Did an "Indo-European" "expansion" really happen?

>>2530779
No its all based on speculation, we have no idea if Homo Sapiens is actually native to Asia and migrated into Africa.

>>2530779

Indo-European theory in a nutshell.

One day 5000 years ago. People living by the Black Sea had a mutation causing Haplogroup R1b and blue eyes. They were the first "Aryans". They decided to spread out in every direction killing the native people of Europe, India, and Iran and raping women and spreading their language.

It's borderline science fiction.

>>2530793
The Yamnaya were shitskins and blue eyes and possibly light hair as well was already present in native European hunter gatherers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture#Physical_characteristics

>The genetic basis of a number of physical features of the Yamnaya people were ascertained by the ancient DNA study conducted by Haak et al. (2015), Wilde et al.(2014), Mathieson et al. (2015) : they were genetically tall (phenotypic height is determined by both genetics and environmental factors), overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.[18][5] Surprisingly, given their pastoral lifestyle, there was little evidence of lactase persistence.

>>2530783
Chinese Communist
.>>2530779
A group of people speaking a language or group of languages we now call PIE migrated maybe from the urals outwards to ireland and india
How much of that is conquest, intermarrying or other shitty machinations they got there is lost to time.
But Indo European refers to a language group and we make guesses based on what words are common.
We assume it was after the wheel because the pie word is related to the greek and latin ones like circa. We know they drank milk, we know something of their family structure, but that doesn't displaceo r enforce contemporary peoples or tell us much about them physically.
The basque are not them though, which is neat

>>2530833

People with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. A study published in Human Genetics showed that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production. The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000-10,000 years ago during the Neolithic Revolution. Originally, we all had brown eyes. A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a "switch," which literally "turned off" the ability to produce brown eyes.

The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes, and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes
http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

How one ancestor helped turn our brown eyes blue
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-one-ancestor-helped-turn-our-brown-eyes-blue-776170.html

Is everyone with blue eyes related? How was that trait passed on?
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/origin-blue-eyes

>>2530793
Indo-Europeans had dark skin and eyes

Light eyes and hair are hunter-gatherer traits

Pale skin is an Anatolian farmer trait

>>2530861
Stop posting outdated garbage: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140126-blue-eye-spain-fossil-human-discovery-gene/

Yamnaya only had a frequency of like 11% light eyes. They were darker than Meds.

>>2530860
It is very possible for humans to have started in the tropical regions of India then migrate into Africa.

>Indo-europeans

no such thing

Its explained perfectly and simply by Khan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kemwplAKWsY

It almost certainly happened

>>2530884

No, it isn't. You know why? Because there are NO prehuman fossils or apes in India, but thousands of them in Africa.

>>2530884
Dude OOA has been beyond proven at this point. How long does it take for something to be accepted so we can move on to the next thing?

>>2530880
At the time of Yamnaya everyone was dark even, they were lighter but still brown by today's standards. Hunter-gatherers in here had blue eyes, but were dark skinned. Earlier farmers also had somewhat lighter skin but they had dark eyes.

File: Capture.jpg (78KB, 856x645px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 856x645px

>>2530921
Pretty much drastic change happened in lactose tolerance/skin color and more shit during late neolithic early bronze age for whatever reason.

>>2530933
The Euro hunter gatherers got vitamin D from their food just like the eskimos so they didn't need to evolve a mutation to absorb it more efficiently from the sun.

>>2530903
Yes anon because fossils surely indicate actual migration.
>>2530911
Out of Africa is based on early human fossils being found in Africa, you never know where humans actually came from.

>>2530779

I actually think other worldly beings had contact with humans in the steppes.

The language learned from these beings were so superior and practical that it spread quickly.

That's why Hinduism and Christy still preserves two great Indo European languages Latin and Sanskrit

It's no coincidence that Zeus and Indra both shot lighting. The other worldy beings must have had similar power: electricity

>>2530967

Are Latin and Sanskrit really related? Show me proof right here right now.

>>2530966
>Yes anon because fossils surely indicate actual migration.

I realize you're just a retard, but holy shit you are retarded.

>>2530863
>Pale skin is an Anatolian farmer trait

Not necessarily hunter gatherer populations weren't the same everywhere in Europe. There are at least 3 distinct groups WHG, SHG, EHG

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf

Baltic hunter-gatherers had mutation for both light skin and eye color.

>Similar to the other Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, all our Baltic foragers carry the
derived HERC2 allele which codes for light iris color, and like SHG and EHG they
already possess an increased frequency of the derived alleles for SLC45A2 and
SLC24A5, coding for lighter skin color (Extended Data Table 2).

The same early farmers only had 15-20% frequency of mutation for light skin.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31542-1

And Ukrainian HG from about 10,000BC had earliest known yet mutation for light skin.

>>2530793
t. retard

I tried reading the wiki and watching some youtube videos on Indo-europeans and the theory and i still have no clue

>>2530981
Jupiter cognate to deus piter. Deus is divine God. In Sanskrit pitra means father deva is god

File: ncomms6257-f3.jpg (65KB, 600x408px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x408px

>>2531010
What about light hair? Was the mutation absent in hunter gatherers? That one didn't come from the Yamnaya either though, as hair blondism was already present in Neolithic Hungary.

File: Picture1.png (118KB, 663x333px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 663x333px

>>2531043
One of the samples in the study had light hair he was hunter-gatherer. Dated to around 3000BC.

>>2531079
Well he might not been hunter-gatherer, but his genome was, as agriculture in Baltic appeared without farmer ancestry. And Latvia_LN sample clustered near other hunter-gatherers and autosomally was fully HG.

>>2531103
> Latvia_LN

Sorry meant to say Latvia_MN1.

>>2531103

So? He was EHG.
Remember who else were EHG? PIE maybe?

File: proto-vikang.jpg (1MB, 1000x1134px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1134px

>>2531010
>>2531043
>>2531079
So are those reconstructions of neanderthals with blonde hair, light eyes and even light skin accurate?

>>2530793
It is if you write it like that.

Indo-European theory in a nutshell.

Between 5000-2000 years ago. People living by the Black Sea had a Haplogroup R1b and light eyes. They are the origin of "Aryans". They for not fully known reasons decided to spread out in every direction killing and conquering the native people of Europe, India, and Iran and raping women and spreading their language.

It's a well backed historical theory with only dispute over the mechanical details.

File: gr2.jpg (104KB, 659x462px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 659x462px

>>2531121
>So? He was EHG.
He wasn't, Latvia_MN1 clustered near WHG's Latvia_MN2 clustered near EHG's tho. And he had both dark hair and dark eyes.

Shit is more complex than you think yo.

>>2531153

There is no such thing as a blonde WHG any more than there is a blonde Japanese. The genes came from the EHG side. Let's keep in mind that all these Latvian HGs had an EHG component even though it was lower in the beginning.

>>2531166

>Suggesting WHG were blond is like suggesting Japanese are blonde.
I'm not saying he was fully WHG as you can see there's somewhat climb towards SHG's. Just simply saying there's a chance that there were blond "WHG's" but the frequency was very low. Same as lactose tolerance for example in Yamnayans was like 10% but that's still astronomically more higher than any of the HG population had.

>>2531205
And to add to that I think it's still a bit to early to speculate in exactly what ancient population did blondism arose with the data we currently have.

File: Chariot_spread.png (154KB, 400x231px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 400x231px

>>2531136
>They for not fully known reasons

Chariots. The reason is chariots.

File: Pigmentation snps in ancient northern Europe.png (205KB, 567x506px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 567x506px

And some interesting bits from other study I've posted earlier Genetic history of Northern Europe.

>"In contrast to EHG and SHG, Kunda can be modelled as directly derived from WHG (p=0.18) (Supplementary Information Table S6). The almost complete absence of the additional ancestry shared by SHG and EHG to the south of the Baltic Sea suggests that it was brought into Scandinavia via a northern route through Finland and admixed in Scandinavia with a WHG-like population that derived from a migration northward over the land-bridge that connected Denmark and southern Sweden at the time, a scenario that is in concordance with the archeological record."

>"The Narva individual Spiginas1 (dated to ca. 4440–4240 cal BCE) belongs to a mitochondrial haplogroup of the H branch providing the first direct evidence that this branch was present among European foragers without gene-flow from farmers (Extended Data Table 1). Notably, in addition to haplogroup H, the maternal lineages seen in eastern Baltic samples (n=31; Extended Data Figure 5) encompass all of the major haplogroups identified in complete mtDNA genomes from Holocene Scandinavian and western European hunter-gatherers (n=21:U2, U5a, U5b) 12, as well as haplogroup U4 which has been found in high frequency in Mesolithic foragers from Russia24 and K1, a derivate of the U8 branch found in Scandinavian foragers."

>"We see in Baltic foragers no genomic evidence of gene-flow from Central European farmers or any Y-chromosomal or mitochondrial haplogroups that are typical for them, suggesting that any traces of agriculture and animal husbandry in the Baltic Early and Middle Neolithic were due to local development or cultural diffusion."

>>2531273
>not coloring Sicily and Sardinia or North Africa

Whoever made this map is a clueless idiot

>>2531125
They are but their appearance was due to different mutations. Same for the blond hair of Australian aboriginals.

>>2531278

Who cares? They went extinct.
Only Yamna and ENF are relevant.

>>2531125

People used to think we got pale skin and eyes from neanderthals, but the latest thinking is that we only became "pallid" within the last 12,000 years or so, which is way after the neaderthals were all dead.

File: Baltic_aDNA.png (122KB, 1218x803px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1218x803px

>>2531278
Basically WHG's in Western Europe had dark skin, but earliest Baltic hunter-gatherers who were also WHG's from Kunda culture though had mutation for light skin for whatever reason.

File: Haak_et_al_Fig_3.png (150KB, 1084x1132px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1084x1132px

>>2531324
Every modern European still has ancestry from HG's, Steppe, early farmers though in different percentages. HG's didn't vanish into thin air, they assimilated.

>>2531333

It's inherited via ENF and maybe western Yamna(who are not sequenced). Towards the late Neolithic, the ENF tribes had started to incorporate haplogroup I2 WHGs as farm workers and gave them their daughters as wives. Iberian ENF was especially WHG mixed but the same pattern happened everywhere.

>>2531292
>map isn't perfect
>that means it's useless

I think its clear who the clueless idiot here is.

what is the tl;dr on this IE yamna blabla migration stories

i see it all the time and i don't get the significance, it feels really wewuz to me

>>2531333
Did you even look at that pic you've just posted?


Tuscans and Spanish people have 0 WHG admixture

>>2531370

I would say it's the most significant thing that ever happened on planet Earth.
It's very to imagine a Europe which spoke pre-IE languages until present day. That world would have no similarities to our own that's for sure.

what was the eye color of the single blue eyes ancestor

>>2531370
all languages in europe except basque, hungarian and finnish come from the single same ancestor, which is called by experts "indo-european"
we have no idea about the rest so we speculate
dna and archaelogy tells us somethings but not much

>>2531361
you are, also it contradicts what you've said, considering Indoeuropeans became predominant in the British isles around 2000 bc (according to the most recent genetic studies), and chariots were not used in Britain until 500 bc

>>2531383

>dna and archaelogy tells us somethings but not much

It tells basically everything. There are few unresolved questions left.

>>2531382
brown, obviously

>>2531350
>but the same pattern happened everywhere.

That's where you wrong honey. In Central/Se Europe it was inherited via ENF in Baltic possibly Scandinavia via Corded Ware. Baltic Corded Ware had no farmer ancestry and clustered near Yamnayans, while Corded Ware from Germany had some farmer ancestry. The first sentence of your would be correct if it wasn't for that word "maybe".

Basically in the Baltic Yamnayans/Corded Ware whatever you like to call it ran into WHG like population while in C/S Europe they ran into already mixed WHG/ENF populations.

>Thepresence of ancestry from the Pontic Steppe among Baltic CWC individuals without
the Anatolian farming component must be due to a direct migration of steppe
pastoralists that did not pick up this ancestry in Central Europe.

>>2531434

WHG is still a small fraction in modern day Balts and even less in other more mainstream populations.
Irish, Slovaks, Dutch etc are simple Yamna on ENF.

>>2530779
Yes. There is discussion whether it was by military means such as conquest, subjugation, and extortion or mostly by relatively peaceful trade and exchange of idea and language. I personally would say the material signifies military expansion.
>>2531383
I believe you forgot Estonian.

Now that we have an Indo-European topic, allow me to ask a question:
Is the indian hindu caste system inspired by the Indo Euro classes of priest, warrior, and peasant?

>>2531468
Thanks captain obvious, HG's ancestry is small fraction in every population. They weren't numerous compared to farmers or pastoralists.

>>2531398
no we don't have a clear way to prove this particular culture equals this particular language, sorry

>>2530966
>>2530884
WE WUZ POO N SHIT

Get out of town, the oldest member of our species was found to be 195,000 years old. The oldest member of the genus Homo was found to be nearly 3 million years old (Homo habilis). The oldest hominin, which is all bipedal apes, is 6-7 million years old (Sahelanthropus).

How far do you want me to to back?

>>2530860
>But Indo European refers to a language group and we make guesses based on what words are common.
Not since the advent of genetics. And tracking y haplogroups.

>>2530948
They were coming from groups that already had dark skin pigmentation dingus.

>>2531510
how does out of africa theory relate to the indo-european migrations

>>2531273
that's a weird way to spell bronze weaponry, horses, and cattle. but yeah, sure, chariots were helpful. wagons probably moreso though.

>>2531518
indo euro migrations were bronze age, it was a long long long time after the OoA waves.

>>2531527
>Bronze weaponry

Developed in the Middle East, Indoeuropeans have nothing to do with their discovery

>horses

That's right

>cattle

No, goats, bulls and pigs were brought mainly from Anatolia, I'm not sure about pigs, pigs spread later around the bronze age and by sea too (ship trade)

>Goldberg et al. (2016) found that Neolithic farming migration into Europe "was driven by mass migration of both males and females in roughly equal numbers, perhaps whole families" While Bronze Age Pontic steppe "migration and cultural shift were instead driven by male migration, potentially connected to new technology and conquest."


Rapefugees of their time, except they were technologically superior. There was something like 14 males to 1 female ratio of the migrants.

>>2531510
*to go

>>2531518
It doesn't. I'm just telling the dumb Indian that just because there was an Indo-European migration, it doesn't mean that all modern humans descend from India. There is no Out of India migration for humanity.

>>2530884
What are you going on about? This thread was about indo-european expansion, not the spread of mankind itself

>>2531541
Cattle came from the Middle East, as the natives were too stupid to domesticate their aurochs. It's a shame that when they did get cattle, they wiped out the auroch.

>>2531541
you don't need to put an extra line between every sentence, This isn't reddit. You're entire post is retarded anyway though, so I suppose it goes hand it hand.

>>2531611
Thanks for demonstrating your utter lack of arguments, you retarded fuck, I won the argument and humiliated you, now go cry on /pol/.

>>2531621
>winning arguments
You argued against a strawman of your own devising, I didn't feel the need to defend against it. Did I say they were the first bronze culture? Or the first to use cattle? No, I didn't, you're an idiot.

I was pointing out that there were a whole lot of other elements that were conducive to sweeping through neolithic europe. Your chariot fetish is overstating their usefulness compared to simply being able to haul all their shit in wagons and bring a food supply with them.

>>2531642
No, but you said they won against the indigenous European because they had bronze, however Indigenous farmers such as those of the Vinca culture were the first to develop Bronze weapons, so your argument is dumb and your ignorance has been exposed.

>>2531657
>vinca
Maybe you should calm down. The vinca culture was copper and gone for thousands of years before the indoeuros came to town. Which was in turn a thousand years before the oldest known chariots(though after wheels and cattle had made their way to the eurasian steppe by way of maykop and yamna cultures, which were super useful, as I said).

>>2531657

>indigenous

Nah, they weren't Europeans at all.
Just because they developed civilizations on European soil doesn't make them Europeans.
Yamna were more indigenous to Europe thus rightful owners of the Balkans.

>>2531541
pigs came from china

>>2531790
No, I read a study about pigs being domesticated in Italy, Sicily and Sardinia during the bronze age and those pigs seemed to be of a Near Eastern breed:


>. Our results surprisingly indicate the presence of the Near Eastern haplotype Y1 on both Italy's major islands (Sardinia and Sicily) during the Bronze Age, suggesting the seaborne transportation of domestic pigs by humans at least during 1600-1300 BC. The presence of the Italian E2 clade in domestic contexts shows that the indigenous wild boar was effectively domesticated or incorporated into domestic stocks in Southern Italy during the Bronze Age, although the E2 haplotype has never been found in modern domestic breeds. Pigs belonging to the endemic E2 clade were thus traded between the Peninsula and Sardinia by the end of the second millennium BC and this genetic signature is still detected in Sardinian feral pigs.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/27649620/

>>2531817
Sorry I meant of endemic origins

>>2531510
interdasting

File: Capture.png (54KB, 1404x705px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1404x705px

>>2530981

>>2530981
javascript:quote('2530893');

>>2531377
The Spanish have three positions in the graph: Spanish, Spanish North and Basque, the last two with signiticant amount of WHG. The more north of Spain you go the more WHG you have.

>>2530967
Stop watching ancient aliens

>>2530779
Yes, that's why we're speaking English right now and why Sanskrit is a thing.

>>2531292
Italic people did inhabit Sicily but what Indo-European people would've inhabited North Africa? Only Semite and Berbers there.

>>2531136
Outdated!

We fail to replicate a genetic signal for sex bias in the steppe migration to central Europe after ~5,000 years proposed by Goldberg et al. PNAS 114(10):2657-2662. Estimation of X-chromosome steppe ancestry in the Bronze Age central European population with the qpAdm method (Haak et al. Nature 522, 207-11) does not indicate lower steppe ancestry on the X-chromosome than in the autosomes. We perform a simulation which indicates presence of estimation bias of -19.5% in the inference of X-chromosome admixture proportions using the method used by Goldberg et al., largely eliminating the observed sex bias.


Iosif Lazaridis, David Reich, Failure to Replicate a Genetic Signal for Sex Bias in the Steppe Migration into Central Europe, Posted March 14, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/114124

File: European_hunter-gatherer_admixture[1].png (61KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x581px

>>2531468
What?

There's this theory about how Indo-Europeans came from the different palaeolithic populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory

>>2534504
It's totally plausible if you just disregard the whole field of linguistics

>>2534301
There are paintings of chariots and houses in late bronze Age north Africa, They got the chariots from Egyptians most likely, and there are chariots models from LBA/Early iron age Sardinia

No.

We trace our ancestry back to Noah.

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

>>2534621
Acting like a Schizophrenic retard might be funny the first time but I've seen this shitty copy pasta too many times

>>2534635
Ad hominem is not an argument.

>>2534650
>Using mythology as a baseline for evidence

>>2534661
Historical facts are not mythology.

>>2534650
>>2534666
You're painfuly unfunny

>>2534677
Still not an argument.

>>2534666
The overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to the theory conflicts with Biblical lore.

>>2534680
I don't have to argue against non-arguments

File: myth.jpg (23KB, 300x237px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x237px

>>2534681
It's the other way around.

Scientific and archeological evidence supports the Bible and conflicts with the evolution myth.

>>2534689
That retarded Bible classification is wrong according to linguistics.

Lydians were Indoeuropeans but are grouped with Semitic peoples.

Canaanites, Amorities and Sidonians are not grouped with Semites but with broadly Afro Asiatic people

Hittities were Indoeuropeans but are grouped with Afroasiatic people


The sons of Japeth are mainly random, forced guesses,Italians, French or Portuguese didn't exist t the time to name a few and were certainly not named in the Bible.


Not only was the original material innaccurate but your post isn't even loyal to the original material (the Bible)

>>2534689
>Creation science
Not credible in any way. Do you think human knowledge would have gotten as far as it did without empirical evidence and the systematic development of the scientific method?

>>2534689
You honestly believe that, and that the only reason that the majority of university scientists dont is because they are evil or they are being threatened by the institution. In reality they make jokes about how ridiculous your position is and can very calmly explain all the scientific reasons they believe it.

I hope someday you can wake up or at the very least stop spamming this board with your nonsense, but i dont have much hope for either

File: 1489852888667.jpg (170KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 500x376px

>>2534697
Those are assumptions and speculations based on the theory of evolution and an atheistic worldview. The "Table of Nations" is accurate and detailed when it comes to explaining the origins of mankind after the Flood. The Bible traces genealogies all the way from creation (4000 BC) to 500 BC.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/sitchinbooks03_03a.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/ntable.html

>>2534702
>it's not credible because i say so!
That's not how arguments work, dummy. You need to back up your claims.

I agree, empirical evidence and the scientific method are great.
Nothing you say contradicts my post. Feel free to learn about creationists using reason, logic and science:

http://www.creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
https://www.trueorigin.org/
https://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationwiki.org/Main_Page
http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
http://www.davelivingston.com/tableofcontents.htm
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

>>2534703
Ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, appeal to authority.
I spot 3 logical fallacies.

>>2534728
Linguistics has nothing to do with Evolution.

The table of Nations is pure retardation as I've just explained to you, you have no arguments left, leave.

File: evolution myth.jpg (66KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x720px

>>2534737
Yes it does. You base your view of human origins and expansion through the lens of evolution.

>it's retarded because i say so
Proof needed, citation needed, evidence needed.

>>2534728
Pointing out fallacies isn't an argument either.

>>2534745
The guy had no arguments. He only spouted nonsensical fallacies and created a straw man to attack.

>>2534742
>Yes it does

No it doesn't, this has literally nothing to do with evulation, I know you're probably trolling and not that stupid to confuse linguistics with genetics, but I must remind you how unfunny you are in pretending to be a schizophernic bible-thumping fuck.

>Proof needed, citation needed, evidence needed.

It's retardation because linguistics say so.

>Le evolution is false xDDD

Strawman argument

>>2534728
>That's not how arguments work, dummy. You need to back up your claims.
Creation science is a debunked, largely laughed at field in the science community. Why should I take it seriously?

And at your post:
>>2534742
By the time Indo-Europeans expanded, human evolution as we know it biologically long since shaped us today. People thousands of years ago are the same now. What we're talking about is the spread of language, not a period of phenotype and genotype change.

File: world views.png (27KB, 520x632px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 520x632px

>>2534749
>>2534753
See here, the incoherent ramblings of a schizophrenic atheist who hates history.

Linguistics is obviously separate from the theory of evolution. But how you interpret linguistics depends on a prior worldview (i.e creation or evolution). You believe in:
>millions of years
>grandpa was a monkey
>mutations and accidents
so that is going to affect how you view the development of linguistics.

The Table of Nations is more accurate and detailed than your wild speculations and "Indo-European" nonsense.

The Bible makes a good case and solid foundation on the origins of various people.

>>2534762
>Creation science is a debunked
[citation needed]

>laughed at
Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy.

>Why should I take it seriously?
Because science and facts are important. You should be interested in learning about the world.

>Indo-Europeans
You need to prove that there is such a thing in the first place, and that it is a better model than the Table of Nations.

>>2534762
not him but you are not really defending your case when you act like a total retard.

you would be defending flat earth because "most people believe in it" and call galileo a nut case when he proposed the world is a spinning ball.

refute the arguments instead of name-calling

>>2534787
Not him but stop trying to support that retard

File: books.png (644KB, 613x472px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 613x472px

Creationists and "Intelligence Design" scientists are actually on the rise.

Darwinism is a dead, debunked theory that nobody takes seriously anymore.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

>>2534789
i look where the evidence leads

and currently the evidence leads to creation, not evolution

>>2534779
>[citation needed]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/688792?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://ncse.com/cej/2/1/why-creationism-should-not-be-taught-as-science

Even settled in a court case:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

>Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy.
Not the case. Here I'm citing people and communities that actually say creation science is horseshit.

>Because science and facts are important. You should be interested in learning about the world
Bad science is science? Color me surprised if not for the fact that the people against creation science use facts.

>You need to prove that there is such a thing in the first place, and that it is a better model than the Table of Nations.
For starters, the Table of Nations makes the incorrect assumption that people like Armenians, Hittes, Persians, and Indians are the same as Semites when that is far from the truth. The term was coined because of the heavy similarities between people who speak languages in Europe and Iran/India. What else is there? People don't come from one single source.

>>2534787
I never resorted to name calling.

truly no thread is safe anymore

>>2534874
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/688792?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
So your source is 1 book? By that logic, evolution is debunked as well because of this link: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

There is no consensus among the scientific community. There are creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists.

>https://ncse.com/cej/2/1/why-creationism-should-not-be-taught-as-science
There are also creationist books or articles that show why evolutionism should not be taught. You´re not really helping your case here. All you are doing is posting evolutionist literature (I can do the same).

>I'm citing people and communities that actually say creation science is horseshit.
And there are plenty of scientists who think the theory of evolution is horseshit. Here is a list:
http://creation.com/creation-scientists
And when it comes to Peer Review:
http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

>Bad science is science?
How is it bad science? Creationists use the scientific method just as evolutionists do. But they come to different conclusions. Evidence is interpreted based on prior assumptions and personal beliefs, such as atheism or philosophical naturalism/materialism.

>For starters, the Table of Nations makes the incorrect assumption that people like Armenians, Hittes, Persians, and Indians are the same as Semites when that is far from the truth.
Have you even looked at the links that explain how, from a biblical view, the spread of ethnicities and linguistics happened? Because it makes a lot more sense than the ``Indo-European´´ theory.

ToN does not say that the Persians are Semitic.
The word Semite comes from Shem. The Persians are descendants of Japheth, not Shem. Same goes for Indians.

Dude I'm Muslim but you are making anyone following religion look really dumb right now, stop

>>2534954
>>2534892
Samefag.

File: Nadda.png (12KB, 369x170px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 369x170px

>>2534959
stop shitting up every thread

File: Court battle.jpg (22KB, 350x282px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 350x282px

>>2534874
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Quite often evolutionists will cite court battles as evidence that evolution should be the only view presented by the education system. Winning a court battle, is however not the same as demonstrating a scientific fact through observation and experiment. Legal decisions are based on the law, not on science. The law in the United States and in many other countries will not allow for government to support a religion. That is where evolutionists get their victories. Creationism and intelligent design both point to a creator. Therefore any ideas that are seen to support them are "religious" and the government is forced to reject or ignore those ideas on legal grounds. Evolution, even though it is faith based, is technically not "religious" since it does not recognize the existence of a supernatural being. So evolution wins in the courts because is not religious, rather than because science can be rigorously used to support it. Why do evolutionists go to the lawyers and judges to win their science battles?

Let the battle occur in the science labs and classrooms, where it should be taking place. Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, its not creation or intelligent design that's loosing in the courtroom, it's schools that are being sued. After all, it's the school boards, parents and the kids in public schools who want the alternatives to be taught and the problems with evolution to be exposed. They are the ones who are getting defeated by the evolutionists. They want to control the education of your kids so they can indoctrinate them with their materialistic philosophy. And they believe that you're just too stupid to know evolution is a fact.

http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
https://www.trueorigin.org/

ITT: atheists getting rekt

the bible is true and there is nothing they can do about it

>>2535008
Once again, the pigeon struts all over the board as though he won anything by knocking over the pieces and covering it in shit.

>>2534948
Science is objective. The ones who hold the stronger argument are the ones who are right(in this case evolutionists) until new information is discovered that makes the older stuff obsolete. The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that the latter are willing to adopt new information that replaces or updates the old one while the former insists that the age old information (Table of Nations) is correct with the only way to justify their world view is to make loop holes around it (just like how the Catholic church cherry pick which science is acceptable to them ).

I can dig a lot more but the difference is that the science community is generally against creation science
Source:
>About half (47%) of those who personally believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time also say scientists agree that humans have evolved. Three-quarters of those who believe humans have evolved also see scientists as largely in agreement about evolution.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-4-evolution-and-perceptions-of-scientific-consensus/

>Have you even looked at the links that explain how, from a biblical view, the spread of ethnicities and linguistics happened? Because it makes a lot more sense than the ``Indo-European´´ theory.
I have and the Indo-European theory is universally supported as it has evidence to back it up which you should agree with since you said anti-creationists can use facts as well. Unless you can clear something up I'm just not seeing it.

>>2531527

The people they conquered already had bronze weapons and cattle, the chariot is the innovation that the IEs used to conquer half the world.

Why do you """people""" always respond to obvious bait? There are no creationists on 4chan, it'snot possible to be THAT stupid and still manage to operate a computer.

>>2531510
There is an Indian Australophithecus.

Op' s image refers to the Kurgan hypothesis. The expansion or rather invasion, as we call almost certainly happened. The subjugation of the Indian via the caste system forced on them trough the Aryan hindu religion is evidence for it. Sadly conservatives Hindus pushed for this to be removed from the schools after they regained control from the nonconservatives after the independance. Religion, yet again, fucks shit up.

>>2530981
Phonetic alphabet. Thats how latin greek hebrew arab are related.

>>2535243
'no'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy5ilIQbGNA

This is awesome

Almost sounds like a fantasy book.

Once the r1b's and 1n1a's were brothers, but r1b was corrupted. Thus begun their eternal struggle.

>>2535237
I'm just gonna quote another anon I've seen on /his/, said anon's brother or cousin or something has an engineering degree and firmly believes the earth is flat. It is dismissive to the vastness of the number of people who browse 4chan to say that there are "no creationists" on here

>>2535267

If you seriously think the guy posting about MUH HAM is anything but a troll, then maybe YOU are the moron.

>>2535275
Firstly, I've never said anything revealing of my belief or disbelief about the honesty of the "muh ham" poster
Secondly, way to go with the unnecessary and uncalled for name calling

>>2535265
wtf am I watching

>>2535265
Kek

I wish we could get a linguistics general going.

>>2535284

There's nothing unnecessary about it, you are clearly at least as stupid as the morons who respond to the troll pretending to be a religious idiot.

>>2535297
You said I'd be a moron if I believed the troll to be actually honest, which I do not, and believe it to be a troll, thus I'm not, by your standards, a moron

>>2535302

You're not a moron for that reason but you found another way to demonstrate the fact.

>>2535320
Which is

File: u wot m8.jpg (6KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x200px

>>2535265
>R1b "Lunar the cult of the moon" - the main material, the female principle.
R1a "The cult of the sun" - the main spiritual, the masculine principle.
Therefore, it is for example the west spawned such phenomena in the world as racism, fascism

>>2535330

R1a= Putinist Democracy
R1b= Fascism, Nazis, Imperialism


What's there not to get?

>>2531510
A weapon to surpass Metal Gear?

>>2535330
R1a = Slavic pussies ready to do anything to mary Western Euros
R1B = Alpha fucking slavic pussies

>>2531273
True this technological advancement, experience in battle their geographical location, which provided them with the perfect vantagepoint to invade europe asia and africa (its the "middle" east, right?) made them able to conquer the old world faster than even they probably thought possible

>>2534621
Stop it. You're embarassing yourself.

>>2534650
when something is bs 99% of the time it might not be worth investigating. See how rhis appkies to your bible =.=

>>2535249
Why?

>>2535514
there should be an official R1b policy to never marry easterners but instead to pump and dump as many as possible

they are not worthy of marriage

>>2534621
>Magog (Russians)
>Meshech (Russians)
KEK