So you think of these same black people that are in africa instead moved to colder climates they would be smarter and look different?
It is not true that we are descended directly from modern black people. Human evolution over the last few million years was more diffuse and multi regional with several closely related species descended from homo erectus mixing with each other, including neanderthal, denisovan and several other “ghost populations” not yet verified in the archeological record, especially with respect to africans. Actually modern africans have a lot of genetics from back migrations in to Africa from Eurasia. The whole picture is very messy and not a straight line from denzel washington to Darwin.
But in answer to your question, the answer is essentially yes. Cold weather seems to breed intelligent risk averse monogamists. Inuits who are hunter gatherers are around 91 IQ which is pretty good for a hunter gatherer and about as smart as a romanian. Part of this is because the thermodynamic penalty of having a big noggin in the tropics doesn’t apply to cold climates. Probaby just an overall scarcity of resources in harsh winters will select strongly for good planners and conservative people.
Even Richard Dawkins admits that we simply have a common ancestor and we are not descended from blacks. But Dawkins deceptively states that "we are all African" as if originally starting at that continent makes us all the same.
Elon Musk is African. Its just propaganda to spread some view that blacks are the real, original people and whites are some mutation.
Its important to remember that we descend partially from a common Y chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve within the last 150 to 300 thousand years or so, but some of our DNA comes from other populations like Neanderthals which means that our earliest common ancestor lived at least a million years ago or maybe several million years ago.
Also the most aboriginal africans are khoisan and pygmies. They branched off from other humans 150 thousand years ago. West Africans, Bantu, East Africans were not that closely related to them until they partly interbred with them while stealing their land. The main haplogroups of West Africans, Bantu, and E. Africans are Y-chromosome E and mitochondrial groups L2 and L3 which are not native to sub-saharan Africa and may not have originated in Africa at all. So on their fathers side most africans are descended from something like middle easterners. On their mother’s side they are a mix of something like middle easterners + pygmy women + khoisan women + around 7% from some population that weren’t even Homo Sapiens.
Ok. While i'm not opposed to evolution/devolution per se, isn't there actually a missing link?
Like, they laugh at religious people for questioning this but without an biases, is there the proper info to actually show that "we" came from apes?
I've been on both sides and now with all I know about the lies that many people accept out of fear, I don't think there is any way we "evolved" from apes, thus, like in the Truman Show if you didn't know the more "outlandish" theory were actually true, there would also be a explanation for all the laughable falsehoods that exist.
Like when he's driving and picks up the radio from the producers that are describing his location and then they come on saying "oh, uh, that's just a local police scanner" To be honest, this is what it feels like talking with you about this stuff.
Edit: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8s-kp4ruUZA
This is the scene i'm referring to.
There is more than ample evidence. I mean we just share so many genes with chimpanzees and bonobo, and to a lesser extent, gorillas and orangutans. They can estimate a most likely time of divergence from a common chimp/human ancestor by measuring the average rate of genetic mutations and then calculating the time that has elapsed by comparing the number of mutations (amount of variation) by which humans differ from chimps. Or from other people like the earliest divergent group of humans, the Khoisan hunter gatherers of southern Africa.
We have plenty of archeological evidence in the form of fossils from closely related non-homo sapiens. We almost have too many missing links.
After splitting off from chimps around 5 million years ago a common ancestor split off into several human like species including several types of paranthropus/australopithicines like the famous Lucy and also a hobbit like species in indonesia, neither of which we seem to have direct descent from. These species may have originated in africa but spread to eurasia.
Homo Erectus is a direct ancestor that lived about 2 or 3 million years ago which split off in to several sub species around africa and eurasia, one of which was Homo Heidelbergensis. From homo heidelbergensis descended the “human” line, and also Homo Neanderthal and Homo Denisovan who lived in Eurasia, and probably one or two others that haven’t been discovered in the fossils yet but which must have existed based on genetic analysis of some human groups.
Homo Sapiens, who share much of their ancestry within the last 150 to 300 thousand years, have mixed with other non-Homo Sapiens, especially Neanderthal and Denisovan (people from New Guinea have a lot of Denisovan, ~10% I think). Neanderthal and Denisovan mixed with other Homo Erectus species. In fact, there’s been one long cluster fuck of various similar species mixing for several million years. Its possible we have some Australopithicine genes in us as well.
We can check our genes agains genes extracted from many of these fossils. We have a lot of genes from Neanderthal and a decent amount from Denisovans.
West Africans especially have a large amount of genes (~7%) from a non-Homo Sapiens they fucked about with around 30,000 years ago. Eurasians dont have any of those genes. So they expect to eventually dig some faggot up from the Sahara that matches these foreign genes.
TLDR - Everything has been largely verified from fossils and genetic comparisons. There are a few holes to fill in. There are some details to hammer out. But they have a good picture and ample evidence to support human descent from a chimp/human common ancestor. There’s been a huge amout of new info about the family tree in the last 10 to 20 years as a result of genetics. A lot of fucking around between closely related human like species in Africa and Eurasia
The missing link is a favorite argument of creationists because there will always be a missing link. Every life on earth is an unbroken chain going back millions of years, we can dig up fossils and place them in an approximate location on the timeline like laying out links on the floor but you will never find every single link (hell you won't find relatively many at all). There is always a missing link, you give them Australopithecine, Cromagnon, Denosovian and Homo habilis but they say well Australopithecine is not 'chimp enough' what came before that? Fossils are like key frames in an animation, they represent the points in evolutionary history that we can observe, we have to extrapolate what is between them though and the more keyframes you have the smoother/more accurate the animation.
For a long time we relied on the fossil record for our understanding of evolution but it's not a complete picture, it's like learning about the Egyptians from a few unearthed temples. Even still just from the fossil record you can form a chain tying whales to their last common ancestor with terrestrial wolves.
Now we have DNA sequencing which has vindicated Darwin in ways he could never have anticipated, we can compare living populations to one another and use genetic markers to figure out when populations split off.
After hundreds or thousands of generations and only if you stop feeding them and leave them to fend for themselves.
I still believe they are literally a different species. I don't think we're "evolving" but devolving.
You could conceptualize it like that. Survival becomes relatively easy, for whatever reason, good weather, disease took out the predators, you invented civilization, whatever it is. Following this selection pressure eases up, it's okay not to be perfectly fit, survival is easy, populations boom... Then an ice age comes and splits your population up, selection pressure dramatically increases, some migrate south and adapt to a new lifestyle, some stay in the north and adapt to a different lifestyle, many die over the coming generations, the ones that don't are the best at what they do, they make more just like themselves, iterating over and over, eliminating weaknesses each time.
Generations later the ones who went north are pale in order to synthesize vitamin D, stockier and shorter to conserve heat, they are smarter in many ways because if they don't plan they die, they are thoughtful and risk averse because a small mistake could mean freezing to death. The land cannot support abundant life and so they live in small, spread apart, isolated units and rarely compete with each other. They mate with other northern groups who have been there longer than them and take on their similar traits.
The ones who went south become darker to guard against the sun, leaner to radiate more heat, more impulsive and energetic, since many choose to move south competition for resources is fierce and they are more prone to violence and intimidation...
Evolution is the epitome of "hard times make strong men."
(post is archived)