"Out of Africa" theory: a done deal

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Fraggle Rocker, Feb 22, 2008.

  1. zarlok Banned Banned

    Messages:
    116
    You have done nothing here but obfuscate the facts, either maliciously or out of igorance. You simlply do not know what you are talking about.

    http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2001/04/26/53.asp
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,188
    Firstly, the article you have posted is from 2001. The latest research, released in 2007, traced back the DNA of Aboriginals and Melanesian people to the original group that migrated out of Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago. They did leave DNA footprints where they went, so they were virtually able to track their route. Now either the DNA collected from Aboriginals is incorrect (they lied and are not Aboriginals..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) or the new research has proven that their ancestors were part of that first migration up to 70,000 ago. Which do you think is the most plausible zarlok?

    I would suggest you actually read up on the subject before you refer to people as being either stupid or lacking in knowledge.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. zarlok Banned Banned

    Messages:
    116
    Again, you don't know what you are tallkng about. The date of the article and bones for that matter are irrelevant. Did 2+2=4 in 2001? What matters is their mtDNA and the fact they are human.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,424
    As far as anyone can establish, there are no consistent differences in height among genetic groups of humans - aside from unusual and limited pockets of pigmies and the like, all humans seem to be about the same height genetically.

    The skin color differences are not consistent genetically either - not all melanistic skin has the same genetic basis. Very light skin seems to have one genetic basis, and to be associated with remarkably variable eye color and lactose tolerance - not much else.

    The eye shape is one small feature - the epicanthul fold, a modification of the eyelid setup - and is essentially trivial. All human eyes are the same shape (and size, structure, light adaptation, etc) by group.

    Neither skin color nor eye shape is any more significant than hair color, genetically. Genetically established height differences between large groups of humans apparently don't exist.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,188
    It would appear, you have missed the point yet again.

    The latest research dates from 2007 and it dismisses the regional evolution theory, such as that posited in the article you posted from 2001. You fail to take into consideration that genetic markers were traced back to particular regions dating up to the first modern human migration out of Africa. It is quite possible that 'Mungo Man' was a descendant of the homo erectus species which had migrated out of Africa up to 1 millions years ago and which could have evolved separately in the region of Asia and were later wiped out by the arrival of modern humans. That does not mean that Australian Aboriginals are also descendant of the same species and not that of modern humans. What has been shown in the latest research and genetic studies completed is that Australian Aboriginals were able to be traced back to the first migration of modern humans out of Africa.

    Honestly. You are faced with studies and research whereby geneticists have managed to find a genetic link between Australian Aboriginals and the first wave of modern humans out of Africa up to 70,000 years ago and what do you do? Deny it to be possible because of you believe that Aboriginals are the descendants of the homo erectus. You fail to take into consideration that the Australian Aboriginals then went on to develop in complete isolation from the rest of the world's human population due to their geographical isolation (when the land bridge between Australia and PNG and Indonesia) became waterlogged. So they will be different, but their genetic footprints can be traced back to Africa with the first human migration and not to the migration of homo erectus.
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,188
    Please keep this on topic and cut out the personal comments and attacks.
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    The problem BELLS is that dating the evidence and claiming that the newest is the most accurate is not really wise to do. Look at the old popular mechhanics articles from the 70s and you will see that present day humans will also make mistakes.

    Even the title of this thread is misleading and somewhat contradictory. How can a theory ever be a done deal? yet subconsciously he included the word THEORY.

    :

    Pygmies

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Evolution and multi-regional migration fit better together, the reasons why should be fairly obvious.

    What your doing is fitting a theory around some fairly obvious facts. At least i find them obvious.
     
  11. kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    Are you claiming i incorrectly perceived racism in Dr Lou's post and am therefore less advanced? Did you even read the post i replied to?
    Aboriginals are not more primitive. Pointing out that aboriginals are inferior despite the fact they are not still seems like racism to me.
    The claim was aboriginals are less advanced not that they are simply different.
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have a unique theory of human perception, which easily explains many different things that more standard cognitive sciences "emergent" POV can not. It also offers a new explaination of the cause of the "Out of Africa" event and specifically why a very small group (and their desendents) killed off all the others they came into contact with through out the world, such as Neandethals.

    I have posted it several times. Most recently at:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52

    I hope you will find the time to read all - follow the logic and evidence presented in support of my "Perception is by a real time simulation" theory. This verson is mainly concerned with "free will." - My theory offers a way in which "free will" does not require any miracle - i.e. can be consistent with the body being controlled by physical/chenical processes that alone (no "soul" or "human spirit" modifying these laws) determine the firing of every nerve in the brain etc.

    If you lack time to read all and your main interest is in what I suggest is the Out of Africa cause, perhaps you can just skim read to point (3)'s second paragraph; then back track, as needed, to gain better understandng of what is stated here.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2008
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It wasn't subconscious. Besides, the subconscious is an element of the old Freudian paradigm and I'm a Jungian. We just call it the unconscious.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A "done deal" is layman's language and I'm speaking in layman's language. Scientists have no good term for a theory that has undergone so much testing and peer review that its probability of being falsified is estimated to be very low--so low that it can safely be integrated into the scientific canon. Occasionally one of these "canonical" theories is disproved, but because of the accurately predicted low probability it happens so rarely that the scientific canon will not start to collapse. I use the legal term: "true beyond a reasonable doubt." Jurists are careful to clarify that this does not mean "beyond all possible doubt," and in science that's the reason a canonical theory occasionally is falsified. In layman's language these concepts simply don't exist. For lack of concept and terminology we call our bedrock theories "true" when talking to them, but we should feel uneasy about it. The two or three times per century that one of the more famous ones comes tumbling down, it gives laymen reason to say, "Aha! You see? Science doesn't work."

    We need better language to bridge the gap between scientists and laymen.

    Anyway the "out of Africa" theory is a "done deal" in the sense that it is now accepted as part of the canon. Any hypothesis that contradicts it from now on will qualify as an "extraordinary claim" and must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. Just like a claim that Mars has a breathable atmosphere or that the Holocaust never happened. We accept the chance that this theory is wrong, but we are not going to entertain a challenge to it by a sixteen-year old kid who just finished reading a book on phrenology--or the Bible.

    That's what I mean by a "done deal."
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2008
  14. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    I believe there is still either conflicting or unresolved information. Most of the reports I've seen show that mitochondrial-Eve [m-Eve; the mother of us all] is dated to about 120,000 to 150,000 years ago, but with no place location. Yet we're talking about the "out of Africa" sojourn of only 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. And, what we have is evidence that that sojourn arose near the Middle East, and from there spread eastward including settling of Australia about 50,000 years ago by one tribe of that group [and then becoming isolated at the end of the ice-age flooding the land bridges].

    Where do we have the evidence for time period from 120,000 years ago to 70,000 years ago? Could it not be that m-Eve arose in the middle east, and then about 70,000 years ago bands moved westward into Africa, and others eastward to Asia and Australia?

    I believe there is still too much missing information to form firm conclusions as to where m-Eve arose, even if we know about the eastward migration of peoples circa 50,000 years ago. I would welcome someone providing me with more information about that.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    But we have zero evidence of Homo sapiens living in Asia before the migration that was identified in this study. The only fossils and archeological evidence up until that time are in Africa. How could Eve have "arisen in the Middle East" when her people weren't there yet?
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    True, we haven't found H. Sapiens in the middle east prior to the eastward spread. I'm just saying that doesn't mean that H. Sapiens wasn't there yet; it could mean we just haven't found the evidence yet. It could be that the best fossil evidence is now underwater due to the ice-age melt-down, and essentially inaccesible until we start doing more SCUBA exploration.

    I agree that the evidence is suggestive that H. sapiens arose in Africa - but I don't believe we can say with definiteness. It is my understanding that a lot more time is spent looking for hominid fossils in Africa [because it is quite a good place to find them] than other places. However, that might not be quite so true nowadays. In any event, H. erectus and other pre-humans migrated out of somewhere [Africa? - most likely I believe], since we find their fossils in Asia, etc.; and H. neanderthalis is all over Europe and the middle east. Perhaps H. Sapiens evolved from an earlier H. neanderthalis somewhere in the middle east. I don't believe we have enough information to be definitive about this yet, but certainly feel free to point me to information conclusively showing where H. sapiens' m-Eve arose.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2008
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,424
    They aren't. In particular, the remarkable genetic uniformity of the human species is difficult to explain with a multi-regional theory of evolutionary origin.

    The only thing explained better by multi-regional origin is the rapid wide spread - and people just tend to underestimate the rate of travel of hunting nomadic humans, I think. A thousand years at twenty miles a year takes you all the way around Asia and over to Australia. And they probably had boats.
     
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Can you steer me to some evidence for this early date for m-Eve? I thought all we really know about her is that she had at least two daughters (Simple logic - if she had only one then that one would be m-Eve, and not her mother. i.e. by definition, m-eve is the most recent female we can call our common great, great,...grand mother.)

    Because the human population has gone thru some rough times in the last 120,000 years I find it surprizing that the most recent common mother of us all would be so far back in the past. Hence my request for support for that POV.

    As an example of what a "rough period" can do, consider the tiger. Quite recently (compared to even 50K BP) the tigers almost went extent. The result of this is that they are very highly inbred and have not had time to develope significant genetic variation. - This has one benefit for them in the modern medical age - organ transplants between tigers are never rejected. They are all very closely related. (I am speaking of the common type you see in zoos - there are branches of the tiger family which are significant different. Not as much is known about them, but I suspect they too are highly inbred as the population are small.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2008
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I find it interesting, or at least worth commenting on, that there is so much concern about the LOCATION from which the explosion of one small group of our ancestors occurred.

    If the many different lines of research had concluded that that location was the French Mediterranean coastal area (instead of central Africa) I strongly doubt there would be as many people suggesting alternative locations and even the highly unlikely possibility of multiple origins that just happened to have evolved with essentially the same genetics. (I.e. I believe there is a lot of unconscious racism hidden in much of this controversy.)

    For me, the location is not even a very interesting question, compared to the question of WHY did it* happen. I have provided an answer** to that question, but it just accidently fell out of my extensive studies of how humans process information about the environment that comes to them via the interaction of light with retinal cells. - I.e. how is the 3D perception of the world achieved.
    ---------------------
    * "It" is the explosion that lasted only 10 or 20 thousand years and essentially eliminated all of the other humanoid forms, which had waxed and waned for many millions of years without any one becoming dominate in that much longer period. I.e. Why this sudden "instability" that allow one group to dominate so quickly after much longer period of mutual co-existence with only slow changes?

    **For my answer, See:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...6&postcount=52
    Especially first two paragraphs of proof point(3).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2008
  20. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Because of the Toba Event reducing humanity to just a couple thousand pairs worldwide, we are all very inbred from that time on at least - including Africa.
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Certainly. But the proper classification of this hypothesis is "speculation," is it not? It does not quite fall into the realm of "extraordinary claims" that must be accompanied immediately by extraordinary evidence before we are even obligated to take them seriously. Nonetheless, since we are already aware of this claim, a rigorous scientist would not raise its profile, but rather only attract enough attention to it to ensure that it is not forgotten, until new evidence is discovered to justify pursuing it further.
    Sure. As I already complained, scientific terminology for describing its communication and other management processes ranges from awful to non-existent. "Done deal," "true beyond a reasonable doubt," "canonical theories," why do I have to scavenge slang, borrow legal terms, or simply make up my own, to describe "the assignment to a theory of a comfortably low probability of ever being falsified," which phrase itself is still my own description of one of the most important processes in science from the perspective of laymen?
    You're probably being imprecise in your terminology because "hominid" applies to the entire Hominidae family of "great apes." Nonetheless it is true that the origin of all great apes--humans, chimpanzess, bonobos, orangutans and the two species of gorilla--appears to be in Africa, where all of the earliest fossils of the ancestral species have been found. The only modern species of hominid living outside of Africa besides H. sapiens is the orangutan, which interestingly enough appears to have followed the same migratory path out of Africa as our own ancestors, hugging the southern shoreline of Asia until it reached Oceania. The "lesser apes," the Hylobatidae family of gibbons, also leave evidence of an African origin although they have migrated more widely eastward. Even though the Cercopithicidae superfamily of Old World Monkeys has spread throughout Africa and Asia, the origin of Hominoidea, the ancestral line of both greater and lesser apes, which sprang from the Old World Monkeys, appears to be firmly established in Africa.

    Given all of this, the origin of genus Homo, which is clearly a split-off from Pan, the genus containing the two species of chimpanzees, both of which (and the fossils of their ancestors) are found only in Africa, is quite reasonably assumed to be in Africa as well.
    H. sapiens and neanderthalensis share a small amount of DNA. The origin is as yet controversial.
    Yes. The Journey of Man notes that once the ancestors of the American Indians found their way past the glaciers of Ice Age subarctic North America, they established communities throughout the entirety of North and South America within only eight hundred years.
    They had to have boats. Even with the lowered sea levels of the Ice Age there was no walkway to Oceania.
    The rough period occurred for the mountain lion ("cougar," "puma," etc.) in historical times as human settlement separated their range into isolated habitats and hunting decreased their population.
    Since this is turning into a "hard science" discussion of biology, it should be noted that the tiger is one species, Panthera tigris of a genus that also includes the lion, P. leo, in the family of "cats," Felidae. The various types of tigers are subspecies--or even merely populations--which can interbreed freely if juxtaposed. Tigers and lions are genetically capable of interbreeding but their divergent courtship rituals (tiger hormones are stimulated by being clawed, whereas it just pisses off lions) generally prevent it outside of captivity or A.I.
    As a linguist, I have a legitimate interest in the migratory routes because obviously they have a great bearing on the burning questions of my (amateur) discipline. We're still struggling to decide when the technology of language might have been invented, and we look for ancient words invented for conditions and lifeforms encountered in a specific region where our ancestors lived to see how far back our ancestral languages can be traced. This requires massively parallel computing to develop hypothetical phonetic shifts, and it helps greatly to know where those regions were and what conditions and lifeforms we should concentrate on.

    Presumably anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, historians of technology and other specialists all have their own reasons to be curious about the journeys of our ancestors. Still, judging from the tone of the comments on SciForums, when laymen express the same concern it does seem to be motivated by the atavistic tribal rivalry we call racism.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2008
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is a very valid point. Certainly, linguists do have reason to be interested in where various goups were at various times that are not reflecting hidden biases as I suggested might be the main origin of the interest in LOCATION for the out of Africa event. (I still tend to think that those who reject the overwheling and diverse evidence for the African origins of modern man, do have this hidden bias. Typically such strong irrational rejection of diverse evidence all reaching the same conclusion is due to a bias of some sort.)

    I am also under the impression that linguists were among the first, if not the first, to conclude that man came from Africa. - i.e. did it long before any genetic analysis tools existed to come to the same conclusion. I even seem to recall that the historic development of words "wagon" and "water" played a large part in this conclusion. Is my memory correct?
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Sorry, my edit and your question crossed in the ether. It's only been in recent decades that the Nostratus theory even gained respectability--the notion that all non-African language families are related. Until now we've had no reason to assume that the many language families identified so far are related at all, so linguistics gave us no clue as to the ultimate origin of mankind. Even now we have no convincing evidence that any language was developed more than about 15,000 years ago, well into the out-of-Africa diaspora. Just some tantalizing hypotheses, churned out by our overworked computers, which still could turn out to be coincidences.

    What you're referring to are the discoveries that gave rise to the identification of the Indo-European language family around 200 years ago, by correlating Sanskrit with Latin and Greek. Remember that "wagons" have wheels, and the wheel is a quite modern technology... on a 50,000-year timeline.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page