Chinese Scientist Proves the first inhabitants of China were Black

[Tommy Knocks]

I find it hard to believe in the "Out Of Africa" theory...

This is how I look at it,

If you take a handful of beans, and you throw them on a field with a diverse terrain, and therefore, a diversity in the distribution of resources...The plants that manage to grow will not all look the same...They will all be bean plants, but they will look different based on the availability of resources, and the conditions of their environment...

This basic biological phenomenon makes more sense to me than a black man walking to Asia, and significantly changing in appearance...

I agree but also disagree. the theory is that the handful of beans are black. from there they changed.

if you believe the first chinese were black, then you have to say the first europeans were black too. who were the people that went into the caves before they came out a different color?

at the end of the day, yes, homosapiens are more alike then different. My problem is when you try to attach the cultures of those from around the world to you, because your ancestors are directly from the region of origin. that is where I draw the line and call it absurd.

 

[godkiller]

Link to article?

Negritos in Asia are not Black Africans genetically. They are just dark Asians. So that's a mistake in this article.

However slaves would be black Africans and some were shipped to Asians.

But I actually remember this Chinese scientist quote and from what I remember, he was talking about how the Chinese originated from Africa, like everyone else. He didn't say the Chinese were once black. I want to see the original source.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Link to article?

Negritos in Asia are not Black Africans genetically. They are just dark Asians.

However slaves would be black Africans.

I actually remember this Chinese scientist quote and from what I remember, he was talking about how the Chinese originated from Africa, like everyone else. He didn't say the Chinese were once black.

Not only that, but the "negritos" over there have been living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in isolation for thousands of years. They had nothing to do with the civilizations that arose in asia. They did their own thing while everybody else did theirs.

 

[Busted_Toes]

Cacologists in this thread, doing what they do best

But but but, they wasn't black.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

I agree but also disagree. the theory is that the handful of beans are black. from there they changed.

if you believe the first chinese were black, then you have to say the first europeans were black too. who were the people that went into the caves before they came out a different color?

at the end of the day, yes, homosapiens are more alike then different. My problem is when you try to attach the cultures of those from around the world to you, because your ancestors are directly from the region of origin. that is where I draw the line and call it absurd.

Okay, the handful of beans are black...But how do they turn yellow, so fast...? That kind of evolution would take years...If ever...

Maybe, there was a mixture of of different skin tones, and through social evolution, the darkest skin tones were phased out by selective mating...

But that still doesn't make sense, because in the Indian sub-continent, you have a range of skin , from darker than African to a little less paler than European, and you can see all the various mixes in between...

You can even see the mixes between Indian and Chinese as you start moving further East, there is transition of mixtures happening...

The idea of black Chinese is not that hard to phantom, when you look at Asia and you see how the Chinese start to look darker as you move, and the Indians start to look more Chinese as you move East...

What I am wondering is this, if you take 2000 black people and set them up in China for thousands and millions of years, are they going to eventually look like the Chinese today...?

What mechanism are going to drive that kind of evolution...? Science doesn't give us a clue about this...Scientist are just writing story lines based on current genetic information...

Genes may not lie, but they can be easily misinterpreted...

 

[Tommy Knocks]

Okay, the handful of beans are black...But how do they turn yellow, so fast...? That kind of evolution would take years...If ever...

fast? 50,000 years isn't fast at all. the earliest civilization was 5,000 yrs ago. that means 10 times the length of recorded history. in just 500 years we have new hybrids walking the earth today (south americans) that didn't even exist prior to 1500s.

But that still doesn't make sense, because in the Indian sub-continent, you have a range of skin , from darker than African to a little less paler than European, and you can see all the various mixes in between...

the different colors are due to the various stages of migration. some were there since the beginning some are new arrivals (aryans) and then the mixtures. think of brazil and its various new arrivals that changed the demographics and its colors, that's pretty much what india went thru during the ancient days.

You can even see the mixes between Indian and Chinese as you start moving further East, there is transition of mixtures happening...

yup, thru environment change.

What I am wondering is this, if you take 2000 black people and set them up in China for thousands and millions of years, are they going to eventually look like the Chinese today...?

depends on the environment and migration patters. if they stay in one hot area, they'll remain the same, if they're crossing a HUGE desert (like those that went from india to china) they're eye lids will adjust and their hair, nose and skin will mutate to handle the harsh environment.

my thing is, the cultures that were created by these various groups came AFTER their mutation. It spawned with their change and environment and so forth.

 

[Outlaw]

Okay, the handful of beans are black...But how do they turn yellow, so fast...? That kind of evolution would take years...If ever...

Maybe, there was a mixture of of different skin tones, and through social evolution, the darkest skin tones were phased out by selective mating...

But that still doesn't make sense, because in the Indian sub-continent, you have a range of skin , from darker than African to a little less paler than European, and you can see all the various mixes in between...

You can even see the mixes between Indian and Chinese as you start moving further East, there is transition of mixtures happening...

The idea of black Chinese is not that hard to phantom, when you look at Asia and you see how the Chinese start to look darker as you move, and the Indians start to look more Chinese as you move East...

What I am wondering is this, if you take 2000 black people and set them up in China for thousands and millions of years, are they going to eventually look like the Chinese today...?

What mechanism are going to drive that kind of evolution...? Science doesn't give us a clue about this...Scientist are just writing story lines based on current genetic information...

Genes may not lie, but they can be easily misinterpreted...

How did the Yellow man(Asians) Turn to Redskins(Native Americans) adaptation happens breh, Black was the original

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

to the Grimaldi Man

 

[Imyremeshaw]

Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined!!! Thats why I laugh when people say "white features", "asian features", all the supposed features of other ethnicities arose in Africa, Asians are no different, look at Khoisans if you think I'm lying.

 

[zerozero]

Negritos in Asia are not Black Africans genetically. They are just dark Asians.

Not only that, but the "negritos" over there have been living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in isolation for thousands of years. They had nothing to do with the civilizations that arose in asia. They did their own thing while everybody else did theirs.

yeah this is what I feel everytime this comes up too. It's a huge stretch to look at tribal and other people on islands and forests in Asia and be like "they're black" in the sense that DuBois meant 'black'. If you're going to just randomly count in dark skinned people everywhere... what do they really have in common with 'black people' in the sense of pan-africanism?

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined!!! Thats why I laugh when people say "white features", "asian features", all the supposed features of other ethnicities arose in Africa, Asians are no different, look at Khoisans if you think I'm lying.

So if Africans are so diverse then why do people point to statues of the olmecs and buddah and talk about how they have "african features?" I don't mean to lump you in with people who make those kind of claims but I'm curious about the logic behind that kind of reasoning.

 

[Imyremeshaw]

So if Africans are so diverse then why do people point to statues of the olmecs and buddah and talk about how they have "african features?" I don't mean to lump you in with people who make those kind of claims but I'm curious about the logic behind that kind of reasoning.

1)Really because most of those people are pseudo-social scientist, taking one connection and running with it like the Olmecs( they weren't black maybe had contact with Mansa Musa boys but not of recent tropical African heritage).

2)Most Africans in the western hemisphere find there origins from West Africa, while all west africans aren't the same or even look the same, the west has played African-Americans/Africans of having one set of features, when you have west Africans such a fulanis, Jula, akan that look straight out east africa which squash those "african features" perceptions to rest, and show west Africa to be as diverse as Europe. Why do you think the West came up with Hamitic Hypotheses?

3) When most people think of Africa, they think of west Africans as the true Africans, and East Africans as admixture with Arabs or outliers of "true African(blue-black African)." When its actually the other way around(not saying west Africans are mix, but the originial man was not Bantu speaker or have features), East Africans are the starting place for Africans, East Africa is home to every human feature.

 

[Blackking]

smh at some of you...

Salute to the OP. @DemureNatural

And FYI to the confused crakkers and asians this thread.... Nobody said anything about culture in the OP and Dr. li is just 1 of hundreds of Asian scientist and biologist who STATED THE OBVIOUS.

Of course there are some cultural similarities in the ancient times- because one group came from the other then traded ideas and culture with the original group.... but

Genetically....

Someone tell me why there are African tribes that look 'chinese' as far as eyes and other features--- tribes who never even left AFrica? I mean I have only assumptions, I don't really know why.

However, I know that every woman in my family would look asian if you couldn't see their skin color, eyes slant, hairs not really kinky. these are people who came str8 from African slave ships. I guess chinky eyes isn't a PC phrase but I would assume this is how the first Chinese look.

 

[the cac mamba]

Peking Man was black anyway.

mr. miyagi was BLACK

 

[TheReal_Broke_88m3_13]

You had numerous clowns arguing against this concept in the Hidden Colors thread. Any one with a brain knows this has to be true, given the starting similarities between Asian and ancient african cultures. From language, to religion, to overall values and way of life.

Sohh hidden colors is a peer reviewed source?(haven't seen it)