,000 years ago into the humans we know today.

phoneport: Who can really answer this question. Or is there some conspiracy theory behind all these and many more.

Stupid question. Adam and Eve were black.
As was Yashua (Jesus), as was Paul, as was David, as Abraham, as was Moses.

Esau (Edom) was Red (oyinbo)


Shalom

The truth is that there was no Adam and Eve. The two figures were invented. Human origin is black. Almost all scientists, historians, Archaeologists, both black and white agree to this.

You'll continue to get lost whenever you attempt to explain the origin of man with a useless religious book (riddled with thousands of lies, fairy tales, contradictions) written less than two thousand years ago, when there are huge evidences that Black Africans were masters of Geometry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, Alchemy, etc, more than 8000 years ago. Black Africans are the ancestors of mankind. What you need to do now is to find out how other races evolved. For example, Arabs are products of black and white cross breed.

Fabrepass: The truth is that there was no Adam and Eve. The two figures were invented. Human origin is black. Almost all scientists, historians, Archaeologists, both black and white agree to this.

You'll continue to get lost whenever you attempt to explain the origin of man with a useless religious book (riddled with thousands of lies, fairy tales, contradictions) written less than two thousand years ago,

Must you insult the Holy Bible to prove your point. Lets be careful.

Fulaman198: Yes the first humans were black and African, if people would take the time to watch that video they would see there is no point arguing the issue.

Africans have by far the oldest DNA markers.

The first modern human evolved 200,000 years ago into the humans we know today.

It is amazing that you'd consider that the forces of evolution acted to give rise to modern humans then suddenly stopped acting on the populations left in Africa but continued to act on the ones that departed. If our progenitors were negroid then in effect you are saying evolution stopped acting on them to leave them largely unchanged. Is this not a glaring contradiction?

Fabrepass: The truth is that there was no Adam and Eve. The two figures were invented. Human origin is black. Almost all scientists, historians, Archaeologists, both black and white agree to this.

You'll continue to get lost whenever you attempt to explain the origin of man with a useless religious book (riddled with thousands of lies, fairy tales, contradictions) written less than two thousand years ago, when there are huge evidences that Black Africans were masters of Geometry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, Alchemy, etc, more than 8000 years ago. Black Africans are the ancestors of mankind. What you need to do now is to find out how other races evolved. For example, Arabs are products of black and white cross breed.

Amazing how science now arrives at the theory that all modern humans descended from one male called Y Chromosomal Adam. Maybe the Bible is not such a book of fables after all.

:Dwhite bleep wit apes

phoneport:

Must you insult the Holy Bible to prove your point. Lets be careful.

If there is a God, then it wouldn't mind him insulting the bible. That book is useless.

LordReed:
If our progenitors were negroid then in effect you are saying evolution stopped acting on them to leave them largely unchanged. Is this not a glaring contradiction?

Um, what do you mean? What makes you think that natural selection no longer applies to modern Africans?

Weah96:

Um, what do you mean? What makes you think that natural selection no longer applies to modern Africans?

The contention here is that our progenitors were negroid and I say it can't be simply because as the fountain head of all humanity they would not be identifiable as being of any race. Going by human evolutionary theory the human race has been undergoing changes. How is it that our progenitors would be negroid and not change but their branch-offs experience change enough to make them highly distinct? Doesn't it follow logic that as much the European and Asiatic branch-offs were experiencing change so were the remaining African population so much so that all of modern man will be distinct enough from our progenitors?

If as you bring up natural selection continues to happen is it not a distinct possibility that our offspring will be different enough from us not to be recognized as Negroid?

LordReed:

If as you bring up natural selection continues to happen is it not a distinct possibility that our offspring will be different enough from us not to be recognized as Negroid?

Do you mean different as in the skin pigmentation, average height, or something else? It all depends on the number of heritable alleles passed on from one generation to the next. Somehow, I just don't see the alleles for pale skin being very successful in Africa, for a host of reasons, one being melanomas. But anything is possible, especially if our women decide to one day pursue the carrots instead of the firewood.

LordReed:

Amazing how science now arrives at the theory that[b] all modern humans[/b] descended from one male called Y Chromosomal Adam. Maybe the Bible is not such a book of fables after all.

Did you just say Modern Humans?
That pre-supposes that there were ancient humans.
Not so?
Care to explain, or are you just throwing terms that you barely understand?

Weah96:

Do you mean different as in the skin pigmentation, average height, or something else? It all depends on the number of heritable alleles passed on from one generation to the next. Somehow, I just don't see the alleles for pale skin being very successful in Africa, for a host of reasons, one being melanomas. But anything is possible, especially if our women decide to one day pursue the carrots instead of the firewood.

Dear Comrade,
can you not see that this fella barely understands evolution and natural selection?

@Lordreed,
I know you mean well by asking questions, but....
Spend more time reading up on topics to understand them properly before making feeble, ill-informed and perhaps ill-motivated attempts to discredit them.
I do think you trying hard to understand the theory and implications of the evolution. But I also do think you are approaching from biased perspective because if it's inherent threat to your precious religious beliefs.

plaetton:

Did you just say Modern Humans?
That pre-supposes that there were ancient humans.
Not so?
Care to explain, or are you just throwing terms that you barely understand?

plaetton and his rofo-rofo. You who is supposed to be more knowledgeable about these things is suddenly the antagonist? LoL what a joke!

FYI I didn't just spring up that phrase it is used in almost all the articles I have read about Y Chromosomal Adam. For instance:

Men might need some more pages in their
family album.
The largest analyses to date of the human Y
chromosome suggest that modern men can
trace their family tree further back in time than
previously thought. One of the studies, an
analysis of 69 men from nine populations
worldwide published in the Aug. 2 Science,
finds that their most recent common ancestor
lived 120,000 to 156,000 years ago. That’s
roughly the same time that the last common
ancestor of women is estimated to have lived,
researchers report.
The Y chromosome, passed down from father to
son, and mitochondrial DNA, passed down from
mother to child, are useful in retracing ancestry
because they don’t undergo genetic reshuffling
as the rest of the genetic instruction book does.
Researchers analyze mutations in these parts of
the genome to assess when groups split apart.
The hypothetical common ancestors of these
genetic lineages are sometimes called Y
Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/y-chromosome-analysis-moves-adam-closer-eve

So stop being belligerent just to score cheap points. Bring out proofs of what you are talking about. Show me one scientific article that identifyies our progenitors as Negroid.

LordReed:


plaetton and his rofo-rofo. You who is supposed to be more knowledgeable about these things is suddenly the antagonist? LoL what a joke!

FYI I didn't just spring up that phrase it is used in almost all the articles I have read about Y Chromosomal Adam. For instance:

Men might need some more pages in their
family album.
The largest analyses to date of the human Y
chromosome suggest that modern men can
trace their family tree further back in time than
previously thought. One of the studies, an
analysis of 69 men from nine populations
worldwide published in the Aug. 2 Science,
finds that their most recent common ancestor
lived 120,000 to 156,000 years ago. That’s
roughly the same time that the last common
ancestor of women is estimated to have lived,
researchers report.
The Y chromosome, passed down from father to
son, and mitochondrial DNA, passed down from
mother to child, are useful in retracing ancestry
because they don’t undergo genetic reshuffling
as the rest of the genetic instruction book does.
Researchers analyze mutations in these parts of
the genome to assess when groups split apart.
The hypothetical common ancestors of these
genetic lineages are sometimes called Y
Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/y-chromosome-analysis-moves-adam-closer-eve

So stop being belligerent just to score cheap points. Bring out proofs of what you are talking about. Show me one scientific article that identifyies our progenitors as Negroid.

I was not concerned about how many times or who uses the phrase.

My concern is whether you understand it in proper context.

plaetton:

Dear Comrade,
can you not see that this fella barely understands evolution and natural selection?

@Lordreed,
I know you mean well by asking questions, but....
Spend more time reading up on topics to understand them properly before making feeble, ill-informed and perhaps ill-motivated attempts to discredit them.
I do think you trying hard to understand the theory and implications of the evolution. But I also do think you are approaching from biased perspective because if it's inherent threat to your precious religious beliefs.

You are simply being belligerent to score cheap points. I haven't refuted anything but your flimsy conjecture that our progenitors were negroid. I have repeatedly asked you to show me scientific proof but to my amazement you resort to cheap name calling and trying to cast aspersions.

LordReed:

You are simply being belligerent to score cheap points. I haven't refuted anything but your flimsy conjecture that our progenitors were negroid. I have repeatedly asked you to show me scientific proof but to my amazement you resort to cheap name calling and trying to cast aspersions.

Flimsy conjecture that the first humans were Negroid?

You still don't get it, do you?

Any primary school pupil who understands and accepts that human life began in Africa would not ask for proof that such early humans were Negroid, because,................................... the African Continent is natural environment for Negroid physical features.
Daaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

I am actually embarrassed for you, and I respect you quite a lot to start calling you names.
I have refused to indulge you while waiting for you to shed light on why they could not have been Negroid.

Weah96:

Do you mean different as in the skin pigmentation, average height, or something else? It all depends on the number of heritable alleles passed on from one generation to the next. Somehow, I just don't see the alleles for pale skin being very successful in Africa, for a host of reasons, one being melanomas. But anything is possible, especially if our women decide to one day pursue the carrots instead of the firewood.

Skin colour is not the only identifying characteristic of the negroid classification so even if skin colour doesn't change much other characteristics may change significantly.

plaetton:

Flimsy conjecture that the first humans were Negroid?

You still don't get it, do you?

Any primary school pupil who understands and accepts that human life began in Africa would not ask for proof that such early humans were Negroid, because,................................... the African Continent is natural environment for Negroid physical features.
Daaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

I am actually embarrassed for you, and I respect you quite a lot to start calling you names.
I have refused to indulge you while waiting for you to shed light on why they could not have been Negroid.

Flimsy because you can't show proof! We are talking science here so saying primary school this and embarrassed for you that holds little value in this discussion. SHOW THE PROOF!

I have already stated that I am less knowledgeable in human evolutionary theory than you so go ahead post a scientific article that proves your point. I have also stated that I have tried to find it using our dear friend Google to no effect. The articles I have read have simply said that humans evolved in Africa they don't allude anything as to race but if you have a different article/link please by all means make it known.

Human Genetic Diversity and the
Nonexistence of Biological Races
Jeffrey C. Long, Rick A. Kittles
From: Human Biology
Volume 75, Number 4, August 2003
pp. 449-471 | 10.1353/hub.2003.0058
Abstract
Sewall Wright's population structure statistic, FST,
measured among samples of world populations
is often 15% or less. This would indicate that
85% of genetic variation occurs within groups
while only 15% can be attributed to allele
frequency differences among groups. In this
paper, we show that this low value reflects
strong biases that result from violating hidden
assumptions that define FST. These limitations
on FST are demonstrated algebraically and in
the context of analyzing dinucleotide repeat
allele frequencies for a set of eight loci
genotyped in eight human groups and in
chimpanzees. In our analyses, estimates of FST
fail to identify important variation. For example,
when the analysis includes only humans, FST =
0.119, but adding the chimpanzees increases it
only a little, FST = 0.183. By relaxing the
underlying statistical assumptions, the results for
chimpanzees become consistent with common
knowledge, and we see a richer pattern of
human genetic diversity. Some human groups
are far more diverged than would be implied by
standard computations of FST, while other
groups are much less diverged. We discuss the
relevance of these findings to the application of
biological race concepts to humans. Four
different race concepts are considered:
typological, population, taxonomic, and lineage.
Surprisingly, a great deal of genetic variation
within groups is consistent with each of these
concepts. However, none of the race concepts
is compatible with the patterns of variation
revealed by our analyses.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/human_biology/v075/75.4long.pdf

LordReed:

It is amazing that you'd consider that the forces of evolution acted to give rise to modern humans then suddenly stopped acting on the populations left in Africa but continued to act on the ones that departed. If our progenitors were negroid then in effect you are saying evolution stopped acting on them to leave them largely unchanged. Is this not a glaring contradiction?

Your question holds no ground, allow me to elaborate.

When humans left Africa for other regions in the World (Asia, Europe, etc.) they did "adapt" I won't really call it evolution because evolution implies to something progressive. Adaptation and Evolution are different things. You "evolve" to become something better. When people left the African continent, they did not become something better, they adapted to their new surroundings. The whiter/lighter skin and complexion you see on white people is due to a harsh climatic atmosphere. Human beings adapt, we are still more or less the exact same. We are able to produce with any human being in the world because we are of the same species.

LordReed:

Skin colour is not the only identifying characteristic of the negroid classification so even if skin colour doesn't change much other characteristics may change significantly.

The "negroid" terminology is a very outdated one that no one uses anymore.

Fulaman198:

The "negroid" terminology is a very outdated one that no one uses anymore.

Your question holds no ground, allow me to
elaborate.
When humans left Africa for other regions in the
World (Asia, Europe, etc.) they did "adapt" I won't
really call it evolution because evolution implies to
something progressive. Adaptation and Evolution
are different things. You "evolve" to become
something better. When people left the African
continent, they did not become something better,
they adapted to their new surroundings. The whiter/
lighter skin and complexion you see on white
people is due to a harsh climatic atmosphere.
Human beings adapt, we are still more or less the
exact same. We are able to produce with any
human being in the world because we are of the
same species.

I have no qualms with these but my submission is our progenitors were not of the "black race". Simply because such a distinction could have not existed. Did they have black skin? Very likely even though it is not a certainty since there are no skin samples but dark skin is not synonymous with being "black". Therefore I see no basis for saying our progenitors were "black".

Please read the abstract I posted above as well.

LordReed:

I have no qualms with these but my submission is our progenitors were not of the "black race". Simply because such a distinction could have not existed. Did they have black skin? Very likely even though it is not a certainty since there are no skin samples but dark skin is not synonymous with being "black". Therefore I see no basis for saying our progenitors were "black".

Please read the abstract I posted above as well.

If we utilise your terminology of what is considered "black" wide nose and big lips, then many Nigerians would not even be considered black. As aforementioned don't be fooled. The "Negroid" terminology was created by racist whites.

Fulaman198:

If we utilise your terminology of what is considered "black" wide nose and big lips, then many Nigerians would not even be considered black. As aforementioned don't be fooled. The "Negroid" terminology was created by racist whites.

Here is what scientists say to race:

We discuss the
relevance of these findings to the application of
biological race concepts to humans. Four
different race concepts are considered:
typological, population, taxonomic, and lineage.
Surprisingly, a great deal of genetic variation
within groups is consistent with each of these
concepts. However, none of the race concepts
is compatible with the patterns of variation
revealed by our analyses.

Taken from the abstract above. I reiterate there is no basis for calling our progenitors "black".

LordReed:

Here is what scientists say to race:

We discuss the
relevance of these findings to the application of
biological race concepts to humans. Four
different race concepts are considered:
typological, population, taxonomic, and lineage.
Surprisingly, a great deal of genetic variation
within groups is consistent with each of these
concepts. However, none of the race concepts
is compatible with the patterns of variation
revealed by our analyses.

Taken from the abstract above. I reiterate there is no basis for calling our progenitors "black".

Then from what you are saying there is no reason to call many Africans black including here in Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Burkina Faso, and lots of other West African countries.

Fulaman198:

Then from what you are saying there is no reason to call many Africans black including here in Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Burkina Faso, and lots of other West African countries.

Indeed, as you yourself affirmed negro/negroid aka black is a racist concept. Paraphrasing Martin Luther: who cares what skin or look you carry? Question is, can you deliver?

LordReed:

Indeed, as you yourself affirmed negro/negroid aka black is a racist concept. Paraphrasing Martin Luther: who cares what skin or look you carry? Question is, can you deliver?

Ok that's fine let us assume we utilise this thought process. Do you truly believe that the West, Asia and other regions in the world will stop calling us black? I highly doubt that. To someone (an outsider) who is not an African and knows nothing about Africa, I am a black man, nothing more nothing less.