The Story of Us

[corydoras]

Youtube Video ->

[chesters1]

probably the story of the US

just slop!

[corydoras]

probably the story of the US

just slop!

You not like those crazy xtians who have problems with evolution are you chesters?

[chesters1]

no but just when was africa a place where we came from .pangea? later? must have been pangea otherwise explain south american natives

theres no real evidence showing life in africa was the first (just because a fragment was found doesnt prove a thing) perhaps in an early ice age "africa" was uninhabitable and early man moved down to it as the climate became bad in the north and better on the equator ,man would then have originated in the north moved to the equator then moved back north when the ice retreated.

most of the evidence is supposition there is nothing to prove my or their theory bar for the moment the "earliest" traces just happen to be found in "africa" ,if we have the same rocks outside of africa i expect the same artefacts are somewhere in it they just havnt been found at the moment

 

probably the original residents of africa were pygmies (due to diet) and the northeners moved down and mixed genes making them bigger and taller ,they all retreated leaving bigger africans ,pygmies (where they were never found in remote areas)and the troublesome northern lot going home

nothing new most africans have a smattering of "white" genes from the slavery days

Edited July 8, 2011 by chesters1

[corydoras]

no but just when was africa a place where we came from .pangea? later? must have been pangea otherwise explain south american natives

theres no real evidence showing life in africa was the first (just because a fragment was found doesnt prove a thing) perhaps in an early ice age "africa" was uninhabitable and early man moved down to it as the climate became bad in the north and better on the equator ,man would then have originated in the north moved to the equator then moved back north when the ice retreated.

most of the evidence is supposition there is nothing to prove my or their theory bar for the moment the "earliest" traces just happen to be found in "africa"

Sorry mate but that's just plain bullocks. You don't have a theory, that's not even a working hypothesis.

 

There were no humans at all on Pangea, a few tharapsids and some proto-mammals. There weren't even dinosaurs.

Edited July 8, 2011 by corydoras

[corydoras]

And by the way, you'd get a lot more respect from me if you would debate without recourse to the Gish Gallop.

[chesters1]

Sorry mate but that's just plain bullocks. You don't have a theory, that's not even a working hypothesis.

 

There were no humans at all on Pangea, a few tharapsids and some proto-mammals. There weren't even dinosaurs.

 

no but pre humans must have originated there ,where humans eventually came from ,now your the one with the idea "humans" suddenly appeared,all i need is proof of what you say disproves what i say and i'l put a bone through my nose and wear a loincloth.

where did the south americans come from ,its known to a certain extent north american indians probably came from the north where russia is now ,but there is no stepping stones down south for pre humans to exploit.

this leaves "russians" populated north america then filtered down to south america a strange reverse of the african theory where early man came out of africa

 

could the different genetic differences in races evolve that fast ,fairly easy when its a walking evolution from africa to europe but to walk to europe across the frozen tundra across a few islands down through alaska into north america ,middle america and down to the far south is nothing but ludicrous speculation.

the only thing that makes sense is there was a fair few of our extremely remote ancestors on every part of pangea who stayed on the various chunks that broke off thus leaving africa as the sole melting pot of modern man high and dry

Edited July 8, 2011 by chesters1

[corydoras]

no but pre humans must have originated there ,where humans eventually came from ,now your the one with the idea "humans" suddenly appeared,all i need is proof of what you say disproves what i say and i'l put a bone through my nose and wear a loincloth.

where did the south americans come from ,its known to a certain extent north american indians probably came from the north where russia is now ,but there is no stepping stones down south for pre humans to exploit.

this leaves "russians" populated north america then filtered down to south america a strange reverse of the african theory where early man came out of africa

 

could the different genetic differences in races evolve that fast ,fairly easy when its a walking evolution from africa to europe but to walk to europe across the frozen tundra across a few islands down through alaska into north america ,middle america and down to the far south is nothing but ludicrous speculation

There were no pre-humans on Pangea, there were not even any mammals.

 

Native Americans came from Northeast Asia, across the Bering strait ~12,000 years ago. They followed migratory herds south, and expanded into Central America 700 years later, and South America about 600 years after that.

[chesters1]

And by the way, you'd get a lot more respect from me if you would debate without recourse to the Gish Gallop.

 

its all gish gallop (never heard of that before) when theres no proof on either side ,like global warming is down to man

[corydoras]

its all gish gallop (never heard of that before) when theres no proof on either side ,like global warming is down to man

There's stacks of evidence for both. Just because you don't like the idea doesn't change the evidence.