Discussion in 'Human Science' started by timojin, Jul 5, 2017.
Why would they have to go back to Africa if they were already there?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Who assumes that H. heidelbergensis went to Africa?
H. heidelbergensis evolved in Africa and some migrated out of Africa.
How do you know this?
Where was oldest heidelbergensis fossil found?
Ethiopia.. In the Awash River valley.
Fossils from Gran Dolina in Spain date to 800,000 years old, and may be Homo heidelbergensis
I like to throw an other question : How come the Asian population is high and was high, and the African relatively low , compared to the Black Asian , Of Australian and Borneo Does really, Would really black African moving to a higher parallel lose its pigmentation ?
That was the Homo antecessor fossils..
They were much smaller than H. heidelbergensis, with a smaller cranium capacity. They also used stone tools, whereas H. heilderbergensis used more sophisticated tools, like spears.
Homo heidelbergensis were thought to have evolved around 700,000 years or so ago? Possibly a bit earlier than that? H. antecessor evolved over 1 million years ago.
High and low what?
Your sentences make absolutely no sense.
And for the last time, white skin appeared less than 10,000 years ago. Prior to that, H. sapiens in Europe had dark to black skin. If I have to say this to you one more time, I am going to issue you with an infraction for trolling, because this has been pointed out to you numerous times and you still keep ignoring it. Enough is enough.
perhaps, perhaps not
This is a controversial species designation. Most researchers consider these to be part of an early and variable Homo heidelbergensis population.
In which case they are not from the later and different population from which sapiens appears to have evolved directly. In Africa.
Nobody is quarreling with the fact that several species of hominid lived outside of Africa for a very long time before H sapiens emerged, spread, and took over.
Perhaps, perhaps not
The point was that the earliest currently known heidelbergensis was in europe.
Where heidelbergensis evolved remains unknown/uncertain, however if we go with the earliest known as the source of the population, then, europe may be the cradle
30-40 years ago, it was assumed that heidelbergensis had evolved into heidelbergensis by about 1.2 million years ago, with the most likely antecessor being erectus
If memory serves, the early date was extrapolated from assumed dates of similar stone tool culture.
Read your situation: There is said the word PRESUMED TO HAVE DARK SKIN. That is far from fact
about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
Neanderthal was wandering in Europe for thousand of year. Assume he come of Africa ( it is not ) and was black, after been several 100000 years in Europe , following the point he must have lost the dark pigmentation : therefore he must be white.
The argument of 10000 years is good for you but not for me . Keep on reading you might learn how to rationalise and not to be a yes woman.
And you should read the various links that I have provided, numerous times, which spell out exactly how they know this.
Lighter skin appeared less than 10,000 years ago in Europe. DNA evidence supports this. Not only that, but human fossils found dating to before 10,000 lacked the genes that resulted in lighter skin and instead, they had the genes that resulted in darker skin. Light to white skin colour is a more recent phenomenon, most likely brought about by the change in diet and the climate. If you have DNA evidence that shows that they had white skin 40,000 years ago, then you should contact scientists, because the latest they have been able to find dates to less than 10,000 years ago... Through studying their DNA.
I kid you not timojin, you have a major issue with skin colour and it is staining every single one of your posts in this sub-forum. If you cannot get it under control, I will moderate you. Because it is leading you to make absolutely stupid statements with no basis in factual reality.
Your ancestors were black. Deal with it.
DNA does not lie. And Neanderthals were known (again, through DNA evidence!) to have a variety of skin colour, much like H. sapiens are varied in that regard.
There's no perhaps about the current appearance of things.
Homo sapiens appears to have evolved in Africa, most likely from or associated with the H heidelbergensis known to have been in Africa at the indicated time. That's what the evidence points to, and there's quite a bit of it. If it's all wrong, ok, but that's not a good bet.
The Khoi-San/bushmen are not that dark skinned, not even quite "black", and, apparently, they can stand the sun just as well as the more darker, "blacker", skinned peoples. Darker skin in humans also has some correlation with dense forests, which are themselves a protection against sunlight. That alone would then predict the opposite pattern for this extreme end of pigmentation. But there's the theory that pigmentation also helps as a barrier to some microbial infections, that would be more common in the tropical forest, less so in savannah, and even less so in temperate climates.
Earlier sapiens people out of Africa could theoretically have been of all the variation from not-quite-black, to even definitely black. As long as the earlier immigrants had enough vitamin D sources in their diet, they would not go extinct. Possibly not even automatically even if they didn't have, even though it would reduce fitness/offspring, and therefore lighter skin would be eventually advantageous. I think there had been some reports over the last five years or so of the genetic finding that an early European individual who was "dark skinned" but blue eyed. I don't remember if they've specified how dark was the skin.
Although initially it was apparently rejected, it seems that further inspections led to the conclusion that at least one allele for fairer skin (I'm not sure if Euro-middle-eastern or just Asian) was actually inherited from neanderthals.
That seems to be very unexpected from what I think is our more war-wager anthropological record. Even though scarcity increases conflict, it's not like there's no tribal warfare otherwise, that in relative abundance we're communist hippies sharing the Earth. Sapiens literally canibalizes sapiens when there's no need for it.
Sapiens and neanderthals becoming pals for team endeavors seems anathema to anthropology. I think that the best analog to more or less pacific overlap would be both encounters between chimpanzees and gorillas, exploring somewhat different niches, and therefore not as competitive as different bands of the same species, or even hybrid areas between baboon species, of more overlapping niches. Which probably begins to be a bit too rapey to still call it "pacific".
They don't live on the equator, and they tan - like all but the very darkest people.
The closer to the equator and the closer to the ocean or big water, the darker the skin, and the less important seasonal tanning becomes - as a rule. The modern San are a ways from the equator, and mostly a ways from the ocean - not fishermen or boat builders - so they likely need a bit more D from sunlight when they can get it.
They were all of the US black race - according to every single piece of evidence and reasoning we have.
Separate names with a comma.