Did we originate in Africa?

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.

Nobody asked the monkey is man his relative.

Until now!!!!

sligopark wrote: »

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

Ah ffs.. are you for real? Think about it.. it doesn't matter if someone is gay.. even if they procreate once, it ensures their genes live on. Evolution will not change simply because some people are gay. It may limit their chances of passing their gene on but it doesn't forbid it.. or require any anatomical change to accommodate it.

sligopark wrote: »

The whole fossil record is open to interpretation of todays knowledge - do you think if todays bones were found in a millio years that they would be interpretated in a full and accurate manner given the loss of records continually encountered by the human race?

Given how science progresses in the direction of ever more accurate knowledge through the scientific process, if we as a species exist (in whatever form) in a million years, I would expect they'd have an extremely full and accurate analysis of our evolution.

sligopark wrote: »

We believe too much in people too removed from all scienes and too specialised in tiny areas to tell us where and why we came from ...

Not sure if you meant to write scenes or sciences there. If 'sciences', then I agree. Sadly most people are too divorced from basic scientific comprehension to understand scientific breakthroughs. Equally, many scientists are singularly incapable of explaining their discoveries in layman's terms. The intermediary media has not covered itself in glory in filling the interpretive gap of knowledge.

I'm thinkinthatif thre was to be aCTSlant to this thread it would be along the lines of Watch this space for future 'Revsions' o theories,

I'm not sure why you've put the word Revisions in quotes. It seems you're attributing some special meaning to it that is key to how this becomes a CT.

Science is in a constant state of revision. True, there are always people who claim that their "new truth" is being suppressed, or that some part of science is being defended with almost religious adherence, but to be honest that's either misrepresentative pandering to the non-scientific, or just plain lack of understanding.

Lets look at this case, and see whats really a possible CT, and what isn't.

The scientific community is suppressing evidence which contradicts the 'Out of Africa' (OoA)premise

No, they're not. A quick google will show that this find has been widely reported. No-one is suppressing this evidence. Rather, it is the case that the scientific community aren't looking at it and saying "this single jawbone absolutely disproves OoA". That's not suppression.

The scientific community is rejecting evidence which categorically refutes the OoA premise
Again, I'd say that no, they're not. The evidence, as it stands today, does not categorically refute anything. It possibly refutes it...but there are other possible explanations. Science is not founded on wildly jumping from belief to belief as soon as evidence is found which migh support the new belief. Rather, the scientific community (as a whole) moves slowly...making sure that the evidence to support its new position is undeniably stronger then the evidence which supported its old position. Naturally, this means that the individuals who make genuine game-changing breakthroughs are convinced of their correctness long before their position is accepted. It also means that the vastly-larger body of individuals who reach incorrect conclusions don't change the game so readily.

The scientific community will just revise its position and continue as before
If this evidence turns out to be compelling, then yes...that's what will happen. Thats not a conspiracy theory...its what's supposed to happen. Its how science is supposed to function. New evidence is assessed against existing positions, and if ncessary those positions are revised to be a better match to all the evidence.
Bear in mind that in this case, OoA being wrong wouldn't necessarily mean that life originated in multiple places, or that modern man doesn't have its roots in Africa. It only means that the current model which hypothesises how mankind spread from Africa is flawed.

The evidence is being misinterpreted
This is a possibility which shouldn't be discounted. Of course, if it turns out to be the case, then there will no doubt be plenty who believe that this is some sort of "suppression" or "rejection", but that doesn't mean its not possible that the evidence is being misinterpreted.

The evidence is fake - the whole thing is a hoax
This seems unlikely, to be honest. I'm not sure how advanced the research on teh find is, but it seems to be far enough along the path of verification that this can be ruled out. That said, it wouldn't be the first time that a hoax was deliberately perpetrated in order to further some ulterior goal at the expense of science.

So where does that leave us?

Well, for me, it leaves me with no CT in sight. There's an interesting and controversial find. The scientific community are doing what they do, and not just changing positions radically with every new piece of evidence to come to light. The research continues, both on this find, and on the site. To date, no-one seems to have done anything underhand, nor is there any hint of underhandedness on any side.