The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
I wonder if we will ever find the "missing link" in our fossil record that I have read about. I also think alot of how fast we evolved......and what factors contributed to it.

There is no "missing link". Every individual ever conceived is a "missing link". Every fossil is a "missing link". So in turn as we find fossils we learn a little more about the process that allow us to evolve but there is no single missing link.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

No respectable professor whom belong to societies built on the foundation of centuries passed down knowledge, want to come forth and admit that most of what they've been teaching, "could" be wrong. So in many cases you find them banning together and shunning out those that have ideas, or proof that falls outside this "standard of knowledge" that they swear by.

You find the same sort of thing in the UFO community. Disregard the fact a pilot could have 20 years under his belt, be a war time hero, ect. They day he comes forth because he sees something strange in the sky that's other worldly and hes branded crazy and is unemployed.

At least that's how I see it. Man is arrogant. Its unfortunate.

Heh every professor I knew would love to have the research and evidence to challenge the status quo. The fact they don't means the data isnt there or the evidence is severly lacking. If evidence does appear, there are plenty that would jump at the chance to make a name for themselves.

a reply to: Cypress

Not really. Not professors who already have books and courses on their theories. Just look at physics. Guys like Hawkings. It took a long time to convince the old blowhards. They want to be the genius with the ideas. Not some young up and coming radical.

I do agree with the missing link comment you made though.

Now here's an interesting Vid.

Published on Jul 29, 2014

The "Out of Africa" theory, or the "African Replacement Hypothesis", argues that every living human being is descended from a small simian group from Africa. This Afrocentric theory of single origin has been completely discredited by the fossil record and recent genetic research, yet it is still embraced and promoted by academia and the liberal media alike. The "Out of Africa" theory is financed and endorsed by the United Nations and is pushed globally in an effort to further a political agenda, not a scientific one.

Recent fossil discoveries in central Asia have already turned the “Out of Africa” theory of human evolution upside down. Now two Russian geneticists show that DNA also disproves the obsolete egalitarian theory. There findings were published in Advances in Anthropology. The entire article can be read online.

a reply to: Triton1128

The first problem with the OP and consequently, the article from which it's title derives, is that while it isn't inaccurate to call the skull in question human, it is inaccurate to portray "human" as being analogous to a Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Any member of the genus Homo is considered human in evolutionary biology/anthropology. This can mean one of dozens of members of our genus who have existed for nearly 3MA.

There were several contemporaneous members of our genus living in Europe and Eurasia 700 KA including h. Antecesor who left their footprints in the sand near Norfolk UK roughly 900 KA. This find does absolutely nothing to OOA.

The data that points all arrows back to Africa isn't just the fossil record anymore. With the degree of coverage available in genetic testing, the time frames and the routes are now traceable with a much better degree of accuracy and it only keeps getting better.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Surely this only proves how inaccurate the methods science uses to date anything

Let's see your unequivocal proof that scientific dating methods are inaccurate, then.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

No respectable professor whom belong to societies built on the foundation of centuries passed down knowledge, want to come forth and admit that most of what they've been teaching, "could" be wrong. So in many cases you find them banning together and shunning out those that have ideas, or proof that falls outside this "standard of knowledge" that they swear by.

[sarcasm] Exactly. For example, that's why Plate Tectonics isn't accepted these days[/sarcasm]

Stop talking out of your arse...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Surely this only proves how inaccurate the methods science uses to date anything

It's all conjecture and theory in a belief that is considered a fact

They don't know, neither do we and some of you are squabbling over the unknown

I know that you certainly don't know.
You've constantly exhibited this opinion despite the information you've been supplied.

You, sirrah, are willfully ignorant.

a reply to: peter vlar

Meh maybe.

They also have had to change quite a bit of timelines even after they thought they had better conclusions from their data points from paleontological evidence that gets found.

I think we are losing scientific critical thinking by growing up following directions. My wife is an academic who works at a university. We just went to a lecture on the lack of good research scientists because everybody is growing up watching YouTube instead of working through problems.

You have studies set up not to prove whether or not a theory is true but to prove a theory is true or false. They collect data for their intention and disregard data that conflicts their hypothesis.

It's not that I disagree we have better methods. I just think the conclusion of what the data means is not necessarily any better and possibly getting worse.

I think inter breeding of species produces hybrids in most cases in nature. I think saying humans came from Africa is an overly simplistic explanation and does not explain at all how we came to be what we are right now. It's more a gradual change than all of a sudden.

I think in the last 30 years scientists who believed they knew found out they had only a fraction of the explanation and the presumption was wrong. I imagine more of that is in store.

Can you explain why eve is placed in east Africa and if that is definite, probable, possible, or assumed because of corresponding fossil evidence?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

Can you explain why eve is placed in east Africa and if that is definite, probable, possible, or assumed because of corresponding fossil evidence?

The question that should be asked is why is Y chromosonal Adam placed in Central or Northwestern Africa at a date BEFORE Mitochondrial Eve? That invites inquisition

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

Can you explain why eve is placed in east Africa and if that is definite, probable, possible, or assumed because of corresponding fossil evidence?

The question that should be asked is why is Y chromosonal Adam placed in Central or Northwestern Africa at a date BEFORE Mitochondrial Eve? That invites inquisition

I have several theories.

1. They don't understand the data points.

2. That is what they centered their study around. It was set up to find those conclusions to prove a theory

3. Subconscious biblical justification. A Jesuit priest founded genetics.

4. Most of human paleontogy is centered around Africa because Asia is reclusive and human culture centered in less stable enviornments for preserving evidence.

5. We don't understand dna enough even though we know more than we used to. Especially about ancient dna. No para groups being discovered for Eurasian "adam" does not mean they won't be found.

6. We have not come close to finding enough fossil evidence of past human species to understand the DNA coding to draw conclusive theories.

7. It's also possible the ooa 2 theory is true but overly simplified to fit into a neat compact theory easily explained in a three word phrase.

originally posted by: awareness10

Now here's an interesting Vid.

Published on Jul 29, 2014

The "Out of Africa" theory, or the "African Replacement Hypothesis", argues that every living human being is descended from a small simian group from Africa. This Afrocentric theory of single origin has been completely discredited by the fossil record and recent genetic research, yet it is still embraced and promoted by academia and the liberal media alike. The "Out of Africa" theory is financed and endorsed by the United Nations and is pushed globally in an effort to further a political agenda, not a scientific one.

Recent fossil discoveries in central Asia have already turned the “Out of Africa” theory of human evolution upside down. Now two Russian geneticists show that DNA also disproves the obsolete egalitarian theory. There findings were published in Advances in Anthropology. The entire article can be read online.

I think it's interesting too. However a lot of his work is self published. I don't think that inherently means he is a quak but to proceed with some caution. There is definitely a fraternity mentality with science sometimes so an open mind is also needed and creative critical thinking is very important.

a reply to: aorAki

No it's called recalcitrant to the blatant lie that evolution is a science never mind proven

It's ok I accept your religious faith in evolution

Me I will await real valid evidence as opposed to flies turning into flies, a few scattered bones and dating that can't tell the difference between a living snail and a fossil thousands of years old

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Surely this only proves how inaccurate the methods science uses to date anything

Let's see your unequivocal proof that scientific dating methods are inaccurate, then.

Why, you can access plenty of information sites, though due to your anti Christian bias you will ignore it for some reason

I am not playing silly games

a reply to: Raggedyman

Funny.

You try and frame the issue as non-Christians vs. Christians, when in fact the overwhelming majority of Christians accept the science in question and view you and your sort as fundamentalist nutters.

The OOA theory is kinda... well stupid and ignorant. It's like saying the pyramids are only 4000 years old or believing in cavemen.They could've well been populations seeking refuge for an alien invasion...hmm... i mean catastrophic event.
As well as the tools found near the pyramids, which aren't proof they were used to build them imo. Maybe they were used to plunder them.
The same counts for saying the earth is only 6000 years old.
Misinterpretation is much to common within humanity.

Civilizations are built upon civilizations literally, evidence gets lost, washed away, destroyed, etc . All organic matter will eventually turn into dust or soil.
There still are many acres left on earth (not to mentions on the seafloor and under the ice) that are still unexplored and could well bare evidence of much older cultures.

There have been tons of discussions and disagreements on the method of dating inside the science world (not just religion)

a reply to: GetHyped
Really, prove it
I double dare you

Both statements

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

Meh maybe.

Which part maybe? That OOA is accurate?

They also have had to change quite a bit of timelines even after they thought they had better conclusions from their data points from paleontological evidence that gets found.

Getting better information should never be marginalized as if the new data represents an analogue towards prior work being flawed. I always scratch my head when people try to make the point that self correction is tantamount to poor or biased work.

I think we are losing scientific critical thinking by growing up following directions. My wife is an academic who works at a university. We just went to a lecture on the lack of good research scientists because everybody is growing up watching YouTube instead of working through problems.

Based on interactions on ATS, I would agree that people who shore up their opinions with a plethora if YouTube videos and citation less quote mines is endemic in this current day. I do however think that this is just one small part of the problem with finding qualified researchers. Financial incentives aren't really there unless you're working in the private sector and to do that, your eligible fields are greatly reduced.

You have studies set up not to prove whether or not a theory is true but to prove a theory is true or false. They collect data for their intention and disregard data that conflicts their hypothesis.

Can you give examples of this? If peer review is actually done properly, issues of that nature are quickly found. One small thing though, in science, you're proving hypothesis true or false. If so,etching is at the point of scientific theory, the facts are fairly incontrovertible and have been reviewed and scrutinized.

It's not that I disagree we have better methods. I just think the conclusion of what the data means is not necessarily any better and possibly getting worse.

This is why we have the peer review process. If the methodology can not reproduce the same results, then the hypothesis is t going much farther.

I think inter breeding of species produces hybrids in most cases in nature. I think saying humans came from Africa is an overly simplistic explanation and does not explain at all how we came to be what we are right now. It's more a gradual change than all of a sudden.

I don't think anyone in Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology or Paleoanthropology would disagree with any of the above aside from OOA being overly simplistic. I think if you do the reading, you'll find that few in Anthropology will talk about a simplified family tree analogy for human evolution,union and will find far more references to it bring a bush with overlapping branches or a braided stream. There is nothing simple about the history of the genus Homo. The fact is though that DNA corroborates the fossil and geologic records pertaining to the origins of humanity in Africa. As far as this specific skull, I can say quite definitively from looking at the photos of it that it is not a H. Sapiens Sapiens and does in fact have a combination of features including the occipital bun and supraorbital ridge of a Neanderthal with facial features more in line with H. Heidelbergensis or H. Erectus. It also follows predictions made regarding what cranial morphology would be expected at this point in time in European prehistory.

I think in the last 30 years scientists who believed they knew found out they had only a fraction of the explanation and the presumption was wrong. I imagine more of that is in store.

Of course it is. 30 years ago you would get laughed at for suggesting that Clovis First was a flawed hypothesis and today we know definitively that there were people in S. America prior to the first appearance of Clovis culture in N. America. To me, one of the beauties of this field is that the more we learn, the more new questions appear.

Can you explain why eve is placed in east Africa and if that is definite, probable, possible, or assumed because of corresponding fossil evidence?

Mitochondrial Eve is thought to be from East Africa based on research tracing MtDNA backwards in time while accounting for mutation rates. It's obviously not a definitive, concrete study as the time frame is from 100 KA to 200 KA for when she lived. Could this information change as new data becomes available? Perhaps. It's just as likely that new data will lock MtDNA Eve down to a more specific timeframe and location as well.

At the end of the day though, nothing related to this find has any bearing or impact on OOA and does nothing to bolster multiregionalism.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

Can you explain why eve is placed in east Africa and if that is definite, probable, possible, or assumed because of corresponding fossil evidence?

The question that should be asked is why is Y chromosonal Adam placed in Central or Northwestern Africa at a date BEFORE Mitochondrial Eve? That invites inquisition

Because this is science, not Judeo-Christian tradition. Neither of these People needed to be alive at the same time or in the vicinity of one another to be genetic contributors. Calling them Adam and Eve was probably a horrid idea because it gives people the impression that there really was a single pair of humans that we are all descended from.

The concept of MtDNA Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam is that these 2 individuals are not the only genetic contributors to modern humanity, they were the only 2 individuals who patrilineal and matrilineal limes were not interrupted. You have to keep in mind that roughly 70KA there was a massive genetic bottleneck incident that occurred right around when Toba erupted. This reduced humans to the brink of extinction with as few as 100 breeding pair of humans left on Earth. This event also sped up the eventual demise of Neanderthal and likely Denisovans as well. Y chromosomal Adam and MtDNA Eve were not a couple or breeding pair and were never meant to convey that as being the case. They are simply the oldest, traceable, genetic contributors to have been lucky enough that their genetics persist until today.

a reply to: Raggedyman

What?? Do you live inside a narrow minded echo chamber or something? That would explain a lot.

Either that or you're trolling. No one can be that ignorant, surely.