It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

East African Origin of Modern Man Thrown Into Question

page: 1
18

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Remains from Morocco dated to 315,000 years ago push back our species' origins by 100,000 years — and suggest we didn't evolve only in East Africa.


New fossils have called into question whether modern humans did actually evolve in east africa, and pushed the AMH lineage back 100k years.

The real kicker, the site is on the atlantic coast.


At an archaeological site near the Atlantic coast, finds of skull, face and jaw bones identified as being from early members of our species have been dated to about 315,000 years ago. That indicates H. sapiens appeared more than 100,000 years earlier than thought: most researchers have placed the origins of our species in East Africa about 200,000 years ago.

The finds, which are published on 7 June in Nature1, 2, do not mean that H. sapiens originated in North Africa. Instead, they suggest that the species' earliest members evolved all across the continent, scientists say.




Genomic evidence
An earlier origin for H. sapiens is further supported by an ancient-DNA study posted to the bioRxiv preprint server on 5 June6. Researchers led by Mattias Jakobsson at Uppsala University in Sweden sequenced the genome of a boy who lived in South Africa around 2,000 years ago — only the second ancient genome from sub-Saharan Africa to be sequenced. They determined that his ancestors on the H. sapiens lineage split from those of some other present-day African populations more than 260,000 years ago.





Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history


This find also confirms a study of modern african americans that pushed the male MRCA was in excess of 300kya,



We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya).


anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org... ts-of-the-oldest-dog-news-from-around-the-web/



edit on p0000006k02632017Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:02:51 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Very interesting,
I wonder how this snuck its way
past "peer review" ?

For everything we know, or are told,
I am still stunned by how much we
don't know for sure, and the great magnitude
yet to be discovered.

Thanks for Sharing! S&F



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10


It's definitely an interesting find. It's unfortunate that due to the age of the remains, DNA will be very elusive given current technological constraints. But it's no different than the challenges we faced 20 years ago trying to demonstrate evidence of Pleistocene admixture based solely on post cranial skeletal morphology and a couple of potential juvenile hybrids in Portugal. I have to dig a little deeper into the data, but based on cranial morphology alone, the Morrocan cranium shown in the article has more archaic features than the Omo remains and has far more in common with H. Heidelbergensis than it does with the AMH remains found at Omo Ethiopia. That's just my initial impression though so don't hold me to that!








originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: punkinworks10

Very interesting,
I wonder how this snuck its way
past "peer review" ?


Im not sure what you mean by "snuck past peer review". That's exactly what's going on here with Nature publishing the paper. It's published in this journal, other paleoanthropologists will scour the data looking for errors and if any are found, counter papers will be published. It's. It asnif "peer review" is some special club that only allows members of the inner circle to disseminate information.


For everything we know, or are told,
I am still stunned by how much we
don't know for sure, and the great magnitude
yet to be discovered.

Thanks for Sharing! S&F


That's half the fun of this field. Knowing that for as much as we have learned since Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' a century and a half ago, we still have a long way to go and there is a lot yet to learn. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any Anthropologists or Paleontologists!



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: punkinworks10

Very interesting,
I wonder how this snuck its way
past "peer review" ?


It didn't. It was published after review and conference presentations.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: punkinworks10
It's definitely an interesting find. It's unfortunate that due to the age of the remains, DNA will be very elusive given current technological constraints. But it's no different than the challenges we faced 20 years ago trying to demonstrate evidence of Pleistocene admixture based solely on post cranial skeletal morphology and a couple of potential juvenile hybrids in Portugal. I have to dig a little deeper into the data, but based on cranial morphology alone, the Morrocan cranium shown in the article has more archaic features than the Omo remains and has far more in common with H. Heidelbergensis than it does with the AMH remains found at Omo Ethiopia.


I had the same thought - it was not as gracile as I expected from reading about it. However, the cranial vault seems diagnostic.
edit on 7-6-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Anybody who believes anything these charlatans say has their blinders on.

They purposely ignore obviously drawn conclusions to perpetuate the mainstream archaeological narrative even though they know it's wrong.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
Anybody who believes anything these charlatans say has their blinders on.

They purposely ignore obviously drawn conclusions to perpetuate the mainstream archaeological narrative even though they know it's wrong.


So you're saying that the mainstream paleontologists and archaeologists who declared the skeletal remains to be 300,000 years old are... uh... not perpetuating the mainstream archaeological narratives? Event though the publication was in a mainstream journal?

Or did I misread you?



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
There's always sour grapes when scientists don't adhere to the "hiding the past from us" scenario that the ignorant cling to so desperately.

Harte



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Interestingly I went off on a google search of the Tool's found at the Jebel Irhoud Site. It ends up there are more questions than answers regarding the Flints. They have been identified as being knapped in the Levallois Style, and this is where I "rabbit-holed".


phys.org...

Based on thermoluminescence dating, and a newer version for Flint using smaller samples the age of the artifact is determined based on the returns in the Orange-Red waveband as opposed to the Blue spectrum that was previously used.


Dose recovery tests as well as comparisons with standard protocols show the accuracy of the new technique. It is found that the sensitivity of the thermoluminescence (TL) signal of flint in the orange–red waveband does not show severe changes due to the heating process while measuring the TL. This allows the application of a short SAR procedure, which requires only two dose points.

A new thermoluminescence dating method for heated flint (PDF Download Available). Available from: www.researchgate.net... [accessed Jun 8, 2017].


The basic standards are dependent on, if I understand it correctly, the stone's creation or zeroing effect as the base to further date it, or the fact it was heat treated by the population using it in the course of daily usage?



Thermoluminescence dating presupposes a "zeroing" event in the history of the material, either heating (in the case of pottery or lava) or exposure to sunlight (in the case of sediments), that removes the pre-existing trapped electrons. Therefore, at that point the thermoluminescence signal is zero.

As time goes on, the ionizing radiation field around the material causes the trapped electrons to accumulate (Figure 2). In the laboratory, the accumulated radiation dose can be measured, but this by itself is insufficient to determine the time since the zeroing event.

The Radiation Dose Rate - the dose accumulated per year-must be determined first. This is commonly done by measurement of the alpha radioactivity (the uranium and thorium content) and the potassium content (K-40 is a beta and gamma emitter) of the sample material.

en.wikipedia.org...

In googling the type of knapping used it turns out there is some debate about using the Levallois methods to date a population. This is where it gets interesting. The striking of the raw material by this method results in not only a distinctive turtle shell patterning of the flint, but gains the largest yield with the least waste. This technique was ascribed to the Neanderthal Mousterian period,the middle Paleolithic approximately spanned from 300,000 to 30,000 years ago from Africa to the Levant. The questions arise when you consider the population at the Jebel Irhoud Site learned their tool making from somewhere.

Altho the remains have been given an age, their tools indicate a greater period of possible cultural exchange and period of learning we ignore in the rush to "date" human remains as the beat-all end-all of discoveries. This is the "flight of fancy" so to speak, that hauled me down the rabbit hole. Where did the population discovered at Jebel Irhoud learn to make their tools? Altho the testing by Daniel Richter, who seems to have written the book on the new flint testing seems solid, the zero point necessary for dating is so new....and I don't trust new. It seems naive to expect more than stone tools from people so long ago, I really did expect more.



Levallois technology is the name for the stone knapping technique used to create tools thousands of years ago. The technique appeared in the archeological record across Eurasia 200 to 300 thousand years ago (ka) and appeared earlier in Africa. Adler et al. challenge the hypothesis that the technique's appearance in Eurasia was the result of the expansion of hominins from Africa. Levallois obsidian artifacts in the southern Caucasus, dated at 335 to 325 ka, are the oldest in Eurasia. This suggests that Levallois technology may have evolved independently in different hominin populations. Stone technology cannot thus be used as a reliable indicator of Paleolithic human population change and expansion.

science.sciencemag.org...

And for those unfamiliar or just killing a couple of minutes, a video of Lavallois Knapping.
Go to minute 7:00 for the meat and potatoes.





edit on 8-6-2017 by Caver78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78
Some stones become easier to work when they are purposefully heat treated. Makes them easier to knap.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lithicalus

I had no idea!
Thanks for that.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Well well well,
that is even better.

Thanks for clarifying that.



new topics

top topics



 
18

log in

join