The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory

a reply to: Barcs

If you follow my postings I clearly start by saying ooa2 and replacement theory. I figured you understood this. I don't dispute there are more bones found in Africa but there is a valid concern with using that as the basis. I know we are studying the genome which is better but we still rely in fossils to inform the sequences.

Altering the timeline is a problem. It means altering the hypothesis and possibly reconsidering what was going on. That is fine. However it shows we are only at the beginning of this research.

Bones are much better preserved in dry places without civilizarions. This can easily be the explanation why there are more bones found from ancient man in Africa.

How did homo sapiens come to be? Why? Why not in the Arabian penisula or Persia when diets and climate changed. Why did ME get placed in Africa? Because of bones? Haplageoups? There are no true genetic markers for geology. Just locations where bones are found and people live currently.

We are a nomadic species. So were our ancestors. I think that is just as much a factor as simply saying we came out Africa. Sure maybe 2 million years ago. When we started interacting with different climates, diseases, interspecies mating, breeding cult practices we mutated. I have trouble seeing after the first wave of early humanoids left Africa millions of years ago that Africa remained the place with the most significant mutations.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

How is neaderthal DNA in Masai tribes and East African tribes?

A back migration from Europe to Africa 3 KA

Obviously if they found a neaderthal from 100kawith human DNA the timeline is wrong.

Not so much. There were Neanderthal and HSS cohabitating in the Levant prior to 100 KA. When the climate in the Middle East became too warm for the HN they moved back North.

The ooa is the timeline of homosapien exit from Africa. It's wrong. And chances are the whole theory is quite off.

It's not off at all though. I see a great deal of protestation from you regarding OOA yet not a single but if evidence to support even a hypothetical origin for Europe or Asia.

I can't believe that was the response from both of you when I presented as being false already.

You presented your opinion that you disbelieve the current paradigm. Your point of view is based on subjective interpretation of context not hard facts. Your interpretation doesn't account for the big picture.

Sure we came out of Africa millions of years ago but that's not the ooa theory now is it.

It depends on how you are interpreting it I suppose. As the current model of OOA is called the "replacement hypothesis" for a reason. Because AMH left Africa and spread across the globe replacing earlier groups of people who still survived. Sometimes through admixture, sometimes through warfare sometimes from disease. And a whole lot of them perished post Toba 70 KA. OOA doesn't adhere to a single migration as you seem to believe. Regarding AMH leaving Africa, there was a definite diaspora between 130-80 KA and another one after Tiva blew it's top 70 KA and from there we see a back and forth or migrations to every point of the globe.Either way, you can't be replacing people who aren't party to your hypothesis or theory.

There is more correlating data showing we exited more than 100ka which puts the theoryat odds with its hypothesis.

Not at all. You will find very few in paleoanthropology who believe there was a single migration event 60-70 KA. Most of us are on the same page regarding multiple migrations and multiple routes of egress.


www.sciencedirect.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Not to mention how much more interbreeding is being found in the last decade as we decipher parts of archaic man's genome

Parts?
We have a complete genomic sample of Neanderthal and Denisovan. We have enough genomic data to know that there is an as yet unidentified species of human from Central Africa. We can determine hairy or and group, determine the level of genetic diversity of a particular group and utilize that data for cross cultural comparisons and come up with a basic map of where when and how groups of people moved around the Earth. You keep going back to admixture events as if they prove your point when nobody is disagreeing that there are admixture events whenever new groups of people meet up.

a reply to: peter vlar

I was referring to the homosapien admixture in the article I gave you from 100,000+ years ago from Siberia. Which in my understanding is not part of the current model.

When the replacement theory was founded they certainly did not think much interbreeding was going on. It's changed so much it barely resembles it's origin.

So now neanderthals went back to Africa? You just said they were never there. It are you talking about homosapiens with the neaderthal DNA?

If ooa was a drug trial it would never reach the shelves. There is simply not enough data to make a hard conclusion. I know you and many paleontologists believe this but I am not convinced and it's not a lack of understanding or because I believe in aliens. It just doesn't make sense to me. To me you are going by the DNA you have which isn't a lot. I mean you just doubled the age of the first interbreeding record with one find overnight.

It's interesting and fascinating but I just can't see physically how this happened to fit the theory. What is the explanation of replacement theory and how it happened?

I mostly read about the bones that were found and then placing a hypothesis together to fill in the blanks. Was there evidence of a major enviornemntal change, a breeding practice, viruses, what caused homosapiens to only occur in Africa and not from other archaic species or the first migrations? Surely the new enviornemnts caused mutarions? A hidden subgroup or parent group of the two?

What would it take to disprove ooa replacement theory? An older set of bones in Arabia or elsewhere? Or would that just push the date back?

I appreciate your patience and honestly am just skeptical and curious. I know it must seem annoying to you but at least I am not talking about Agartha or something. Thank you for debating and allowing me to work through the thought even if you think I am wrong it does make me think and work through beliefs. I am not attacking you as a person or your beliefs I just want to understand this as best I can.

It may not end up convincing to me but I hope you know I don't mean any disrespect towards your field of study.

originally posted by: luthier
Altering the timeline is a problem. It means altering the hypothesis and possibly reconsidering what was going on. That is fine. However it shows we are only at the beginning of this research.

That is how science works, everywhere. They look at the evidence and see where it points. If they find something that conflicts, they modify the hypothesis or discard it. Dates and timelines are frequently altered when new information is discovered. Again, it doesn't change anything in the big picture of OOA.

Bones are much better preserved in dry places without civilizarions. This can easily be the explanation why there are more bones found from ancient man in Africa.

Africa is an incredibly harsh climate and is generally not conducive to fossilization. It has nothing to do with civilizations.

How did homo sapiens come to be? Why?

They evolved from populations of homo heidlebergensis that didn't leave Africa.

Why not in the Arabian penisula or Persia when diets and climate changed.

My guess is because we haven't found any evidence of that. Or have you?

Why did ME get placed in Africa? Because of bones? Haplageoups? There are no true genetic markers for geology. Just locations where bones are found and people live currently.

The earliest known hominid fossils are from Africa. The earliest known homo sapien fossils are from Africa. That is where you get the location. Genes can only give you an idea on the timeline. What you are saying is that humans evolved elsewhere and then migrated to Africa, but that doesn't match the fossil timeline in the least.

I asked you this in an earlier response and it was not answered:

How do you reconcile the fact that sub Saharan African tribes do not have the Neanderthal mix? That makes it even more obvious, that they have not ever left Africa and the timeline of the fossils is accurate.

We are a nomadic species. So were our ancestors. I think that is just as much a factor as simply saying we came out Africa.

That's just a general statement. It doesn't apply to everybody, especially not today. Remember, as I just mentioned above some groups of people did not ever leave Africa. I can't even remember the last time I left the USA.

Sure maybe 2 million years ago. When we started interacting with different climates, diseases, interspecies mating, breeding cult practices we mutated. I have trouble seeing after the first wave of early humanoids left Africa millions of years ago that Africa remained the place with the most significant mutations.

Which mutations are you specifically talking about? You keep speaking in very general terms, but aren't really showing reason to dismiss OOA. There wasn't a sudden Eureka moment when HH became HS, it was just numerous small changes over a large timespan. We designate them as homo sapien up until around 200Kya but that's just an arbitrary estimation.

a reply to: Barcs

I have a sound engineering/acoustics degree I understand science quite well. I also understand theories get overturned as we learn more. This is a very young field of science that relies on the finding of artifacts.

I already told you there are sub Saharan tribes with neaderthal DNA so I don't need to explain anything. The Masai for instance.

Just because I don't have a better theory doesn't mean I have to believe the current model.

I imagine as the archaic humans roamed the earth and mingled came back with new traits and mutations from natural selection and breeding cults, mixed with more humans coming out of Africa the genes kept changing until the combination difference was enough to consider a new species.

I am saying I think the location is completely irrelevant and assumed through the current data which I don't feel is very much.

You act as if we are scouring the earth for bones. We are not. Anthropologists barely get funded. Most fossils are found by complete accident. Many are destroyed through building and progress. It's a hard field of science when you have to play politics to even get a research team into most countries and many don't care to have the headache of building slowed down by having sites declared archeoligical sites.

Africa especially places like Kenya without infrastructure to a big extent are far easier to do this. Especially since there are already fossils that have been found.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

I have a sound engineering/acoustics degree I understand science quite well. I also understand theories get overturned as we learn more. This is a very young field of science that relies on the finding of artifacts.

No offense, but that degree means squat when discussing biology and paleontology. And there is nothing young about OOA, it originated back in the late 1800s, BEFORE the majority of human/hominid fossils were found. Now we have 20+ species and numerous fossils of homo sapiens between 200,000ya and today and all of them point to African origins.

I already told you there are sub Saharan tribes with neaderthal DNA so I don't need to explain anything. The Masai for instance.

Again, I asked you to explain the ones that DO NOT have the Neanderthal DNA. If they evolved outside of Africa and then migrated in, you'd have all the inhabitants with similar DNA markers that show when they interbred and then moved into Africa, but it's clear that some groups never left.

Just because I don't have a better theory doesn't mean I have to believe the current model.

Certainly not, but it shows that you don't have any evidence or logic to suggest OOA is wrong, and you are against it for emotional reasons instead of logical ones. For some reason, there are a good amount of folks that are against OOA because they don't like the fact that their ancestors were African and no other reason. It's like how religious people constantly attack the science of evolution without any logical reason, just because they take an ancient book as literal absolute truth. It's just an appeal to emotion. Otherwise they would at least have a reason for discounting this particular science, while accepting most of the rest.

I am saying I think the location is completely irrelevant and assumed through the current data which I don't feel is very much.

The location is relevant because adaptation and evolution are reliant on adapting to varying environments. There is nothing assumed about it. The fossil timelines paint a certain picture.

You act as if we are scouring the earth for bones. We are not. Anthropologists barely get funded. Most fossils are found by complete accident. Many are destroyed through building and progress. It's a hard field of science when you have to play politics to even get a research team into most countries and many don't care to have the headache of building slowed down by having sites declared archeoligical sites.

You say this, yet we discover a new hominid species every few years. Science has no choice but to follow the evidence, even if you think it's lacking and hard to discover fossils, we HAVE found 20+ different species out there, and will undoubtedly discover more. Funny how out of the thousands of fossils found, not a single one contradicts OOA, when the hypothesis could be falsified by a single fossil discovery.

a reply to: Barcs

Again, it has nothing to do with emotions. It has to do with logic. It may not be the correct logic but it's logic. It's not oh I believe this in my heart. It just know many areas of the world especially humid ones do not preserve bones.

I know they say things like homo sapiens left Africa 65, 70ka and then they find bones that show the migration path isn't accurate and the timeline isn't accurate. (Again Siberian neaderthal with homo sapien 100ka.)

I know they though denisovans were from asia until the found a cave with bones of a hybrid from 400ka. Again the migration and timeline comeplety changed. They said neaderthals were before homo sapiens then found out they were contemporaries and interbread with humans. As the study of DNA continues they find more evidence of admixing and hybridization.

Which subafrican tribes don't have neaderthal DNA? When were they studied? Do they have other archaic human DNA?

How many thousands of bones do we have from outside Africa? Your presumption that we would have found bones by now is ludicrous. Finding new bones that change and alter the theory only proves that there are probably more out there that will alter the theory.

As a scientists will you say there is absolutely no way I could be correct? Will you say that OOA 2, the replacement theory can not be overturned? Every scientist I know says "probably, moat likely, according to the current findings". I have NEVER heard a scientist say OOA is a fact.

The reason I said I had a science background is because you were talking down to me as if I didn't understand "that's how science works".

I also took 1 physical and three cultural anthropology classes (20 years ago). I have two degrees. One is in philosophy. Which may explain my willingness to accept we may not have it figured out.

I have said several times it's the best theory we have right now. So was that matter was densly packed molecules until they invented the electron microscope.

Can you admit anthropology is poorly funded and is not scouring the earth for fossils? Most are found by accident? Many have been destroyed through building projects for the last 5,000 or so years?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

I was referring to the homosapien admixture in the article I gave you from 100,000+ years ago from Siberia. Which in my understanding is not part of the current model.

Interestingly, you were so focused on how this particular find may throw a wrench into OOA you neglected what it is that makes this find SO important! All of the evidence we currently have of HN/HSS admixture was in our own ancestors who were carrying HN DNA. This 100 KA specimen is the first piece of physical evidence that HSS transferred our genes into Neanderthal populations. With that said, it does nothing to disrupt the current model.

When the replacement theory was founded they certainly did not think much interbreeding was going on. It's changed so much it barely resembles it's origin.

Considering that monogenism was conceptualized in the early 19th century, before Darwin, before DNA and genetics and even Anthropology, what was there at the beginning, nearly 200 years ago, has very little bearing on the science of today. The fact of the matter is that Darwin formulated OOA and made predictions based on that model with nearly no fossil record of archaic humans to work from. When all is said and done, Darwin was correct.

So now neanderthals went back to Africa? You just said they were never there. It are you talking about homosapiens with the neaderthal DNA?

Neanderthals weren't alive 3000 years ago during this back migration. It was their genetics that travelled back to Africa with/inside HSS. I was referring to "us" with Neanderthal admixture bringing the genes along for the ride on their way back into Africa.

If ooa was a drug trial it would never reach the shelves. There is simply not enough data to make a hard conclusion. I know you and many paleontologists believe this but I am not convinced and it's not a lack of understanding or because I believe in aliens. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that the data and physical evidence is lacking. That simply isn't the case at all. What evidence is there to support the contention that HSS magically evolved independently on different continents yet are genetically similar? That is one hell of an impressive case of convergent evolution when the DNA is indistinguishable so as to appear to be one species with genetic uniformity. Especially when Neanderthal and Denisovan both trace their lineage, as do the H. Sapiens Sapiens from Africa, to the immediate genetic forbearer, H. Heidelbergensis and all 3 of these different species of humanity is indeed highly distinguishable genetically.

To me you are going by the DNA you have which isn't a lot.

What is a "lot" to you? There was a study done a few years back that utilized 640,000 genetic markers supplied by 1000's of people from literally every corner of the globe. It doesn't get more comprehensive than that when you're dealing with population genetics and establishing your molecular clock to evaluate and chart mutation rates in the MtDNA and the Y DNA and genetic diversity. And the genetic data isn't the only evidence I look at. It's just one piece of the puzzle. An important one to be certain, but its just one piece that corroborates the archaeological and fossil records.

I mean you just doubled the age of the first interbreeding record with one find overnight.

That isn't necessarily the case though. if you actually read the literature related to OOA/OOA2, you will find that there isn't a specific date for one singular diaspora. There are likely multiple migrations going back as much as 120KA. The real importance of the HN skull with HSS admixture is that it is the first documented case of gene flow from HSS to HN as opposed to every other known case of admixture. The article you cited explains it pretty well.

It's interesting and fascinating but I just can't see physically how this happened to fit the theory. What is the explanation of replacement theory and how it happened?

The readers digest version is a little less than 2 MA, H. Erectus became the first global tourist as they expanded out of Africa, into the Caucuses and then into Western Asia and Eastern Europe until they were a global force across the entirety of the Old World. Only Antarctica and the America's were off limits to HE. As they spread across the planet, they began to adapt to their localized ecological niche's. In Europe, HE begat H. Antecessor who may be a slightly more robust H. Heidelbergensis. There is still some debate as to whether H. Antecessor represents an independent species or merely a direct transition from Erectus through Antecessor, into Heidelbergensis and then finally H. Neanderthalensis. This went on across the world with Denisovans and there were many different populations of people living contemporaneously in Europe, Asia and Africa. We are living during the first time since Australopithecines emerged that there is only 1 species of humans. But I digress... Above is a brief descriptor of OOA1. OOA2(replacement) works the same way. In several waves beginning around 100-125 KA, Homo Sapiens began to leave Africa. This is evidenced by remains found in Skuhl and Qafzeh caves in the Levant where we find remains of AMH with some slightly archaic morphological traits. These people had perished by 80KA. This is however, where we likely had our first encounter with another type of person, Neanderthal in the Levant (modern day Israel, Syria and Lebanon) This is where the first admixture event is most likely to have occurred. At some of these sites we find that H. Sapiens and Neanderthal lived and worked together in the same communities sharing everything from genes to grave sites and teaching each other different lithic techniques. Believe it or not, the Neanderthals actually had the better tool kit when "we" first encountered them and we then learned from, took and improved on their tech. Some groups left Africa and returned, some left and didn't go much farther than Iraq or the Levant, others set off and never looked back. This was wave after wave of emigration, not just a large group here or there, once or twice. Around 70 KA, Mt. Toba erupted and caused worldwide catastrophic population reductions for all surviving members of our genus. Post Toba, we see a large wave of migration out of Africa and HSS first pushes into Europe through the Caucuses. Further admixture events occurred, gene flow was back and forth. HSS in the 21st century is the sum of 100's of thousands of years of migrations, adaptations and admixture.

a reply to: luthier

I mostly read about the bones that were found and then placing a hypothesis together to fill in the blanks. Was there evidence of a major enviornemntal change, a breeding practice, viruses, what caused homosapiens to only occur in Africa and not from other archaic species or the first migrations? Surely the new enviornemnts caused mutarions? A hidden subgroup or parent group of the two?

Environmental change? No. Just radically different ecological niches that resulted in different traits, features, morphology etc... Humans in Africa come from H. Heidelbergensis. European Neanderthal...again, their predecessor was H. Heidelbergensis. Altaiensis (Denisovan)... once again, immediately preceded by Heidelbergensis. Floresiensis, the Hobbit's, have a large number of archaic morphological traits including dentition, chin and meta carpals that are much closer to Australopithecines and chimpanzees than to any other humans. They very likely derived from H. Erectus as opposed to the Erectus derived Heidelbergensis. The point here is that the ecological niche that existed in each of these varying areas of Europe, Africa, Asia etc... played a large role in shaping how these people would develop. Neanderthals for example, because of the dimmer light in Europe compared to Africa, developed a brain that put a lot of emphasis on visual stimuli resulting in a much larger visual cortex than HSS possesses. This gave them larger eyes and aided their hunting in dimmer European environments of the LGM and earlier. A negative affect of this increased visual cortex means that another area or areas of their brains had to sacrifice some space. The end result being that in a side by side comparison, HSS was a more social creature than our Neanderthal cousins. This allowed for better communication and increased bonding and relationship building. It's likely one big reason that we managed to come back from the brink of extinction following the eruption of Mt. Toba whereas within 40 thousand years, we were the only species of humanity left aside for a small group hanging on throughout the island of Flores who ended up becoming extinct around 12 KA themselves. Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Africa were adapted initially to surviving and thriving in several ecological niches throughout Africa.

What would it take to disprove ooa replacement theory? An older set of bones in Arabia or elsewhere? Or would that just push the date back?

Older fossilized remains found on another continent of a significant age or geographic distance so as to preclude migration. Other items such as tool kits, butchered animal remains, remains of shelters... just to name a few off the top of my head. As it sits currently, the oldest remains of any member of our genus are from Africa, Homo Habilis. There are no members of our genus, at least none yet, located at this or an earlier time period anywhere else in the world.

I appreciate your patience and honestly am just skeptical and curious. I know it must seem annoying to you but at least I am not talking about Agartha or something. Thank you for debating and allowing me to work through the thought even if you think I am wrong it does make me think and work through beliefs. I am not attacking you as a person or your beliefs I just want to understand this as best I can.


It may not end up convincing to me but I hope you know I don't mean any disrespect towards your field of study.

No worries at all. I don't agree with your assertions and still don't quite understand what has led you to this opinion but I enjoyed the discussion and didn't find you to be the least bit disrespectful nor did I get the feeling of being attacked. You seemed genuinely curious and I didn't detect the scent of Troll coming from your direction. I appreciate the courteous dialogue. It's a nice change of pace to be able to engage in a civil discussion and be able to agree to disagree without things devolving.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

Again, it has nothing to do with emotions. It has to do with logic. It may not be the correct logic but it's logic. It's not oh I believe this in my heart.

How is it really logical though to sit there and say "Yes, we have this mountain of evidence demonstrating that South and East Africa are indeed the cradle of humanity, this is the best theory we have and there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that HSS appeared anywhere else in the world prior to its appearance in Africa but I do not believe this is actually the case".

It just know many areas of the world especially humid ones do not preserve bones.

Yet the first H. Erectus remains were found on Java. Additionally, just because a place is dry today does not mean that was the case 40..50...80...200 KA

I know they say things like homo sapiens left Africa 65, 70ka and then they find bones that show the migration path isn't accurate and the timeline isn't accurate. (Again Siberian neaderthal with homo sapien 100ka.)

except the "timeline" goes back ~125 KA Yes, there was a HUGE diaspora following the eruption of Toba 70 KA but the 60-70 KA timeline you are referring to is when HSS

I know they though denisovans were from asia until the found a cave with bones of a hybrid from 400ka. Again the migration and timeline comeplety changed.

They said neaderthals were before homo sapiens then found out they were contemporaries and interbread with humans. As the study of DNA continues they find more evidence of admixing and hybridization.

Who exactly is "they" in this scenario? We have known for decades that there were areas and time periods where HN and HSS were contemporaries. It hasn't been an open ended question since the early 80's

Which subafrican tribes don't have neaderthal DNA?

The Khoi and San people as well as Pygmies have either zero or extremely limited admixture or genetic ingression. These are some of the oldest populations of HSS and they have the highest degree of genetic diversity of any group on Earth.

When were they studied?

There have been ongoing studies for the last 2 decades

Do they have other archaic human DNA?

Not that I am aware of

How many thousands of bones do we have from outside Africa?

I don't think anyone is keeping count of exact numbers. But we have a huge number of remains from every part of the globe except for Antarctica

Your presumption that we would have found bones by now is ludicrous.

Finding new bones that change and alter the theory only proves that there are probably more out there that will alter the theory.

That's a rather myopic view point. In my experience, new finds tend to strengthen hypothesis, they don't tend to overturn theories.

As a scientists will you say there is absolutely no way I could be correct?

Nobody with any sort of scientific background can honestly say "No, that's absolutely impossible". With that said, we only work from actual data that can pass peer review and be proven with a high degree of veracity.In this case, ALL of the evidence points to South and East Africa as the origin of humanity. There is ZERO evidence pointing to any other location. Find me evidence that supports your position and then we can have a conversation. As it sits though, you admit its the best current model and that there is no evidence to support your own doubts. I fail to see the logic in insisting the model is wrong when there isn't anything to support that contention.

Will you say that OOA 2, the replacement theory can not be overturned?

Every scientist I know says "probably, moat likely, according to the current findings". I have NEVER heard a scientist say OOA is a fact.

But how many of these "scientists" are Anthropologists? Or even Biologists?

It's a fact. Now you've heard it.

I have said several times it's the best theory we have right now. So was that matter was densly packed molecules until they invented the electron microscope.

You're comparing an anachronistic world view that came to be during a time where technology was in its infancy and half of the sciences supporting MES had yet to be conceived, with modern, hard science supported by multiple disciplines. It's not even apples and oranges. It's carrots and marshmallows.

Can you admit anthropology is poorly funded and is not scouring the earth for fossils? Most are found by accident? Many have been destroyed through building projects for the last 5,000 or so years?

I wouldn't admit to that. There are multiple teams flying across the world during dig seasons looking for evidence and remains. The most important finds in Anthropology were found by professionals who were looking, on purpose. Generations of Leakey's are holed up in E. Africa continuing the families legacy. How do you arrive at the statement that "many have been destroyed through building projects..."?

a reply to: peter vlar

I have too many things to respond to.

Logic is a process in the mind. It's not an emotional response. Plenty of logic is incorrect when dealing with science or debate.
There are things not logical that science has proven. Things like string theory are not common sense logic in the way you are using the word.

I said it's the best theory. That doesn't mean I think we have the whole story or that saying we came out of Africa is a good way to describe the hybridization process that makes us what we are today.

We are always at a time of technological infancy. I guarantee you in 75 years the same will be said about today. The present is a time of technological infancy based on Moore's law compaired to the future. It is highly likely we could say 'we were looking at that all wrong"

Through this process I believe I am finding I have less a problem with the theory itself but more the paraphrasing and title of the theory. I think the expansion out into the world millions of years ago had plenty to do with the traits of Modern humans as the interacted with their local environments and interbread with archaic humans and each other. I am starting to see the ooa 2 does not deny this. Thanks partly to your patience.

In comparison to pharmaceutical research per capita anthropology is poorly funded and their are scarce jobs to be had. In comparison to many branches of science anthropology is poorly funded and considering the large scale of research and area of the earth i srongly stand by this. Even the genetic research of 740,000 participants in comparison to even 1 billion people is fairly small. There is a chance of missing DNA.

You would be critized d by your peers in review if you used language calling ooa replacement theory a fact. Language in science is very important.


What do you mean new finds strengthen hypothesis in this case or all of scientific theory?

There are some supposed artifact in the middle East from 125ka I suppose that is still within he limit of the migrations.

You don't know what I mean by building projects destroying samples? Seriously?
You don't think many of our fossils are found by accident?

You don't think ancient man found bones he discarded in his digs or exposed to be destroyed? You can't say that building destroyed possible dig sites and fossils in comparison to a place that was never developed into cities historically? That seems like your being coy.

The they are the text books from 25 years ago.

I would say the theory Darwin used and the migrational patterns and theories of 30 years ago are different than today probably different than 30 years from now. At what point is the theory a different theory or a branch?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

I have too many things to respond to.

Logic is a process in the mind. It's not an emotional response. Plenty of logic is incorrect when dealing with science or debate.
There are things not logical that science has proven. Things like string theory are not common sense logic in the way you are using the word.

when was string theory proven? It's theoretical physics and based on mathematical models. It's not proven science at all. I'm sorry, I just don't find your position to be based on logic.

I said it's the best theory. That doesn't mean I think we have the whole story or that saying we came out of Africa is a good way to describe the hybridization process that makes us what we are today.

If all of the evidence shows an African origin for our genus and there is zero evidence to show that our genus originated anywhere else on Earth, I don't see how it is a poor descriptor.

We are always at a time of technological infancy. I guarantee you in 75 years the same will be said about today. The present is a time of technological infancy based on Moore's law compared to the future. It is highly likely we could say 'we were looking at that all wrong"

You're certainly entitled to view it as such. I don't have that luxury though. I only deal with the evidence and data that is at hand. I can't base a hypothesis on or write an article or paper based on maybe's and what if's because this could be how things turn out in a few decades. As it is right now, there is zero evidence showing that humanity originated anywhere else on Earth.

Through this process I believe I am finding I have less a problem with the theory itself but more the paraphrasing and title of the theory. I think the expansion out into the world millions of years ago had plenty to do with the traits of Modern humans as the interacted with their local environments and interbread with archaic humans and each other. I am starting to see the ooa 2 does not deny this. Thanks partly to your patience.

In this you are correct. OOA and OOA2 are pretty clear that H. Habilis led to H. Erectus who in turn started to branch out of Africa nearly 2 MA and adapted to the ecological niches they settled into. This led to localized variations such as H. Antecessor who left their footprints on an ancient shoreline in Britain nearly a million years ago and H. Heidelbergensis who is the progenitor of HSS as well as HN and HA. The theories include multiple migrations out of and back to, Africa and it all takes into account the degree of admixture that occurred for millennia across the entirety of the Old World. The impression I get, and I could very well be waaaayyyy off base here, but it seems to me that what you thought was being presented in OOA/OOA2 is quite a bit different to what the theories actually entail.

In comparison to pharmaceutical research per capita anthropology is poorly funded and their are scarce jobs to be had. In comparison to many branches of science anthropology is poorly funded and considering the large scale of research and area of the earth i strongly stand by this. Even the genetic research of 740,000 participants in comparison to even 1 billion people is fairly small. There is a chance of missing DNA.

Compared to pharmaceutical and medical research, EVERYTHING is underfunded! You're comparing a for profit, private sector field with a field that is predominantly tied to University research. There are few private entities like the Human Genome Project, Neanderthal Genome Project and Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology that have access to the levels of funding provided by a for profit corporation.

When you're dealing with population genetics, huge numbers of participants aren't required. Generations upon generations of data can be extracted from MtDNA and Y DNA. More so with MtDNA but that has more to do with the fact that we have been doing MtDNA studies for decades and Y DNA research is newer. Even with small sample groups, a molecular clock can be established to compare mutation rates. establish timelines and to a degree, geographical points. An example of that would be mitochondrial Eve can be placed within this time frame in E. Africa as opposed to 'MtDNA Eve lived from January 106, 740 years BP until 106, 693 years BP 3 miles outside of present day Nairobi'. As for chances of DNA missing... maybe, but less likely than one would think. As I've mentioned previously, we know for certain that another hominid, related as closely to us as Neanderthal and Denisovans were and that their habitat was in Central Africa. We have never found physical or cultural remains of this hominid but because we have been able to fully decode multiple genomes of modern and archaic humans, we know what their DNA looks like. Within a couple of decades we will be able to pick out of our own DNA which pieces were contributed by H. Erectus even if we can't get samples of their DNA from the horses mouth due to it's half life and contamination.

You would be criticized d by your peers in review if you used language calling ooa replacement theory a fact. Language in science is very important.

I was criticized by my peers 18 years ago for attempting to get funding to test for and for saying that HSS had successfully bred with HN when the 2 met up, not just in Europe but earlier in the Levant. I'm OK with criticism. Especially when I'm correct. What we referred to as the Levantine Paradox 20+ years ago is no longer a paradox at all.

What do you mean new finds strengthen hypothesis in this case or all of scientific theory?

I mean that sometimes, new information actually gives more credence to and strengthens a hypothesis or theory by adding more supporting data. New information doesn't always mean bad news. And honestly, in my personal experience, even when I've been wrong, the new information is a benefit because it shows me where and how I went wrong and has in many instances pointed me onto the correct path which in the end, added more weight and credence to the work.

a reply to: luthier

There are some supposed artifact in the middle East from 125ka I suppose that is still within he limit of the migrations.

I can't really comment on something that ambiguous. If you could be more specific or provide a citation I'm certainly interested to see what these artifacts are, where from and how they were dated.

You don't know what I mean by building projects destroying samples? Seriously?

I know what you mean, I was inquiring how you arrived at that conclusion. If it was based on some sort of evidence or it just makes the most sense to you on a personal level.

You don't think many of our fossils are found by accident?

I think many more of them are found by professionals than by amateurs. Especially concerning hominid fossils. And the most important finds of the last century have definitely been made by professionals such as the Leakey's.

You don't think ancient man found bones he discarded in his digs or exposed to be destroyed?

It's possible, sure. But I can't worry about evidence that no longer exists, I have to utilize the data and remains we DO have access to. Le's be realistic, there are sites all around the coasts of N. America, particularly the East Coast, the coasts of Europe and the Mediterranean, Doggerland, Sundaland, Beringia... many places that were once home to thriving communities, migration and trade routes that are now under water. There are sites in Mexico, Central America, SE Asia etc... where booming cities and temples are buried under earth and jungle. The last time I was visiting Mayan sites in Belize for example, 2 new sites had been located by airplanes utilizing radar. Angkor Wat in Cambodia was found in a similar fashion. There are many places that are incredibly difficult to explore and others that we are just now learning about as a result of reclamation.

So yes, I have no qualms about admitting that the more we learn, the more we find we don't know that much. None of that changes the fact that all of the data points to an African origin of our genus and multiple waves of hominids leaving and returning for hundreds of thousands of years. If you find something that points to Asia or Europe as the origin of humanity, I'm all ears.

You can't say that building destroyed possible dig sites and fossils in comparison to a place that was never developed into cities historically? That seems like your being coy.

I can entertain any number of possibilities but I can only deal in facts. not what if's and maybe's. I can give you one example that leans in favor of your position though. Until the last couple of decades, Clovis First was the definitive anthropological model for the peopling of the Americas. Because so many were so convinced that this was a foregone conclusion and that there was no possibility of earlier colonization, nobody dug any deeper to see if there were older remains in earlier strata. Turns out that in some places, there are in fact Anthropological and Archaeological remains in older strata.

Will we potentially find evidence that stops OOA in its tracks? Highly unlikely. Once again, physical remains are not the only avenue of investigation. The genetic data corroborates and strengthens the physical data. Do I close my eyes to other possibilities? Of course not. This particular possibility isn't very realistic. Hell, Darwin postulated this based on morphological characteristics alone 3/4 of a century before DNA was understood and over a century before we were able to begin decoding basic bits of MtDNA. All of the tools we have today would have to be proven fundamentally flawed for new information to work against OOA

The they are the text books from 25 years ago.

Those are some crappy, anachronistic textbooks then. Unless they're high school textbooks. In that case I can see information like that lingering for years after the information should have been updated.

I would say the theory Darwin used and the migrational patterns and theories of 30 years ago are different than today probably different than 30 years from now. At what point is the theory a different theory or a branch?

past theorization regarding OOA is different now, sure. Because it's more complete than it was a decade ago let alone 145 years ago when Darwin published 'Descent of Man'. The theory doesn't change simply because more positive data has been found. I can't actually think of any Scientific Theories that have been overturned. This is because a Scientific Theory is based on already well substantiated facts if it makes it past the Hypothesis stage and becomes a Scientific Theory. Actually, I take that back...but only because the standards for a scientific theory today are a bit more rigorous than in the 19th century. We now know that spontaneous generation is wrong, Mendellian genetics(though some aspects of epigenetics are coming back into play), maternal impression(that the mothers own thoughts created birth defects), Recapitulation Theory, Vitalism( sort of like midichlorians in Star Wars) and since we're talking about OOA... the Out of Asia Theory.


Back on topic to the OP... the skull in question in no way alters, let alone challenges, OOA.

a reply to: peter vlar

Mr. Vlar..

Thank you for the debate. I appreciate every minute of it.

The early fossils and reference I made were from this article.
m.livescience.com...

I am not sure how you don't understand what logic is. If you want to debate such a thing we should do so in a philosophy forum but I would ask you first read Kant's critique of pure reason. This is a subject I do have a degree in. I guarantee you your being obtuse for the sake of arguement.


I appreciate the time you have spent here with me and I think you have made some good progress with helping me understand the topic more. You have to understand my base is philosophy which until very recently was also part of science. Personally I believe the most imaginative scientists who pushed the boundaries with success were also philosophers. I may have too much for a field I have limited training in. We would argue about this but I will not include Dawkins. He is a poor philosopher but a tremendous scientist. He has a problem with logic when debating because of his emotion.

When I took anthropology nearly 25 years ago things were very different. This made me very skeptical. The first anthro book i read was my Aunt's copy of Coming of Age in Somoa. I was fascinated and studied far more cultural anthropology. So I admit to plenty of ignorance in this discussion.

In my experience however, when a scientist only goes by facts and does not consider possibilities their insight can be stifled. It seems you disagree but I wanted to explain why I believe you can't just go by data alone and that it is well within the bounds of science to consider possibilities of what the data could mean or not mean.

I 100 percent stand by my statement that anthropology is poorly funded. I think it's too close to you to see this. There are very few human genome projects competing and testing each others theory. This is a problem when considering the amount of time spent on the projects collectively and the amount of research time 10' s of thousands of scientists can do. Most anthropology majors will not end up in the field. In fact I clearly remember my anthro professor saying you will have better luck getting 2 year technical training on equipment to get a job.

Kind of why I have two degrees. Philosophy pretty much only led to teaching. Recording peoples music led to jobs. On a lesser scale making guitars as well.

All in all I have to retract some things I said while others are only being strengthened with your responses.

Again thank you for not being overly rude and taking the time to respond with such technical proficiency. You have given me a lot to think about.

originally posted by: luthier
The early fossils and reference I made were from this article.
m.livescience.com...

This does absolutely nothing to contradict OOA, I'm sure you knew that already, however.

I am not sure how you don't understand what logic is. If you want to debate such a thing we should do so in a philosophy forum but I would ask you first read Kant's critique of pure reason. This is a subject I do have a degree in. I guarantee you your being obtuse for the sake of arguement.

Honestly, it sounds like Peter's logic is quite sound in his explanations. I thought he did a fantastic job above, explaining things much better than I could have. Faulty logic is a form of logic only in the sense that misunderstanding is a form of understanding.

Logic means not making assumptions
Logic means following evidence, regardless of emotion or previous beliefs
Logic means avoiding fallacies
Logic means utilizing occam's razor rather than inventing convoluted reasons to believe something that require complex explanations and evidence that has not been found or tested. Basically the more assumptions you have add to an idea, the less logical it becomes.
Logic means you need a tangible verified connection between A and B, before using it to assume C.

a reply to: Barcs

I didn't say it did anything to disprove ooa 2/replacement theory he asked me to link the article I was talking about of 125ka modern humans out of Africa.

I never said he didnt understand logic. I was saying he was purposely not using the actual definition of logic and reason to keep and arguement. I pretty clearly explained what logic is.

Your definitions of logic are really more assumptions about what reason is. Again if you want to debate philosophy we can do it in a philosophy forum or we can do so in a PM. However unless you have read through what reason is at least up to Kant or the epericists it will be a useless arguement.

Logic is a process you use in your mind in thought. It can also be wrong. I was pointing out you are both confusing logic with being correct or with having an emotional response. If one uses reason even if incorrect as a process in the mind it is logic. Logic is not reacting to something with emotions. I never used a nonlogical approach to this arguement. I didn't have all the information perhaps but I was consistently regarding facts and considering possibilities in a rational way. That is logic. The same reason I can say some of my own ideas of what ooa2 was saying were incorrect.

You should do the same you have more than a few errors yourself according to Peter Vlar's statements about how information is correlated to the hypothesis.

Your responses don't seem to have any purpose except to argue a strawman.

I pretty clearly state Peter Vlar did a great job explaining things several times and that I appreciate his patience.

a reply to: luthier

You are using a completely different definition of logic. It seems like you are talking about the psychology of reasoning within somebody's mind. I am talking about inductive reasoning, that is used in the scientific community to prove things and build theories. That is based on logic. Logic is about reasoning correctly, and it can be verified without subjectivity. A person's reasoning can be logical or illogical.

philosophy.hku.hk...

One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is concerned with the principles of correct reasoning. Studying the correct principles of reasoning is not the same as studying the psychology of reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to reason if we want to reason correctly. Whether people actually follow these rules of correct reasoning is an empirical matter, something that is not the concern of logic.

The psychology of reasoning, on the other hand, is an empirical science. It tells us about the actual reasoning habits of people, including their mistakes. A psychologist studying reasoning might be interested in how people's ability to reason varies with age. But such empirical facts are of no concern to the logician.

Like I said, unless you consider faulty logic a form of logic, then you are wrong.

Your responses don't seem to have any purpose except to argue a strawman.

Strawman? Where?

I never said he didnt understand logic

I am not sure how you don't understand what logic is.

I responded because of that statement. I'm pretty sure you are not talking about logic, you are talking about reasoning. Logic is about true/false. You can go deep into the philosophy of reasoning if you'd like, but that's not really what is being discussed. It's about science.

a reply to: Barcs

I explained this is not even close to on topic and shouldn't be debated here but this is the websters definition.
a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

There is nothing unlogical about skeptisim and exploring possibilities. You should pay close attention to the language I used when discussing this topic.

If you want to debate logic where it came from and what it means that belongs in philosophy. I think as I said before you should read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and the trancidental explanations of knowledge before cutting and pasting.

The other problem is the strawmans.

One never said Peter was not using logic and two never said (in fact said the opposite ) about that article.

Now you choose to argue over logic.

a reply to: luthier

Once again. We are NOT talking about philosophy. We are talking about science and LOGICAL reasoning. You are attempting to bring philosophy into an empirical discussion. Debating logic doesn't belong in philosophy, it is objective. There is no debate, it's pretty clear cut. Your thought process either follows the principles of logic or it does not.

Logical statement: Since the earliest fossils have been found in Africa for homo sapiens and their ancestors, I agree that homo sapiens originated in Africa, based on the locations of the fossils as well as the dating of them.

Illogical statement: I think OOA is wrong because there may be contradicting fossil finds in the future and science might not have the whole picture, yet.

The first is based on hard verifiable data, the 2nd is just wishful thinking.

The other problem is the strawmans.

One never said Peter was not using logic and two never said (in fact said the opposite ) about that article.

I gave you the direct quote in the last post of what I was talking about. A strawman is a false definition or explanation of something that is created to easily refute. It's YOU that doesn't seem to understand logic. That has been my point the whole time. You don't need to read the entire biography of Kant to understand basic logic. The fallacy you are looking for is "red herring" and it still doesn't apply here.

This does absolutely nothing to contradict OOA, I'm sure you knew that already, however.

That was my statement. You must not be reading carefully because you ignored the second half of it.

a reply to: Barcs

A strawman is argueing against something that was not the actual arguement.

That is exactly what you did .

You argued that I said the ooa was disputed by the article I linked. Never said it was. I linked the article because peter was interested.

Second. I never said Peter was not logical and your rant said I did.

I argued logic is a process of using reason in your mind in thought to reach a conclusion. Again search through the posts you will see you are wrong. You accused me of being emotional in my assumption.


There is nothing illogical about either of your statements by the way and thinking and thoughts emperisim itself is or came from philosophy. Empericicsm came from the enlightenment philosophers Newton was part of that group of philosophers. They talk about logic extensively.

It is perfectly logical when quote what I actually said, it the best theory we have but I don't believe the the data is extensive enough to rule out we don't have the whole story and it is possible it is wrong.

Illogical would be I don't think we came out of Africa because we are not all black.

We have to agree to disagree here and it's totally off topic.

I read the second half of the statement either it makes the entire statement completely unnecessary and only trying to be provocative in an arguement or you were being snarky.