Did we originate in Africa?

digme

Chinese archaeological find shatters “Out of Africa” myth.


An archaeological find in China shows strong evidence of parallel human evolution with multiple, different ancestors. An anatomically modern human jawbone was found deep in the earth and comes from a time period in which such humans were only supposed to have existed in Africa.

I've always thought this myself after reading hidden history of the human race.

PirateShampoo

Well theorys are meant o be broken.

squod

What would Mysterious say?

Short article here 'bout the recent find.

One of the puzzles that the out-of-Africa theory needs to account for is the prevalence of shovel-shaped front teeth among the modern Chinese population

Yitzhak Rabin

Its a very interesting find.

I actually started a thread in Paleontology back in January where I predicted Neanderthal and Homo Saipien interbreeding long before "the scientists" announced it :cool: Its here.

I also predicted a possibility of Homo Saipeins and Homo Erectus having interbred in Asia. That would explain some of those anomolous traits, as Asian Homo Erectus' also shared them.

I'll quote a post by another user which sums up what I also think quite probable nicely.

Wibbs wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that the middle path was the way to go. Complete multiregionalism I don't buy, as much as I dont buy the complete out of Africa notion. It had to be more fluid than that. The evidence in the fossils and tools seemed to suggest some continuation of archaic traits in moderns. It also explains how you see genes in local moderns that are far older than the proposed later out of africa event. It explains the evolution of the head louse too(it would be interesting to see if the african head louse is different to the asian. If not, worms can opened ).

The eastern Mediterranean dates like you say are interesting. Especially as we have sites in israel where sapiens and neandertals were living in very close proximity for long periods of time. They must have gotten busy enough times to have the possibility of these archaic markers still present? I'd imagine a one off event would have died out?

In Asia it's even more weird. Neandertals were a lot closer to us than Erectus, both in genetic time and likely behaviour. Now the view of Erectus as being a bit slow has got some knocks recently with some evidence of long sea voyages and some evidence of cultural ideas, but they would have been in Asia for at least a million years before we show up and pretty different. If we could mate successfully with each other that's amazing given the genetic gap in time. Then again like I mentioned before, wolves can cross with coyotes and they're further apart.

I'd love to see further study into native australians DNA(the above team seem to suggest interesting results from oceania). The puzzle that the earliest australians had less archaic features than later and modern australians is interesting. It seems as well from DNA from mungo man that his line died out. So maybe the first aussies went straight from africa. Pretty much ran along the coast middle east, india SE asia and across into australia about 60,000 years ago and didnt get into hanky panky with erectus on the way. Then another migration occurred later on from asia which had the earlier human mixing going on, which brought along these more archaic features, then interbred with or even largely replaced the folks that were there already? Maybe there was even more recent migrations? The dingo seems to have split from other asian dogs 10,000 odd years ago and its unlikely they swam to Oz on their own. Modern native aussies may be a good place to look as they were pretty isolated(or maybe not?) until 200 odd years ago.

Wibbs wrote:

So my take is this. Archaic humans in Europe and Asia. The first Africans(us) leave and run along the southern asian coast, fishing and eating along the way quite quickly getting all the way to New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania, while leaving the Asian interior to the archaics. Leaving pockets and echos of that migration today.

Then there is a second or contemporary population of Africans to them that head into the interior of Europe and asia, after staying put in the middle east long enough to get jiggy with the Neandertals at their southernmost range. They move into europe, getting further jiggy with the locals and picking up handy mutations like pale skin. The others head off into Asia and get busy with erectus there. This shows in the localised continuation of some erectus features into the moderns in the area. Africans show this local continuity too, but we came from african erectus in africa anyway so...

These central asian folks then migrate into the existing homelands of the first african lads and lasses and get busy with them. This explains why Native australians start off looking like more gracile humans(like andaman islanders), then become much more robust with what may be echoed erectus features(heavier boned skulls and browridges) which came along with the later mirgation from asia who had gotten busy with the archaics there and then become more gracile again, with further later migrations(native australians today can still exhibit much larger browridges and more robust skulls than other populations). Ditto for populations like Papuans.

In Europe the populations likely remain more cut off with smaller populations due to ice ages etc and there are only one or two major moves in until relatively recently. In the Americas, I suspect the first African lads made it maybe 20,000+ years ago and got all the way to the tip of south america, where remains of ancient skulls may show more african traits than the later Asian migrations which followed. On the eastern seaboard the presence of the X haplogroup although rare, but never found in the west suggests a european migration at some point, though likely small. Then the main thrust through north asia brought the bulk of modern native genes into the mix.

My take anyway.

Mod Hat on: Interesting as this is, it isn't a CT. I've asked if they'll take it over in Paleontology, if they will we can continue the discussion there.... if they won't you better formulate a CT!

squod

yekahs wrote: »

Mod Hat on: Interesting as this is, it isn't a CT. I've asked if they'll take it over in Paleontology, if they will we can continue the discussion there.... if they won't you better formulate a CT!

It's pretty much evidence of a suppressed history, I'm sure we've discussed that topic before.

digme

ya i was taught in school i came from Africa and my ancestors were black lol
And you can bet your arse the teachers will still be teaching that in 20 years time aswell.
The funny thing is a guy posted this on yutube about the find.

So, Science now backs up what a simple glance and conversation with a black person already proves to the rest of us, Whites did not come from Africa. As if the achievement gap in schools and life in general didn't prove that one

That comment seems a bit harsh to me, but the lad has a point.

Yitzhak Rabin

squod wrote: »

It's pretty much evidence of a suppressed history, I'm sure we've discussed that topic before.

But how is it hidden? The origins of humans is a hotly debated topic in the scientific community. Its an area that has constantly changed in the last century. We are constantly tweaking, and on some occasions totally turning theories on their heads.

I fail to see how it is hidden?

squod

yekahs wrote: »

But how is it hidden? The origins of humans is a hotly debated topic in the scientific community. Its an area that has constantly changed in the last century. We are constantly tweaking, and on some occasions totally turning theories on their heads.

I fail to see how it is hidden?

Again, more of a Mysterious answer required here. Some vids on youtube demonstrating the transformation of the species vs the evolution of the species.
I don't hold with either theory TBH. Seems to me someones always trying to make a monkey out of me.

caseyann

digme wrote: »

ya i was taught in school i came from Africa and my ancestors were black lol
And you can bet your arse the teachers will still be teaching that in 20 years time aswell.

You were taught that in school? I heard theories about it but never believed it and never taught in school.

My name is URL

This is a perfect example of how science differs from conspiracy, be it in theory or practice. A conspiracy relies on an overall goal to prove a theory, whereas science depends on new proofs emerging all the time and disproving older ideas.

Yitzhak Rabin

caseyann wrote: »

You were taught that in school? I heard theories about it but never believed it and never taught in school.

The vast majority of the scientific evidence shows that your ancestors were black Africans from the rift valley. Pale skin is a relatively recent mutation.

caseyann

yekahs wrote: »

The vast majority of the scientific evidence shows that your ancestors were black Africans from the rift valley. Pale skin is a relatively recent mutation.

Is that fact now or just a theory?

Bodhisopha

digme wrote: »

ya i was taught in school i came from Africa and my ancestors were black lol
And you can bet your arse the teachers will still be teaching that in 20 years time aswell.
The funny thing is a guy posted this on yutube about the find.





That comment seems a bit harsh to me, but the lad has a point.

Which part of the lads point do you agree with?

Yitzhak Rabin

digme wrote: »

ya i was taught in school i came from Africa and my ancestors were black lol
And you can bet your arse the teachers will still be teaching that in 20 years time aswell.

They may well be teaching it in 20years, as 1 jawbone doesn't disprove the hypothesis. All it is, is another piece in the jigsaw. A jigsaw where we don't have all the pieces, and we don't know what picture we are trying to put together.

That comment seems a bit harsh to me, but the lad has a point.

Its not harsh, its him dressing up his racism.

Yitzhak Rabin

caseyann wrote: »

Is that fact now or just a theory?

Its neither. Its the leading hypothesis, with the most evidence behind it.



But just so you know a fact is something we observe. A theory is an explanation based on the most evidence to explain our observation. For example, the fact of gravity is that we observe that objects are attracted to each other. The theory is our explanation of why that happens - i.e Gravity is still "just a theory"

digme

caseyann wrote: »

You were taught that in school? I heard theories about it but never believed it and never taught in school.

A school run by nuns that used to say the devil will get you if you don't do this or that. Those were the days.

caseyann

yekahs wrote: »

They may well be teaching it in 20years, as 1 jawbone doesn't disprove the hypothesis. All it is, is another piece in the jigsaw. A jigsaw where we don't have all the pieces, and we don't know what picture we are trying to put together.




Its not harsh, its him dressing up his racism.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/09/did-early-humans-evolve-in-eur.html

So many theories and findings.The conspiracy would be no one has a clue and only making it up to please their own arguments.

caseyann

digme wrote: »

A school run by nuns that used to say the devil will get you if you don't do this or that. Those were the days.

lol i didnt have that either lol. Our teachers were pretty sane.But i agree the devil was a good influence to be good.:D

digme

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Which part of the lads point do you agree with?

If i told you I'd be labelled a racist..

sligopark

perhaps understandably I never got whites coming from black given the genetic dominance is toward darkening of colour ......

nor have I understood the whole transfer of intelligence established via structural building and language etc that contradicted the whole out of africa thing .....

sumeria, egypt etc ......

its not so much I believe in adam and eve but that that I don't believe my pedigree began with my ancestors coming out of africa or an ass - mine or anyone else's - if this were the case - homosexuality would be established as a biological choice allowing natural procreation rather than personal establishment of some sort of right toward parenthood ...

....

Not from Africa nor from my arse ....

Bodhisopha

digme wrote: »

If i told you I'd be labelled a racist..

It's the internet, you're anonymous, you've strongly hinted at it, why not just say it?

Yitzhak Rabin

So any CT then? Or just an excuse to say.... Told ya I'm not black!

Latchy

digme wrote: »

Chinese archaeological find shatters “Out of Africa” myth.


An archaeological find in China shows strong evidence of parallel human evolution with multiple, different ancestors. An anatomically modern human jawbone was found deep in the earth and comes from a time period in which such humans were only supposed to have existed in Africa.

I've always thought this myself after reading hidden history of the human race.

OP very intresting topic indeed but there was a documentry on one of the UK channels about this 12 months ago showing the most likely and possible trail taken by African/Europen man to get to China .

My name is URL

sligopark wrote: »

its not so much I believe in adam and eve but that that I don't believe my pedigree began with my ancestors coming out of africa or an ass - mine or anyone else's - if this were the case - homosexuality would be established as a biological choice allowing natural procreation rather than personal establishment of some sort of right toward parenthood ...

It's unlikely that convergent evolution would produce more than one set of the same order.. if the two had only a few things in common then it would be plausible.. but when the two share everything but color and a few genetic differences it's safe to say that they are not convergent.

As for homosexuality.. you say that it would have been established as a biological trait, but the fact is that it doesn't preclude anyone from parenting a child. A gay person could easily father a child that in turn parents a child, which effectively rules out the grandfather's preference.

Biology is not static

sligopark

who actually believes the human race came from africa - give us a break sweet gaysus

caseyann

Latchy wrote: »

OP very intresting topic indeed but there was a documentry on one of the UK channels about this 12 months ago showing the most likely and possible trail taken by African/Europen man to get to China .

This is the thing still all theory,could go around in circles again and prove not so.The theories are just that they will continue finding other evidence we might have come from the north pole.

Cavehill Red

The Chinese, for their own quasi-racist reasons, have been desperate to present themselves as the product of a separate genetic descendancy from the rest of us for a long time.
Much work was done asserting that Peking Man was evidence of this, until DNA testing categorically disproved it.
They're going to need something truly spectacular to disprove the current existing evidence.

Yitzhak Rabin

My name is URL wrote: »

As for homosexuality.. you say that it would have been established as a biological trait, but the fact is that it doesn't preclude anyone from parenting a child. A gay person could easily father a child that in turn parents a child, which effectively rules out the grandfather's preference.

Biology is not static

Also the same genes don't always just have one use. Like the one that causes sickle cell anameia but also makes people slightly more resistant to malaria. So not surprisingly African's have a higher proportion of sickle cell anameia sufferers.

So in the case of homosexuality, it could be the case that in females it makes you more fertile, but in males, makes you homosexual. I think there have been studies which indicate that a lot of gay people, also have gay uncles.

sligopark

My name is URL wrote: »

As for homosexuality.. you say that it would have been established as a biological trait, but the fact is that it doesn't preclude anyone from parenting a child. A gay person could easily father a child that in turn parents a child, which effectively rules out the grandfather's preference.

except of course that homosexuality does not produce children (hasn't for me or my partner nor produced any children out off our arses) - don't be silly

nullzero

yekahs wrote: »

So any CT then? Or just an excuse to say.... Told ya I'm not black!

This topic itself isn't an actual CT although it is part of a wider sphere of research into what exactly humans are and whether or not that ties into the "control grid".

I'd expect more from you than to say : "Or just an excuse to say.... Told ya I'm not black!".
Thats not something that reflects well on you at all.
You're a mod of this forum, if you feel this thread is about racism or anything of an unsavory nature then by all means lock it.

Perhaps this following question is more suited to PM, which you may want to take it to. Do you feel that there is an under current of intollerance on this forum from certain parties?
I know I have some views that are strange by conventional standards but I am by no means intollerant of a persons skin colour ethnic background or religious choice etc... and I don't believe (although I may be wrong) anyone else here feels that way either.
Maybe I'm reading too much into things, feelf ree to set me straight.

meglome

sligopark wrote: »

who actually believes the human race came from africa - give us a break sweet gaysus

well most scientists and the DNA shows it too. I only take a cursory interest though. Personally I don't see any reason why it would be something to take issue with.

nullzero wrote: »

I'd expect more from you than to say : "Or just an excuse to say.... Told ya I'm not black!".
Thats not something that reflects well on you at all.
You're a mod of this forum, if you feel this thread is about racism or anything of an unsavory nature then by all means lock it.

There are at least three people in this thread that seem to take issue with the idea that we came out of Africa. I don't know why that is but if I had to guess I'd agree with yekas.

squod

sligopark wrote: »

who actually believes the human race came from africa - give us a break sweet gaysus

Neither of us two apparently.

Cavehill Red

It's worth adding at this point that the evidence presented is very limited. It is suggested that a single jawbone, dated to c.110,000 years ago, is a homo sapiens jawbone. This could simply be incorrectly identified, or it could be a dating error, or it could be evidence that at one point a hominid species very similar to homo sapiens developed in Asia, but was subsequently eradicated by later arrivals from Africa.
After all, the core evidence is the fact that Chinese and Asian people share the same genetic heritage as all others outside of Africa do.
Dr Julie Cormack, of Mount Royal University in Canada, who was involved in the discovery, is coincidentally the biographer of Davidson Black, who discovered Peking Man.
Black asserted that Peking Man was a separate hominid species, but other researchers proved it was in fact merely a sub-species of homo erectus.
I wonder if perhaps Dr Cormack isn't getting similarly carried away here with her own Chinese discovery.

Latchy

caseyann wrote: »

This is the thing still all theory,could go around in circles again and prove not so.The theories are just that they will continue finding other evidence we might have come from the north pole.

Very much so , like man as a species originally evolved from the sea then we could just as easy have come from any place on the planet .

Cavehill Red

Latchy wrote: »

Very much so , like man as a species originally evolved from the sea then we could just as easy have come from any place on the planet .

Not quite!
Life evolved from the ocean. Man evolved very much on land.

caseyann

Latchy wrote: »

Very much so , like man as a species originally evolved from the sea then we could just as easy have come from any place on the planet .

Or not on the planet at all;) created in form of bacteria different bacteria's that is why we have different skin colour genetically stronger and weaker to other diseases.Therefore even if we came from Africa,North pole or wherever genetically not of same species.Mutated from a hit of a meteorite.

As they did say previously perhaps evolved from different animals.
What happened to the ape theory

sligopark

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not quite!
Life evolved from the ocean. Man evolved very much on land.

Give me a break - humans a million years from now could makem the same assumptions from animal and plant life available now to be fossilised for then ... perhaps with the caveat that line breeding from homosexuality contained certain lines toward conformity ....

nullzero

meglome wrote: »

There are at least three people in this thread that seem to take issue with the idea that we came out of Africa. I don't know why that is but if I had to guess I'd agree with yekas.

Meglome if you feel somebody is being intollerant, racist or xenophobic etc report it.

I can't stand intollerant people, but unless somebody makes a clear and definitive statement to prove conclusively that they are intollerant you're only going on opinion and could be very much mistaken in accussing them of something that is (at least in most peoples eyes) quite a serious moral offence.

caseyann

yekahs wrote: »

Its neither. I, with the most evidence behind it.



But just so you know a fact is something we observe. A theory is an explanation based on the most evidence to explain our observation. For example, the fact of gravity is that we observe that objects are attracted to each other. The theory is our explanation of why that happens - i.e Gravity is still "just a theory"

I disagree there is other leading hypothesis,they can not hundred percent anything they are just happy with what they have at the moment.Time will change that again.

You observe it as fact,i do not as there will never be answers just more questions

Cavehill Red

caseyann wrote: »

Or not on the planet at all;) created in form of bacteria different bacteria's that is why we have different skin colour genetically stronger and weaker to other diseases.Therefore even if we came from Africa,North pole or wherever genetically not of same species.Mutated from a hit of a meteorite.

As they did say previously perhaps evolved from different animals.
What happened to the ape theory

Wow! Ok, where to start?
I'm with you that life could well have begun on Earth as a result of bacteria carried here by meteorite. The origin of life itself is unknown. What is known is that it began in the ocean.
From there, some basic aquatic lifeforms progressed to land, and eventually began proliferating into various land-based species.
I presume what you refer to as the 'ape' theory is the concept that we are primates, genetically closely related to the other great apes. This is genetically the case. Our closest living relatives are the other primates. We shared a common ancestor with gorillas about 5 million years ago.
This doesn't mean we are descended from apes. It means us and the apes are descended from the same long-extinct species.
As for skin colour, that is simple adaptation. In hot countries, skin develops darker to prevent overheating. In colder, less sunny climates such as Ice Age Europe, skin lightens to maximise vitamin A retention.

sligopark

nullzero wrote: »

I can't stand intollerant people,

me neither unless they are marxist like Green ecothesists ...

tomasocarthaigh

Nobody asked the monkey is man his relative.

Until now!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0F0LHj8kA

sligopark

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The origin of life itself is unknown. What is known is that it began in the ocean.

either it is known or unknown why came the ground of both?????


No one has established despite all the DNA work and medical work what it is that works through living beings and leaves them upon death - take a read of James LeFanu's work 'why us?'

.....

Yitzhak Rabin

caseyann wrote: »

I disagree there is other leading hypothesis,they can not hundred percent anything they are just happy with what they have at the moment.Time will change that again.

Yes there are plenty of competing hypotheses. Its a fascinating area. I love studying it. Its hard though not to be swayed by the amount of evidence that all modern humans originated from various African migrations. Europeans almost definitely so.

Science is most certainly not happy with what they have. As Dara O Briain said "Well of course science knows it doesn't have all the answers....if they did....they would just stop"

You observe it as fact,i do not as there will never be answers just more questions

You don't observe gravity as a fact?

caseyann

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Wow! Ok, where to start?
I'm with you that life could well have begun on Earth as a result of bacteria carried here by meteorite. The origin of life itself is unknown. What is known is that it began in the ocean.
From there, some basic aquatic lifeforms progressed to land, and eventually began proliferating into various land-based species.
I presume what you refer to as the 'ape' theory is the concept that we are primates, genetically closely related to the other great apes. This is genetically the case. Our closest living relatives are the other primates. We shared a common ancestor with gorillas about 5 million years ago.
This doesn't mean we are descended from apes. It means us and the apes are descended from the same long-extinct species.
As for skin colour, that is simple adaptation. In hot countries, skin develops darker to prevent overheating. In colder, less sunny climates such as Ice Age Europe, skin lightens to maximise vitamin A retention.

AHA thanks explained in layman terms
I agree so many different species so many things not found as of yet.God only knows what will be found next to turn this on its head,like the earth been flat.
I heard a theory once that some humans were of origins of the water while others were origins of the land.Therefore different genetics.

RGDATA!

sligopark wrote: »

its not so much I believe in adam and eve but that that I don't believe my pedigree began with my ancestors coming out of africa or an ass - mine or anyone else's - if this were the case - homosexuality would be established as a biological choice allowing natural procreation rather than personal establishment of some sort of right toward parenthood ...

....

Not from Africa nor from my arse ....

that's a bizarre digression. what has homosexuality to do with it? anyway, despite of the ineffectiveness of homosexuals at procreating, they've managed to stave off extinction for a long time now.

Cavehill Red

sligopark wrote: »

either it is known or unknown why came the ground of both?????

This question doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify?
I said that the origin of life on Earth is not known. This is the case. However, there is strong and clear evidence for where life originated. Fossil evidence demonstrates life in the oceans at a time when there was no life on what land existed.

caseyann

yekahs wrote: »

Yes there are plenty of competing hypotheses. Its a fascinating area. I love studying it. Its hard though not to be swayed by the amount of evidence that all modern humans originated from various African migrations. Europeans almost definitely so.

Science is most certainly not happy with what they have. As Dara O Briain said "Well of course science knows it doesn't have all the answers....if they did....they would just stop"



You don't observe gravity as a fact?

If i had had the head for it all i would be out there researching and digging it up myself.:p
Ah now Dara is a god hater have to slap him sometime when i see him again.Just havent seen him in a while.
This is the thing there is no end ever,because the answers in your life will not be found.Sure we will find new information in the next 20,30 years that will turn this on its head aswell.

Ofc i do i dont take the origins of Humans as been all the same as fact.

Cavehill Red

caseyann wrote: »

AHA thanks explained in layman terms
I agree so many different species so many things not found as of yet.God only knows what will be found next to turn this on its head,like the earth been flat.
I heard a theory once that some humans were of origins of the water while others were origins of the land.Therefore different genetics.

I think it would help if the concept of species was better understood. You can have wide physical variance within a single species, or very little difference between two actually distinct species.
There are a lot of homo sapiens out there, and they've had the guts of 100,000 years to proliferate across the planet into many different environments. It's not surprising that they can look very different to each other.
However, the advent of DNA testing has very much helped push us beyond the simplistic visual 'race' distinctions proposed by Victorians.
All humans share the same genetic heritage. All those from outside of Africa (and some from Africa) share the same narrower genetic heritage, implying that we all descended from a single bottleneck of humanity which left Africa at some point.
The DNA evidence is very strong on this, which is why I offered my previous analysis of what this Chinese find is actually likely to be.

Latchy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not quite!
Life evolved from the ocean. Man evolved very much on land.

But all living things, animals ,plant life and man are part of that life so yes he did evolve on land but his origins are from the ocean just as you say, like the rest but I get your point

caseyann wrote: »

Or not on the planet at all;) created in form of bacteria different bacteria's that is why we have different skin colour genetically stronger and weaker to other diseases.Therefore even if we came from Africa,North pole or wherever genetically not of same species.Mutated from a hit of a meteorite.

As they did say previously perhaps evolved from different animals.
What happened to the ape theory

Indeed I cant remember the titles of the books and the authors of top of head but man coming from another planet was a big thing with booksellers back in the seventies. As for the ape theory, it's something I have always subscribed to if only because humans resemble apes in many ways so it's a simple , easy way to view it although it is of course open to more in depth discussion .

Edit-off to bed myself ,night folks

Yitzhak Rabin

Ok folks, I'm off to bed. In the meantime, please direct this towards a CT related topic. I'm reluctant to lock it, only because I love the area of human origins so much

But unfortunately, if there is no CT by the morning, this thread will be going to locktown