All DNA Traces Back to Original Afric...

All DNA Traces Back to Original African Black Man and Woman

There are 1108 comments on the www.cameraontheroad.com story from Jun 19, 2009, titled All DNA Traces Back to Original African Black Man and Woman. In it, www.cameraontheroad.com reports that:

The practice of using DNA in genealogy was started in 2000 by Family Tree DNA, a Texas-based group that is affiliated with the University of Arizona, where all its tests are performed.

It now houses the largest database of DNA in the country, with more than 100,000 records…Tests can place a person’s genetics into one of several ancient migrations of humans from Africa.

According to the National Geographic Web site, scientists call the common male ancestor “Adam” but point out that he was not literally the first male human. Instead, Adam, who lived in Africa 60,000 years ago, is the only male whose descendants survived to the present day.

“It’s well-established science that we’re all related to the same black man and woman out of Africa about 200,000 years ago,” Miller said. “I’ve had some people get angry at me for telling them that in my DNA seminars. It’s a very touchy subject.”

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cameraontheroad.com.

The Moor

Detroit, MI

#23 Jun 19, 2009
Tell us something that we don't already know!

“Spirit Woman frm Dinosor'sland”

Since: Mar 09

Victoria, Seychelles

#24 Jun 19, 2009
Just Curious 86 wrote:
<quoted text>
Same here, i believe they both work together hand and hand but many don't realize that.
Yeah, religion and science are the two sides of the same coin.

oh_Really Now

Since: Jun 09

Post a link, not a lie.

#28 Jun 20, 2009
I'm all for the original man being the modern african.

Think about that term, though.
"Modern African".
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/2674/african-v...

So it seems to me while we all started out equal, some of us moved away from the less intelligent ones and way out-advanced them. Some of us are exploring space, and some of us are still throwing sticks at animals when we get hungry.

Black are welcome to be proud of being the FIRST people.
I'm proud to have Evolved FROM them.

oh_Really Now

Since: Jun 09

Post a link, not a lie.

#29 Jun 20, 2009
Now Bappie's about to post that I'm no astronaut. I'm not supposed to claim the successes of "intelligent" whites.

...But at the same time, I AM supposed to carry the burden for what whites I'm not even related to did to blacks she's not even related to (or if she IS, she needs to stop calling WHITES the "inbreeds"...)

lol...she's SUCH a hippo-crate.
oh_Really Gay Now

Whittier, CA

#30 Jun 20, 2009
oh_Really Now wrote:
I'm all for the original man being the modern african.
Think about that term, though.
"Modern African".
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/2674/african-v...
So it seems to me while we all started out equal, some of us moved away from the less intelligent ones and way out-advanced them. Some of us are exploring space, and some of us are still throwing sticks at animals when we get hungry.
Black are welcome to be proud of being the FIRST people.
I'm proud to have Evolved FROM them.
White people are not an evolution. They are an adaptation, and their adaptation of colorless skin, eyes and hair is no longer relevant. This is why natural selection is ignoring those traits in favor of more evolved, more relevant ones. That means color in the skin. White reproduction rates worldwide are dropping, therefore the current minuscule 8% they represent of the world population is dwindling. Here today, gone tomorrow.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#31 Jun 20, 2009
Just Curious 86 wrote:
I believe what the bible says, i knew we all came from Adam but i don't believe that he wasn't the first man alive.
Zeitgeist the movie final....

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#32 Jun 20, 2009
nefeteri wrote:
<quoted text>True, lol.
Zeitgeist the movie final.....
sOne

Denton, TX

#34 Jun 20, 2009
oh_Really Gay Now wrote:
<quoted text>
White people are not an evolution. They are an adaptation, and their adaptation of colorless skin, eyes and hair is no longer relevant. This is why natural selection is ignoring those traits in favor of more evolved, more relevant ones. That means color in the skin. White reproduction rates worldwide are dropping, therefore the current minuscule 8% they represent of the world population is dwindling. Here today, gone tomorrow.
That's mostly because they've been using birth control more and longer in most white countries. It's not natural selection. At one time I think I read on another thread that there were 30% white in the world in 1900. That still means there were 70% other races, but they are all different races from each other. The whole world's population is increasing fast. I did an essay on it to get scholarship money. It's mostly because of modern medicine that more are living and there is such a boom with it, except a lot won't use the modern medicine of birth control. As it is with whites it should be with all, proper control of population. Before long it will be an emergency.
sOne

Denton, TX

#35 Jun 20, 2009
Anyway, here's the site where I found the scholarship information. It has some good information about the booming world population.

http://www.npg.org/index.html
Ish_tov

Secondcreek, WV

#36 Jun 20, 2009
Nefeteri, obviously a racist... therefore worthless.

I cited facts. Too bad you can't accept that. You are so insecure that if the "original man" (I guess there were no women then LOL) didn't look exactly like you, then you feel bad...

I know the science. You obviously do not. Put down the NOI pamphlets and read a real book, please.

“ignorant ppl ruined the world”

Since: May 09

that is classified

#37 Jun 20, 2009
already knew that...

oh_Really Now

Since: Jun 09

Post a link, not a lie.

#38 Jun 20, 2009
sOne wrote:
<quoted text>
That's mostly because they've been using birth control more and longer in most white countries. It's not natural selection. At one time I think I read on another thread that there were 30% white in the world in 1900. That still means there were 70% other races, but they are all different races from each other. The whole world's population is increasing fast. I did an essay on it to get scholarship money. It's mostly because of modern medicine that more are living and there is such a boom with it, except a lot won't use the modern medicine of birth control. As it is with whites it should be with all, proper control of population. Before long it will be an emergency.
They're killing each other with guns and AIDS, and all the while laughing at OUR birth-rates....

...smh....you can lead a horse to water, but don't get caught holding his head under trying make them learn
...I mean DRINK...lolz!!!!
Ish_tov

United States

#41 Jun 20, 2009
I'm trained in anthropology. I keep on the all the latest findings best I can without being near a university library. Of most interest these days, of course, are the findings of geneticists regarding human evolution and migration.

Gayboy says, "white people are not an evolution, they are an adaptation." This is an absurd statement which reveals abject ignorance regarding evolution. Adaptations are what constitutes evolution. Adaptation to environment.

All human characteristics are adaptations to environment. Straight hair, nappy hair, dark hair, light hair, dark skin, light skin, pointy noses, flat noses...all of it.

Non-white characteristics are "more evolved"? LOL Another absurd statement.

Lower birthrates in many "white" countries are do to economic development. There is no inherent biological difference in fertility between various human groups. That is also an absurd notion.

Gayboy... go read a book, boy.
Ish_tov

United States

#43 Jun 20, 2009
Yes. Social factors. Exactly.
Iroabuchi Onwuka

Selden, NY

#45 Jun 20, 2009
Ish_tov wrote:
To claim that all modern humans descend from people who are like modern "black" people is simplistic at best. The common ancestor was unlike any of us.
West Africans as well as southern Indians, Australians, Papuans, and others, are today darker than that common ancestor. Many others are lighter.
DNA confirms that skin color is not equivalent to geneological closeness. A very dark-skinned Melanesian, for example, is more closely related to a SE Asian, other Asians, and even to northern Europeans than to any African.
The various "racial" traits do not co-vary. None of them can be used to determine who is related to whom. They are superficial characteristics which evolve rapidly in response to environment.
Proof of this is in the aforementioned dogs. Look how varied they are, from a chihuahua to a doberman to a poodle. Yet DNA indicates they descend from common wolf ancestors less than half as long ago as the 70,000 years which separate most humans. Their traits were artificially bred by humans, but nonetheless this illustrates how great differences in appearance can be without there being a correspondingly great genetic variation.
This is issue is not new and I don't how it got started in the very first palce. Your point exactly is what?
Iroabuchi Onwuka

Selden, NY

#46 Jun 20, 2009
nefeteri wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think there's any biological differences in fertility betwwen women. I think the lower birth rates amongst white women and black women too is the decision not to have children. They're using contraceptives or having abortions, if not, the rates would be higher.
Nonsense. Fertility equals gene quality...male or female...white or black or other
Ish_tov

United States

#48 Jun 20, 2009
There is no demonstrated difference in BIOLOGICAL fertility among various human groups. The differences in fertility, meaning birthrates, are due to social factors.

For example, rural poor people have more kids than affluent urbanites, because they need many children for farm work and to ensure social security in their old age. These are what we mean by SOCIAL factors.

I am very interested in human evolution and variation, as I am trained in anthropology, and therefore when I see misinformation, especially with racist overtones, I correct it.
Ish_tov

United States

#50 Jun 20, 2009
If you mean Sinajuavi, yes.

I was banned from Topix because on a Calif forum a whole mob of white racists flagged my posts because when they spewed racism I called them traitors.

Topix censors banned me for "insulting other chatters", but did NOTHING about the racists posting constant insults against mostly Mexicans and occasionally blacks. And I mean they were posting the most extreme white-supremacists insults... but you know how it goes...

Since I often posted about India, many assumed that I was Indian because they thought Sinajuavi looked Indian. In fact it is Native American.

This name means "a good man" in Hebrew.
Ish_tov

Hillsboro, WV

#52 Jun 20, 2009
Oh yeah I remember you.

Yes, Topix has a problem with favoritism toward white racists. I mean you wouldn't believe the crap they were saying about Mexicans and Topix did nothing though I repeatedly flagged them and even was sending emails to Topix about it.

Well I guess we can expect this until the battle against racism is won.

Well, like I said, if you hate Republicans you're ok with me, so if we disagree on some things that's ok. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
DUDE69

Trowbridge, UK

#54 Jun 20, 2009
nefeteri wrote:
<quoted text>No need to get hot and bothered. I asked what your credentials were to dispute the findings of these learned gentlemen. That's a fair question, don't you think. I am sure the original man look nothing like me, or you, for that matter. As for reading a book, my reading list is quite extensive. I am not a member of NOI as I stated to you in another thread. You assume a lot about a person you know nothing about.
Must be a nuwaubian then....lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Genealogy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lower Bucks Genealogists - News Article Jan 11 lbgc19047 1
Speaking of DNA and the Middle East Tree of Lif... Jan 6 Thomas Milton Tin... 1
News Genealogy Query - MEDLEY (Jan '06) Jan 3 BirthMotherSearching 3
News Free Woods: 19th century community unique in area (Feb '11) Nov '16 Luther 3
News Peotone Town Chatter (Jul '12) Oct '16 Peotone Rsident 29
News Chambersburg man finds grave of ancestor, a Civ... (Apr '08) Sep '16 Flesticle5Squubny 17
Ignorance, False Promises & Pseudoscience: prof... Sep '16 Thomas Milton Tin... 1
More from around the web