Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Unfortunately the issue you describe with textbooks, especially in elementary schools or rural school districts with a smaller tax base that leaves them short on funding. It's too bad because unless someone decides to go to college and even then it may depend on what courses you take or the program you're in, but you may be walking around with information that's been outdated for many years sometimes.

As for Columbus, his name in Italian was Colombo. Columbus is just an anglicanization of the Itallian which is pretty common. In Italy what we call Rome is Roma for example.




posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
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, from now on then I'm just going to say that men came from an asteroid that crashed into the Earth, and managed to jump off just before it hit. I like that theory, because it's very dramatic and also fun.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar


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






Really?


The Channel is of geologically recent origins, having been dry land for most of the Pleistocene period. It is thought to have been created between 450,000 and 180,000 years ago by two catastrophic glacial lake outburst floods caused by the breaching of the Weald–Artois anticline, a ridge that held back a large proglacial lake in the Doggerland region, now submerged under the North Sea. The flood would have lasted for several months, releasing as much as one million cubic metres of water per second. The cause of the breach is not known but may have been an earthquake or the build-up of water pressure in the lake. The flood carved a large bedrock-floored valley down the length of the Channel, leaving behind streamlined islands and longitudinal erosional grooves characteristic of catastrophic megaflood events.[6][7] It destroyed the isthmus that connected Britain to continental Europe, although a land bridge across the southern North Sea would have existed intermittently at later times after periods of glaciation resulted in lowering of sea levels.[8]

en.m.wikipedia.org...
edit on 20-8-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
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?

Arcane articles? I'm a little confused... Arcane means secret or mysterious knowledge known or knowable only
to the initiated and these articles are easily located. The last article I linked was from Archaeology Magazine, a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America which is affiliated with the American Journal of Archaeology, a journal filled with peer reviewed papers. The date is correct because the data has been appropriately peer reviewed. What would you prefer I use for citations? The ICR?


Out of all Out of Arica theories, I have not seen anyone that suggests that we migrated 2 million years ago.


Then you haven't actually researched the matter. I don't mean to be rude but this is pretty basic stuff covered in freshman year Anthro 101 courses nationwide. Again, as I stated previously, it wasnt so much us as it was our predecessors. There's a geologic distance of over a million and a half years between "Us" leaving Africa and H. Erectus leaving Africa long before we were us.

simple.m.wikipedia.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...




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


humanities.exeter.ac.uk...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.iaalocal.bham.ac.uk...

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Where do Black Africans fit into this? Because modern day media and history teaches that Black Africans were stupid and tribal savages?



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: knightsofhonor
Where do Black Africans fit into this? Because modern day media and history teaches that Black Africans were stupid and tribal savages?


Your first sentence kinda fits this subject; the second one doesn't at all. However, based on the time frames 'Black Africans' probably didn't exist nor did any other recognizable race (to us today) exist in the time frame looked at in this paper, 130,000 and 75,000 years ago. You are looking at about 6,500 generations.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
However, based on the time frames 'Black Africans' probably didn't exist nor did any other recognizable race (to us today) exist in the time frame looked at in this paper, 130,000 and 75,000 years ago. You are looking at about 6,500 generations.


Wouldn't it be a fairly safe bet that the EMH inhabiting Africa would have had dark skin given the climate and their status as a native species to the region? Was the climate different enough that the dark "black" skin we see in African humans today would not have existed?



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: sidhedarkness

originally posted by: Hanslune
However, based on the time frames 'Black Africans' probably didn't exist nor did any other recognizable race (to us today) exist in the time frame looked at in this paper, 130,000 and 75,000 years ago. You are looking at about 6,500 generations.


Wouldn't it be a fairly safe bet that the EMH inhabiting Africa would have had dark skin given the climate and their status as a native species to the region? Was the climate different enough that the dark "black" skin we see in African humans today would not have existed?


Not necessarily. Particularly in the time period after we first lost the majority of our body hair. A good correlation would some of the other non human primates, Chimpanzees for example are our closest primate relatives. They have no pigmentation at all beneath their fur. It would have required many generations of adaptation for darker pigments to beco,e encoded into the DNA of the majority of the people living in those niches. The environment, particularly when the continent had far more savannah than it does now, was certainly milder with fluctuations between glacial maximums . While not a definitive answer, another corollary exists in that all human babies regardless of parentage, are in fact born quite pale. This could very well be a vestigial trait somewhat in the way people are occasionally born with small tails or webbing between fingers and or toes. Some other studies suggest that most people prior to the most recent out of Africa exodus likely had a more "caramel" collection similar to those of North Africans or Midde Eastern descent.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

That makes sense. A friend of mine has a black brother (his mom is Russian as far as genetics are concerned) and at one point she remarked that when Andrew was born you could watch the color seep into him.

Though from what I've heard humans have been mostly hairless since... Homo erectus (top of my head there, I majored in Cultral Anthropology so archaic humans are a late game subject of interest for me) so I would imagine there was enough time for pigment to show up. Caramel coloration actually makes a lot of sense.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: sidhedarkness

I have to admit that I did make one error in my earlier reply to you. In chimpanzees, they are not all devoid of pigmentation beneath their hair. Depending on which geographical group they are from they actually have varying degrees of pigmentation in them much like modern day humans do. I can't say for certain if this pattern in their pigmentation is a newer phenomenon similar to how it has displayed in humans or if its been the case for all or most of their evolutionary history. I tried looking for a journal, paper or article to point me in the right direction but was pretty exhausted and passed out on the couch with ma laptop. Ill try to find something today to see if tyre are any papers that correlate chimpanzee pigmentation with a time frame or a compare and contrast with other hominids. I appreciate the reply with a personal anecdote and glad my response made sense and you were able to draw a parallel from personal experience that made the point come off clearly.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
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.



The discovery of the viking settlement at L'Anse Aux Meadows was not common knowledge nor commonly accepted as valid until MUCH later than the discovery itself. I can recall writing a research paper in 1977 which, in doing the research for it, was the first time I had ever heard of the find, and it was being contested and supressed then. At that time, the "Viking Discovery of North America" was the subject of crackpot theories, not taken seriously by the scientific community. Most of the research paper was a treatment of the old viking and Icelandic sagas in support of what was then a very unpopular theory.

Being "in school in 1961" would have little to nothing to do with knowledge of what was, back then, a controversial and unaccepted theory. It was not being taught in schools. The discoveries at Richmond, Va. and the Barnstable peninsula of MA are STILL unaccepted, as are the various "runestones" allegedly found around the North American continent.

Old prejudices die hard, and acceptance upon discovery has not been the norm throughout scientific history - only in the recollections of those who were not around at the time to even be able to recall such.

"Out of Africa" is just the current politically-correct vogue. No telling what will be "accepted theory" 30 years from now, but I strongly suspect that "Out of Africa" will have fallen by the wayside, perhaps in favor of the "Multiregional Hypothesis" - or maybe something else altogether.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
We evolved from Chickens. I was called a chicken a few times when I was young, now look at me, I evolved to a mouse.





new topics




 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join