Before they left Africa, early modern humans were 'culturally diverse'

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Hanslune

Since when do we have to choose something else to believe in just because we do not believe in a present theory. Isn't it good enough to say that it really doesn't matter where man came from?

Well one could throw up ones hands and say nothing matters but the search for answers and the truth is something Man has been doing for tens of thousands of years, why stop now or limit the search?

I was curious!

Yeah, man is both curious and needs something to do. I just think that some things are more important than others. I like archeology and paleontology, but I just question some of the stuff that is said after examining their evidence. Before I started to look at the evidence, I was quiet as a mouse and did not question it at all. I see more than one way much of this evidence can be applied and also know that for many centuries that a lot of evidence that did not fit the perspective of the time was discounted or destroyed. This evidence was not properly marked for further analysis and discarded. Now we are left with looking for evidence that has never been distorted. It is hard because people have looted or disturbed these sites for thousands of years...because of our curiosity and need for something to do.

a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

Kill or be killed chest thumping huh? Seems to be a bit of an anachronistic look at archaic modern humans, HS and HSS. the fact that there is 50,000 years worth of physical and genetic evidence that Neanderthal and modern humans cohabitated and buried their dead together indicates the opposite and that there was not just cooperation but the feeling of familial ties. You don't bury your loved ones in the same places as those who are raping, killing, pillaging and burning their way across the area as they attempt to take over your geographic niche.

originally posted by: rickymouse
It doesn't really matter where we came from originally anyway, except in the minds of those who believe it.

Why would you say that? Is it belief or faith or is it based on facts? And it kind of does matter to those who actually study where we came from lol...

a reply to: Xtrozero

I should have written : It doesn't really matter where we came from originally anyway, except in the minds of those who believe it does.

Instead of: It doesn't really matter where we came from originally anyway, except in the minds of those who believe it.

I guess I assumed that people would think it said the same thing but I guess I was wrong.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Instead of: It doesn't really matter where we came from originally anyway, except in the minds of those who believe it.

I guess my point is, why would anyone believe otherwise since we have tangible proof that we came out of Africa. Anything else is speculation, faith or just a wild ass guess.

When we look at Lucy she was not human as we talk about a species. Lucy looked like a chimp, but had opposable thumbs and hips that allowed for up right walking as a natural way to travel, so outside of that Lucy was not human in anyway. When we go back far enough there was no "man", only precursors to man.

At some point man became man and as of today there isn't anywhere on the planet of precursors to man outside of Africa, so it is not that one would just believe it is true it is fact whether one believes or not. Your use of the word "believe" suggests that there are other options, and there are none, so either you except that fact or make up a fantasy of where humans evolved from.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If we came from Africa, then how do they manage to find human footprints in the UK from 800,000 years ago? How did they get there? Read about the history of England.

a reply to: np6888

From an earlier wave of ancestors or 'cousins' of HSS probably out of Africa.

'People' were moving all over the land mass of the 'old world'.

a reply to: np6888

Easy, they are from Homo Antecesor. H. Antecesor was in Europe from 1.2 MYA until approx. 800,000 years ago and is a likely intermediary between H. Ergastor and H. Heidelbergensis or possibly an archaic Heidelbergensis. heidelbergensis flourished in Europe from around 600,000 until around the time of Neanderthal. Instead of telling someone else to "go read England's history" perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual research behind the find.

m.nydailynews.com...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Epic discussion of the path of man in this thread I love it.

As to us being culturally diverse even back then, does not surprise me in the slightest, us homo sapiens always want to believe what we want and follow those who share the same ideas, case and point this thread and discussion. We have not changed

Also if some of you don't believe it doesn't matter where we came from and are trying to slam others for caring about it, you have strayed into the wrong thread.



A decent picture I saw the other day I thought I'd share. I'm sure most of you have seen it or similar ones.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So saying I don't think we really know the answer to this is speculation?

You said a truth, we have tangible proof. But to state that conclusions off this evidence are always correct is not science. All it states is there is some evidence to show that we may have originated in Africa. If they really searched in another area with an open mind, they might find that this is false. But right now, consensus is becoming that we came from Africa so attention will go towards gathering evidence from there and other areas will just be researched for evidence that is more recent.

Our beliefs steer the research. Although I see that focus is needed, sometimes over focusing on one thing makes it impossible to see everything else.

I am by no means saying we did not come out of Africa, I am saying that the proof is not adequate that we did. If you keep looking at what you believe is true, you tend to look for things to reinforce your beliefs. That last sentence does apply to everything done by people in this world, including many of those in the sciences.

a reply to: Sparta

Another technology which shows just how diverse culturally we were are the languages man spoke when he began to write down his thoughts. Many were unrelated (that we can determine) and deemed language isolates. It takes a while for a language to become so changed it cannot be determined from which common root language it came from (I've seen estimates from 6,000 to 20,000 years).

There are about a 100 known isolates so those cultures were distinct from their surrounding for quite awhile.

a reply to: rickymouse

Which is why those new to the field or lone wolves incessantly seek new areas of study. To gain recognition, tenure, grants, book deals, textbook writing contracts you need to show you can find something new.

That is as true today as it was two hundred years ago.

We remember the Leakey's, Goodall, Johanson, Hrdlicka(sp?), and Dart, they found important stuff I can list a whole slew of names that nobody knows except historians of early Paleoanthropology - why? They didn't find anything particularly interesting or make up a good theory.

That is the way it goes.

a reply to: Hanslune

Yeah, new blood that doesn't buy into the restrictions that the science has inappropriately set is good most time. There is a lot of good that comes from archeology, especially learning to respect the wishes of the ancient people who left these time capsules for us to dig up and evaluate.

I do think Archeology is very important and interesting, I just don't like when they start pushing some theories as reality. When I say it really doesn't matter, I am talking about them pushing stuff like the "out of Africa" theory, not archeology itself. I actually read a lot of the research and conclusions.

I know that the conclusions could change and a new one can replace it. I have seen this quite often in my life. People who said Vikings were here earlier than Columbus were laughed at when I was in school. When I was in school Columbus discovered America and the Indians that lived in it. Seems to me the credit should be given to the ancestors of the Indians. But they still teach that Columbus discovered America to this day, giving credit to the wrong people.

a reply to: peter vlar

Out of Africa theory says that we went out of Africa 150,000-200,000, latest is 400,000 years. How can it be another one, or you're saying they migrated multiple times? If so, where are the stone tools from Africa that date back to 800,000 years? Furthermore, how did they get to the UK?

And if we didn't come from Africa, then how did we or Homo Antecesor evolve, as apes don't exist outside of Africa. Don't just bring up stuff without examining the details.

a reply to: rickymouse

In text books they often displayed 'as the truth on the ground' the present dominant theory, but part of scientific training is to realize that all theories are subject to change if new data comes in.

Columbus did bring the two worlds together, others may have come but their discovery was never broadcast out so that it sunk into to either side, the information was lost.

You must be old if you were at school before 1961. However back then it would have taken 3-5 years for it make it into school text books.

Inuit were discovering the old and new world on a daily basis for thousands of years!

The fact is, evolutionary theory doesn't hold, when you examine the details and used in conjunction with other evidence/theories. On the other hand, evolutionists managed to disprove one part of the Bible, which wasn't even accurate, as the Bible says nothing about the Earth being 6000 years old. Even the DNA-similarity argument doesn't work, as it is my belief that our DNA is actually a quaternary language or Morse code, and most of them are instructions for us on how to evolve, which is why if they're mostly similar or exactly alike, it still doesn't prove anything.

And to me, whoever manages to decipher it shall possess the power of the Nephilims(quote inspired by Juggernaut's character).

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

Out of Africa theory says that we went out of Africa 150,000-200,000, latest is 400,000 years. How can it be another one, or you're saying they migrated multiple times?

Yes, there were multiple migrations of hominids out of Africa. Homo Erectus left nearly 2 million years ago and the earliest remains in Europe for H. Erectus are 1.8 MYA

If so, where are the stone tools from Africa that date back to 800,000 years? Furthermore, how did they get to the UK?

Oldest stone tools in Africa are around 2-2.5 million years old These people got to UK by walking. The English Channel is a pretty recent geological addition as UK was connected to the mainland by what is called Doggerland until about 7000 BPE
archive.archaeology.org...

And if we didn't come from Africa, then how did we or Homo Antecesor evolve, as apes don't exist outside of Africa. Don't just bring up stuff without examining the details.

This part made me laugh. I've examined the details for over 20 years first as a curiosity and later it was the basis of my education. I never said WE don't come from Africa. I said the footprints dated to 800,000-1 million BPE were not ours they belonged to H. Antecesor. Didn't you read the links I included? Just like most other members of the genus Homo, all starting points can be traced back to H. Erectus. That's why Hans referred to them as our "cousins".We share an ancestry. As for apes... Do you know what an ape actually is? Because right now Orangutan, one of the great apes, is alive and well in Asia. Additionally, there were several species of Apes who lived in Europe for nearly 20 million years with the last of them going extinct as the forest's face way to savannah. Apes were never exclusive to Africa In fact the oldest primates got their start in Asia.

originally posted by: np6888
The fact is, evolutionary theory doesn't hold, when you examine the details and used in conjunction with other evidence/theories. On the other hand, evolutionists managed to disprove one part of the Bible, which wasn't even accurate, as the Bible says nothing about the Earth being 6000 years old. Even the DNA-similarity argument doesn't work, as it is my belief that our DNA is actually a quaternary language or Morse code, and most of them are instructions for us on how to evolve, which is why if they're mostly similar or exactly alike, it still doesn't prove anything.

And to me, whoever manages to decipher it shall possess the power of the Nephilims(quote inspired by Juggernaut's character).

Could you elaborate on what it is about evolutionary theory that doesn't hold up? I mean aside from your own lack of research and understanding of the subject which would appear to be based in religious bias seeing as how you think decoding DNA will give the power of the Nephilim like a modern day alchemist. I like that part though.

a reply to: Hanslune

I was six in 61. Our books were old when I was young, they used to use them for years to conserve on money. It seems like they are changing them every year now, the teachers don't even get a chance to get used to them. But that is another subject all together.

Columbus discovered America till I was at least fourteen, then we were told that maybe some other Spanish conquistador was possibly here way before. Heck, Columbus's name isn't even Columbus, it was something like Colon.

a reply to: peter vlar

So basically, you just keep quoting arcane articles to prove your point, how do we know any of this date is correct? Out of all Out of Arica theories, I have not seen anyone that suggests that we migrated 2 million years ago.

And where is the evidence that the UK is connected to the mainland 7000 years ago?