Re-Examining the "Out Of Africa" Origin of Europeoids

a reply to: penroc3

and i believed it. the time and way it was presented seemed logical.

Never 'buy in' to consensus science ... and you'll never be called a sucker. Do what you have to do to get your grade and move on.

If I ever take a job as a science professor, students will get extra credit for the answer, "I don't know."

As much as we've found to date from remains and items we've still only touched the tip of the iceberg. Snarl I'm going to hold you to that!

I love science and proving things but what we have to date is still just a bunch of people guessing. There is no way neanderthals could have NOT have language or been smart and survived. Lots of that dismissive stuff is still just guess work because we haven't found writing. it's a huge leap (jmo) from not having writing to they must therefore not have had a language.

done ranting....

I believe we have a much longer history than is being accounted for. I'd love to find out more.

a reply to: Caver78

I actually believe the out of africa theory to some degree but like any theory it is simply that a theory, a hypothetical suggestion about the origin's of the various sub race's of man that follow's a less than tenuous trail of breadcrumb's and arrives at one of several possible conclusion's, it is however backed up by one glaring and simple fact.

Outside africa all human's have more genetica commonality and this is shared with the east african's but inside africa there are at least seven strain's of human genome that show marker's with variance not present in all outside african racial group's.

SO?

Having said that it is also possible that it was that africa sheltered these groups while they died off outside of africa and may be indicitive instead evidence of progressive previous wave's INTO africa from another origin point while outside of africa those other genetic strain's were bred out or died out, there is no superiority or inferiority inferred however as climate is the most likely culprit in such a hypothetical scenario.

One other main contender that was considered and is still today thought plausible by many anthropologists is the central asian region though to date the oldest pre neanderthal Hominid, not Human, remain's have been found in Africa followed by then Asia but a similar trail of erratic breadcrumb's is used to support the link's between obviously different species by identifying common trait's and hypothesizing a shared family tree.


Here is a wiki on the multiregional origin hypothesis.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Caver78




Having said that it is also possible that it was that africa sheltered these groups while they died off outside of africa and may be indicitive instead evidence of progressive previous wave's INTO africa from another origin point while outside of africa those other genetic strain's were bred out or died out, there is no superiority or inferiority inferred however as climate is the most likely culprit in such a hypothetical scenario.

Here is a wiki on the multiregional origin hypothesis.
en.wikipedia.org...

Glad you brought this up because I need a refresher? tutorial? on some of this. LOL
I'm not actually bashing archeology for being wrong, as much as I'm frustrated our science and the field of genetics hasn't caught up enough to give better results. Genetics in the grand scheme of things is relatively still in it's infancy.
In reality the answers to the big questions we want, it can't deliver. By that I mean there are more advances to be made which I hope will change things from us depending on theories into us having solid facts.

One aside....I have to say the title of the paper, and the thread has to be the LEAST sexiest, catchy or riveting title I've ever seen!!

Just to add, the Multiregional hypothesis is just another theory, it isn't a case of either or, there are many many possibilities. That is the point. The 'evidence' of any theory so far is miniscule and practically every day /week/ month there are major developments. The surface has only just been scratched. The picture underneath is likely a vast, complex picture that isn't anywhere near as simple as OOA or Multiregional.

Just recently, the genetic timeline of chimps has set back OOA, as have the inclusive Neanderthal DNA of all humans except sub saharan Africans, similarly Denisovan for Aboriginal etc. The 'skin' of the OOA apple is being peeled and is revealing a different fruit entirely.

However it doesn't mean a reversion to Multiregional, it means there could be entirely new hypotheses that are nearer the truth.

Form what I've learned through my personal research over that past few decades is that there is always room for expansion of known theories.

the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject


Just remember, everything including this one is just that until proven to be a fact.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Interestingly, if you look at this map, you will see that the Sons of Noah located as far as East Africa:

It is very simple to see where we originated from. Over time, genetic diversity should increase, so if we can trace our genetics to where it is most simple, then that's where we came from. If it's from the Middle East, then this gives very strong evidence that the Middle East was indeed our origin, and that East Africans descended from the Middle East, not vice versa. West Africans, I think, are an entirely different species of humans altogether, perhaps some kind of alternate species that Yahweh created after the flood that was not mentioned in the Bible, to try to confuse us.

To me, we do have a common ancestor, and his name is Adam(or Noah if you cut off at the point of the flood), not Eve, and all of the various tribes were brothers and sisters of Noah with different looks.

a reply to: np6888

I actually share this belief but trying to shoe horn the belief into the data we have outside of biblical sources is problematic in mainstream science.
But I reiterate that I believe in God.
I actually think Ron Wyatte was correct and for anyone interested in that line of reasoning here is some interesting stuff.
www.icr.org...
www.6000years.org...
Faith and science do not mix well though and perhaps that is the point as knowing without faith would be fruitless but faith is more important.

As near as I can tell from the data we have now is that the early ancestors of man evolved in Africa, spread out - and back and over time variants of these evolved in different areas then recombined with others. a constant, 'sloshing' back and forth.

However, the picture of all of this is confusing and will probably become even more convoluted when the missing contributor is found - as their may be another group beyond that too. All a happy family of HSS and our 'cousins'.

As with most such research issues we are looking at 15-20 years of research before a clearer picture comes into focus.

I think the "out of Africa" idea is partly the result of geographical conditions. While it makes sense that the first hominids originated in Africa, it is known that homo erectus had a wider range. It works like this: fossils are mainly found in sparcely populated, dry areas. Where do American dinosaur fossils come from? From the Western desert. Where do Chinese dinosaur fossils come from? From the Gobi desert. Are there any sparsely populated, dry areas in Europe? No. So where do most genus homo fossils come from? Sparsely populated Africa. You can't dig up towns and farms looking for fossils. I don't buy into the Africa-only concept for genus homo. It seems likely that, with a mastery of fire and stone tools, genus homo would have been spread out to Europe and Asia.

a reply to: Parthin

While fossils and skeletons become rarer in a temperature zone (and harder to find) stone tools can still survive.

This is why caves are so important they act as 'storage bins' documenting ancient man's activities.

Considering that Europeoids are most numerous in Europe, and considering that we know that those Europeoids that live on other continents came from Europe, the most logical assumption is that Europeoids as a race, came from Europe!

Everything else is politically correct idiocy.

a reply to: Hanslune

'Sloshing'....good way to conceptualize it.

To me it seems totally chaotic, hard to pin down from such an incomplete data set. General trends? Maybe.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Hanslune

'Sloshing'....good way to conceptualize it.

To me it seems totally chaotic, hard to pin down from such an incomplete data set. General trends? Maybe.

With constant movement driven by strife and environment plus breeding here, there and everywhere it will take a long time (if ever) to sort it all out, the best bet is to find a site where multiple DNA sources can be found in situ with a very long time line, a super Bolomar site (Bolomar cave has a timeline of occupation covering a 1/4 million years).

a reply to: np6888

West Africans, I think, are an entirely different species of humans altogether, perhaps some kind of alternate species that Yahweh created after the flood that was not mentioned in the Bible, to try to confuse us.

WTF??^^ ..please do tell where does West Africa begin and East Africa ends,you do know that west Africans are former East Africans right??

You do know that this^ once stretched right across Africa from East to West

The lite green part later became this

At about 6-5kyrs B.C .

and only within the last 2000yrs at the most did they broke through the dark green part,they formally avoided the the rain forest of the Congo and to went on colonizing the rest of Africa .

As for the multi-genesis theory it's unlikely that will overturn the single genesis theory anytime soon but some can still hope I guess,what you may find older than anything like modern us outside Africa is the remains of dead enders of a truly different species,not modern us ,modern us are all Kenyans,Ethiopians and South Africans.

If you care about this subject you need to read McBrearty and Brooks, they make a solid case. Simply put, the archaeological and genetic record supports the out of Africa model and more importantly supports the idea that most of what makes us human developed in Africa. This debate is one of the more interesting ones in Archaeology imho. backround


McBrearty, Sally; Brooks, Alison S. (2000). "The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior". Journal of Human Evolution 39 (5): 453–563. doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0435. PMID 11102266.

2005 Brooks, A.S., J.E. Yellen, L. Nevell and G. Hartman. "Projectile technologies of the African MSA: Implications for modern human origins." In E. Hovers and S. Kuhn, eds., Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. New York: Kluwer Academics/Plenum.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

isnt it all suppositions on human origin just theory?
I mean you can't say its fact unless you have ALL the evidence. And the last time I checked no one was digging up my backyard and I doubt they have been digging up anyone else's
I blame ourselves for not demanding more. In our hunger for knowledge we will embrace even the slightest hint of alternate enlightment.

a reply to: darkintent

Very well said DarkIntent!

In our mad survival mode we've built over all the evidence we need now to answer our "burning questions" and in all honesty no one wants to be dislocated for a "dig". Look at the UK, fortunately as they re do roads and buildings they take the time to record what they're finding underneath.

Because nothing much is assumed to be here in north america we paved over everything and to compound it we don't look very hard either when re-working our infrastructure.

The fossils name 'EVE' were found in Africa. Nothing says we came from the some place...just that that particular set of fossils were found there. Someone jumped the gun to make headlines and get another $ grant.

Africans originally did migrate. In fact, they colonized the world.
This is inarguable as vestiges of the original African populations survive today in what is now Oceana and islands off the coast of Asia.
What is clearly evident, however, is that these earlier hominids were supplanted by subsequent species more adaptive, well equipped and more advantageously evolved.

Sub Saharan Africa, meanwhile, was and is not a desirable environment(especially during glaciation periods where the Saharan expanse widened).
So Africans, as it were, continued to be the sole inhabitants of this continent.

On a few islands off the coast of India, Oceana, and continental Australia, modern versions of the original migrators still survive(although the island populations in particular are nearing extinction).

Example of original Asian population who once ruled the continent now resigned to a few islands off the coast of India long since supplanted by a more adaptable species.
Adamanese:
en.wikipedia.org...

Sentinelese
en.wikipedia.org...

You will notice the primitive stature and manner of these peoples. Still living in a state of arrested development dating to a pre-Neanderthal/Denisovan period.