Facts

You're trivializing it like the corrupt weren't enslaving Africans and treating them as if they were less than human. Equality is conformity, know your history.

The small-minded will continue to believe in lies in order to ignore real truth. The same ones that use race superiority to justify crime and corruption

most of those numbers are wrong tho

Smelly dumb "muh human race" scum

Im tired of racists thinking red head/gingers werent born from a black and white parent

This isn't even a counterclaim, you're just acting immature to invalidate this perfectly rational argument. Like I've stated already, humanity alongside Albinism began in Africa. Caucasians & Mongols were both born from Albino and African Ancestors. The OOA (Out of Africa) Migration events that took place 62,000 years before Christ proves it to be this case and none other. A lot of you have conformist & stereotyped behaviors that only side with the majority and it's made up contrivance. I'm referring to scientific studies

Caucasians don't have albinism senpai, most are able to get a tan and some of them have an olive complexion.

(You)

African/Asian/Caucasian/etc. are NOT sub-species. We are one, singular, species.

That aside, as far as I know, leading theory for why caucasians developed lighter skin was because natural selection favoured individuals who produced less melanin b/c in more northern climates you A) receive less direct sun exposure i.g. and B) in the winter ur spending a lot of time indoors. Women with vitamin D deficiency developed rickets and would often die in childbirth, often killing the infant as well. In Africa, you're exposed to harmful UV rays all the time and it's advantageous to produce more melanin b/c darker skin is better at reflecting UV rays. Black people can get skin cancer, but people with fairer complexions (espec. 'swine pink') are at much greater risk. And people with lots of moles. But idk what that's all about

You're wrong, When a group member of a species with a great variety of physical attributes - such as Black Humans - who exhibit ALL Human attributes: Black skin, White skin (Albinos), Broad noses, Narrow noses, Full lips, Thin lips, Wooly hair, Straight hair, Hair of all colors, Hair of all textures, Very tall people, Very short people, People with Mongol features - breaks away, and forms a "Supergroup" of ONLY those with a "Single" particular distinct attribute, and through some type of isolation - forced or otherwise, breed exclusively among themselves, thus producing offspring with only that one attribute. They create a Sub-species (Not a "New Race") containing ONLY that attribute!

op is right. Humans originated form africa as the african master race spread out and all the but left africa empty because of climate and shit. Then they came back to africa from europe through the middle east to repopulate it. BUT by then these settlers were inferior which is why modern africa cant compete. This also proves real jews are african

you forgot whatever the abbos are

Off yourself.

I think you are talking about clines. Clines exist within species and is not analogous to 'sub-species'

Racial types just don't hold up, they aren't stable. So-called races only account for 5-10% of the genetic diversity globally - i.e., most variation occurs across human populations regardless of racial makeup. Human races really have no taxonomic significance, and thereby it's incorrect to refer to black or white or asian as a "sub-species"

Plus sub-species don't necessarily produce viable offspring when they mate with one another and people have no problem rearing healthy children when they 'race mix' so????

I'm really not, I'm referring to there being only one race and many sub-species. Sub-species as in the deviation from it's origin being Africa. You're talking about how there isn't any classified significance when there are actual human attributes that say otherwise. There are those that exhibit all human attributes (Black Humans) and those that exhibit some such as Albinos and Mongols. Bi-racial children doesn't take away from the fact that most if not all of us were born from African and Albino Ancestors.

New evidence suggests man came from Europe, not Africa. Nice try though, schlomo

jesus christ read a book or something. Just because you think you can 'see' obvious taxonomic classifications of different humans based on phenotypes doesn't mean that on a genetic level, that just isn't true. The first good piece of evidence against that notion was published in the 1920s. That's nearly 100 years ago

This albino shit you're on about doesn't even make sense. I don't think you know what an albino is

what lol what are you talking about

Where the fuck are you people getting this shit from?

telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/White_people.htm
I'm using this, good luck with trying to discredit it though.

You're in denial. Calling me stupid won't get your point across. I'm still using factual evidence based upon actual studies about our ancestors and where we all came from. It'll take more than a book from the 1920s to invalidate statues, artifacts and genetic analysis.

>telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

first of all, the Telegraph isn't a great source but

did you even read the whole thing? Older than sahelanthropus tchadensis they say, which preceded Ardipithecus, which then split into Australopithecus and Australopithecus anamensis (the former is what preceded Australopithecus garhi and then Homo habilis etc.)

So even if this Graecopithecus was the ancestor to Sahelanthropus, AMHs still evolved in Africa

Graecopithecus sounds like it could have just as easily been an ancestor to chimps or just some genetic freak that died out and didn't evolve to anything. Very interesting find, nonetheless.

I'm not reading this! It hurts my eyes. So bright.

Wow, I don't know what 'studies' you have been reading and I'm not reading a book from the 1920s I'm simply pointing out that this shit has been researched to death by actual scientists for the past 100 years and you're wrong. Do you even have access to academic journals or are you just piecing together shit you've read on Wikipedia? I don't mean to get all elitist on you but please tell me where you are getting your information from.

On my first point, RE: I also meant to include that it is just as likely at this point that Graecopithecus is ancestor to the now extinct Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, and Australopithecus sediba spp.

I'd also like to track down the published journal article and see how they got their estimate. P.S. When a fossil is that old, it becomes much more difficult to say with conviction that it is "thousands of years older" than another fossil. Absolute dating methods become far less precise the further you go back.

>attacking the source
discarded, go back to tumblr

You have most of it already, The genetic analyses given proves that Europeans were born from Dravidian albinos. I'm curious as to how genetic diversity causes you to say otherwise, you still neglect to prove how African's don't exhibit all human attributes. Instead you discredit and slander rather than stating an accurate and plausible counterclaim.

what? News media outlets get shit wrong all the time because 90% of the time the reporter doesn't understand the material he or she is disucssing. One time a reporter wrote a tongue-in-cheek thing about how the reason King Tut's penis was missing was because it was embarrassingly small so the Egyptian govt stole it away. Within a few months major news agencies were reporting that a "doctor" described Tutankhamun as poorly endowed and some other crap

I just feel like you disregarded my still-valid counterclaim above wherein I described above how phenotypes vary more across populations (population being defined very specifically here in an evolutionary sense) than they do across racial categorizations

There are variations of phenotypes between different African populations, thereby, how can you say that Africans (broadly) display all human characteristics? The San may be the oldest genetic population but over time even their phenotypic characteristics will have changed and thereby they do not account for ALL human characteristics. Even the San are not a genetic isolate, is one line of reasoning for that........

Black history by the bones and genetic analysis proves it to be so either way. I'm sure we both could agree that all modern humans were of African origin. There are artifacts of Black Africans who retained ALL of their African features and color throughout history. The variations between phenotypes should prove my point. Blacks have the widest possible variety of both Phenotypes and Genotypes of all Humans, because Blacks encompass ALL Human types. European Albinos (Whites) have the least variety of Phenotypes and Genotypes, and are thus easily excluded from studies by casual observation.