It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by fishmaster
posted on 12-1-2006 at 02:34 PM
he is a philosopher not a scientist so there is a very big chance that there is some evidence that will refute this IDEA. we will never know the real answer until we die, not to be too morbid.
Of all the women who have ever lived, there was one woman who was special. She was the common maternal ancestor of all women currently alive. She was "Mitochondrial Eve".
Consider the set of all women who have ever lived. Each had exactly one mother. Now shrink the set of all women to contain only mothers. Each of them had exactly one mother. Shrink the set again to contain only mothers of mothers. Again, each of these women had exactly one mother. Again, shrink the set to contain only mothers of mothers of mothers. Continue doing this until you have a set with exactly one woman. She is the maternal ancestor of all living women; she is Mitochondrial Eve.
Several alternative models for the origin of anatomically modern humans are currently proposed by paleoanthropologists. The Regional Continuity or Multiregional Evolution models are generally based on interpretations of fossil evidence. Three recent African origin models, Replacement, Weak Garden of Eden and Multiple Dispersals, are based on combinations of evidence from fossils, archaeology and, especially, genetic studies.
A study comparing the DNA of people around the world has yielded what could be the best evidence yet that modern man first evolved in Africa and scattered to populate the planet as recently as 50,000 years ago.
Such a view suggests that the first Homo sapiens held such dramatic evolutionary advantages -- perhaps stronger powers of reasoning -- that they replaced other early humans with virtually no interbreeding.
This is not the first time DNA technology has been applied to the question of when and where modern humans emerged. But the researchers said they analyzed the longest strand of DNA ever examined for a human lineage study.
An exquisitely preserved skull of a tiny-brained human ancestor has been recovered from excavations beneath the ruins of a medieval castle in the republic of Georgia. The skull is about 1.8 million years old and belongs to the first group of humans to migrate out of Africa, reports an international team of archaeologists.
The find calls into question a widely held hypothesis that the evolution of big brains propelled the exodus of early humans out of Africa.
The fossil evidence from Dmanisi now includes three skulls, several jaw fragments, and hundreds of stone tools and animal remains. All of the material has been recovered from the same layer of sediment. It is forcing scientists to come up with alternative explanations for why humans were able to leave Africa.
A new analysis of DNA evidence offers a new twist on the popular "Out of Africa" theory of human origins: Modern humans interbred with other populations around the world for hundreds of thousands of years rather than replacing them.
Among the study's implications: the genes of people today carry vestiges of genes of Neanderthals and other extinct branches of the human family.
According to the original Out of Africa theory, ancestors to today's human population migrated from Africa 100,000 years ago, and they replaced less modern populations in Europe and Asia.
Human skin color can range from almost black to pinkish white in different people. In general, people with ancestors from sunny regions have darker skin than people with ancestors from regions with less sunlight. (However, this is complicated by the fact that there are people whose ancestors come from both sunny and less-sunny regions; and these people may have skin colors across the spectrum). On average, women have slightly lighter skin than men. On a cultural level, color metaphors for race have evolved based upon genetic variations in human skin color.
ONE of the most distinctive evolutionary changes as humans parted company from their fellow apes was their loss of body hair. But why and when human body hair disappeared, together with the matter of when people first started to wear clothes, are questions that have long lain beyond the reach of archaeology and paleontology.
Ingenious solutions to both issues have now been proposed, independently, by two research groups analyzing changes in DNA. The result, if the dates are accurate, is something of an embarrassment. It implies we were naked for more than a million years before we started wearing clothes.
Originally posted by Odium
MasterP, odd h ow I can't find anything to do with that aside from one article - to me, that sounds heavily suspect. Got any other sources to refute what I posted?
Originally posted by masterp
search for 'petralona man' in google for more information.
[edit on 18-1-2006 by masterp]
Originally posted by exsmokingman
the human race is many millions of years old not 4 thousand or even 40 thousand. creation isn't a theory it is a blindman banging his head on a wall. evolotion schmevolution i did not evolve from a edited rat , did you?