Homo Sapiens Dispersals Out of Africa
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- Where did we humans come from? When did we become the dominant species on the planet? Experts take you on an exploration of the last half-decade of new evidence from ancient DNA, fossils, archaeology and population studies that has updated our knowledge about The Origins of Today’s Humans. Recorded on 02/21/2020. [5/2020] [Show ID: 35717]
More from: CARTA: Exploring the Origins of Today's Humans
(www.uctv.tv/carta-todays-humans)
00:00 - Start
01:38 - Main Presentation
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
One of the best I have seen here, I totally love your videos!! Thanks for sharing!!!
This was just breathtaking. The amount of research, analysis, and effort that goes into this kind of finding is stunning. All the time, we find the history of homo sapiens is far more complex than many ever thought it could be.
Thanks for making this accessible to the public, and for taking the time to explain it to people outside the field. I found this fascinating.
@Legion How to let the world know you don’t understand what a scientific theory is without saying you don’t understand what a scientific theory is…how could one go about accomplishing that…hmm… oh, I know! Use the word “theory” as in “untested” or “not well-known” and act like -that’s- what a scientific theory is! Let the pwning begin!!
(Narrator: that’s not what a scientific theory is)
A scientific theory is an entire body of knowledge. A BODY of knowledge, not a guess, not speculation. A speculation is called a “hypothesis”. Scientific Theories bring together many facts & many well-tested hypothesis. Well-tested means that they have been repeatedly tested by more than one person, & the hypothesis yields the same answers and thus, is predictive.
What does predictive mean? It doesn’t mean gazing into a crystal ball, talking in tongues, consulting a magic 8 Ball or asking an Ouija board. It means “this” is what we believe we will find. When we (AND when every other person) observes/looks-for/experiments, everyone, everywhere, all of us, find “this”. Every. Single. Time. Everyone finds “this” just like we said we would. No one has ever found “that”.
If someone does claim to have found “that”, they too, can form a hypothesis & begin testing it. Then publish their results to be peer-reviewed. Then others begin testing this new hypothesis. If they also find “that”, then they will also publish their results, to be peer reviewed. This process needs to repeat itself over & over, never finding “this”, only finding the new “that”. Until & unless “that” can be found/discovered/observed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, “that” can be dismissed.
If “that” is presented without any evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence.
This was a really interesting talk - I wish it had been longer, actually! Thank you for sharing this with us out here in YTland. 😊
Superb ! Another set of such carefully worked through evidence to upend even recent hypotheses about how early Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa. Such a fascinating and ever changing story.
There's enough info in that presentation for a conference. Very revealing and thought provoking.
I was thinking, when was it published, as she is using out of date maps, it may just be laziness. 🤷♂️
Talk about hedging your bets...🤣
@@gympump9766 can you provide video time of maps you're referring to?
Except OOA theory has been proven false through genetic studies
@@Lanterns_light what specifically has been proven false?
hippo potamus howdy, a number of discoveries are painting a picture of human development and migration completely in opposition to OOA theory. Some of the most recent include analysis of sub continental African lineage being made up of pairing two hominid sub species, one of which a Neanderthal species which is not represented in any other sub species of humans which would be apparent in everyone if all humans migrated out of Africa. Secondly, but not as damning to OOA, Caucasian lineages that brought with them agriculture have been shown to ‘originate’ from the area of modern day Iran and spreading out from there to Babylon and then out through Europe. There’s more but I am not as familiar off the cuff.
From the title i thought i would get more of an overview, not just a concentration on findings from one cave.
Perhaps videos could be titled more specifically?
This is about as indepth as possible, my feelings are you had a very specific question.
Just so you know, we have no idea what the three ghost populations are...
The only dna we have isolated and traced so far are that of neanderthals and denisovans. And we still dont have a complete picture.
a very very common problem with youtube titles!
There is so much confusion when it comes to Anthropology, there is no exact science, these institutions need to make money, so they go along with whatever is required or accepted.
Fascinating.
Fascinating!
Thank you so much. 🙏🏽📚🇲🇽
An antartic ice bridge sounds good right about now
Lecture starts at 1:50
good stuff, but pls shorten the intro
When modern human ancestors evolved in Africa what was their physical
appearance? Was there one appearance or did appearances vary depending
on what part of Africa they evolved in?
Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. I’m sure facial features were broadly expressed. Including a range of hair textures. Than shades of brown skin. As we migrated. Different groups carried their own genetic variant with time
@Midnight Lightning Radio , They didn't what?.
They prop had pale skin similar to a chimpanzee under there fur.
So what was different between the early modern homo of 200k and the modern homo of 60k? Critical change that makes us really human?
Morphology - Presence of chin, Presence of globular cranium ( forehead), absence of jutting brow ridge, retracted facial bones, no simian shelf.
Behaviour - appearance of art, bow and arrow, sharp rock blades, language etc.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Have been trying to find out if there is a way to find out what people in Africa is the closest to the rest of the population in the world. Who were the small group comprised of? That is what I would want to know!
Hadza people.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 Amazing
@@whatsupsweden "The Hadza, according to genomic comparisons, are today more closely related to non-Africans than to other Africans. The researchers hypothesize that the Hadza are direct descendants of the group that migrated out of Africa, and possibly spread within Africa as well, after about 50,000 years ago"
Fascinating, isn't it? That's from Harvard Medical School.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 Very fascinating. Especially since I have been to Tanzania and felt so at home there ☺️
African Americans they have European blood in many ranges so they are the closest?
We left Africa? Ah I must have been asleep…, no wonder it is so cold outside..
If she thinks we left Africa get her to explain cro magnon man.
So an African walked out of Africa bare foot and made it to Europe. Somehow the bone structure, skin, eye color, and hair all changed? Why don’t we all have the same blood type?
Sounds improbable. I am not an Anthropologist, but some don't agree with this theory
Watching 4:07
I wonder if back then they would have seen other hominid species as simply regional races?
@CIA Imports And they did it without being called human.
@CIA Imports Being humans I am sure they were subject to all the same biases modern humans are: confirmation bias, in-group bias, Dunning-Kruger effect, group think, hindsight bias and all the rest. The difference being modern humans could fight their biases but present evidence suggests many just can not help themselves. Besides think is hard, easier to through unfounded accusations around.
@randall2020 The problem with people like me is we shy away from discussions of how people are. Those types of discussions quickly degenerate in to ad hominem attacks. I find those boring but I'm sure you can find someone else on youtube to trade insults with.
@@myothersoul1953 I'm not sure whether "in-group bias" is a suitable term here. As we're here discussing evolution, shouldn't you rather describe such phenomena as highly adaptive "kin selection"?
(It's not a bug, it's a feature :D )
@Q.A. Rona A bit more from genetic perspective. Even if you compare out of Africa humans vs. Khoisan you get a split ~100k years ago. Here we're talking about, pending on moment and estimate at around a few times bigger.
However, if you look simply at phenotypes, which right now are optimised to completely different environmental niches, then differences would presumably look similar.
Outdated information... Dispersal out of the Philippines makes way more logical sense and backed up not only by strong scientific data but historical data as well. Look up the following: Aeta most Denisovan, migration of chickens by Polynesians, Laguna copperplate, Homo Luzonensis 700,000 year old hominid bones found with tools that they used on a nearby rhino remains (the ones in Africa are mostly just fragments, you will find that there is no similar scenario that I described was ever found there) and biodiversity of marine and plant life in which the Philippines is the epicenter of all.
Maybe early human dispersal "failed" as happens so often in human history because we rely on observation and trial and error for technology and that takes time, energy, and a cultural environment which in turn requires sufficient population In other words what is unique to our species was not available for evolutionary pressure to favor our survival vis à vis contemporary Neanderthals in the same location We could not compete with them back then! We were busy gathering or catching our next day meal But this was only round 1 !🤣
How did different races evolve in such a short period of time? Wrong.
//: OUT OF AFRICA THEORY, IT'S A THEORY NOT FACT.
Let’s be clear: I’m pro evolution. But could you imagine trying to present this in church 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣
I’d grab the pop corn and just sit and look at the congregations faces. It would be a joy. Gosh….is that kinda dark?
You wouldn't have any problem with this presentation in most european churches.
90% of world population today lives near the coasts. Imagine it would have been similar in past, given the abundance of food the sea offers.
That means all our remains and theories are probably built on a tiny fraction and the ones who lived deeper in the continents.
sure there were times the coastlines were similar to today but only about 10% the other 90% the sea level was much lower.
Indeed. I've heard it postulated is that all we have found so far are hillbillies, who may not be particularly representative of humans as a whole.
It doesn’t bother you all to be so certain about something you have almost zero data on?
She uses the word "might" a few times. NO FACT IN MIGHT.
I know right!
never before have I heard so much contradictory information.
The simple facts her pictorials do not match her words are very damming in my opinion. Pure laziness
"We call this a failed migration"
"But there is evidence they may have left even earlier about 150000 years ago and interbred."
Rofl she has a lot of data sets but she's not so good at finding the patterns.
Please get a degree, then make a detailed Analysis at a conference like she did, post it on RUclips and then I’ll listen to your argument, as of now judging from all your comments on this vid you’re just another dumb keyboard warrior 🤣
Not talking fact but theory. This subject is very malleable depending on discoveries and analysis - what makes it so fascinating.
It's politically incorrect to tell the peoples.
That's what a theory is currently this theory has the most evidence and is the accepted ones there isn't any theory of human orgin with good evidence other than this
How can you have this conference when there's so much evidence of the contrary today?
Oohh boy lets see if this isn't biased they say with heavy sarcasm.
Africans never went out of Africa.
*Other races from other continents went in to Africa.*
humans didnt just spawn in other countries. they came out of africa. white skin is a genetic mutation that was used to absorb UV ray as they dispersed from africa
@@nonchannel2000 yes race doesnt exist, only socially
How dumb can one be...
@pretty Belinda no its not
Love the subject! Really really have your intro! Damn. Can you shorten it? Alot!
The invasion of Homo sapiens
Such oversimplifications cannot work in the real world
you're right. It's politically incorrect to get into the details.
Starts at 1:36
What is a "pre neanderthal"? And if you look at people around the world, how is skull shape the determining factor? We have pygmies in Africa, Mongols, East Asians, Chinese, papua new guinea, and of course europeans. The skulls are more different individually than the Neanderthal is from some modern living humans. Secondly, neanderthals and "modern" humans lived and died together, buried together, interbred, had family units, and cave art, and formal burials all the same. Lastly, there are no or very little DNA from neanderthals in Africa today, yet, Europeans have a lot of Neanderthal DNA. Her conclusions are very speculative.
I totally agree with you. One should never assume or presume anything from
mere shape of scull especially there were only a few let alone single sample of
partial and damaged sample. Even though I suspect homo sapience dispersed
much earlier than currently believed in academic circles. We just can't find samples as they have submerged under water and plant based articles rotted
away and therefore no evidence. And they didn't build castles/temples then.
What living population has a wide face with no chin? And where are you getting this stuff from?
Calling other contemporary people archaic, is stupid and archaic...no one was modern by modern standards back then...For instance... modern humans living in the world today contain varying amounts of genetic material via population admixture...among the various human populations that met and mixed...the so called modern humans who supposedly left Africa and then populated the world 60 or 70 thousand years ago...were lacking this admixture...and so...can not be considered modern until they aquire the generic material that comprises modern living humans...which is rife with admixtures...
"Out of Africa" is a myth, never happened. in fact it was always INTO AFRICA, not out of it. Always other peoples came IN Africa. Africans never went out of africa.
Liar liar pants on fire....
Interesting counter argument 🤔, pls further elaborate on your version to this analysis 🧐
@@frankv7068 lol
🤯🤯🤯
This woman is very knowledgeable but she is such a dull speaker I had to stop about a third of the way through. It's a pity.
No proof at all for Out of Africa.
The out-of-africa myth has been proven false. Europeans have Neanderthal DNA, Asians have Neanderthal and denisovan. And recently they found Africans have an archaic DNA from the homonym hundred thousand years before the neanderthal. If we came out of Africa we would all have the same archaic DNA as the African do. This completely debunks the myth of Out of Africa.
Except the entire subject of genetics. All Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens, are you suggesting that we migrated before we evolved from our homo sapien common ancestory?
Homo sapiens had slight cross breeding with Neandertal and Denosovians, that proves nothing except we were already Homo sapiens.
If we had isolated breeding pools for that long we would all be different species and we are most certainly not, all extant humans are Homo sapien.
You need to do some actual reading.
@@whatabouttheearth The whole OOA is built on assumed connections between different fossil remains, there are very few confirmed genetic matches. All we can really say for certain in some cases is that Africa was better at making fossils.
China is a massively under explored area, and I am confident there is much to be found there.
Until some genetic material can be extracted and processed from all existing fossils, then all we can do is place individuals in time and space, we cannot infer ancestry, especially when nearly everything that did not result in H Sapiens went extinct. We cannot assume that because X looks like Y they are related.
As to Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, since we share 99.9%, can we really only say we get a tiny %age from them? It's a misleading statement.
@@sugarnads who needs to do some reading?
if this theory is correct or not, the african of today doesn't have anything to do with it. btw...most inventors that invented useful things for the world, are Europeans, while in Africa not a single homemade "airplane" went airborne to this day.
The frequency of inventions has absolutely nothing to do with where humans originated. Also, yes, modern Africans do have something to do with the origin of humanity, since modern Africans have the oldest haplogroups and still live where humanity originated; hence, modern Africans are the most closely related to the original homo sapiens.
So where are the Nephilim, Naphil, Elioud and Eljo,?
They died during the Noah’s flood.
But they do not lie with the fallen warriors of old,[a] who went down to the realm of the dead with their weapons of war-their swords placed under their heads and their shields[b] resting on their bones-though these warriors also had terrorized the land of the living. Ezekiel 32:27 [NIV]
The Book of Enoch claims that demons - wicked spirits originated from antediluvian giants.
Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim had been in the earth in those days and afterwards when the sons of the divine came to the daughters of the human. And they bore to them those valiant ones which from old are the men of the reputation.
This passage plainly states that prior to the deluge, and at later points, the Nephilim were in the earth. They are the offspring of an interbreeding that took place between celestial beings (Angels) and the daughters of Adam (Man).
These fallen angels did not just crossbreed with humans but they crossbreed various species to create dragons.
Jasher 4:18
"And their judges and rulers (fallen angels) went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.
Some believe the corruption of antediluvian DNA by Watchers was an effort to cut off the birth line of the Messiah. This theory posits that Satan understood the protoevangelium-the promise in Genesis 3:16 that a Saviour would be born, the seed of the woman, and that He would destroy the fallen angel’s power. This is made clear in:
1st Book Of Adam and Eve
Chapter 14: 3-5
3 Again said God to Adam, "All this misery that you have been made to take on yourself because of your transgression, will not free you from the hand of Satan, and will not save you.
4 But I will. When I shall come down from heaven, and shall become flesh of your descendants, and take on Myself the infirmity from which you suffer, then the darkness that covered you in this cave shall cover Me in the grave, when I am in the flesh of your descendants.
5 And I, who am without years, shall be subject to the reckoning of years, of times, of months, and of days, and I shall be reckoned as one of the sons of men, in order to save you."
Satan’s followers therefore intermingled with the human race in a conspiracy to stop the birth of Christ according to this line of thought. If human DNA could be universally corrupted or ‘demonized’ they reasoned, no Messiah would be born and mankind would be lost forever. Those who support this theory believe this is why God ordered Israel to maintain a pure bloodline and not to intermarry with the other nations. When Israel breached this command and the mutated DNA began rapidly spreading among men and animals, God instructed Noah to build an ark and to prepare for a flood that would destroy every living thing. That God had to send such a universal fiat like the flood illustrates how widespread the altered DNA eventually became. In fact, the Bible says in Genesis 6:9 that only Noah, and therefore by extension his children, were found ‘perfect’ in their generation.
But the promise of the Messiah was that he would be a seed of a woman. No paternal genes. So the idea of keeping a pure lineage is irrelevant. Again Noah was not the only one who escaped the flood. Some fallen angels did (Enoch 15:1-10 & Jubilees 15:30-32). Melchizedek was spared by holy angels who took him to a high land (Eden) where the flooded water could not reach (Second Book of Enoch 71-73).
There is evidence that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the myth of Hercules both find their origins in ancient giants and so is Nimrod’s life.
Who was Gilgamesh?
1. He was an ancient Babylonian hero in the Pre-Diluvian period 5000 years ago (before the Noah's Flood). How do I know this? Because he conversed with Enoch who lived before the flood. (According to the book of the Giants found among the Dead Sea scrolls: “This dream vision concerns the death of our souls,” said Ohya, “and those of Gilgamesh and all his companions. However, Gilgamesh said to me that [all the forebodings] concerned [only the rulers of earth, the temporal, powerful ones, whom the leader of the good angels has cursed]. The giants were glad at his words.).
2. According to the epic of Gilgamesh (an Akkadian poem one of the first work of literature),
He was a Giant (partly man, partly a god) i.e. 2/3 a god and 1/3 a man
He was a king of Uruk for 126 years
His mother was a priestess of ancient Babylonian gods
He slept with brides before they are given to bridegrooms
He was a homosexual who slept with a fellow giant Enkidu
What is my take?
According to my research:
1. Gilgamesh was defiant to YHWH
2. Babylonian Gods were mostly mortal giants. They could kill each other. Some definitely were fallen angels.
3. Gilgamesh was warned by Enoch concerning the coming Flood. (According to the book of the Giants found among the Dead Sea scrolls).
4. All giants died during the flood.
5. 90% of the souls of the giants were locked up in Tartarus and 10% remain on earth as demons. (Reference Jubilees 10:1-13)
6. Fallen angels are locked up in Tartarus (Jude 6 & 2 Peter 2:4) but a few still let loose as principalities in the air (a region in heaven) (Enoch 15:1-10 & Jubilees 15:30-32)
7. The Nephilim were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" according to Genesis 6:4 [NIV]
Did you know that “Anglo American” is a globally diversified conglomerate mining business? But you didn’t know that Anglo in old English is Angelos in Greek. “Anglo-phone” is a person who speaks English, especially in countries where other languages are also spoken. We say English-speaking nation when its population is largely Anglophone. “Anglo-Saxon” is a person of English descent; any white, English-speaking person; a member of the Germanic peoples conquering England in the 5th century A.D. and forming the ruling class until the Norman Conquest.
Angelus is a Latin word for angel
Ángel is a spanish word for angel
Ange is a french word for angel
Engelis a Danish word for angel
Engel is German word for angel
Angelo is Italian word for angel
Anjel is Slovak word for angel
The Greek god Zeus often referred to as the “father of gods and men”, was a sky god who controlled lightning (often using it as a weapon) and thunder. Zeus was king of Mount Olympus, the home of Greek gods, where he ruled the world and imposed his will onto gods and mortals alike. Come to think of it, Zeus was good at using nuclear arsenal on his perceived enemies. Zeus was real. I believe he was a gang leader of some fallen angels.
In Greek mythology, Angelos (Ancient Greek: Ἄγγελος) or Angelia (Ἀγγελία) was a daughter of Zeus and Hera who became known as a chthonic deity. Her story only survives in scholia on Theocritus' Idyll 2, and is such that Angelos was raised by nymphs to whose care her father had entrusted her. One day she stole her mother Hera's appointments and gave them away to Europe.
Angelos is a Greek word for angel "a messenger" (from angello, "to deliver a message"), sent whether by God or by man or by Satan, "is also used of a guardian. In Europe, the mythology about angels predates advent of Christianity.
But we know who the Anglophones. Strictly speaking, Human tongue always ends with a vowel and not a consonant. Anglophones have a lot of borrowed foreign words/sounds (angelic tongue).
Anglophones and Caucasians at large are basically Negros contaminated with fallen angel (ékptotos ángelos in Greek) blood or genes and culture.
Before the flood there was crossbreeding of fallen angels and humans. These alien genes mounted into Noah’s parents through contamination at some point in their ancestors. Noah’s parents carried in their genetics the recessive genes of aliens. These genes expressed themselves in their child Noah.
I know the most popular view would be that Noah was a mutant i.e he acquired his light skin and long hire from mutations. However though new alleles originate by mutations. A mutation affecting any gene is an accident that is rare and random. Now all scientist in genetics agree that most mutations occur in somatic cells. These are cells that have nothing to do with reproduction. Thus these mutations die with an individual. Geneticists estimate that in humans an average of only one or two mutations occur in each cell line that produces a gamete and these are only mutations that can be passed to children. Now we see that not all evolutionary change is necessarily adaptive. At the molecular level, in particular, there is growing support for the idea that most evolutionary change is actually neutral. It is also known as anti-Darwinism. The “neutral theory of evolution” has been most effectively championed by the distinguished Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura. The neutral theory is not about genes doing nothing useful. It about stating that different forms of the same gene are indistinguishable in their effects. Therefore a mutation from one form of the gene to another is neutral in that the change has no effect upon the phenotype where natural selection could act upon. In short a mutation is in the dark. Chance determines where it will strike and how it will alter a gene. So the idea that a new founder population rapidly changes genetically is here by dismissed and rendered null and void.
Most point mutations (those affecting a single base) in DNA are harmless. I say so because much of DNA in eukaryotic genome does not code for protein products. In this respect most of them have no effect on the organism. Even mutations of structural genes (those that code for protein) may occur with very little or no effect on the organism because of redundancy in the genetic code. Of coarse I agree that a single-point mutation can have a significant impact on phenotype (what is expressed) as in for example, sickle-cell anemia.
Every biologist knows that over 99% of mutations that alter a protein enough to affect its function are harmful. Could you kindly tell me of a mutation that is beneficial? In this respect what is the overall net contribution to a gene pool? NEGATIVE contribution!!!. Now, natural selection only favors the best from the available variations in a gene pool of a population. Strictly speaking new alleles do not arise on demand. Therefore it is not scientific to think big muscles of one who works with a hammer will have children with big muscles. It is equally unscientific to presume that the giraffe's neck is a result of stretching its head high to get leaves from tree branches. Though organism could be refined products of thousands of generations within a population, a random change in gene is not likely to improve the genome any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.
Another point I would like to make is that survival of the fittest and elimination of the unfavorable ones hypothesis as in Darwinism is measured only by the relative contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation. But does that mean the species gets extinct due to this hypothesis? No! Not at all. Does it mean there are special genes that yield ideal characteristics among the available ones in a gene pool of a population or a founder population to make adaptation perfectly suit a species to an environment? Again No! not at all.
Duplications of chromosomes or segments thereof are also mostly harmful. The examples in humans are:
Down's syndrome (mongolism) which results of chromosome pair 21 failing to separate during meiosis.
Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1) this is a result of translocation of one of the long chromatids of chromosome pair 22 during meiosis. This is translocated to chromosome 9 causing chronic myeloid Leukemia
Some examples of diseases resulting from abnormal genes (mutant genes) are: hemophilia, sperocytosis, acute intermittent phorphyria, cystic fibrosis of the pancreas, galectosaemia, phenylketonuria, haemoglobinopathesis, etc.
There are a number of mechanisms that have been scientifically proven to be responsible making the species not to change. I will ride with you through some of them.
Recombinations:
Though mutations are a source of new genes, they are so infrequent at any locus that generation to generation, their contribution to genetic variation is negligible. I mean members of a population owe nearly all their differences to the unique recombinations of the existing alleles each individual brawls from a gene pool. In this respect, sexual reproduction within a population recombines old alleles into fresh assortments every generation thus preserving the varieties within a species. Noah must have existed in that gene pool. The Fallen angels contributed new alleles in the past. Noah must have been a set of recessive alleles hiding diploid character of eukaryotes in heterozygotes.
What Causes Preservation Of Genetic Variation?
What prevents natural selection from extinguishing a population's variations:
Diploidy: Diploid character of eukaryotes hides a considerable amount of genetic variation in form of recessive alleles in heterozygotes. The recessive alleles (assumedly harmful in a present environment) can persist in a population through the propagation by heterozygous individuals. For example, if 0.01 is the frequency of recessive alleles, then 0.99 (99%) copies of that recessive allele are protected in heterozygotes, and only 1% recessive alleles are present in homozygotes. The conclusion is that the rarer the recessive allele, the greater the degree of protection afforded by heterozygosity. You should understand that we are dealing with large numbers here in a population.
This hypothesis is old & boring, Make up A NEW ONE
This is a theory, not a hypothesis. And it's the best one going.
@@matthewharris8819 in other words a wild guess.
@@thuringervonsausage5232 Nope. A theory, in scientific terms, is the highest level of verification that an idea can reach. It differs from the common usage, so it can be confusing
@@matthewharris8819 Bullshit - They have no clue, they get a few items & makeup a story - Phooey. There are to many variables not attended too.
@@thuringervonsausage5232 And variables are those, exactly?
I mean, there is literally mountains of bones, tools, and other human detritus in clear migration patterns from around Lake Tanganyika in Tanzania up through Kenya, into the Ethiopian Great Rift Valley, into Egypy and across the Sinai into Mesopotamia. The dating of fossil remains puts the earliest fossils in africa and the later fossils elsewhere, getting younger the farther away you get.
But more importantly, where is the impetus to lie? Nobody really cares about this stuff.
How did Noah end up being White while his parents were blacks?
Noah’s parents lived in Mesopotamia after descending from Adam who was banished out of Eden (East Africa) to a land east of Eden. Notice that Mesopotamia is East of Eden. Notice also that in Genesis 2:10-14 a river flowed out of Eden and split into a delta.
This is the Nile River. In Mesopotamia, the rivers flow into it contrary to Genesis 2:10-14 where a single river flowed "out" of Eden and then does something that most rivers DO NOT do - splits into four separate "heads" or rivers that flowed downstream, all fed from a common single river source. From here we understand that Garden of Eden is at the source of the river. We know which river this is. It’s the Nile River. The source of this river is in East Africa. East Africa and sub-Saharan Africa is the true sanctuary of perfect land full of natural resources. More than half of the world minerals and right here. This land is at the equator of the Earth and one would expect it to be very hot yet it’s not. Unlike Beijing in China and New Delhi in India which are at latitude 39.9042° North and 28.6139° North respectively, while Nairobi 1.2921° South and Kampala 0.3476° North of the equator we have the following obtaining:
Beijing: July is the hottest month with an average temperature of 27°C (81°F) with a maximum at 42 °C or higher and the coldest is January at -4°C (25°F).
New Delhi: May is the hottest month with an average temperature of 33°C (91°F) with a maximum at 45 °C or higher and the coldest is January at 13°C (55°F)
Nairobi: February is the hottest month with an average temperature of 21°C (69°F) with a maximum at 28 °C and the coldest is July at 17°C (62°F)
Kampala: February is the hottest month with an average temperature of 23°C (73°F) with a maximum at 30 °C and the coldest is June at 21°C (70°F)
The reason for defiling the odds is that though Nairobi and Kampala are located on the equator in Africa, generally sub-Saharan Africa is elevated land. Kampala and Nairobi are at a high altitude i.e. 1,190m and 1,795m respectively, while Beijing and New Delhi are at 44m and 216m respectively above sea level. With this global warming, melting ice from Antarctica in the South Pole and the glaciers around the North Pole will add water to the oceans and flood the low lands.
If a river issued out of Eden, it means Eden must have been on high ground. The lands in Mesopotamia are on low ground but the land in East Africa are on high ground.
Kuwait Elevation above sea level: 70 m
Baghdad Elevation above sea level: 34 m
Jerusalem Elevation above sea level: 754 m
Addis Ababa Elevation above sea level: 2,355 m
Nairobi Elevation above sea level: 1,795 m
This is the more reason why Melchizedek was taken to the Garden of Eden to preserve him from the flood.
Josephus refers to Melchizedek as a "Canaanite chief" in War of the Jews, but as a priest in Antiquities of the Jews. Philo identifies Melchizedek with the Logos as priest of God, and honoured as an untutored priesthood.
The Second Book of Enoch (also called "Slavonic Enoch") in the last section of the book, the Exaltation of Melchizedek, tells how Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. The child came out from his mother after she had died and sat on the bed beside her corpse, already physically developed, clothed, speaking and blessing the Lord, and marked with the badge of priesthood. Forty days later, Melchizedek was taken by the archangel Gabriel (Michael in some manuscripts) to the Garden of Eden and was thus preserved from the Deluge without having to be in Noah's Ark.
Now we understand that Noah was born in 3948 BC and the flood occurred around 2348 BC. I would place the birth of Melchizedek around 2648 BC and Joshua was born around 1400BC. Roughly Melchizedek lived for about 1,248 years wau!
Noah isn’t real my friend lol
Put the Bible down and pick up a history book
His parents were mixed....
When Adam and Eve were still in Paradise someone on Earth was already shedding blood and causing mischief:
Quran 2:30 And your Lord said to the angels "I will make a successor on Earth", They said "How can You make [a successor] someone who corrupts and sheds blood while we praise and sanctify You?" He said "I know what you don't know."
Adam and Eve were not the first to live on Earth, those Homo sapiens were already living on Earth however they didn't worship God. So God chose Adam and Eve from Paradise to become their successors on Earth.
1400 years ago the Quran said that God is able to recreate humans from their own semen in forms that they are unable to envisage:
(Quran 56.58-62) Do you see your own semen? Do you create it or Do We [Allah] create it? We decreed the death among you and nobody beat Us to alter your form and raise you in forms that you do not perceive. And you have figured out your first form if only you would remember.
Moreover the Quran confirms that all life started in water then animals crawled out of the water onto land: All evolution theories suggest that during the transitional period those evolved animals crawled on their bellies before walking on four legs. Land animals only walked on two legs at a much later stage.
However this was portrayed in the Quran 1400 years before it was discovered.
(Quran 24.45) Allah created every living creature from water. Some of them crawl on their bellies, and some walk on two legs, and others walk on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah is Capable of everything.
Bunkum.
B S
You truly are a weak minded lemming.
Sorry, but your fairy tales from the Dark Ages, made up by people having a hashish trip in a cave who also thought that wind and lightning was basically magic has no place in a real world discussion. Relax dude, you might strain something with all of those mental gymnastics. The world is much more complex, old and beautiful than anything that people who thought illnesses were brought on my evil spirits could come up with. Open your mind to the wonders of reality!