Ancient Asian primate fossils, missing pieces of a major evolutionary puzzle?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Byrd

Thats true what are you getting at?

Are you saying ooa does not include the admixtures and study the entire genus of "homo'?

No. I'm saying it only applies to the genus Homo. Not Australopithecus, not the fossil that the OP mentions. The story of how we got to be the genus Homo and specifically Homo sapiens is evolution... not "Out Of Africa."

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Byrd

Thats true what are you getting at?

Are you saying ooa does not include the admixtures and study the entire genus of "homo'?

No. I'm saying it only applies to the genus Homo. Not Australopithecus, not the fossil that the OP mentions. The story of how we got to be the genus Homo and specifically Homo sapiens is evolution... not "Out Of Africa."

OK.....I never argued differently.

I was contemplating the migration patterns that lead to human beings as well as the migratory pattern of humans.

I don't know what your getting at.

originally posted by: luthier
I was contemplating the migration patterns that lead to human beings as well as the migratory pattern of humans.

Aye. It appeared you were confusing the two, as they're actually different things. Only the migratory pattern of humans is the "out of Africa." The migration patterns that led to human beings isn't.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: luthier
I was contemplating the migration patterns that lead to human beings as well as the migratory pattern of humans.

Aye. It appeared you were confusing the two, as they're actually different things. Only the migratory pattern of humans is the "out of Africa." The migration patterns that led to human beings isn't.

Oh OK. I wasn't. The homo genus did not arrive on a spaceship (at least that hasn't been found) so evolution of primates is part of physical anthro (paleoanthropology).

My point with saying primates started in China an North America was just saying its interesting that the "first stage" of our evolution as primates started far away from where the genus homo would begin.

I think the evolutionary process as an ongoing affair is immensely complex and ooa to the average lay person gives the impression we came out of Africa the way we are today.

In my case I went to school over twenty five years ago so ooa was not quite the same as it is now. The genetic and fossil record is more complete and the acceptance of admixtures has muddied what was called replacement theory back then. Since then we have found there was greater overlap than first thought.

None of it makes ooa not a sound hypothesis just saying there may be confusion about what ooa is in terms of how broad the scope of the hypothesis is. It's more than just we came out of the Africa.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: luthier
I was contemplating the migration patterns that lead to human beings as well as the migratory pattern of humans.

Aye. It appeared you were confusing the two, as they're actually different things. Only the migratory pattern of humans is the "out of Africa." The migration patterns that led to human beings isn't.

Oh OK. I wasn't. The homo genus did not arrive on a spaceship (at least that hasn't been found

) so evolution of primates is part of physical anthro (paleoanthropology).

My point with saying primates started in China an North America was just saying its interesting that the "first stage" of our evolution as primates started far away from where the genus homo would begin. [/QUOTE]

Oh! Okay! Yes, we agree. I think I had you confused with someone who wasn't aware of continental drift and the impact that had on the position of the continents and the fossil record!

I think the evolutionary process as an ongoing affair is immensely complex and ooa to the average lay person gives the impression we came out of Africa the way we are today.

In my case I went to school over twenty five years ago so ooa was not quite the same as it is now. The genetic and fossil record is more complete and the acceptance of admixtures has muddied what was called replacement theory back then. Since then we have found there was greater overlap than first thought.

None of it makes ooa not a sound hypothesis just saying there may be confusion about what ooa is in terms of how broad the scope of the hypothesis is. It's more than just we came out of the Africa.

Ha! Yes, agreed. And yeah, it's been a much longer time for me since I had my last biology class (though working as a volunteer fossil preparator for a museum has given me a much better understanding of evolution.)

originally posted by: luthier
What I am saying is the journey and path humans took is every bit as responsible for what we are as where they originated.

So basically you are saying, "It's not where you come from, it's where you're at" when looking at humans as a whole.

I generally agree, origins aren't more important than the journey or destination but it's good to understand the origin because understanding more about the past can help us with understanding the present. The more we learn the better. Understanding evolutionary origins can be important in certain medicines, for example.

a reply to: Barcs

No I agree. I think origins are how you get a picture of the whole story as well. I just mean the traits we have throughout the word of heights, colors, disease genetic predisposition or immunity etc as well as a psychological evolution are included in the migration process it wasn't something that happened when we became h.sapien in our birth origin s a species. I was just saying OOA to many casual observers may sound like we came out of Africa after our evolution. When really evolution is an ongoing event. I think we still need to study where we came from. It's actually how you can see the changes through out time.