New evidence of Homo sapiens

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by timojin, Jun 7, 2017.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,154
    Once again, Homosapiens does not come from Sub Sahara belt

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...UqNFEEtK2JIy0ZZ&tracking_referrer=www.cnn.com

    (CNN)The oldest fossil remains of Homo sapiens, dating back to 300,000 years, have been found at a site in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco. This is 100,000 years older than previously discovered fossils of Homo sapiens that have been securely dated. The discovery was presented in a study in the journal Nature on Wednesday.

    This marks the first discovery of such fossils in north Africa, and widens the"cradle of mankind" to encompass all of Africa, the researchers said. Previous finds were in south or east Africa. The fossils, including a partial skull and a lower jaw, belong to five different individuals including three young adults, an adolescent and a child estimated to be 8 years old. Stone tools, animal bones and evidence of fire were also found within the same layer at the site.
    But what the researchers found to be most remarkable about these fossils is that they capture a moment in time of evolution. The facial features of the skull look like a modern human, but the brain case is very elongated and archaically characteristic of early humans.
    There has been increasing evidence that the modern human lineage diverged from Neanderthals and Denisovans 500,000 years ago, making us close relatives rather than direct descendants. Before this discovery, it was believed that the early modern humans we evolved from were in Africa 200,000 years ago and looked very similar to modern humans. But what happened in between that time?
    This is still unknown, although the researchers suggest the possibility that there were multiple groups of hominins, or human ancestors, overlapping and having complex relationships.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    You should read it more carefully. Doesn't mean they came from there.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,154
    Where did they come from ? Morocco ? could they be an inbred of Neanderthal and denisovan ? You tell me .

    I have my hunch homosapien developed no farther south then Morocco. The argument that Homosapien come from below the Sahara belt is a nonsense.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Why?
     
  8. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,154

    There is evidence Neanderthal man was in Europe over 400000 years ago , Heidelberg man was before that.
    Modern man fro Africa ( Kenia ) 100000 year ago so that is my answer
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,272
    There probably wasn't any "Sahara belt" at the time, so you're almost certainly correct.

    Why do you care? What difference does it make to you where the San and other near-origin folks happened to be at the beginning?
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    That doesn't mean they arose there.
     
  11. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,154
    I care because I don't like the hypothesis that modern man had black skin and by moving north he lost its color, So if modern man come from Morocco he not necessary would be what we call African black
     
  12. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    What do you mean you don't like it? That seems kind of weird...
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,464
    Yeerrrssss!

    Are you thinking what I've been thinking for a while.......?

    Pass the pillowcase and scissors, perhaps?
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,099
    Is there a problem with having black skin?

    Are you literally saying that you do not agree with the out of Africa hypothesis because you do not like the idea that the first "modern man" had black skin?

    Guess you are going to pitch an equal fit when you find out that Neanderthals were not solely white and were in fact across a broad range of colour variations in Europe.. As were modern man, who up to around 10,000 years or so ago in Europe, had black skin..

    Your ancestors had black skin. Does this bother you?
     
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Would someone please add an n to the title of this thread?
     
  16. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    429
    Homo snapiens?
     
    sculptor and exchemist like this.
  17. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,154
    Like is one thing disagreeing is another thing.

    I will not have a fit perhaps you will, black skin moved along the coast and ended up in Australia, Adamar islands , and some in the Philippine
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,464
    That remark tells us all we need to know.
     
    origin likes this.
  19. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,154
    Do you have any evidence to that ?

    To me is acceptable man from northern Africa, Morocco have moved into Europe through the Gibraltar strait, but African from below the sahara is a nonsense .
     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Why not? They had legs.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,099
    But you said you did not like it:

    Whether you disagree or dislike or whatever based on skin colour, you are still wrong.

    First modern man had black skin. And they had it when they migrated into Europe. DNA studies have shown this on remains of hunter gatherers that first inhabited Europe and they can even track when the skin started to lighten and why through DNA studies.

    "Black skin" went everywhere, timojin. Be it Europe, Asia, Oceania.. Everywhere!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's part of your heritage. Why do you hate it so much?
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,099
    Here Timojin, just for you..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The head of the prototypical “First European” was recreated from bone fragments, an incomplete skull and jawbone. These pieces were discovered in a cave in the south west region of Romania’s Carpathian Mountains.

    Forensic artist Richard Neave is responsible for the reconstruction, based on fragments that are at least 35,000 years old. Radiocarbon dating analysis have determined that the oldest fragments may have been as old as 36,000 years old. Neave is a forensic artist, for a BBC program about the origins of the human race and evolution.

    At that time, Europe was inhabited by Homo Neanderthalis, or the Neanderthal man, who were quickly replaced by African nomadic peoples. The Neanderthal Genome Project has posited that the Neanderthals were killed off by these migrating groups. The first true homo sapiens (and homo sapien sapiens), in Europe, apparently would not have been recognizable as ethnically “Caucasian” whatsoever. Those traits, often identified as “white,” seem to have emerged much later, after Europe was settled by African peoples who looked like those Neave has recreated for us here.

    The primary difference between this skull and later homo sapien sapiens are the unusually large molar teeth, which has led some scientists to speculate that the skull represents some intermixing with the native Homo Neanderthalis.

    Whether or not that is the case, what is certain is that the appearance of the first truly “human” European ancestors looked nothing like what many would expect.

    Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in Missouri, said the jaw in particular is the oldest, modern human fossil that can be directly-dated, saying that, “Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe.”

    That might be a bit of a disappointment to those last remaining doubters that all of humanity originated in Africa and spread out from there.

    [Source]



    DNA doesn't lie, timojin.**

    DNA shows European ancestry and yes, it comes from sub-Saharan Africa from as early as 11,000 years ago, when the migration out of the region was still ongoing. Later migrations due to wars, trade and whatnot is also present. But a fairly large portion is ancient DNA, from the sub-Sahara region.

    As I said, DNA does not lie, timojin and whether you like it or not, ultimately, your ancestry is sub-Sahara African. Like everyone else to a certain degree. Europeans and Asians (including Russia and the Middle East), those in the Pacific Island regions and those native to the Americas have other admixtures with other hominids that had migrated out of sub-Sahara Africa previously, before the Homo sapiens migration. Interbreeding would probably have occurred in a few places with a few tribes and was possibly not too widespread. Which is why sub-Sahara tribes do not have Neanderthal or Denisova DNA. Although the San may, as they migrated back to Africa from Asia, which explains their Asian appearance. There are also other hominids yet to be discovered in our ancestry and we also know that other hominids existed at the same time in the sub-Sahara region as well who may have mixed with Homo sapiens before or after the first migrations began.

    To suggest that Homo sapiens evolved in Morocco.. There is no evidence to support this. All evidence, from DNA to remains found, point to migrations out of the sub-Sahara region.


    __________________________________

    ** Cerezo M, Achilli A, Olivieri A, et al. Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe. Genome Research. 2012;22(5):821-826. doi:10.1101/gr.134452.111. [http://bit.ly/2slkIAR]
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Black skin, brown skin pale skin----------all remains in doubt

    When an artist chooses to add a skin color to a reconstruction of an ancient collection of bones, he or she is voicing a personal opinion.
    One rather convincing argument from the genome studies is that we got the genes for red hair and pale skin from our neanderthal cousins.(no mention was made as to where our cousins got those genes)

    What we do not have is genomic studies for any ancestors and other hominids older that about 400,000 years.
    Before that time, all is a guess.
    One error often repeated in anthropology is extrapolating backward from modern people's behaviours and morphology to ancient peoples.
    Very little in archaeology is certain, and guessing at origins is a prime example of people voicing their biased opinions and claiming them as facts.

    Opinion does not uncomplicate anthropology, and quite often serves an opposite function.
     

Share This Page