God Commands Racial Segregation--forbids Mongrelization

Fossils of H. heidelbergensis can be found from Africa to China and we cannot exclude an Asian origin for heidelbergensis, given the similar ages (∼600 ka) assigned to the earliest potential examples in Germany (Mauer22), China (Yunxian45), and Ethiopia (Bodo46). Neanderthal fossils can only be found in Southern Europe and West Asia and Neanderthal fossils have not been found to date in Africa and Neanderthals looked distinctively European as it's obvious from a realistic reconstruction of a Neanderthal child.

 

Neanderthals were a (largely) dead end offshoot of heidelbergensis. Sapiens were a successful offshoot.

The white skin and blond hair in your picture is just speculation. European forms of heidelbergensis may have had this to, like European Caucasians today.

 

If white people were born in North Africa, why did they only invade Europe, and not down the coastal plains of Africa?

Your theory is as valid as Piltdown man.

 

I never said "white people were born in North Africa". White traits like blondism may have been inherited from later admixture events in Europe, or even evolved independently later. The discovery of Neandethal genes in modern humans make this more than plausible. And you forget that Sapiens replaced Heidelbergensis through mixing, not replacement. European versions of Heidelbergensis may have been blonde, as European Caucasians are today.

 

Okay, so idaltu originaterd in Africa and spread out to mate with neanderthalensis. Why are you shrieking that I am wrong?

Baseless crap. Idaltu replaced heidelbergensis in Africa by out-competition and absorption, then migrated to the Levant to mate with neanderthalensis.

Neanderthalensis genes only make up about 4% of our genes. We are just cold-adapted Africans, dude. Live with it.

 

I'm not "shrieking" about anything you obnoxious git.
Heidelbergensis came from Europe. Sapiens came from (possibly) North Africa, from Heidelbergensis. Idaltu was a dead end. We are not "Africans" anymore than we are fish or amoeba. Try taking a course in evolutionary biology.

 

Most scientists I have read call rhodesiensis identical with heidelbergensis. In order to show that your whackadoodlery intersects with reality, you need to show me another fossil of H.s. sap older than idaltu from an area in communication with Europe and Asia.

Prove it.

[QUOPTE]We are not "Africans" anymore than we are fish or amoeba. Try taking a course in evolutionary biology.[/QUOTE]You are the one that needs educating here.

Schickelgruber liked to point out that we are descended from Tibetans, rather than Africans, but what does that prove?

If you have evidence that none of our ancestors were African idaltu, present it or own the name of Nazi TROLL.

 

Actually it's you that doesn't have evidence our ancestors were Idaltu. You made the assertion. You back it up. And there are several sapiens fossils older than idaltu. Feel free to look it up.

 

Your assertion, your burden.

Idaltu was in a location from which it was able to enter Europe via the Levant. There, idaltu mixed with neanderthalensis to beget modern whites.

You need fossil forms other than idaltu in a location from which they could reach Europe and which have shown interbreeding with neanderthalensis, and they must pre-date idaltu. Elsewise, you have, again, nothing.

 

The Omo remains were found in the same area, dated 35,000 years older, and classified as Sapiens. Fail.

 

So, do you have identifiably white H.s.sapiens older than 195000 years outside of Africa?

 

No. ....................

 

Then you lose.

 

Huh? At no time did I claim or imply such a thing. Quote where I did.

Or wear the badge "LIAR".

 

Ther oldest H.idaltu are from Ethiopia. We came out of Africa. You lose.

 

How do I "lose". At no time did I claim that no part of human evolution took part in Africa.

Caucasians developed in West Eurasia, of which North Africa is a part.
And even if Sapiens developed in SS Africa, 200,000 years ago, which seems unlikely, who cares?

Heidelbergensis developed in Europe. Does this mean Europe "wins"?
Fish developed in some Ocean somewhere. Does this mean the Ocean "wins"?
Self replicating molecules developed in a puddle somewhere. Should I consider puddles my homeland?

You just have a massive bias towards promoting Negroes for spurious reasons.

 

A) You have no idea what color they were. Dark skin is thought to have evolved from white, not the other way around.

B) Who cares if they were green, blue or orange?

 

Couldn't leave this bit of stupidity unchallenged just because he's gone. Black skin could not have derived from white. Naked people in the tropics need to be dark to survive. They need to be white to both wear clothes and produce Vitamin D in cold, dark Europe.

That is why neanderthalensis was white and idaltu black.

 

100,000 years of evolution? Those whom you know as Europeans have not been on this planet that long. Try only 6,000 years of existence and 4,000 years of them being out of the "Neanderthal" condition they were in before prophet Musa retaught them how top appear as civilized people: wearing clothing, cooking your food, especially meats, etiquette, etc. When Muhammad ibn Abdullah and the Moslems and Moors locked them back into Europe, they mostly returned to their savage behaviors, research the Medieval or Middle Ages thoroughly.

This is not a slight against Caucasians, I am just noting historical facts. They have done well for themselves over the past 1400 years, barring their imperialism, colonialism and other behaviors that they rulers chose to engage in so that they could build empire/dominion for themselves. As a matter of fact, it is safe to say that if it were not for any of their collective past actions, they would not be anywhere near as powerful and influential as they are now.

 

Would you care to share your source on this? Wait you can't...

Never mind!

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate:

In the deep tropics rainforest cover means dark dark skin isn't necessary. So it might be possible for a group that migrated to the plains to have skin darken for increased sun exposure. But this would be darkening from med tan to black, not pale pink to black. So either way Mikey is FOS.

Aside: pale skin isn't the only way to get Vit D in the north. Inuit eat a lot of sea fish. They aren't pale. This implies several things:
1: "white" people developed from a continental group who lived away from the oceans for generations.
2: the human default for skin tone is something like tan/med brown.
3: Human groups probably settled first near oceans when they could.

 

Let's not fight the future.

The Rise of Intermarriage
Rates, Characteristics Vary by Race and Gender
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/

California, West lead U.S. in interracial marriages, report finds
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/16/local/la-me-interracial-marriage-20120216

Local interracial couples reflect trend
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/10/local-interracial-couples-reflect-trend-such-union/

Study: more couples “marry out” as acceptance grows
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/02/16/22567/interracial-marriage-study/

 

Dark skin evolved from white. This much is certain.

 

Don't be ridiculous. You understand that trends can change? This is like saying "don't fight the future" after the Nazis took control of France and Poland.